Trials Australia Forums

Hello Mr. Phillipson,
It seems that there is much correspondence going backwards and forwards on this eligibility subject but nothing new arising.
Unfortunately, rapidly progressing cancer has prevented me from riding since the end of 2005 and currently I am hanging on by a thread. Just because I wasn't present at the 2009 Titles does not mean that I am not qualified to make comment on the eligibility or otherwise of the Bultaco in question.
Had not a person who shall be nameless some years ago taken out the words "not Spanish" from the eligibility rules in MoMS, this whole situation would not be under discussion. Unfortunately he did (or at least he directed the Trials Commission of MA to do so) so we now have this discussion.
I have seen photographs of the machine in question and I would firstly draw your atention to the rule in MoMS which states that parts must be visually compatible with those of the period.
The original Sammy Miller Bultaco which appeared in 1964, (669 NHO) and remember this was at that time a one-off, not available to the public and therefore not suitable to be used as a marker point for this discussion varied significantly from the machine which was ridden in 2009 Nationals.
- the cylinder head had the radial burst fin pattern.
-The engine cases were of a rounded design.
-This model was in 1965 released for public sale so this does not even qualify for pre-65 competition.
The machine ridden in 2009 Nationals had the later engine cases and cylinder barrel which were not released to the public until significantly later than 1965.
How then Mr. Phillipson, on the evidence of these two components alone, can you class this machine as pre-65?
Please just let me tell you that I have ridden both the original Sammy Miller machine plus a number of his later ones so I do feel qualified to speak on this matter.
As an aside, my only regret is that I never got to ride on GOV 132.
So please MR. Phillipson, please let's stop this atempt to whitewash everyone. The machine was not eligible but it slipped through and took the title but it should not be allowed to do so again.

Chris Leighfield

i haveno affiliation to either side of this discussion but it does have some merit
the reporting of comments made by mr miller seems not acceptable to one side of the argument with the counter charge made that the bike was so succesful in other markets that non were available for the uk!!

the content of Historica sherpa T would seem open to debate as quoted above and elsewhere for example the photos of sam posing with a production T in rickman bros. nov. 64 brochure .

the proprieters of in motion/ bultaco uk seem to be able to offer nothing more than ( in fact substantially less) then many enthusiasts on this and other sites.

and with those around at the time seemingly not having suffcient weight the most conclusive evidence must be in the available contemporay reporting of the time..

consider this.. a new trials machine is available to buy, a machine so good that sammy miller wins on the thing first time out and yet throughout january 1965 and the first week of febuary i can find no mention of anyone riding competing or even less winning anything on a bike. adverts in the sae magazines ( weeklys and monthlys) state orders been taken ..

i havent yet gone further as divorce will no doubt follow swiftly if i spend any more evenings reading smelly old magazines.

if the largest trials market in the world had no access to the bike and the development rider designer of the thing came from that same country and he was the only one riding one does that not suggest something.

later in the year (oct ) in the Scott trial 42 entries were bultaco out of 194..

The problem with the internet is that people believe what they read. How do you know that the person who “quoted Sammy miller” wasn’t lying? He might hate bultaco with a passion and is very sour to this topic and will state what ever he wants, then some one read his fictional post and he believes it and then its passed on.

I was only following this topic as an observer out of interest as obviously, being in the UK, it has no afffect on me. However, when I read the quoted comment I had to respond.

The person who asked Sammy Miller for his response was myself. The response I put on the Trials Central forum was the response from the man himself although it is nothing we don't know already. I did not make it up, I only did it as Roger had asked if anyone in the UK could provide proof of the date the M10 was available to to the public. I have no personal interest in this. When I told Sam the reason for the question he immediately offered to write to the club/organisation involved to clarify the matter for them. So, if you email him, I am sure he will answer you.

I certainly do not hate Bultacos and have an M49, M80, 2 x M92 and 2x M199B.

