Trials Australia Forums

The Question of CZ Trials bikes

The question has been raised as to whether CZ manufactured any dedicated Trials Bikes, CZ has a proud history of involvement in Trials particularly the Scottish Six Day Trial fielding teams over many years. It is a little known fact that from the early to the mid sixty's every second two stroke motor cycle sold in the world was a Jawa/CZ.
Although the production Trials bikes differed very little from their road going counterparts in many ways, they were a robust and reliable design.
You may notice the interesting early CZ bicycle designs in my attachments.

Geoff

Freddy makes a good point about the covering letter from a Classic historian or similar which possibly a few others need to provide as well, but from the facts uncovered on Trials Central its perfectly obvious that Alan's bike wasn't built Pre 65.
Some have argued that if certain models were built between 1963 - 1968 then they are all ok which is rubbish due to the development of the model over the years, no bike or car was ever produced without improvements during its production life.
I agree with others that the GCR's need to be made more clear and until this happens or Alan provides his engine and frame no's we can all continue adding to this topic which has been interesting, sometimes amusing and sometimes contentious but always showing there are guys and gals around that care about this branch of our sport.

Incidentally I have found a record of the Eligibility for Classic bikes in the 1998 MOMS, page 158 as follows;

13.13 Classic Trials
13.13.1 Eligibility
a) Pre 65 - Manufactured before 31st December 1964. Spanish manufactured machines may not compete in this category.
b) Post Classic (Twinshock) - From 1st January 1965 to 31st December 1983. TLR 250 and RS 250T Hondas may not compete in this category.
Etc Etc Etc

So the rules were in place previously and the campaigners are only asking for 13.13.1 (a) or similar, to be reinstated. (it seems Spanish bikes weren't the only ones being picked on )

Bye the way Geoff, I'm glad I voted "Pre 65 - No Spanish" so that the CZ/Jawas can compete

Nobody is against your bike Alan it just needs to be ridden in its correct class.
Cheers
Twinshock

freddyj wrote:This is all well and good but like it or not it was a national title event, not every one will take it seriously but people have the right to. If your there to have 'fun' then what others think about you or your bike wouldn't matter. And if it was just 'fun' then why didn't you ride it non-competetive? You still would have won but not had the experience you had. Why should I have to do that I hear you ask? You were obviously keen to win the national title, so it must have been a bit more then 'fun' for you..

I understand that it was a nation event, and people had there game faces on, don’t we compete in classic to get away from the bull that is within the sport in the modern classes? And to show our hard work in restoring pieces of machinery that we love?

You cannot compete in a national event for no place, that question was asked when I was first told I couldn’t ride in classic.

I am a person that loves riding my motorcycles regardless that it’s a day ride, club event or national event, humans are naturally competitive and thrive on the challenge of beating others at the same sport, I will say that I wanted to win this event and I was fountunate to have. Every one who entered this event wanted to win, so they would be claimed the best classic rider in Australia for 2009,why else would they come and ride? Spend all there time restoring and preparing there bike? The Australian championships is something that you don’t take for granted. it’s the one event that means the most to each rider as they get there chance to prove what they have.

freddyj wrote:I assume 'Macca' was the chief stewart and also a mate. You obviously knew well in advance that you were bringing a gun to a knife fight other wise there would have been no need for Macca to do this or was it a favour for a mate? If it was then I would think MA would be interested in investigating that. This is further backed up by the following:..

Do you know what you mean when you say ASSUME?
The accusation of macca and I being mates and I called in a favour is wrong on so many levels.
Who that rides doesn’t know macca? Every trials rider who he is. I can Honestly say that ive have little to do with macca until I was questioned about my bike. I’ve said hello at the few open I have been at and meet him.
The way all it started was that I was contacted about my bike when the applications were being processed. There was some complications, being that its an unknown bike so I was asked to prove the year of manufacture. I found out as much information as I could and sent it to him, he also researched the bike and found the same information as me. He rang Peter at bultaco parts were he discussed this issue.
Then I was told I couldn’t compete unless I could provide enough information about my bike, this is when he asked about a letter of manufacture with exact dates of when the bike was built. My reply to that was that a letter with that information would be impossible to get. Meanwhile I was researching the other competitors bike and found that some of them could be outside the cut off date, to which I stated to macca and asked why don’t the other competitor have to supply the same kind of letter. He then said they have competed before and that why they have been accepted. I think this is a ridiculous reason for people to be accepted

I found some more information, scanned books and emailed him the information, where he then said my bike was aloud to compete. In his own research he found this bike to be eligible, because he was the steward at the event he had the final call, the decision also had to be accepted by MA.

freddyj wrote:If Macca was the chief stewart, if he asked you for the proof, it should have been given to him or is every one allowed to have these little appeal sessions. I would have thought that the appropiate proof would have then shut every one up. Why only you? once again you knew it was going to cause issues. if you don't have your licence with you one day does the stewart say don't worry about it? No he says sorry you can't ride. On to the next point::..

