budget bikes?

[husky61]

Hey Mark

I think it has something to do with trophy hunting , the less predators on the plains the easier it is to catch the game.

[LWC82PE]

Its just that i think that bikes/engines should be from the period of class they are in not later, but if the rule book allow them then fair enough then.

[firko]

where can I find out about the the Metisse Mk3 and the difference between the Mk3A, is there a reference on line ,or in print some where?

Give the Rickmans a ring. Pat French himself told Alan when he was building his ESO frame that the first unit Triumph jig wasn't made until 1965. Prior to that they used the larger pre unit Mkk3 frame for unit applications. Pat thought it funny that the single downtube Cheney critics had conveniently overlooked the fact. There are a number of detail differences between the MK3 and MK3A. I'm not a Metisse expert by any stretch but I can see the difference once they're pointed out to me. Give Jonesy a ring, he'll fill you in.

 But don't get all sooky on us and pull the plug on the class Michael. The Mk3a is quite legal as it should be. I was merely making a point that you seem to have blinkers on in regard to the points I've raised. I've asked your opinion on the Matchy at least 6 times and you conveniently sidestep the question yet again. And what about your fellow racers dodgy Bultaco hubs? I'll be at the Nationals doing some announcing so going on your previous actions regarding your fellow racers, I'd expect you to take some afirmative action. If not, you're letting the boys at Pre 65 Central down.

[maicomc490t]

Here's an idea and may I be struck down for suggesting it.

Instead of per 65 and pre 70 classes which are both not overly well patronised these days why not just create a pre 70 class and forget the Dec 31 64 cut off. This would create an expanded class and would perhaps create races not just parade laps. Buggered if I know as I am one of the unwashed looking from the outside in

Then the pedants only have to focus on ONE cut off date and the fair dinkum guys can get on with it

Dave Mac 

[firko]

DAVE...I see where you're coming from but the differences between the pre 65 class and the pre 70 class are many and varied. The pre 65 class is a showcase for the last bastion of the old British thumper and the birth of the purpose built motocross bike (Metisse, Cheney etc.) while the pre 70 class is closer in concept to the pre 75 class as far as the bikes involved. I personally think the pre 68 4 stroke class is a more attractive option as it celebrates the sound and fury of the thumpers and allows a broader scope of bike selection. The purists at Pre 65 Central don't agree however.

[big mac]

The whole point of the vmx movement was to preserve the bikes and feel of scrambling from the time of the twins to the long travel bikes of the late 70's early 80's. any thing after that is just C grade moto cross. I am lucky enough to have built a metisse but not one part would have been manufactured before December 1964 the frame is repo engine is a t100r wheels, triumph conicals,  forks ceriani's 70's my point is the bike look's pre 65 sounds pre 65 & is fun. I thought the legality of a bike was judged after a protest so if the bike is not pucker it is out end of problem. Next point the class has to be fun for the also rans if it is not then the class will die I hope there will be the numbers to make up a championship class at the Nats  as the course looks to be a bit tough for fat bastard's like me. Michael let me just point out that the 500cc class was always the premier class not the 750's. Now it is back to the barons black wattle followed by a cascade first harvest.

[VMX247]

big mac reading your post ,I think that the Nats in the pre 65 class will be very competitive class and it's about preserving it........Can't wait 
I also believe this class will be supported in the future(while I'm around). 
I can't wait for the Nats to see what is out there and I believe there is still a strong movement for the pre 65 in Australia -we just have to keep knockin at MA's door. 
Keep posting
 yours in preserving fat bastards-(your words) Alison 

[firko]

This '59 Greeves 250 might be a pretty good thing for the pre '65 class. It's for sale in a package deal with a rare and trick Bolger OSSA Mar trials bike basket case for around 4kUS (delivered to Long Beach) for both bikes. The Greeves itself is a bit trick, it has an aftermarket Marcelle barrel and head and a weird pipe made by some California Greeves guru, possibly Nick Nicholson, back in the day. It also appears to have either an REH or Rickman rear hub and what looks like a Honda front wheel. PM me if interested.

[Marc.com]

i did some checking on T100's

T100R - 70-73
T100C - 70-71
T100T - 66-70
T100A - 59-61
T100SS-61-70
TR5T - 72-73

so if your motor is stamped T100R then i dont think it should be pre 65 legal

are you sure about those manufacturing dates, Triumph is a little trickier than you think and you need the serial number of the engine.

I have T100C and it is 57 model

[LWC82PE]

is yours a unit or pre unit motor? im pretty sure first T100 unit model was 59. i wll do some more checking if you like. im pretty sure i got engine numbers for most triumphs.

