Don't want these Ads? Why not sign up as a Trials Central Supporter.

jc2

Members
  • Content count

    148
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

2 Followers

About jc2

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday

Previous Fields

  • Bike
    KT, TY175, Bultacos

Profile Information

  • Location
    Toowoomba, Queensland
  • Gender
    Male
  1. Thanks for the info Tony. I'll be interested to hear how engine performance compares to one with standard Yam reeds
  2. I checked my M26 Matador engine and pipe. The pipe does clear the head with no cut fins
  3. Try the Matador Mk3 (M26) and/or Mk4 (M75 - not the M82 SD model)) pipe. You may find it fits the M27 engine. (I'll look at mine tomorrow if I remember)
  4. Very good advice about the position of the kickstarter. I can't remember now whether it's the 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock position for the kickstarter they say not to exceed. From memory its at the bottom of the stroke where the stop tab punctures the case if you have it too far forward. Nice bike by they way.
  5. Yeh, I wondered something like that too. For what it's worth, I've had a go at summarizing the changes that I've gleaned over the years: Alpina changes M85 – near identical to M80 Sherpa, but with Matador gear ratios, longer seat & larger tank. One-piece tank/seat unit. Airbox under seat a la Sherpa. Full width 125mm dia front hub , mud-catcher alloy rims, round barrel & head, bolt-on footpegs, 2-piece header & midbox, triangular rear muffler. Single gusset at steering head (on centreline of tubes). Tapered fork-tubes (at top triple clamp). Alloy top triple, steel bottom, with built-in angular offset (a la Sherpa). Some had high-mounted front guard (early?), some low-mounted (late?). Late ones had recessed swingarm pivot (like early M91/2 Sherpa) & weld-on footpegs & the swingarm was slightly diff to match the recessed pivot. Not sure if they used the longer Pursang footpegs or shorter Sherpa pegs. M99 – 325 version with square barrel & head, 60mm stroke. M115/116 – extra frame tubes above swingarm pivot (like late M91/92 Sherpa). Frame seemed lighter, perhaps thinner gauge but still mild steel. Top shock mount moved rear-ward (on bracket behind the rear frame tube). New tank-seat unit. Airbox on right side (somewhat like M107 SD Matador) under removable cover. Angled/offset inlet manifold. Conical 140mm front brake, chrome-lined. Stepped gusset at swingarm pivot a la late M91/2 Sherpa. Pursang alloy triples & non-tapered fork-tubes to suit. No angular offset in triples (which is why these & later Alpina’s steer so differently to Sherpa’s) with 20mm less overall offset. Shorter wheelbase. Shoulder-less alloy rims. Dual gusset (folded over) at steering head. New longer seat; slightly new colour scheme. On these models the rear central-downtube was recessed for the swingarm pivot (like the equivalent model Sherpa) which I believe enabled the engine to be mounted about 15mm further back. I’m lead to believe the fork-tubes are longer than Sherpa ones too but not sure when this occurred. 350 engine had 64mm stroke, bigger crank (wider and larger dia), different crankcases to suit & diff stud spacing from earlier 325 engine (if I recall correctly). M137/138 – much lighter Cro-mo frame, said to be 8 lbs lighter; very thin gauge which fractured everywhere, despite extra gussets/tubes under the airbox. Left side shifter, right side brake, Mk8 pursing rear hub (chrome-lined), one-piece header/mid-box, boomerang/clubfoot rear silencer, sidestand attached to swingarm (instead of frame), new swingarm (20mm longer?) with what appears to be lugs for passenger pegs. Longer wheelbase, more ground clearance. New clutch cover. My 137 engine has square barrel & head & duplex primary drive. Later models (165/6, 187/8 & 212/3) had completely different frames, swingarms, tanks, shocks etc to the earlier Alpina’s, with rear engine mount bracket hung from swingarm pivot. These are similar frames to the 158/9 Sherpa’s and very different bikes to the early Alpina’s. Forks, triples & wheels look to be about the only things in common with earlier Alpina’s. They were said to have gone back closer to the Sherpa, but maintained the Pursang triples & Matador/Frontera gear ratios. M165 & 187 250 models appear to have the shorter 158 style Sherpa frame, with wheelbase specified as 50”, whereas 166, 188, & 212/213 models have the longer 159 style frame, with wheelbase specified as 51.6”. Bultaco brains trust, feel free to correct it where required
  6. You may find progressive springs for the 34mm TY250 forks may fit and improve things
  7. According to one of the Sherpa books I have, apart from the tank, it also got alloy (mud-catcher) rims, a longer bash-plate, steering stops, larger reinforcement gusset at the steering head, & relocation of the VIN to the right side of the steering head (from left side above the swingarm pivot). It doesn't indicate when, and I don't know how accurate the info is.
  8. Its only a minor difference so you'd think yours would be legitimately P65 eligible.
  9. Nice bike Click on this link: http://s1085.photobucket.com/user/trialrider/library/?sort=3&page=1 Is that your model? Except for the rear loop it looks like it to me. The copy of the dated magazine ad shown there (from when they were available back in the day) is Nov 18 1964 . Does that make yours a '64 model??
  10. Charlie, the bikes you're talking about were built in-house at Hodaka R&D. (The Hodaka R&D guys were keen on trials). The 1st one used a Saracen frame with a special Hodaka engine, said to be about 175cc, with a Cotton tank.That frame was single front downtube as per Saracen. (If I recall correctly the parent company of Hodaka also imported/distributed Saracens) Curt Alexander in Hodaka R&D then made 6 frames based on that modified Saracen frame of the prototype but with double front downtubes. When built up they used production Hodaka motors - 100/125. They were called the Bullfrog but were never a production model. On the other hand, the bike pictured in Scot Taco's post is often said to be a Wassell or Wassell-framed Hodaka Wombat. It was actually built by Sprite. If you know Sprites it is very easy to identify as very similar to their Sachs-engined trials frame. It was sold by the Gemini distributor Terry Faust, who was also the Canadian Hodaka distributor. In the US it was sold as the Hodaka Challenger & in Canada it was known as the Sprite Avenger. They used Sprite frames, swingarm, wheels/hubs, forks & yokes etc, with Wombat 125 engine and aircleaner. The tank may well be from Wassell, which is probably where the confusion comes from, but it is the same tank as used on the Sprite MX models. The story from Frank Hipkins sons (Steve & Paul) is that Frank was sent a Hodaka engine by a Canadian Oil/Gas company to be fitted into a rolling chassis for use by their remote workers. It was not originally intended as a competition trials bike. Frank modified an existing chassis to suit the Hodaka engine then those Sprite rolling chassies were sent to the Canadian Hodaka distributor to be fitted with the engines. Sprite were said to have built about 150 of them, in batches of 75 (but I wouldn't be surprised if that figure was considerably exaggerated).
  11. Gents, there seems to be a few 'wires crossed' in this thread. Dalesman may have produced a Hodaka-engined bike - I don't know - but the bike pictured is definitely a Sprite (Avenger, as mentioned by Scot Taco).
  12. Many thanks fourex. cheers
  13. Does anyone know the ID & OD of the steering head bearings for the 350T with Betor forks?
  14. The other thing to consider is that as the actuator cam gets closer to 90deg, the amount each shoe is forced out into the hub gets closer to being the same for both shoes, potentially bringing the second shoe more into play for increased braking effect. That's not to say that I'm suggesting it should be run close to 90deg, for the reasons given above. It's always a trade-off, a compromise with pros & cons each way.
  15. Hmm, yes you may have nailed it westyfield; frame & swingarm do look remarkably similar