The only M10 in 1964, in the entire world, was Sam's own factory protoype bike - unless he's wrong in his statement of course.... It didn't go into production until 1965. His words, not mine. Sales in the UK didn't really take off until he won the 1965 SSDT and then it seems everyone wanted one.

The whole point of the Pre65 class in the UK, when it was introduced many years ago now, was to exclude the Bultaco Sherpa T as it was that bike that helped considerably with the demise of the old British 4-strokes. Prior to then I doubt there were many foreign bikes being ridden in the UK at all, I'd suspect that virtually everyone was riding British. The Pre65 class was really to rekindle the days of big 4-strokes that had long disappeared from trials. Small 2-strokes were never really wanted in the class I'd guess. Sherpa N, Montesa Impalas, CZ etc etc were not commonplace, so there was no reason to name the class Pre65 British, the founders obviously wanted the re-emrgence of the old 4-strokes.

Over the last 15 or so years, the Pre65 movement here has evolved into a very competitive series but as is human nature, the desire to win is still very much to the forefront. It is a very competitive class with several ex-works riders in the mix, not to mention a certain Magical and also Dave Thorpe on his Tiger Cub (brilliant rider who won the first two world rounds in 1975 on the previous year's model Bultaco - the factory then promptly gave him a new bike) Our Pre65 bikes have been developed beyond all recognition from those available before 1965. Ariels that weigh less than a standard Bultaco/Ossa/Montesa, 230 - 270cc Cubs that can outperform TLR Hondas without breaking sweat, 250 James and Franny Barnetts that make 70s Spanish bikes feel like tractors etc etc. Believe me, if you entered your M10 in the Pre65 class here, the 2010 (sorry, Pre65) Cubs and James and even one or two 500 Ariels would slaughter it.

I have every sympathy with you though in terms of the classes available in which to ride an early Sherpa. In the UK, we only have a twinshock class, the eligibility criteria for which is that it 'must have been a twinshock at original manufacture (everyone knows what a twinshock is and what this means but there are still people who think it is perfectly acceptable to fit 2 shocks to a bloody monoshock and ride in twinshock class - so you aren't the only ones with problems with classes...) The twinshock class therefore covers everything from 1965 to 1985/6 (Montesa 330 being the last production twinshock I think) So if I ride my M49 I am up against TLR Hondas, Fantic 240/300, Armstrongs, SWM Jumbo etc etc. It has no chance, those bikes will destroy it anywhere but particularly so when the sections get tight and technical.

It is a great pity that bikes like the late 60s and early 70s twinshocks don't have their own classes which would encourage more people to drag them out and ride them - which is what they are for, they're not ornaments. We've suggested here Pre77 and Pre72 classes here but nothing yet. Spain have the right idea with class divisions for those years and they are very well supported.

Ultimately, we all ride for the enjoyment of it but the enjoyment is also that of competing and to compete you need rules. The rules need to be adhered to. I don't get the 'we're only out to enjoy ourselves' line as if that was the case we would all be trail riding our bikes, not competing in trials.

I hope you manage to sort the issue out, doesn't seem like it will be easy, but if I owned an M10, I wouldn't be entering in the Pre65 class, it's a twinshock - but it needs a suitable class to provide comparable machinery as competition. Unless you're just riding for fun of course, then you won't mind being at the bottom of the twinshock results sheet as competition is secondary, enjoying just riding the bike is primary....

Just following on from my comments of yesterday, I would like to reprint the text of an email which I received today from an old friend in UK, Charlie Prescott -

I have just been reading the comments on your Trials forum about this Bultaco thing. I have tried to sign up to leave a comment but the site wont let me on . It must have some sense. Anyway what you have said, and you should know better than most, is totally correct.
And don't forget It was me and two mates that put Dan Shoreys Bultaco together as a trials bike, that started this Pre 65 thing. If Sam had took a disliking to the bike he tried in secret in Banbury, he would NOT have signed for Bultaco. Perhaps you could let your guys know of my comments. I cant still believe that the Guy would disbelive what Sam told Woody.

