02-apr

Good stuff, but I'm sure those funny Bultaco things will never catch on!

Thanks, I'm sure I usually use 10 in road bikes with firmer damping than I would want on a trials bike, but you will be right as I recall problems in the day with getting enough damping. How "new" is a 35 year old bike Ross? Should find how it goes at the Hydro end of month.

Does anyone have any experience as to what grade fork oil I should use. The handbook 10/30 sounds a bit primitive and, if I recall the 70s, probably won't work too well anyway. I assume the forks are standard as regards spring rate and damper but will no doubt find out once I start using the bike. Thanks

You could richen the mixture, if you must, by carb adjustment but does anyone do this even with a new bike? I suspect not. Just putting more oil in the petrol weakens the carburetion causing hotter running so it is not generally advised.

Can't see the last pics but I'm sure my 348 came as original with a traditional throttle and a big loop of cable which I replaced with an Amal side pull. Original grips were really super as they were made for gloveless riding. Original cables had oiler holes in them too if I remember right. The first 348s were high quality stuff in terms of "extras" but this was diluted on later models. The standard rear units were, possibly, Sebacs but they had orange "bags" at the bottom. You'll be lucky to find these as the standard method of tuning these was to put them in a receptacle for the binmen to take away on a Monday morning. Don't worry about the missing headstock - that even happened to works bikes out in the wilds at the SSDT. And it's time all modern mudguards were made from whatever the originals were instead of "instant break" toffee - so much for advancement of technology.

They were obviously working on it - clearly the cure was to melt the head and block together.

ATF for me regardless of bike really nowadays. It always seemed thin but if it can take the torque of a big V8 then a Bulto, even a 325, won't be straining its capabilities. This for your clutch or a modern gearbox, I've no experience of using it in a Bulto gearbox but seem to recall doing so in the Ossa with no ill effect.

I've just done it to renew bearings and yes the sump guard has to come off. Good luck with putting it back! However I found it not too bad this time. Normally I would fix the front of a guard first then squeeze the rear up to allow bolt fitting ( a heck of a job last time on the Beta) but my subconscious must have been working on this while I was asleep because I had the thought to fix the back then bend the front up. I laid the bike on its side such that the tank (suitably padded) bore on the end of a wall to prevent the bike moving then used a narrow spade (anchored against a piece of wood bearing on the back door step) to lever the guard in to position whilst my glamorous assistant fitted the bolts. Beat that for agricultural engineering! But it did make the job easier. Oh, and for the extra tenner it's worthwhile renewing the pump bearings to avoid a repeat performance.

I don't believe the SACU has any rules on what is or is not eligible, I certainly don't recall seeing any in their "handbook" and there's no controversy at normal trials that I have heard of(but I could be wrong). The famous trial at Kinlochleven has its own rules which are drawn up by the E&D as far as I am aware.

Leanachan. Lagnaha is bridge from what was a railway I believe

Why rule out certain genuine Enfield fork sliders? I only ask as the twice I took a pretty standard Bullet round the Pre '65 I certainly didn't feel advantaged in having the spindle forward of the centreline.

Yes I did type wrongly and meant to say no converted monoshocks. I see nothing wrong in moving suspension mounting points, it was a period mod eventually (but then one of the very first mono yams was converted to twinshock at the time) and have not even hinted that I do. I merely queried the scope of the rule and I think the thread title shows that I could see the intent but also the (probable) error. Much clearer wording should have been used. I'm not familiar with what other mods are carried out to twinshocks to achieve what you mention in your first para but assume that rules governing suspension would not cover them? And, ee nay lad, not wi' them.

The problem is the sponsor's name is on the old ones! They don't necessarily want to pay again. Also, it's only possible to carry so many markers on a bike, doubling or trebling the amount makes it hard for the section markers in a decent (ie good run over the moor) trial.

If they mean no converted monoshocks why don't they just say that clearly instead of using a form of words which has additional implications? I would suggest that Vesty's bike, as a one-off works special, was manufactured with the rear units as we see them so no problem. As there is only one of them then it can't spread. If someone converted a standard set up to match it would not be as manufactured.

I see the new ACU rules for class 8 and 11 require that the twinshock suspension be "as fitted at time of manufacture". No more canting forward of suspension units then?

A blob of paint with a number marked in it by a precision tool a bit pointy stick. Could also be found on the forks or casings but you would have seen those by now.

I think that's basically what I was trying to say. But if you overestimate your abiity then don't be complaining about the between section going - after all the format of the event is (or should be) known to all who might enter.

No SSDT numbers on the rim after this time I suppose?

"As 2/4 says, the severity of tricky cross country sections does deter several less able riders from entering and if lost could increase the number of entries and make the committee's job even worse. It's always a privilege to ride over the moors and along Mamore Road bearing in mind the pressure from the environmental lobby to prevent such activity nationwide. I'm sure we will enjoy whatever route is decided." [ I think you have completely misinterpreted what I was trying to say Stickinthemud. I didn't think of it as saying what you have taken from it but, on looking, it is an interpretation. The issue, I thought, from the original post, was that "less able" riders were complaining. I was actually being a bit harsh and saying that if someone was not up to the demands of the (restricted entry) event then they should not moan but leave it to those who are. If available spaces exceeded entry then I would say different. I certainly have no inclination to increase the numbers of strugglers who really should know better (I'm no ace being snooty about others here as we can all find it hard at times, but I'm now mature enough to know when I shouldn't be somewhere while denying someone else a chance - one of the reasons why I don't do the SSDT again as I would dearly like to do)we've all seen the guys struggling to even reach the early sections at Loch Eild Path or Grey Mare's Ridge and wondered about this. However I applaud the organisers for a sensible approach environmentally, I've raised such matters in my own club before now, as it has to be remembered that we are no longer alone in using the hills up there with more walkers and mountainbike riders (me among the latter) travelling "our" traditional routes. I think that too few regard participation, as you correctly say, as a privilege. And one to be preserved.

You are absolutely right. Perhaps these people should be self-selecting and avoid the agony of the ballot? What on earth is the point in riding the Premier trial in the calendar then complaining about the terrain, which has always been, and intended to be, challenging? Let someone else have the chance. And no, I don't enter the trial so my opinion is not sour grapes.

The flywheel can only go in one position, determined by the keyway which fits over the Woodruff key on the crank. I take it a previous owner has not removed the key?

I suppose my nature means that I broadly agree with you but if I sit back and take a realistic view then costs have not risen that badly. Entry fee for last week's trial was

How is your air filter connected to the carb? I once had a similar problem but it was not until I looked very closely when revving whilst stationary that I noticed the air hose was being sucked in on itself (soft rubber and a bit perished). Of course once flow was stopped it opened up again to repeat the process giving the impression of a misfire.

How is your air filter connected to the carb? I once had a similar problem but it was not until I looked very closely when revving whilst stationary that I noticed the air hose was being sucked in on itself (soft rubber and a bit perished). Of course once flow was stopped it opened up again to repeat the process.

I stored a bike in the attic for some years and filled the crankcase with oil, also oiled the bore. It was fine years later. The crankcase drain plug on the TY made it easy to empty. A pal once stored a motor (without barrels) under the bed and was a bit puzzled at how rusty the internals were when he pulled it out come springtime - he eventually worked out that the cat had peed in it!