Aussie Pre65 Titles Debacle Again.

Need help finding information or parts for that old machine in your shed? Someone in here will know!

Moderator: Moderators

gristy
Junior participant
Junior participant
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 8:38 pm
Location: redhead n.s.w

Aussie Pre65 Titles Debacle Again.

Postby gristy » Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:40 pm

Congratulations to Twinshock and Co. and eligibility scrutineer for allowing square barrel Cubs in against their own Supp Regs. These are the people who changed the M.O.M.S again, Spanish not allowed and Amal Carby, yet do not follow their Supp Regs. If people look at British pre65 trials sites their own rules change from club to club. If Queensland got their Supp Regs rules from another British club square barrel are allowed and so are Jap Carby’s on Triumph Cubs. Here are some sites to look at and their rules and follow links to other British pre65 clubs:
http://www.yorksclassictrials.co.uk/
http://www.poacherspre65trials.co.uk/
I tried to make you think about your rules in ‘Square Cub Eligibility’ and in my ‘two bobs worth’ with out making it obvious that you had forgotten about you own Supp Regs.
To our Trials Committee well done for changing rules under these people’s guidance and making pre65 a debacle again. This is what happens when people make rules on the run. So I will say again if we want to follow British pre65 that means no CZ, Honda etc. British only. The Trials Committee have 2 choices about pre65:
1. Have a fair dinkum meeting with all or most pre65 riders.
2. Get rid of pre65 because of all the hassles and nobody wants to sort it out properly.
I’ve left my ideas on rules on ‘my two bobs worth’ and I do have a few more as well as, well done Queensland you cut your own nose off to spite your own face to get rid of the dreaded Spanish.
This will probably be my last post on pre65 much to the relief of a few people. This mess has that I know of has cost pre65 five new riders and four riders that have competed before in pre65. Next year if I do go to the Aussie’s I will probably enter in Twinshock even if that kills off pre65 without enough numbers, unless this mess is cleared up. Oh that’s right, I cannot compete in pre65 with a pre65 design KIEHIN Carby, I must have a post 65 design AMAL.

Gristy,
P.S Geoff Lewis hopefully I will see you in TAS in March if we have enough in pre65 you will have to call it ‘The other pre65 class.’



Twinshock
B grade participant
B grade participant
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:14 pm

Re: Aussie Pre65 Titles Debacle Again.

Postby Twinshock » Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:10 am

Just to put the record straight Gristy, I had nothing to do with the supp regs for the Aus titles as you suggest, I am just the rider of a Tiger Cub which has a square barrel on it which was subsequently proved to be eligible for that bike in Classic class as I knew it would be.
The changes to the MOMs to exclude Spanish bikes was generated by a number of people, although I fully support the change.
You are correct in what you say about different Pommie clubs/centres having different eligibility rules, I was over there twice last year and I know many guys have two carby's in their array of spares and they use whichever set up is legal for the event they are going to ride.

Lastly, changing from a Keihin to a Mk1 Concentric has made no difference to the way my Cub goes and it ran perfectly for the two days of the titles which were extremely tough on the Classic bikes especially the first day and I would be glad to offer any assistance to anyone who is concerned about the change.

I have a Keihin carby for sale if anyone is interested =D> :D :twisted:
Twinshock



User avatar
A.Phillipson
C grade participant
C grade participant
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:33 pm
Bike: Bultaco
Club: DMCC

Re: Aussie Pre65 Titles Debacle Again.

Postby A.Phillipson » Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:49 pm

Hey gristy

I totally agree with your comments.
How can a club change its rules to suit what they want? The sub regs state that no square barrel cubs can compete, yet they were there. If a club changes rules like that to suit themselves there is a serious problem.
I know that my bike has been banned and I can live with that, but when there’s this much inconsistency from the event organisers of an Australian national event, its pathetic. If it were a club event it wouldn’t matter but it’s the Australian Championship.