For those who don't know, the background to this is that Dan Shorey was a very good solo and sidecar rider in both trials and road races. Charlie Prescott rode passenger for him. Dan raced a Bultaco prior to 1965 and it was his enthusiasm which allowed Charlie and the boys to build a trials version for Sam to try out.
Is anyone now going to say thay don't believe this?

Chris Leighfield

Hi Geoff.

I notice from the date on this thread that I'm probably a bit late in replying.
I have only just joined this forum as I feel that forums in general waist to much time but when I recently downloaded the Supreg for the Aus title and thought about putting in an entry as it's in my home state. Upon reading them I discovered some extra rules added for the classic's that alarmed me somewhat. The main one that effects me at the moment is the Carby issue as I have a genuine pre 65 Keihin carb off a pre65 honda 90 on my Tiger Cub.It has been there for quite a few years, and now I'm told by the contact person for the titles that it is not allowed because Pommy bikes don't look period with a Jap carby! Also that if I went to ride the Scottish six day it would not be allowed and that I should just spend the money and buy a new Mk1 amal for it. However if I had a Jap bike I could use it, which to me is just nuts. Does that also mean if I a have a Jap bike that I can't use a Pommy carb on it? If I did fit an Amal Mk1 surely by the contacts persons other rationale that all major components must be visualy indistinguishable from the period item that it would not be eligible because the bike didn't come with one from new?
If the Bike has been that ineligable all this time perhapes I should return the Australian Tilte that I won on it and give it to Chris Leighfield, oops he had a Keihin as well.

I have news for all the guy's that want to go with the British rules.
We live in Australia and not Brittian and eversince motorcyles have been competed on in Australia we have modified the crap out of them and used what ever parts from whatever bikes we could lay our hands on weather they be Spannish, Pommy, Eastern European, Italian , Jap or from Mars.
We also never realy cared what they looked like either and our home grown specials were definatly around in 1964. As were the early Spannish bikes, as I believe they were in England as well.

Should the M10 be allowed in? I think so because if the best rider that the world of trials has ever seen hadn't kicked the butt's of all those useless 500 single no one would be kicking up a fuss. As I mentioned in another post I have ridden a nicely restored M49 1968 Bultaco belonging to David Lahey and compared to my Tiger Cub I thought it was an over weight pig on the sections at the Twin shock masters where we both were competing. It is longer in the wheel base making it not as good in the tight stuff and it was around 12 or 15 kgs heavier. I would gladly compete against any M10 bultaco even if it was a 1965 or 66 model and if they beat me it would be the rider and not the bike.
I would gladly supply my bike to an independent expert rider to do a comparision if Alan Phillipson would do the same just to prove my piont.

I know the Pre 65 cut of is a very imotive piont with a lot of in my opion not very rational discussion been going on in this post and probable other. But in all other forms of classic motorcycling in Australia the cutoff pionts are based on a technology brake where in most cases follow on models are allowed in. Meaning that if a model was first manufactured within the period that all the bikes of that model type are allowed in regardless of manufacture date. This also applies to replica parts as well. Which means if you broke your Triumph cylinder barrel and someone in the world makes a replica you can use it . Otherwise to even use an Amal Mk1 that was made in Mexico in 2008 would mean that your bike would be a 2008 model.

That's all for now but lastly I won't be putting an Amal carb on my Triumph anytime soon and if that puts me out of the class and the Aussy Titles it just means that you have lost another competiter from the classics which will probably make some of the guy's happy who want to turn the class into a concorse and not a competion.

