Cub barrels.

[JC1]

George, I was fairly sure the M10 had 32mm dia forks & the 35mm ones came out on M27 in Aug 68. Are you sure the Bul ones yr measuring are that early?

Also tho't (from reading here) that cubs & bantams had 33mm forks & that roadholder/triumph/bsa forks were 34.5mm. British industry used imperial measurements at the time, so I'd be surprised if 35mm was readily in use pre68.

If they were, we could just state max dia 35mm for all classic/post classic, but it sort of then becomes open-slather w very little restriction


According to Morley's Spanish Trials Bikes, the 4sp Cota & Pennine/Plonker were available in 67 too, but I'm not sure he's right or wrong. I've found numerous errors in the detail in that book.

I'd think both those bikes were rather ungainly converted streetbikes & hence fit w the essence of Classic.

When did the Cotton Cavalier come out? 67 or 68? Does it fit w Classic (I'd think so)

[Gary Mc]

Just another thought, a reproduction versus a copy?

At what point is a reproduced part or copy allowed on a classic bike, if it is identical to the original it could be a copy or could be made under licence, even parts that are on current models.
I was just looking at Royal Enfield bikes made in India, the originals back in the late 50's were only assembled in India but now they are all made in India, so is a current model which looks the same as a classic model eligible for classics? (I dont know if there is just asking if it is possible)

cheers
Gary

[Twinshock200]

Gents, I've had a look through the 2010 MOMS, the last copy I have found so far in boxes, and on page 208 there is a reference to, "Pre 65 machines that have been modified so as to provide a ground clearance or chassis performancemore in keeping with this era shall compete as specials in this Post Classic category"

This is another rule that needs to be deleted as it could mean a pre 65 bike with a small modification, perhaps to make maintenance easier, would have to ride Post Classic C (blue) lines and that would surely put Pre 65 riders off from ever competing again, my recollection from 2010 Thunderbird park
Again I go back to suggesting a Specials class within Classic and as it has already been allowed within Post Classic surely MA would accept the suggestion
I presume similar wording is still part of the latest version of MOMS which indicates we need to be fully aware of what we are submitting and is already covered because otherwise the Trials Commission will simply say that the changes we propose are covered by the above statement and bang goes our chance for another year.

To settle one issue the standard original stanchions on my 1964 Cub are 33mm but unless we allow this out to 35mm it will become a stopping point for potential builds already in motion, also escalating the price of old secondhand 33mm stanchions, 35mm should be acceptable for all, they even allow them in Scotland !!!!!!!.

Not sure who made the following statement,

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

how can replica parts be made using old fashioned manufacturing methods, that was why these old bikes are being stashed away in the back of sheds, come on guys this is the 21st century and its going to happen more and more.

Don't lets get bogged down with too much detail because there is so much more that can be dug up for instance;
Do we allow silentbloc swinging arm bushes.
Do we allow fork risers that weren't used in Pre 65
Are stainless steel spokes allowed.
Ban top tube oil tanks, thats a major frame alteration on many bikes
Should we allow hubs that were never fitted to original bikes.
Shall we introduce a CC capacity increase tolerance, say 2%, as per some that are already in the MOMS,,, good one that !!.

I hope you realise I am not fully serious on these, just trying to make a point.

Pre 68, with a "specials class" within it, thats my suggestion.
Galps

[Geoff Lewis]

Hi all, I think we are getting bogged down in the minutia and at the moment we need to focus on what is reasonable and easy to administer. I suggest we leave the rules as they are and simply change the date to pre67 or what ever date excludes M27 as this bike seems to be a concern amongst the majority, yet still allows 4speed Bantam,square barrels, Anglian, Sprite, M10 etc, . Remove the 'No Spanish' as this has been the most contentious change in recent times and its deletion seems to have majority backing. Remember we musn't become too anal re, minor components as the steward already has a difficult enough job without being the villain who knocks back a bike because the triple clamp looks too well made! Also remember that the scrutineers can't be expected to be Classic machine experts. We have to allow off the shelf and hand made items or the cost of building a bike up is going to be prohibitive. Internal modifications are too difficult to deal with for trials so forget that. We can review in a couple of years and if some real over the top bikes are turning up, the current rules can deal with this. At least they would be turning up which is more than they are doing at the moment. Specifying fork lengths and diameters, seat heights, measuring and inspecting all manner of things is nitpicky when we are already in such a muddle. Just my opinion.
Regards Geoff.