The worst part I see with it is, the square barrels were made for the French army in 1964,not the general public, unless the French army were the general public. The funny part with this is that the M10 is in the same situation and its been banned along with all its brothers and sisters, yet you can allow the barrel which we all know falls outside the cut off date. I wasn’t riding but know there was 2 square finned barrels competing. On the logic that’s been placed to me, these bikes should be banned also.

If we want to make classic fair bring in the correct rules,not ones that suit the organisers of the event. Maybe its my turn to say that those bike were accepted as a favour from the organisers know this was motioned against me.

To make classic fair we really need to sort this out and have everyone who compete involved. Until then this class with continue to decline.
Personally I think with classic, the bikes should be a certain percentage original say 80%-90%,this would rule out any unfair modifications. The component that can be changed for safety bars,footpegs,tire etc should be listed so than we have to conform our bikes to that list, Not do what we want, then when questioned get all defensive and waffle on with all this crap about it being available in the small town in England no ones heard of.
We now can build a Scott that would out ride any of the twin shock bikes, how would this be fair against the old classics?

We really need to do something about this grade before MA are sick of all this crap and scrap it. I personally don’t think excluding bike origins will be fair,because there are so many bikes out there that we all would like to see compete. The part that was most unfair with this was no Spanish, the rules were changed to keep one bike out, if it was changed to British only there would be more bikes excluded.

I’m going to use the mighty CZ as an example. That bike is so far out of context that its not funny. I know current rules say it can compete but honestly its so far from what the bike should look like. You shouldn’t be able to run Gas Gas or Sherco rims, should have to run the original. Heavily modified frames shouldn’t be allowed either. I feel this way because when I did up M10 up I made it as it came, I m running the original wiring etc, that’s why im so pissed off on this matter, my bike misses out by 2 weeks on the production argument, yet it was one of the most original bikes there. This year the CZ that isn’t anywhere near original was allowed to compete. Theres also bike that fall out of the cut off date but, are accepted because there production stayed the same for that model. On that alone my bike should still be accepted.

That what I’m suggesting we make eligibility based on originality not who has the most coin.

Maybe we need a classic committee to talk about and get these issues under control.



User avatar
Don Duck
C grade participant
C grade participant
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 6:19 pm
Bike: Fantic 240
Club: MTCQ
Location: Jimboomba QLD

Re: Aussie Pre65 Titles Debacle Again.

Postby Don Duck » Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:59 pm

gristy wrote:Congratulations to Twinshock and Co. and eligibility scrutineer for allowing square barrel Cubs in against their own Supp Regs. These are the people who changed the M.O.M.S again, Spanish not allowed and Amal Carby, yet do not follow their Supp Regs.



Ok Guys, now that the event is over I’m in a position to make comment.
So I would like to bring a few points to order. (Or in bike riders terms….The Facts)

1, No one went “against” the Supp Regs.

2, If any one took the time to actually read the supp reggs, you will see that clause 9.7 refers to GUIDENCE and GUIDELINES……NOT RULES!

3, An (independent) Eligibility Scrutineer was appointed, who could be contacted by making a couple of calls, so that if any person had any concerns about their ride in relation to the GUIDELINES, a determination could be made.

4, Some prudent riders took advantage of this service, and in the case of the Square barrels on Triumph Tiger Cubs, it was determined in their favour.

5, In addition to this, albeit unnecessary, due to the above.
A late amendment was made to the supp regs, to remove the word ‘Triumph” from clause 9.7 GUIDELINES Engine /Gearbox . This was done by the book, and signed off by the Clark of Course and the Steward, and clearly announced at riders briefing by the CofC.
This was done purely to clear the air. (primarily out of the heads of some that never planned to ride anyway)
So once again, nothing was done “against” the supp regs.

6, For the record. The GUIDELINES (there’s that word again) were lifted not just from any UK club, but from the Edinburgh & District Motor Club’s “2010 pre’65 Scottish Two Day Trial.”
This event I believe is every Australian Pre’65 riders “Mecca” or “Holy Grail”, most of which would probably sell their wife just to ride there! Therefore arguably relevant to Australia.

