Author Topic: class A bike or not?  (Read 1874 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jason Potts

  • Club Members
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 321
class A bike or not?
« on: December 11, 2018, 09:54:00 pm »
Theres a guy down the road from me selling a Yamaha DT1. It's an August 1970 bike so is this class A compatible or not. Bearing in mind this model bike came out pre 1970 and I think someone is already running one in class A.

Cheers Jason

Offline Paul K

  • Club Members
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 362
  • Paul Khambatta
Re: class A bike or not?
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2018, 08:19:13 am »
The whole matter of machine eligibility could be debated for many an hour. Again IMHO the culture of the MCC should be 'run what ya brung'.
The subject of class A and bike classes in general was discussed in another thread at http://www.themotorcyclingclub.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=75.0

Simplification is the easiest way to go.  After all, how can an entry taker or scrutineer tell if a class A bike was manufactured before 1.1.1970. 

If competitors are all supposed to be competing against the Club as is usually heard, then there should be no classes, but competitors know they're also competing against each other for the class award.

Offline Paul Wheatley (Wheaters)

  • Club Members
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: class A bike or not?
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2018, 10:59:24 am »
Quote
After all, how can an entry taker or scrutineer tell if a class A bike was manufactured before 1.1.1970.

I've mentioned this bike before but my FB AJS 250 Stormer unfortunately has a 1977 registration plate - that would be a bit of a giveaway at scrutineering.

I believe that a few years ago when I first joined the MCC it would have been allowed in Class A as it's obviously a British bike and definitely unmodified from when came from the factory, but strictly under today's rules, not now.
Cheers, PW.

Offline Paul Wheatley (Wheaters)

  • Club Members
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: class A bike or not?
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2018, 08:26:25 pm »
Ian, my point is that if I retain the "S" suffix registration plate that my Stormer was issued with, most scrutineers would see it as a 1977 bike, which it is. I certainly couldn't prove otherwise because AJS know the bike well (I visited them and was introduced to the chap who actually built it) and they know for certain it that it dates precisely to that year - because it was built as a one-off to celebrate HM Queen Elizabeth's Silver Jubilee. It was displayed on their Avon Dirt Bike show stand that year, from where the original owner bought it. I have a photo of it that AJS took of it at the time.

I could of course put a non suffix private plate on it, for the purpose of befuddling the MCC, but that isn't something I would do.

I understand that Nick Brown (Fluff Brown's son) could still build a new Stormer from old stock spares they still hold - for the right money but no doubt it would be very difficult, if not impossible to make it road legal today. If if were possible, would the MCC see it as a 2018 bike?

As I wrote before on a previous thread on this topic, I find it strange that I could still enter my 2004 Royal Enfield 350 Bullet in Class A, but not a 41 year old, 250 cc  British bike.
Cheers, PW.

Offline Jason Potts

  • Club Members
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 321
Re: class A bike or not?
« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2018, 09:12:33 pm »
Further to this point I am building an Ariel VB600. Engine is a 1953 sidevalve and the frame is a 1954 frame. A previous owner restored it and put it back on the road in 1978 and as he was reaplying for a reg document DVLA gave it a 1978 reg number. Guess this won't be class A compliant either then. :(

Offline rick howell

  • Club Members
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
Re: class A bike or not?
« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2018, 10:50:29 pm »
I see no problem with the Ariel. Clearly it has been manufactured prior to 1/1/70 despite the number plate which, as has been pointed out, can bear no relation to the age of the machine.

Further - in the same way that Class 2 cars - ostensibly "cars originally manufactured prior to 1941" - include Fords and the like built up to 1959 - as they are basically a pre-'41 design, so I feel that both the Yam and AJS mentioned are essentially pre 1/1/70 in design even though they may have been manufactured and assembled after that date. I rode a BSA Bantam - H reg - in class A before and after the class A ruling changed as it would have been clearly daft to consider that a 14hp 175 Bantam should suddenly be condemned to class B and compete on equal terms with, say, a 32hp WR250 or similar.

I think a fair bit of common needs to be applied, and I cannot see a Scrutineer denying you a ride with a machine that could reasonably have been built in Dec 1969 and spent 3 months in the hold of a ship before resting in a warehouse somewhere and then sat in the dealer's window for a couple of months.

Offline Paul Wheatley (Wheaters)

  • Club Members
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: class A bike or not?
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2018, 03:47:27 pm »
How would a scrutineer know, though? I'd have thought their job was difficult enough without arguing the toss about this subject. Has anyone ever been "ticketed" in this respect?

Should the owner of a bike of "uncertain age and heritage" be able to get some form of advance class approval from the club - or would it be necessary to argue the toss after the close of the event if eligibility was queried during scrutineering? Even then, is a club rep going to come out and inspect a bike afterwards?

Cheers, PW.

Offline Stephen Bailey

  • Club Members
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 385
  • AKA: Ratty.
Re: class A bike or not?
« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2018, 05:37:16 pm »
According to my Regulations: Class A Says: Manufactured Before 1.1.1970.