[Twinshock200]

My previous post should have read;

Pre 68, with a "specials class" within it and take out the "no Spanish", thats my suggestion.

When you read Geoff's last post it appears to me that we have two people in agreement so are there any more ??????
Cheers
Galps

[JC1]

Gents, I think yr missing the point of some of the changes. Apart from trying to broaden the base & make it more inclusive, we're trying to free things up a little to make replacement parts more available & competitive while curtailing expense

Case in point; something like Gristy's Cub forks. Does one replace them w std items that are patently mismatched to the shocks he (& everybody else) can run? Fit some roadholder forks or similar if he can find them? Do heaps of expensive machining & fit CB250 forks camouflaged inside Cub forks? Or just fit the CB forks in the std triples & go ride Classic trials?

But we have to set some limits to limit open-slather, hence the dia's for ea sub-class. I was under the impression that L/wts of the time had 32-33mm forks, H/wts had 34.5mm, while the post68 spanish bikes had 35mm.

I can easily change that (& I'll post that up shortly), but I think we need to keep forks out of major components. Seems ludicrous to allow sophisticated modern shocks, billet 'everywhere' & modern looks all-over, but insist on antiquated forks.

Personally I doubt just changing to pre68 & allowing the M10 back in will achieve what the general consensus expressed above was after.


Roger, current MOMS/GCR are on MA website. Also, note that in the proposed changes, Specials are'nt bumped up to Twnishock, they're bumped up a class; H/wt to L/wt, L/wt to twinshock. If we bring in pre72 & Pre78 (say) later, as has been suggested, Lwt's would go pre72, pre72 to pre78 etc.

Do you really want 3 sub-classes in Classics? Do you really think MA would approve 3 classes for a handful of competitors?

Personally I think the existing sub-classes have failed to grow the classics. Maybe the 2 should be: Pre68 4speed & Specials. The problem then is, how do you deal w specials in other categories? Have a Specials class in every category? We'd have so many classes MA would laugh at us & there probably wouldn't be enough riders to go round & give decent competition. The way proposed deals w specials in ea class w'out adding adding n extra classes

George, personally I'm not sure billet anything has a place on Classics, but one of the consensus things was that we need to be more inclusive (w/in reason) & I'm far from convinced we can differentiate between how billet parts were produced. Also remember yr own comment that we stand a much better chance w MA if the changes are not too radical (or extensive I would think)

Gary, thanks for yr comments. I'd hope modern REs produced in India would be allowable under the rules. Also I don't think we can start listing too many specific parts. One of the consensus things was simplifying the GCRs. And one of my guiding tho'ts w.r.t changes is what a wise old legal-eagle (who was acting Govenor of Qld for a while) told me decades ago: the less stipulated the better - more words = more interpretation problems


I make the suggestion we try hard to get something in by Fri & review/trim-the-sails next yr then stick w that for 3-5yrs.
Also next yr perhaps bring in say pre72, then perhaps pre78 next yr if thats the way people want to go
I would think that'd cover the classic-twinshock era pretty well

By the way, I can do much of the 'leg' work & email it on, but somebody else needs to submit it. A club secretary or president preferably as I was told by MAQ it would carry more wt. Remeber, I'm not even a member of a club yet!

