Trials Australia Forums

Hi

This is a tough question for me to give an opinion on, as I'm 3/4 way through setting up a B40 to ride and I have a 72 Sherpa T awaiting a total check over !!! How can these options of classes suit me if I want to ride both at different times..

GS

grs0 wrote:Hi

This is a tough question for me to give an opinion on, as I'm 3/4 way through setting up a B40 to ride and I have a 72 Sherpa T awaiting a total check over !!! How can these options of classes suit me if I want to ride both at different times..

GS

There has been no agreement as yet what we would like to change and even if we can all agree it still has to get through MA.
I would be very surprised if it goes pre72, there is not a lot of surpport for that so keep going with your B40 I'm sure there will be a class based around the earlier style of machine for some time to come.

We would like your opinion as a potential classic rider on what he think is needed to get the pre65 class back up to healthy number.

From what I make of all the suggestios and responses so far there doesn't seem to be any opposition to bringing in Pre 70 or another date earlier. Its a fact that it will allow more bikes into the class and that is what we are trying to achieve.
Alternatively we can loosen up the eligibility rules but by doing this we create more rules to administer and therefore more loopholes for the rich and ingenius types to exploit.
Unless someone comes up with something better I would settle for Pre 68 (with everything fitted to the bike also being pre 68) and including separate awards for heavyweight bikes also Pre 68.

These suggestions are simple to understand, not extreme changes, give it a go and monitor results over two years, those guys who have mentioned building suitable bikes would know exactly how they proceed and its something that could be submitted before the closing date if we get our fingers out but otherwise we are going to miss out
Some will oppose this suggestion but lets see a better one
Cheers
Galps

Hi All, I agree that if we remove the no spanish rule then it only makes sense that we go pre 68 as then there can be no argument re. eligibility of M10 and means 5 speed M27 is out which would satisfy most I think. This means that specials ie Suzuki bloop based and a host of others would be able to be built cheaply and compete. Although some of these types of bikes are getting rare as well. Gordon mentions section difficulty and the solution for us in Victoria would be to get enough bikes competing to actually have our own class again and if so I would push to have 'Anywhere in section' for classics and I would still ride at least Twinshock line or 'C' grade line and others could ride anything to suit their ability or niceness of bike. Perhaps then we harden up for particular trials with agreement from the group. We also could have an all British bike event once a year for Australia wide as then I would have no choice but to ride one. The horror!
Regards Geoff.

Bikes in the pre 65 class already have numerous modifications done to them that the scrutineers allow - (minor components should remain visibly compatible with the period)
So to get to my point if you allow, Alloy fatbars, sidepull throttles, gas shocks, plastic mudguards, tubeless rear rims and tyres, all of which give you a performance advantage why would the fact that a cub barrel has eight on nine fins really matter. All of the above parts can be purchased as they were back in the 60's and I am positive a tubeless rear tyre is certainly more beneficial than one less fin on your barrel. I personally think that all these mods are OK as this adds to the ease and enjoyment of riding old bikes.

Keep the class pre 65, put spanish bikes in, bar the model 10 Bultaco.

I personally would like to see Pre 72 and Pre 80 classes added as separate classes, to encourage people to restore and ride these earlier twinshocks, currently all these earlier bikes have to compete against the TLR Honda which is why I believe less people are restoring and competing on these earlier classics as they have become uncompetitive.
Cheers Greg N

Sherpa.
Just on the Repo barrels, we don't even know for sure about the number of fins but in all forms of historic racing that I have had anything to do with the number of fins is the standard way of indentifying a barrel. Weather it is an advantage or not the current rules are quite clear on components being visualy indistinguisable and as a level 2 scrutineer they would have to pass an arms length test not just look similar form 50 meters away. If the bike was looked at by a strick eligability scrutineer they could exclude it. May not happen but I'm just trying to point out what could happen.
If the wording in the MOM's was changed to Similar instead of indistinguisable then there wouldn't be a problem, but that would realy open the gates for all manor of super trick parts.

Roger it is easy to say there is no objection to a pre 70 class but there is also no support for anything at the moment because we only have afew people coming back with what they want.
My preference is for a modifided pre65 class with all make in and a specified list of excepted later models. The pre 65 class would still be mostly modified road bike with only a couple of factory produced machines ,so that the existing pre65 riders could still believe that they have a chance on there existing machine.
Next preference would be the pre68. Although I feel that will cause the same eligability questions we have now just for newer bikes and the existing pre65 riders will feel a bit more out classed. If we went to pre 70 then it would turn into a Spanish class with a spattering of the best pommy bikes and maybe a Jap bike or 2.
Don't go for the pre70 at all for the above reasons but if we can sort out the pre65. Perhapes a pre72 or pre Ossa MAR class could be introduced but only after the pre 65 numbers are shown to be on the increase.

For the modified pre 65 class I think we would need a MA sanctioned panel of 3 or 4 guys around the country to look at submissions to have anything that didn't make the inital list added in without to much fuss.

Gents,

At the risk of jumping the gun, I'll stick my neck out again, take a punt on pre68 & a few other things in line w the whole thread & put up possible modified GCRs (changes in colour) for discussion. These are all the rules particular to Classic/Postclassic

Not remotely trying to circumvent discussion. Rather trying to promote & expedite it w something 'concrete' to consider, since the deadline is looming fast. I have no axe to grind, nor vested interest; just trying to achieve reasonable consensus that is more inclusive, broadening the base & appeal while hopefully remaining true to the essence of Classics.

