Flatslides on Twinshocks

[TriCub]

Just thought I'd throw my ten cents worth in as if I do any riding this year it will probably be in Twinshock as Triumph is no longer eligable in pre65 because I don't have a Pomy carb on it.
I have riden 2 bikes that were fitted with flat slides instead of the original round slide one ran as good as the original and the other ran quite badly. The bad one was due to the owner being no good at jetting. From that and years of playing with all maner of race engines I feal the only advantage in using a flat slide on older engines like our Twinshockers is the fact that you get a new carb to replace the worn out thing that it came with. Does that make it some unbeatable trials weapon?

No but it does make it look different so if you want a concourse class don't support a rule change. However you had better return those gas filled shocks and radial tyres because your bike didn't come with them.
Are you saying that gas filled shocks are all that you can get! Same applies to the carbs, can't get the originals any more.

Don't let the class follow the pre65 stupidity , support a rule change to allow any type of carb regardless of type or country of origin.

[Geoff Lewis]

Hi All, The Gardner flat slide carbie would also be elligible. These would be for masochists only! A lot of the jets are hard to buy for the early Keihin round slide carbs as they must have changed the jet design some time in the seventies?
I think any round slide carb of any origin would be OK. for twinshock surely. I think a flat slide would only be a waste of money. Setting up your suspension properly would be of much greater advantage. Make sure your airfilter is in good cond. as this will minimise slide wear. I dont believe the highest graded rider in a comp always wins on the day. I believe anyone can have a good day when others ,even very good riders aren,t and no one should completely write themselves off. In a trial anything can happen. Loving the bike you ride helps alot also. Does any one know how to reply to a private message through the forum as I can't seem to. I will take my medication now.
Regards Geoff.

[David Lahey]

Geoff you need to be logged in to get access to your messages. When you are logged in and have a forum string open, there is some pale blue writing under the Trials Australia logo. My writing currently says "0 new messages". Left click on those words and your inbox for Personal Messages will open up.

[sharvie]

Hi all, I looked into fitting an OKO flatslide to My TLR early on in the resto. When I found the frame & manifold had to modifed to fit it, I decided against it.

My bike is running the original carby with a new needle-jet set as well as new float needle. There is a far greater advantage in putting effort into improving suspension.

I would be happy to compete against any bike fitted with a flatslide. If the technology was available before the cut of dates, I say go for it.

Better that rules support people gettting their old bike running at a reasonable cost.

So for me that is a yes to flatslides, where it can be shown the technology was available pre Dec 1986. If that is too difficult to police, then I say yes to any carby.

Regards
Steve

P.S. Maybe a poll could help sort out the general feeling on this?

[Geoff K]

Hi all
I would rather spend time riding with people than helping them fix their bikes. If that means new carbys I am all for it. There are many other legal performance enhancing mods that you can do to your twinshock that leave a carby change for dead.

I would rather focus on riding and encouraging others to ride than debate about a rule which in my opinion would have little impact on the result at the end of the day. I would rather loose to someone with an OKO carby than win against someone who cant get there bike going.

We should focus on how to increase the popularity of this sport rather than make it more difficult.

For twinshock any carby any year for me
Regards Geoff

[Tee-Why]

So for me that is a yes to flatslides, where it can be shown the technology was available pre Dec 1986. If that is too difficult to police, then I say yes to any carby.

I say NO to flatslide carbies on twinshock trials bikes. Reason is just because the tech was invented within that period, I dont believe there was a production twinshock trials bike ever issued with one, so draw a line in the sand at 1986 with a ruling.

Its a bit like converting to twin leading shoe front brakes, just because in the early 80's Yamaha did to their MX bikes. To be fair again, no twinshock trials bike was produced like this as far as I know. Sure, you could say the period parts could have been substituted during that period, but this gets as messy as the flatslide argument.

Simply, the rules should reflect the manufacture and production to that bike of the period.

In reflection of round bore carbs, I retuned a 2mm bigger version that is off a sister model bike, visually identical to the original, this was changed for performance, and not any different to like year model production bike. Alternative is a new round bore carby (OKO) to give like appearance and 2mm bigger for performance!

[scrivo]

I would say NO to flat slide carbies also.

The rules are for twin shock bikes. In other forms of Classic competition major components must originate or be visually identical to an item from another eligible bike. In Classic MX in the EVO (twinshock class) you can use any conventional set of forks from a twinshock bike (this effectively means 43mm is OK but not if they originate from a linkage rear suspension, water cooled or disk brake bike). This means that 1984 Husky 500 forks can be fitted to a 1978 Yamaha but not 1984 Yamaha forks. I believe that the Twin Shock Trial rules are in the same spirit. Can anyone identify a Twinshock Trials legal bike with a flat slide carbie? If not then they should not be legal.

While there are readily available new round slide carbies and there are Mikunis for around $100 new at present then why allow something that is completely out of character for the ‘period’ of classic competition? What next people grafting exhaust power valves onto their cylinder? How about converting an early model Yamaha mono into a twinshock?

[Jon V8]

And Aussies say that Poms whinge ! I've been following this thread from the start - cant think why.... Surely trials is meant to be a fun pastime,esp Pre65 and twinshock,are you really THAT serious ? Tell you what its enough work to organise 8 or 9 club trials a year without worrying about who has a flatslide carb or dares to put a square barrell on their Cub,I couldnt care less - we ride for FUN.
Just thinking about converting my HT5 to a mono.....

[Joe Henderson]

Dear,Oh,Dear,

Here we go, all merrily scampering down the MotoCross/Raod Racing/Concours/Eligibility slippery dip.

I think we should let the motorcycling disciplines that depend for their competition and fun on the SPEED of the vehicle carry on with their arguments about whether a certain type of carb/ignition/fork/brake/sticker/tank/metal-that-the-swingeangle-wanger-plate-fitted-to-your- 1983- Italian- kit-built motocrosser, is made of/ was available during the specified time span of production, and let the trials world with their non-time-based scoring system ride pretty much what they like.

Pre 65 in the UK is a farce -I know of one Ariel that used to have a down hill mountain bike disc brake fitted inside the front brake drum- and will not be fixed while riders continue to spend ten thousand pounds on a bike.

There are several air monos converted to twin shock around in the UK Southern Centre. I also saw a Yam mono converted to twin shock last year at Mt Kembla. I welcome this. Anything to swell the numbers I say.

The entry in the NSW twinshock championships was about three regular riders last year (this contributed in no small measure to my "winning" the championship!) we need to welcome all bikes with two shocks with open arms at the moment.

The time to get precious about the colour of the valve caps is when we have 300 riders turning up at a club trial.

Trials will always be about the rider skill and the bike is secondary, accept this and all the worries about eligibility melt away.

I suppose all this worry about someone having a "better performing bike than mine" has been fostered by the "Racing" image that has crept into the trials world nomenclature along with pyjamas and spandex suits.

Lets keep trials simple, fun and easy to comprehend.

Regards,

Joe Henderson.

[paulm]

Couldn’t agree more Joe.
I almost bought a bike in from the UK late last year.

It’s got DOT sticker on the tank and a Villiers engine.It regularly competes BUT that’s about where its 'eligibility' ends.
It’s got the same frame geometry as my Gasser, the suspension feels remarkably modern and it weighs – 68kg. ????

And it doesn’t win... go figure

Paul Mac