As stated above that macca deemed the bike to be eligible, with his own research. Macca and I discussed that there would be an issue over this topic and said we will deal with it when it happens. All this was decided before the actual event so that nothing could be said on the day of the event.

freddyj wrote:I'm truly sorry that the title means nothing to you now, but wasn't it only for the fun of it any way. And as for above was this another favour for a mate? What are the rules? I know in other motor sports the first 3 positions have there bikes impounded for a period of time to allow for protests. I'm sorry, Macca said it was ok and would blow off any one who did protest. Is this common practise in trials? If someone did protest would they have had there fee returned or would it have been gratfully expcepted even though the protest would have been ignored.

I am unaware of the rules for this part of the sport, I know in other sports the 3 place getters vehicles are impounded also. I agree that this rule should be considered in trials, I think it’s a good idea, however how many grades are there? So there would be that many impound lots to store the bikes, In moto gp there only 3 places to win and 3 bike are easy to impound compared to approx 20 bikes, Maybe that why its not done. Its a lot of work on the officials side

The reason macca said he’d “blow off” any protest is because the protest being lodged its trying to overturn a decision that the steward made prior to the commencement of the event.

freddyj wrote:The way I figure it is that you went to the event knowing that there would be issues, you didn't want to provide any documentation to prove your case, you say it was for the fun of it but now say the title means nothing because of the issues that have arisen because you chose to do this the way you have. I'm sure your a very nice person but I also suspect that you like stirring the pot some what. Me personaly, if I had been in your position I would have had all the proof that was needed and offered to take the whinging people to the steward so as to clear it up, not hide behind a deal done behind closed doors with Macca. As far as the legality of the bike, don't know,don't care. I just see this as a very amature way of handling an issue on what, to some people is the reason they ride year in year out. Have your fun, ride the bike, but don't complain when you wave a red rag at a bull and it charges.

I went to the event because I was told I could compete. I had the documentation in my car incase any issues were raised, there were none at the event.
You are excellent at false accusations. You state that I like “stir the pot” yet I didn’t start any of this childish behaviour that on this site, I just wanted to ride my bike.
There was conversations with macca but nothing to do with deals you speak off. Macca wouldn’t have a biased opinion on this subject because of the position he was in, I think it would contradict the professionalism of the role he was undertaking for the event.

What’s amature?
Do you mean immature or amateur?

The above statement makes no sense at all, this issue was discussed at length before the event. Would you like me to include you in every trials discussion I have with macca in future? Or should I post the finding on a forum so that people who don’t care can read and think what’s the point of this?

I will have my fun, and keep enjoying riding


I can honestly say this has been the most ridiculous post on the thread to date, people really should get there fact right, Or know the full story before they get on there high horse and make a complete idiot of themselves on a public forum.

To my suggestion that he rode his M10 in the Post Classic,

"A.Phillipson wrote..."
Have you ridden a early Bultaco compared to the Blue Bultacos? I own the model 10 and a 198 and the amount of difference between them is unimaginable, the early bully doesn't like to stop at all, the suspension is terrible, its bad for your posture, quite gutless and heavy.
Compare the above problems with a newer blue bully and its the opposite, it stops as good as my 1098 Ducati, has fantastic suspension, its body position is fantastic, my 198 has bags of power and is quite light.
So as you can see from the description of the same point that the bikes are totally different, which renders the model 10 not at all competitive in post classic.

There are only a few people that can say that they're competing just for the hell of it, and i think this is the reason my bike is so questioned by many people. If we where there just to ride in a group and have fun there wouldn’t be a problem, but because I proved that the bikes competitive the uproar has started saying that its not meant to compete, but as it stands, the Australian rules allow me to.

Perhaps the difference between a Cub, C15 or Villiers Bantam type machine compared with an M10 might be as you describe above with the M10 and M198 Bluetaco! Before you made that comparison I was musing on your predicament on having rebuilt a bike that would be uncompetitive to ride in Post Classic. I was very surprised when you informed us that you also have the perfect Post Classic bike in the M198 sat at home. Why not ride the M198 in Post Classic and show and tell the M10? Might have been harder to win as I recall the winner had a Bluetaco as well

Who in Australia would have thought that the M10 would not be competitive?