I've taken forks out of major components & added limits based on dia in the interests of availabilty of parts that wear & limiting costs. And since the 5sp M27s came out in Aug68, I've designated the Lightwt class as 4speed to clearly demarcate it. Also attempted to deal w specials.



23.2.1.1 Classes in Moto-Trials are:

(e) Classic – for machines manufactured before 1968
(f) Post Classic (Twinshock) – for machines manufactured before 1987*

23.5 Classic Trials (Solos)

23.5.01 The eligibility & dating of Classic motorcycles shall be considered in terms of major & minor components & the period of the m/c shall be the period of the latest major component.

23.5.02 Major components are:
a) All engine & gearbox external castings
b) Frames
c) Brakes
d) Wheel hubs

23.5.03 Forks:
i) Stanchions shall be max dia 33mm for Pre68 Lightweight, 34.5**mm for Pre68 Heavyweight, & 35mm for Post Classic
ii) Sliders for Pre68 must have in-line axle unless originally fitted with offset axle (eg Bul/Mon/Betor)

23.4.04 Major components that were manufactured outside the period, but which are visual replicas*** of period components, shall be eligible for that period

23.5.05 All other components shall be considered as minor components

23.5.06 Minor components may be modified or updated provided that they remain visually compatible with the period being depicted.

23.5.07 For the purposes of determining eligibility, Classic machines are categorized as follows:

a) Pre68 Heavyweight:
i) Non-unit construction engines with original capacity over 250cc, or
ii) Unit construction engines with original capacity over 350cc

b) Pre68 4speed Lightweight:
i) Non-unit construction engines with original capacity under 250cc, 4speed models
ii) Unit construction engines with original capacity under 350cc, 4speed models

c) Post Classic (Twinshock):
i) For models designed & 1st manufactured between 1 Jan 1968 to 31 Dec 1986
ii) Disc brake models are not eligible

d) Pre68 machines that have been modified to provide ground clearance or chassis performance more in keeping with a later era (eg cradle tubes removed), or which use Cro-Mo, 531, T45, Ti or Mg in major components shall be deemed as Specials & put up a class. Ie a) to b); b) to c) ****


* currently stated as “before 1986” which contradicts rule 23.5.07 d)
** or whatever Norton Roadholder forks are
*** slight change from “visually indistinguishable”, perhaps a little more flexible & easier to apply
**** this was originally rule 23.5.07 d) iii, but is taken further in an attempt to discourage/penalize radical mods without outlawing them


Perhaps there are too many changes, or too many sub-classes. Discuss, ignore or modify as you see fit, but I'd rather you didn't shoot the messenger. I'm only trying to help.

Perhaps a change to Pre68 could be a step towards progressively introducing pre72 & pre80 in ensuing years

JC1
I think we are starting to get someware, good work.

Couple of quick comments.
I think you need to do a bit more research into the fork diameters. I think that 35mm was quite common place even in 1964. Don't have time a the moment to take measurments of my Cub forks or the early Bultaco ones but I'll get onto that a bit later.

On the replica parts, maybe it just me but I don't think that CNC billet anything belongs on a classic bike , possibly we could include something along the lines " Replica parts that use period manufacturing techniques and are visualy similar can be used. "

We have talked about Bultaco and the common Pommy bike but what others would be eligible for the pre68? Are there any other super models to keep out. There was a Montesa from 68 that was probably manufacture late in the previous year like all the Spanish machines were.

TriCub wrote:JC1
I think we are starting to get someware, good work.

Couple of quick comments.
I think you need to do a bit more research into the fork diameters. I think that 35mm was quite common place even in 1964. Don't have time a the moment to take measurments of my Cub forks or the early Bultaco ones but I'll get onto that a bit later.

On the replica parts, maybe it just me but I don't think that CNC billet anything belongs on a classic bike , possibly we could include something along the lines " Replica parts that use period manufacturing techniques and are visualy similar can be used. "

We have talked about Bultaco and the common Pommy bike but what others would be eligible for the pre68? Are there any other super models to keep out. There was a Montesa from 68 that was probably manufacture late in the previous year like all the Spanish machines were.

Good progress, thanks JC1
Just a few thoughts on the billet parts eg: steel/alloy etc, minor or major components?

" Replica parts that use period manufacturing techniques and are visualy similar can be used. "

I feel it could be a bit more specific
Major- crankcases, cylinder, heads, side covers, triple clamps(?), front forks, crankshafts, conrods, wheel hubs etc
Minor- clutch & brake levers, handle bar braces, foot pegs,fittings, oil coolers,brackets, snail cam adjusters etc.
Yes most of these parts could be made using a manually operated lathe or mill, is that still allowed? I would also incude in this list any parts CNC'd from a casting.

I'm not trying to be negative, but just pointing out some grey areas.

Any other thoughts on JC1's interpretation.
cheers
Gary

Gary Mc.

Good to see some more ideas.

On your major component list. I see you list crank and conrod, impossible to police anything on the inside of a motor and if due to parts availability issues would mean that something newer made to fit would be out. We would end up with a lot of unsuable bike as parts dried up.
The forks are one area I think most would like to be in the minor list as it is quite possible to build cheeter fork with late internals fitted inside the Pommy steel sliders. If this type of fork is the norm then it makes scense to free it up with a few limitations.
CNC parts is a difficult one but if they could pass an arms length visual check, including shape and surface finish then there would be no easy way to pick them as replicas. It just amazes me how the Poms can pass those billet alloy triple clamps off as replicas.

JC1.
Just hand a look at some old Bultaco forks and they are 35mm as are my Cub forks that came off a 500 Twin Triumph.