Hi Tricub, I must be very careful with what I say here because I have already recieved some very personal, insulting and venomous comments from people over the issues raised by me asking for feedback on Spanish bike elligibility. Please remember I did not compete against Alan at last years titles nor did I call into question his right to enter or ride, I asked a question which had more to do with dates and the rules and what the majority of riders want in future. I don't think a bikes performance or appearance should dictate wether it should be considered elligible or not, only the age of its components. I agree that someone who puts a bike together with the best of elligible components will most likely have a better performing bike than an old Bultaco. I think the sup regs for the Titles in Queensland are a kneejerk reaction to criticism from some quarters and will put many off, however as I understand the rules the Orginizing Committee can add whatever they want to the rules provided that they don't contradict the MOMS. You will have to take that up with them. I use a Keihin carbie and I have Tubeless rims. The carbie because all the cub guys were using them and I thought why not.(The Jikov is a good carbie but lets in a lot of dirt) The tubeless rims because I was told (wrongly) that Michelen and Dunlop weren't making tube type tyres any more. Paul Arnott now has them in stock of course ,after I spent a lot of money. I have come to the conclusion that we perhaps need to add a pre 67/68 (or whatever) Euro class to the Aussie titles which would allow some bikes that are not competitive in Twinshock to have an outing, using the same line as pre 65, after all this would get around elligibility issues for Spanish etc and we should be inclusive in our sport not exclusive. I would gladly ride in this class. Let those who ride decide. This is the last time I will comment on this thread.
Regards Geoff.

Thank you for the reply Geoff.
I do realize that this thread has reached it's end but as I said I only joined the other day after finding out all in the classics is not happy.
It also troubles me that this forum seems to be regarded as the voice of Classic trials. How many of the current or potential riders know that this is the place to voice an opinion? I certainly didn't and I've been riding classics in Queensland for quite a few years now but nobody rang me and asked my opinion on any of the current issues.
There must be others out there that wish to be heard that are not computer junkies.
Perhapes the Trials sub-committies need to talk to all the riders in the class and not just the ones making the loudest noise.
Sorry if I sound a bit put out but after finding out that my bikes current set up is not elligable for the Australian title I am a bit pissed that I didn't get to have any say in potential rule changes.

It beats me how anyone could be happy calling themselves an Australia pre 65 champion unless they beat all of the pre 65 bikes whatever country they come from ? Also would MA really ratify an Australian Championship class that favours some bikes and excludes other even though were all built for the same purpose in the same era ?

I agree with some of the earlier posts - excluding certain makes of bikes will only detract from your numbers.

TriCub wrote:Should the M10 be allowed in? I think so because if the best rider that the world of trials has ever seen hadn't kicked the butt's of all those useless 500 single no one would be kicking up a fuss. As I mentioned in another post I have ridden a nicely restored M49 1968 Bultaco belonging to David Lahey and compared to my Tiger Cub I thought it was an over weight pig on the sections at the Twin shock masters where we both were competing. It is longer in the wheel base making it not as good in the tight stuff and it was around 12 or 15 kgs heavier. I would gladly compete against any M10 bultaco even if it was a 1965 or 66 model and if they beat me it would be the rider and not the bike.

Hey TriCub I had a ride on Alan Phillipson's Sherpa T M10 last weekend and can confirm that the steering and handling is virtually identical to my 1968 M49 (ie just as you described - heavy compared to most twinshocks). The motor characteristics on Alan's M10 were a bit different to my M49 with the M10 being a bit stronger off the very bottom but mine might be a little worn so they may be more similar if mine had a motor as fresh as that M10. Both motors are very slow to respond overall.
Col Phillipson was also riding there and I got to ride his lightweight two-stroke pommy pre-65 bike and it felt like a feather compared with the TY175 I was competing on. Col's motor went like a cut snake (quite responsive) compared with the M10. I would describe the motor as being like a TY175 with a lightened flywheel.
The performance and handling differences between Col's and Alan's bikes was quite startling. It illustrated to me that to exclude a bike of any particular brand or country of origin from competing in pre-65 on the basis of an assumed performance advantage is not valid in 2010 due to the intervening 45 years of technological development allowing people to (legally) set their bikes up in a vastly superior way to what was possible back then.
David

Hi David
Re - lightweight two-stroke pommy pre-65 bike
Please can you confirm that it is legal to cut a couple of inches out of the main frame and weld it up again. The ground clearance is greatly increased and the suspension geometry considerably altered. Should go pretty well!