[clutchslip]

In the pre-unit period T100 was the 'super high performance' version of the regular 'speed twin' 500. The first of the unit 500s appeared in '59, as the (unit) 5TA Speed Twin was introduced to replace the original pre-unit speed twin. A year later, in 1960, the Tiger version or T100 appeared in unit form, as the T100A. Other than the unit T100c models, Im only aware of the T100C existing as a PRE-UNIT bike for a single year, in 1953, as the road race model. 1957's TR5 Trophy (gorgeous bike) was the off-road effort. As Marc intimated though, the model designation is included in the engine number, and this should be pretty good proof of what was made at the time. There are lots of mistakes in the literature written years after the event. None of this is really helped by Triumph's use of 'Tiger', 'Trophy', the 'C' designation and of course, 'Daytona' for a confusing selection of diverse bikes which all really shared the same fundamentals, barring of course, the pre-unit to unit switch. The first of the unit 500 'T100C' models was actually made in '66, essentially the same 'off-road' or competition bike having previously been called the TR5AC ('61), TR5AR / TR5SC ('62), and T100SC ('63/64/65). The T100R Daytona (twin carb) first appeared a year later in '67.

Getting back to the subject of the thread itself, and considering Firko's post above and the rules allowing a pretty diverse range of Unit Triumph engines, an obvious candidate has to be a Unit 500 powered Greeves frame. Although the one-make Greeves mx championship is pushing prices of these bikes and parts a little higher in the UK, frames are regularly available and provide an interesting alternative to either the standard and rather weak early Triumph unit frames or the more exotic hand-made alternatives.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Greeves-Hawkstone-frame_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trkparmsZ65Q3a12Q7c66Q3a2Q7c39Q3a1Q7c72Q3a1683Q7c240Q3a1318Q7c301Q3a1Q7c293Q3a1Q7c294Q3a50QQ_trksidZp3286Q2ec0Q2em14QQhashZitem3ca2e06c33QQitemZ260430654515QQptZUKQ5fMotorcycleQ5fPartsQQsalenotsupported

Here's a passable completed example:
http://rides.webshots.com/photo/2229798750028267445KekIDT

Another even more attractive choice might be a (eg YDS2/3?!) Japanese engined Greeves special..by no means an insurmountable swap, and neatly side-stepping all that costly 4 stroke gubbins.

[firko]

Frank Stanborough of Manx Metisse fame is currently building an extremely well thought out NSU Sportmax powered Greeves that is destined to be a serious pre 65 racer. The unique engineering big Frank has put into the bike is amazing.

Thanks for the Triumph 500 unit info Clutchy. I had two engines for my Metisse, a '59 T100C and a '70 T100R bottom end and they were virtually identical, in fact we swapped and changed bits to make the race engine based on the early cases. That's why Leiths "keep the engines pre 65" stance annoyed me a little as by calling to disallow identical later engines and to restrict engines to purely pre 65 manufacture and we'd be making it even harder to find suitable equipment than we do now.

[Marc.com]

In the pre-unit period T100 was the 'super high performance' version of the regular 'speed twin' 500

Yep you need the engine number, I am building T100C pre unit motor at the moment, it is alloy barrel engine.
Triumph says C denotes high compression version.....

Regarding Rickman frames in principle unit frame should not be eligible for pre 65 as was mentioned earlier
they were not produced until post 65. Should be pre unit Mk3 or Mk 3 A with correct unit motor.
So also any kits that use repo unit frame are not really eligible.

[firko]

Should be pre unit Mk3 or Mk 3 A with correct unit motor.

In actual fact Marc only the Mk3 should be eligible for pre 65 as the Mk3A wasn't produced until 1965. The same criteria that disallows B44 BSAs and single downtube Cheneys allows 1966 Matchless's and Rickman frames that were first produced after 1965. It should be all in (my choice if given a vote) or all out, not omitting certain bikes and allowing others with no rhyme or reason.

 I'll repeat my oft repeated mantra that if certain people didn't own BSA B44s and single tube Cheneys, both would be deemed eligible for pre 65 here in Australia. Some pretty ordinary political skulduggery went down a few years ago just to satisfy certain egos and grievences. No names, no packdrill but it's time to mend the damage done .

[Marc.com]

In actual fact Marc only the Mk3 should be eligible for pre 65 as the Mk3A wasn't produced until 1965.

Mk3A could be considered follow on model. As I have mentioned earlier my only concern with the B44 is how it could dominate the class given . Looking at the current UK season result and last season quite clearly Cheney B44s (albeit 500cc 3 speed running on methanol) are very competitive, but there were also some twins in the top ten.