7, And again for the record, this was all done with the intention of getting back to a fair playing field for all, and to help reduce the risk of any protests, by nipping it in the bud in advance.
The result; 10 classics entered, all considered to be 100% Pre “65.
Can that be said for last year?

Now for my Two Cents:
Its is abundantly clear that with all passionate and vocal bloggers on this forum, there is a desperate need for a MA Trials Eligibility Committee. Just as there is in all other disciplines, you VMX boys know how strict they are. (now there’s some hot carby discussions!)
Especially with the impending addition of the new “Air Cooled” class, and the need to determine the rules that may apply to it.

So I see this as a perfect opportunity for all these passionate and vocal riders with interest in these classes, to raise up their hand as an “Expression of Interest” to be part of this Committee.................
Or Shut the HELL UP!

Now its been a very very long week, with more to go, I've done most of my paperwork and I need some sleep, so I’m off to bed!

Yours sincerely,
Don Rolands
Race Secretary
2010 Sherco Motorcycles
Australian Moto-Trials championship

PS: Can’t wait for the “Pre 2010 Class”: Do we allow reverse cylinders or exclude Ossa’s?


Ground Clearence......The Twinshock Riders Best Friend

Twinshock
B grade participant
B grade participant
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:14 pm

Re: Aussie Pre65 Titles Debacle Again.

Postby Twinshock » Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:39 am

Well said Don.
Now hopefully guys who have a passion for PRE 65 trials bikes will get together rather than arguing and making fools of themselves, after all, we are on the same side ,,,,, surely.???
I would put my hand up to be part of any committee.
Cheers
Twinshock (Rog)



User avatar
A.Phillipson
C grade participant
C grade participant
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:33 pm
Bike: Bultaco
Club: DMCC

Re: Aussie Pre65 Titles Debacle Again.

Postby A.Phillipson » Tue Aug 24, 2010 6:50 pm

if they were guidlines and written on the sub regs, why wasnt the changes to allow square barrels documented and the sub regs ammended before the event,not at the riders briefing?

every one riding the event should have recieved an email or hard copy about the amendment to see if they could ride.people would have read it initially and said "im out,not going". if they knew they could have made it.

the whole organising of this event was a bit suspect.

if a committee if formed all classic riders need to have a say whos in the committee.



TriCub
Expert participant
Expert participant
Posts: 273
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 11:38 am
Bike: Triumph
Club: Wester districs trials club

Re: Aussie Pre65 Titles Debacle Again.

Postby TriCub » Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:30 pm

Don, I would like to congragulate you and the committee for getting through the trial. I don't think that the pre 65 was a Debacle although by the look of the scores the sections were way to hard. I think that the way the Pre 65 was handled was far worse than a debacle more like a (can't think of kleen enough word to put here)

A couple fo questions.

You say that the Regs clause 9.7 was only Guidlines. But why was I told by Robert that my bike was not eligable for the event because I had Keihin carb on my Tiger cub? Also after talking to the Eligability man this was backed up by him quoting the rules he had been given which stated that on Spanish bike and only English carbs on English bikes.

I thought Mt Tamborine was still a part of Australia, so why would we adopte the bloody Sckottish rules for an Australian title? How many other classes had to ignore the 2010 MOM's and use some other countries rules? But then you tell us that they were only guidelines!!!!!!!!!!! So why the #### were people told that these were the rules for the event? Also why was Mike Riley mislead into thinking that the proposed rule changes for 2011 were in fact already in force?

I'd better stop there as the more I write the more pissed off I'm getting.



TriCub
Expert participant
Expert participant
Posts: 273
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 11:38 am
Bike: Triumph
Club: Wester districs trials club

Re: Aussie Pre65 Titles Debacle Again.