It does not matter about Registration date. (tho the Law says you cannot make a vehicle appear younger by having a later registration).

Previously the Regulations were Class A. British Engine and Frame with no date.... Hence possibly some confusion.

Offline Paul K

  • Club Members
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 362
  • Paul Khambatta
Re: class A bike or not?
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2018, 10:40:42 am »
The SSRs (https://www.themotorcyclingclub.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2019_SSRs.pdf) state:'Class A. Single or Multi Cylinder Solo Motorcycles manufactured before 1.1.1970, (Engine and Frame) and Enfield Bullets manufactured in India.'
This rule may have been correct for the conditions at that time, but conditions change and so can the rules if there is a suitable reason.  With the mix of component parts possible on a bike, the parts could come from years before and after 1970.  Does anyone know why this rule was first introduced?

Offline Stephen Bailey

  • Club Members
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 385
  • AKA: Ratty.
Re: class A bike or not?
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2018, 01:51:28 pm »
The SSRs (https://www.themotorcyclingclub.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2019_SSRs.pdf) state:'Class A. Single or Multi Cylinder Solo Motorcycles manufactured before 1.1.1970, (Engine and Frame) and Enfield Bullets manufactured in India.'
This rule may have been correct for the conditions at that time, but conditions change and so can the rules if there is a suitable reason.  With the mix of component parts possible on a bike, the parts could come from years before and after 1970.  Does anyone know why this rule was first introduced?

Well.... Class A For Motorcycles used to be British Motorcycles. (Engine and Frame). (Generally accepted to mean Pre 1965). Also this included British Machines of a type that were manufactured after 1965 as long as that that machine type was manufactured before 1965. i.e. BSA B25's. Then of course as these started to fade out of competition the later rule of pre 1970 was introduced to include the older and generally heaver non British machines so they did not have to compete in the same class as modern Trail bikes.

The lines are now well blurred as many older bikes are now fitted with many "Trick" components that were not invisaged by the organisers.

Even with these classes there are still some route exemptions possible.... I.e. Not using the main route for a certain Girder Rigid Airel on a fairly recient Exeter. As Wooston Steep was considered too demanding for such a machine.

Whilst were at it: There used to be a 2 Non Counting Foot exemption "f" for Machines on road tyres. And a 2 Hill Fail exemption for a gold for sidecar outfits...  :)



Offline Stephen Bailey

  • Club Members
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 385
  • AKA: Ratty.
Re: class A bike or not?
« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2018, 03:33:11 pm »
IMHO, provided it's more or less the same as a pre-1970 model, then it's eligible for class A.

I figure that is the generally applied principle and logic behind that regulation.  :)

Offline Mark Gregg

  • Club Members
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
Re: class A bike or not?
« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2018, 04:48:44 pm »
stephen quotes possibly my favorite motorcycle regs

''there used to be a 2 Non Counting Foot exemption "f" for Machines on road tyres.'' i believe there is a competition for machines on road tyres how-ever bikes complying very rarely compete.. heres a prestigous trophy potentially up for grabs..   i think that riders are allowed to foot twice per section??


Offline Jason Potts

  • Club Members
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 321
Re: class A bike or not?
« Reply #12 on: December 14, 2018, 07:18:08 pm »
My very first LDT was on a standard CZ125 with road tyres. 2017 Exeter. I was treated exactly the same as every other competitor largely because the Marshall's are looking for feet down and don't know you have special dispensation because they haven't been told or are just unaware of what tyres you have. To be fair I've never been that competitive and I was elated just to have finished on that bike. It was very hard work and I thoroughly enjoyed the whole event. Met lots of new friends one of whom I consider a great friend Rick Howell.

I don't know how, unless you told each Marshall in advance  you are on road tyres, they would ever know. And even then if you we're footing up the lane it would be up to interpretation of how many dabs you took. Sounds like hard work for the Marshall's to me.


Offline Stephen Bailey

  • Club Members
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 385
  • AKA: Ratty.
Re: class A bike or not?
« Reply #13 on: December 14, 2018, 09:36:37 pm »
As far as I am aware... The regulation meant that you could foot as many times as you wanted to on two sections and they would be non counting. So the F or f would be worked out fairly easily at the results stage. Observers merely see and record an F if you footed once or a dozen times on that part of the section they are observing. This would be turned into an f if footed on one or two sections then a "counting" F if footed on a third section. So no-one is actually counting the number of foots whilst you are on the hill...


Totally different of course in a half day Trial where 1,2 or 3 or more foots are recorded as an actual score against you.

 :)
 

Offline Stephen Bailey

  • Club Members
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 385
  • AKA: Ratty.
Re: class A bike or not?
« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2018, 09:48:26 pm »
Of course if everyone in that Class Foots..... Then the Hill is deemed clear for that class and you are recorded a non counting foot "f". So then still have two more non counting f's in reserve.....

Note: a F or f is recorded as a foot not a Fail. That why "S" for stopped is recorded. No-one actually "Fails" a hill...Ö    :)