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


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About sherpa325

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Previous Fields

  • Bike
    4xbultaco, gasgas300
  • Club
    Denman & Pacific Park

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

6,177 profile views
  1. It makes sense that they would do that I had a quick look in my shed and found two leftover springs one is 475mm long 59 coils and 3.9mm dia steel the second is 463mm long 50 coils and 3.4 dia -so a fair bit softer I can remember trying some Alpina springs back in the day so the longer one could be Alpina but I am not sure
  2. The M158, 182, 190 250's have shorter sets of forks than other sherpas and I would assume they need different shorter springs. I am not sure of the actual measurement but your supplier should have known that. My guess would be the springs protrude about 20-25mm out of the top triple clamp before assembly, which is a lot less then yours. Inmotion list Sherpa forks at 500mm so I reckon you have springs for the standard forks and the 450mm one in the bike was the correct length original. Cheers Greg
  3. All swinging arms from 158/159 250/325 onwards will fit. They were lengthened from 182/183 onwards [about 10 - 15mm] The shorter ones have a triangular rear shock mount and the longer ones have a rectangular shock mount. I am pretty sure a 199A arm is just the earlier one with a gusset welded on, which wouldn't be difficult to copy. I rode Bultacos for years in competition, and still do, and never bent or twisted a swinging arm and I would think I you are going to restore the bike and ride it in the occasional event a standard swinging arm would be fine. I have however seen a couple of bent ones and I was thinking it may have happened if the bike was ridden with one bent rear shock, causing one side to 'bottom out' before the other. Bent shocks back in the day were very common and some riders would continue to ride the bike in this condition, particularly if the binding/bend didn't occur until close to full compression, as this was difficult to feel. The original Betors were very good when new but did not last very long and were very easy to bend. The bike you have bought looks very good and original and should prove to be an easy and enjoyable restoration. Cheers Greg
  4. Plus Dabill and Grattarola in the top ten if they stay on Gas Gas and Farre, Price and Noguera just ouside of the top ten.
  5. They didn't even make 300 gassers when the alleged incident occurred Brian Robin Trump 650
  6. A prime example of fake news!
  7. I had a couple of the larger bikes in the 90's and they both suffered from the same problem as you describe. I ended up putting smaller main jets in to get them to rev freely, and if I remember correctly they were a lot smaller than the standard ones that they came with, sorry I cant remember what the exact sizes were though. Also mine were new out of the box and had this issue, I had in the back of my mind maybe it was to stop over revving the bike during the break in period!
  8. My first bike was a second hand series 1 M49 which I thought was fantastic, but things changed pretty quickly back then and the series 2 M49 was a big improvement so I bought a used one of them, no sooner had I bought it and the slimline M80 came out. I didn't buy an M80 but did purchase a new M92 series 1 325 when they came out, what an improvement. Lots of riders used to retro fit the new parts when they became available rather than buy a new bike. It was common to fit the folding footpegs, new handlebars without the welded on levers, a couple of mates even fitted the square cases to the earlier models. Both of my 49's had the ubolt clamps which were a pain in the rear end and I wouldn't be surprised if riders fitted the later triple clamp when they became available. It was a bit of a statement if you had Renthal bars, a set of Dunolp 2 ply tyres and any Sammy Miller parts on your bike. Interestingly the book Historia de la Sherpa T shows the M80 with the ubolt clamps so I would guess mrb505 is spot on. Anyway I wouldn't think it would be too hard to find an original triple clamp. Cheers Greg
  9. I am pretty sure the ubolt type was used up until the M91/M92 series 1972
  10. 428 is 1/2 inch and was last on M92 from memory and is noticeably smaller than the 520 which is 5/8 inch
  11. I have never had any dramas with the original ball bearing style and unfortunately the same can't be said for the tapered type in most gasgas bikes I've had in the last few years which seem to require more maintenance than the ball bearing style. I also recall reading somewhere that the Moto GP bikes all use the ball bearing style because they give better feeling. Cheers Greg
  12. From memory I used a piece of aluminium flat bar which was bolted to the old coil mount, the bar extends forward towards the headstock, the new coil was then mounted off that.
  13. I am not a Matador expert either, but I am pretty sure the thicker poly type round tank stickers came out on around 1974 or thereabouts, prior to that all the Bulllys I remember seeing had the flat standard sticker type.
  14. When the bikes were originally on the market in the early eighties you could buy a complete kit [from the manufacturer] to convert them over.From memory it included a gear shaft that went all the way through the engine and came out though the primary cover, there was a bung in the cover that was tapped out revealing the pre drilled hole. The kit included a brake pedal and all the necessary parts. I don't remember putting a seal in the primary cover but it is a long time ago.If you have some engineering skills it wouldn't be that difficult to make the shaft, the shifter spline would be the biggest hurdle. Cheers Greg
  15. The Sherpa geometry was pretty much finalised in 1975 with the M159 [325]. A longer swinging arm [15mm-guess] was fitted to the 183 and subsequent models. Its easy to pick these swinging arms as they have a rectangular bottom shock mount, with additional holes for pillion pegs, the earlier version had a triangular bottom mount. It is interesting to note that the sales brochures did not add the extra length to the wheelbase? To the best of my knowledge models 159,183,191,199 would have had the same dimensions, shock mounts, engine etc, with the exception of the wheelbase change. In 1979 M199A had the engine raised and the bottom frame tubes removed but this wouldn't apply to the Alpinas. The 250's had there own frame from 158,182,190 - they also had the longer singing arm from 182 onwards. Their frame is shorter and has more ground clearance, different forks and triple clamps.It is easy to pick up as it has a slight inward curve in the front downtube. In 1978 the 250 M198 went back to the same frame as the 325. Hope this helps, Cheers Greg