Postby TriCub » Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:22 pm

Don.
You mentioned Vintage MX.
I'm quite up to speed on that subject as I have Australian and Qld tiles in that area as well as Classic Trials. I'm also activally involved in working on quite a few machine in that class.
There are lots of rules and sub clause in the rule book for VMX but at least you know that when you go to a title event that the organizers are going to adhere to the book and not make up their own rules that contradict the MOM's like the Qld Trials sub Committee did.



Steve Holzhauser
B grade participant
B grade participant
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 8:48 pm
Location: Casino .

Re: Aussie Pre65 Titles Debacle Again.

Postby Steve Holzhauser » Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:51 pm

I have no doubt after reading all the responses from Geoff's initial post way back concerning this pre 65 class this has been a sad tale to date with no winners.

Most comments that have been put forward by what seem to be the open minded contributors are immediately given a negative slant if they are contrary to a British machines only pre 65's.

Even in this thread by wanting only "guys who have a passion for pre 65 Trials bikes." is being a little bit to possessive I feel to encourage open debate.

A few things that I would like to point out that come to mind from this and other related threads.

Trials was a popular motorcycling discipline in many other countries beside England and involved way more brands of machines beside British.

This pre 65 class should be exactly that.

We are AUSTRALIA let pre 65 mean any make of bike that is pre 65.

This line of thought in excluding is really not what should be happening to our Classic machines.

The persistence in pursuing last years winning machine and rider, and the way in which restrictions in the sub regs of this years Australian title event were quite ambiguous with an aim to eliminate certain types of machinery and components without submitting to MA these proposed changes for adjudication seemed premature to me.

I also feel there are no grounds what so ever Allan's title should be stripped, and I am very disappointed at the suggestion. The inference that MA should consider this action for a machine that was presented to scrutineering with forward notice from the owner and subsequently passed for competition, be now excluded is nonsense.

The officials of last years meeting, Trevor Bennett and Bob McGlinchy are two of Australia's most experienced men that have been actively involved on both sides of our Australian Trials scene.They are still active participating riders and have made the effort to be accredited for the mostly thankless task of officiating at our Trialing events. In accordance with the rules of the day they saw fit to allow Allan's machine to compete because it was within MA guidelines outlined in the MOMs they are guided by.


There are now so many existing bikes that have been tainted by the debate and drags into question some other Australian Classic Title winning machines eligibility. An abandonment of the sport by existing classic riders and the incentive for any new bikes from coming forward if a whole list of prohibited components is allowed to be added to our Rules or guidelines. Already this has had a negative effect on some riders who should have been in this years Classic's starting line up.

How about others no matter what type machine you ride, contribute by making some fruitful suggestions like Gristy, Allan, George and many others that are just as passionate about a fair out come that can help promote and grow this specialised side of our sport.



shaunb
C grade participant
C grade participant
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: Gold Coast

Re: Aussie Pre65 Titles Debacle Again.

Postby shaunb » Wed Aug 25, 2010 10:24 am

As an absolute newby in the sport can I say that I went along to the Aussie Titles only to watch the twinshock and classic bikes (or whatever the classes are called).

The sections did appear to be pretty hard although I understand some had been eased off on the Sunday I was there. At the end of the day though it was the Australian Championships so it should have been appropriately challenging although I have no idea what the section difficulty has been like in past years.

On all the sections I got to see, the riders of the older bikes whether TY's /TLR's or Triumphs, CZ's etc got the biggest claps, it was simply a top day out if you were into these older bikes.

I hope someone can answer one query for me though. There was what I thought was a triumph there on Sunday (Cub?) that had a white tank but the tank looked like it was off a TLR Honda? I dont know the rules for the Classic class but thought that was a bit odd, are fuel tanks free or would this have been considered OK under the guidelines for the comp? It was a great looking bike, I am just interested in what the go is on that aspect.

Cheers

Shaun B




Return to “Twinshock & Classic Trials”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 16 guests