[JC1]

2nd draft of proposed changes:


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 35mm for Clasic & 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) ****

* "excluding mahines manufactured in spain" - clause to be removed
** currently stated as “before 1986” which contradicts rule 23.5.07 d)
*** 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 or creating extra classes


We could keep forks out of major components list but say nothing specific about them if people prefer. ie delete 23.5.03

[Twinshock200]

Hang on JC1, I am finding your ideas hard to follow, by the way I am having trouble sending emails and I have been unable to answer your recent one to me, sorry.
Who has suggested Pre 72 and then Pre 78 ???, also I don't follow your reasoning on this following statement;

Personally I doubt just changing to pre68 & allowing the M10 back in will achieve what the general consensus expressed above was after

I haven't seen a single post in opposition to this, so we can't just assume there is no support for it.

Roger, current MOMS/GCR are on MA website. Also, note that in the proposed changes, Specials are'nt bumped up to Twnishock, they're bumped up a class; H/wt to L/wt, L/wt to twinshock. If we bring in pre72 & Pre78 (say) later, as has been suggested, Lwt's would go pre72, pre72 to pre78 etc.

Whatever the current moms say about specials as above can you imagine a guy riding a heavyweight Matchless with a modified frame being forced to ride a line he was unhappy about, same with a lightweight, all that needs to be in place is a "Specials" class within Classic but still ride the lines you were expecting to ride. This would give us only two extra sub classes to sort out, so we end up with Classic, best 5 finishers, Best heavyweight, Best modified Special..
At the moment what incentive is there for a heavyweight to be dragged out of a shed for the Aussie titles and correct me if I am wrong but how many heavyweights have appeared over the last ten years besides Martyn Adams a couple of years ago, or was it last year. Hey Martyn it would be good to hear from you as an experienced Classic enthusiast.

Anyway we seem to be treading water with fewer comments coming back so is it all gonna die a death or are we going to reach agreement with a few more than two in agreement at the moment
Galps

[David Lahey]

I think there is nowhere near enough time to come to a consensus in time for a rules proposal. I don't think working frantically at the last minute before the proposal deadline will achieve a good outcome, because there are still too many unknowns to be considered and discussed. We got into the mess we are currently in because some rules were rushed into place without canvassing enough of the people who were affected. Even just considering which forks, we are at great risk of upsetting people who might be excluded by a change that has not been thought through.

The date cut-off concept is a reasonable thing, but needs a lot more thought if we want to avoid what happened with the M10 at the Aussie Titles a few years ago. To clarify this part of the eligibility rules, I'm suggesting eligibility lists for motors and frames, that takes into account flow-on designs, like is done in the classic trials rules in Spain. I know very little about pommy bikes regarding which year things changed, but I am sure there are people who could make a proposed list for discussion. Same also for Ducati and Moto-guzzi frames and motors. There are plenty of people with intimate knowledge of the development of Spanish bikes who could likewise make a proposed list.

My own belief about the cut-off date is that using 1965 as a cut-off is OK, provided we can agree on what motors and frames are pre-1965, and which motors and frames are legitimate carry-ons. For example, while the Tiger Cub motor continued to be produced long after 1965, the improvements are so minor that I would be voting to allow the use of any Tiger Cub motor in "Lightweight Classic". Same for the 4 speed (San Antonio) Bultaco motor. It came out first in 1962 in a basic commuter bike, and development stopped in 1965 with the M10 (trials) and M11 (MX) motors, but 4 speed motors continued to be produced and fitted to Bultacos like the Lobito (kid's trailbike) until the early 1970s. I would see 4 speed Bultaco motors and any Tiger Cub motor as good examples of the flow-on concept, but would not consider any of the 5 speed Bultaco motors to fit into our "lightweight classic" concept.

[Twinshock200]

I agree with David, we risk messing it up if we try to meet this deadline, I trust the deadline info we have is correct ?.

Lets just keep our ideas coming through official club channels for a few months and do it properly in 12 months time.
I still believe we need a core of devout Classics to get together on this and I will be happy to be one of them
Galps