To all people reading these replies, why is the era thing so difficult to grasp? Bantam designed pre war
(MZ). Cub and C15 designed mid fifties. M10 Bulto designed mid sixties and immediately obsoleted all customer British trials bikes. It brought to an end the era of classic British trials bikes.

In regard to Cubs and C15's, please stop banging on about some being made post 01 Jan 1965. Yes, some Mountain Cubs and French Army Cubs were assembled and nos. stamped after that date. They were using left-over trials components as Triumph had lost interest in selling trials bikes and their two works riders now rode special twins. Same story with C15's 'cept few people wanted one. 1968 Bantam Cub, different story but still uses early sixties type frame.

Macca wanted to prove my bike with a letter, I asked why am I the only one, so he said not to worry about it."
Yeh, I thought that was weird. I am sure there is no debate that your bike was made after 01 Jan 1965. As to whether 23.5.0.4 Major components that were manufactured
outside the period, but which are visually
indistinguishable from period components
shall be eligible for that period
This open to conjecture as few M10 components are period components!

This thread has been brought to my attention via the excellent English ( Scottish site for accuracy) Trials Central. http://www.trialscentral.com/forums/ind ... ntry232729.
I ride enthusiastically but poorly in the countrys largest P65 club Yorkshire Classic. The question of ''is an m10 eligble for p65'' is an excellent one. the rules for your p65 class would seem clear that the bike is dated by its latest major part.
the M10 was demonstrably not available in the uk before mid january. orders for bikes (Comerfords and others) were been taken in the first week of january all with a stated delivery of early january/ a couple of weeks.
i have found no evidence of a bultaco m 10 ( or any other model)( other than Millers) in any of the results in the uk in any of the first two weeks of january 1965
millers bike is refered to as prototype in november and little in january in the english press of the time. the bike was registered for road use in the uk in late november 64
the trials columns were more dedicated to the fall of the large 4 stroke and the dominace of the cub and the development of the james commando

i dont offer this as full or complete evidence that the bike was available or not before dec 31st 64. i see however that the bikes rider has submitted evidence to the events stewards that his bike was available before the cut off date.

i , like others both here in the uk and Australia, would be very interested to have sight or knowledge of the source of the evidence.

I do not ride the OZ titles but do ride twinshock at club level.

There seems to be one question that needs an answer. If there where numerous Bultaco M10 bikes competing or available for people to restore and ride would we be even having this discussion? If the answer is yes then argue on if NO then the entire issue is just petty bad sportsmanship because someone else has something that everyone else wants but can not have.

The bike was ridden in competition and available in many countries during late 1964 end of story the fact that the UK didn't have them until early '65 just means that demand outstripped supply. I am pretty sure Sammy's previous 'English' rides where not generally available to everyone the same as every world / Euro champ before or since in all arms of motorsport.

Alan's bike is the most standard pre 65 I've seen competing. It was also the best ridden pre 65 at the OZ titles last year. Lets face it did the bike win the title? I would be shocked if anyone could stand up and without crossing there fingers or having there tougue firmly in there cheek state otherwise.

If you exclude Spanish bikes you would also have to excude Japanese bikes and modenised specials in the spirit of fair play. The class would then be renamed Pre 65 British Trial bikes but then there are some of those light little 'standard' cubs and smelly two strokes still cluttering up the top places.

Allan, after the event I spoke to you about your win and how you even tried to dress for the period.You are a better rider and a better person than those out to stop you. I am sure Col could build a Cub or similiar to their specifications(meaning anything goes as long as it looks okay) and you can beat them again. Years ago pommies were refered to as whingers, I didn't realise that that DNA could be carried thru from people onto bikes and back onto riders of today. Good luck. Daryl Fox.

Hello Alan,
Wow stressed yet or what? I wished I'd seen you ride at the ational event. Because I watched you ride that M10 last year, you know when the Monty died, and man you had more feet on the ground than a millipede being chased by Bear Gryll's. So if that was still the case at the National's I think the rider's ranging from number 2 backwards need to practice,practice ,practice,
Plus on a more positive note , I have seen him ride the 198 and I don't want him in my class this year. So stay right where you are.
The only thing needing carbon dating would be Dad.
Well I'm off to the shed to drain out the synthetic oil out of my forks. Now where did I put that old sump oil out of the Victa.
Cheers
P.S. Can I have a ride on the Ducati ?

"It's times like these.............................."

Howdy all
Not conclusive proof but some nice pictures here
http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthre ... 179&page=4