brownie wrote:Just been thinking about this Specials class does it mean some lunatic can go out and buy any old pre 68 Bultaco, or whatever, chop him up into some trials contraption and compete on it because if you can at least someone will
Sadly, no rule can constrain the lunatic fringe.
Numerous ideas, both from past forum threads & recent discussion, were countenanced as some kind of restraint on Specials to curb those given to excess; eg max ground clearance, min seat height, min subframe width, min weight, max fork length, min differential between bashplate & seat tube heights etc. (Personally I think that last one has considerable merit cos it would mean that if somebody wanted to lower their seat tubes they would have to lower their ground clearance correspondingly.)
But it was felt that rules should be kept as simple & brief as reasonably possible, at least initially. Nobody wanted scrutineers being under pressure of finding measurements a few mm out etc. And on a classic/twinshock most of those dimensions are self-limiting to some degree.
I could give a short answer to your specific question but perhaps a more benficial way is to consider eligibility more broadly by working thro’ the proposed rules (as on MA website) relevant to building a Special.
Most problems arise because people simply don’t follow the rules.
Under
Section 23.B Competition Classes, in Table 23.5, we find Classics are limited to machines first available to the general public before 1 Jan 65, now with no exclusion for country of manufacturer. Whether the machine/part was
manufactured prior to the cut-off date or used by works riders then is irrelevant; it must have been
readily available for purchase by Joe Public. The point is, if it was not available to the public in the era, it couldn't have been used in the era by you or me.
For Pre68 Classic/Specials, that cut-off date is extended (later in the rules, see
23E Class Technical Regulations) to 1 Jan 68, with the same stipulation of being available to the general public. (It is a bit unfortunate that this date for P68/Specials is not included in Table 23.5 which it was in the proposal put to MA but for whatever reason they have not seen fit to include it there. It may be that future MOMs will need Pre68 Classic/Specials inserted in that table between Pre65 Classic & Post-Classic/Twinshock)
From there we work thro
Section 23E Class Technical Regulations:
The eligibility/dating/class of the machine is determined by the period of the latest major component (which are listed), the same as before. The onus for providing proof of dating/era is now on the rider. He/she alone is responsible for it. The buck stops there.
Minor parts are allowed more modern replacements but have to remain “visually compatible” with the era, as it was before. ie The bike must maintain the look of the era, whether Pre68 or Pre65. That is regarded as important. It is part of the attraction/appeal of classics & their distinctiveness from Post-Classics.
Perhaps the most pertinent point here is that
Specials would still be subject to these rules on major & minor components. This is critical & may yet have to be reinforced. It is not open slather on major components &/or modifications with a cursory nod to pre68. You cannot put a Cub engine in a TLR frame or a Fantic engine in a Sprite frame & expect to compete. Nor SWM Jumbo forks on an M10 Sherpa. Major components must be pre68 or a close likeness, as follows:
With regard to replicas of major parts & flow-on models/parts made after the cut-off dates, they are eligible if they are “visually indistinguishable” from period parts/models available to the general public, as before. It was discussed whether or not a more flexible interpretion of this should be hinted at by change of wording to (something like) “visually indistinguishable at five metres” or “visually similar” but it was decided that may pose more problems than it solves.
As to allowable modifications for Specials, unseen internal mods to major components have long been deemed acceptable & that should remain as before, eg fork internals, porting, gears. As for
visible mods to major components, what is allowable is quite specific in the proposed rules – ie "
chassis performance" mods that are "
consistent with the Twinshock era",
NOT the mono-shock era.
Major components from the twinshock (or monoshock eras) would not be eligible; eg forks from a TY mono. Nor would square barrels from 70s/80s Sherpas on P68 Sherpas etc (or porcupine heads on Pre65 Bultacos for that matter) as they are neither "visually indistinguishable" nor "chassis performance" mods.
It is not free reign for Specials! Modified frames & after-market frames will have to clearly show their Pre68 roots. ie The design/layout of the frame must be Pre68 but the specs may be Twinshock era, eg steeper rake, raised engine, cut-off cradle tubes, higher ground clearance, relocated shocks for more travel etc. They must look unmistakebly like modified Pre68 frames.
eg Drayton Bantam, Armac Cub, Otter BSA frames etc - while not visually indistinguishable
to the n-th degree from standard pre68 frames (by virtue of the allowed mods & more modern specs), they clearly follow the form of the frames of the day. No doubt, when applied to Special's frames, "visually indistinguishable" will require a little more flexible interpretation than for the 'regular' Pre65 Classics.
Seat tubes are going to have to remain more or less as-is, ie a couple of inches above rear tyre height. Eligible mods like fitting Cub subframe to D10/D14 Bantams will still be in that vicinity. As I understand it lowered seat-tubes did not come in till the mono era when they were also slimmed as well since they didn’t have to accommodate shocks that were attached at the other end to the swingarm near the axle.
That's how I understand it tho it's not meant to be the final word.
Options for overseeing eligible mods for Specials were also floated & considered. eg
i) a database of guidelines from ‘marque experts’ showing eligible base machines & flow-on models/parts, eligible aftermarket frames, perhaps allowable modifications etc posted on TA website somewhere appropriate. The website overseer has already agreed it is do-able & he’s willing. Marque 'experts' are already researching this.
ii) a flow-chart clearly outlining the steps/pathway for following the rules for both pre65 Classics & Pre68 Specials.
iii) a logbook system where each owner logs his modifications (ie variations from a standard pre68 machine) & if a bike is suspected of being not according to declared mods & is protested, the owner rider must provide proof that it is as logged.
iv) a small group of assessors or moderators (for want of a better term) perhaps one from each of the three states with most classics, linked electronically & empowered to moderate/asses. Anything questionable could be submitted to them prior to the build &/or modification or prior to an upcoming trial (like a Nat’l). It would be their job to assess the evidence for eligibility presented by the rider/builder himself, not to do all the research.
Such options could be seen as an unnecessary complication, a deterrent to participation, a deterrent to excesses (ie the lunatic/foolhardy fringe etc) &/or a very useful help - depending on one’s attitude/perspective.
Initially we tho’t it best just to seek approval for the basic class with the least rules & see how much common sense prevails with the onus-of-responsibilty clause. Beyond that the database of eligible models & perhaps the flowchart(s) being available on TA website could be very useful.
Personally I would think it wise for any builder of a Special to maintain a logbook from the start, along with relevant documentation, even if it’s not formally required.
Apologies for the lengthy replies, but good questions deserve decent answers if we hope to all be on the same page.