02-apr

I have been watching my Christmas pressie DVD of the 63 Scottish and at a minute and nine seconds in there is a London registered Cub with a frame I don't recognise, what appears to be an alloy silencer and suspension that seems to be about ten years or more ahead of its time - let's say it would attract comment if it turned up at some of today's pre'65 trials and probably be rejected. Many of you will have this DVD and some the event programme. Does anyone know anything about the bike and its rider?

The man from here http://www.msport.uk.com/ often posts on this site, probably knows all there is to know about the 4RT and is not a million miles away from you. I have no connection with Msport by the way.

Indeed you are right, my old brain was confusing it with the Walwin BSA - these Midlanders all seem the same to me

Exactly. It was years before I could bring myself to use the clutch but nowadays I do and use the brakes in whatever ratio is suited to what I am doing but mainly the front. But it depends on circumstance, for instance what lies at the bottom of the hill? If it is a hop over a log from a very slow pace then you want the forks compressed by front brake use. Or do you want to slide the back a bit? As Scottie said, "Ye cannae beat the Laws o' Physics Cap'n".

A previous owner did a neat job on mine simply by cutting the shaft! As your main objective (apart from the reliability) is to get a light throttle action there is no harm in leaving the shaft present.

Can't help but agree - an alarming number of people seem to start kicking 6" before their foot contacts the lever.

Sorry ND, I misinterpreted your post as being a criticism of a "modded" British bike. It is a Bantam engined machine produced in the 70's - I remember seeing them at the Scottish.

Would that matter? It was surely supposed to be a modern bike of its day. No arcane rules to be complied with in those times.

Is the Pre'65 classed as a National though? I'm sure I saw it somewhere as "UEM", whatever that implies.

Standard idea so you could easily lower the gearing when you fitted the sidecar for winter.

I think you need to consider how you come across on this Beatabeta. Is it reasonable to say that no stop is not working (or is working for that matter) after only one trial? Of course not. And where were all these unhappy under forties when it came to attending the trials seminars that keep being cancelled due to lack of support?

Air forks were the rage for a while about then - the linked air forks were a period mod, probably home done.

Or, in the case of an Ossa, lack of spark which can come on suddenly (and, alas, permanently).

I've never been one to deny my age! Actually this first monoshock topic came up in the pub last night and we have all missed something. Depending on how fussy you are about wording of course. The first production bikes with one rear suspension unit to be ridden in a trial could be the Lambretta team in the 1959 SSDT. But then scooter trials had been taking place for a while before then.

True enough. There is a body of opinion that considers shock absorber to be the correct term for the normal combined spring and damper unit, and I'm sure some Vincents have been modded to such a (non-standard)set up with two of these, usually Koni if I recall. Personally I never use the term shock absorber (which was always more of a car term), suspension units being the motorcyle common usage for the damper and spring assembly back in my day. The American "Cycle" felt that the spring was actually what absorbed the shock (with some justification for, as they said, without a spring the hydraulic damper would absorb nothing) and the damper merely controlled the motion of the spring. This would appear to have some logic as, going further back, nobody ever referred to a friction damper as a shock absorber.

Indeed so but barred from Twinshock motocross apparently (they can't be scared they would thrash a CZ surely) despite pictorial evidence that they were raced in the day. There's a famous picture of Lindsay King doing a nose landing on a 1000, brave man, in, I think, a Vincent history.

I would think that unless you take the side casing off and fully drain the oil then there will be enough contaminated residue to turn the new stuff white (I've had the same). Believe me you don't want to take the side case off if you can avoid it as the sump guard is a job and a half to replace. Put something cheap in it and drain it a couple of times to get rid of the white residue. But you may find the impeller shaft needs replaced if the seal has worn a groove in it.

Jings, you're giving your age away there.

Heaven forfend that any of us from that era ever become mature.

As it's obviously not chain wear then presumably a badly made sprocket that is slightly eccentric?

I think I rode that one but can't remember much about it other than it was run on a midweek evening (but I could be wrong) I think as part of the Dunfermline civic week or whatever it's called. I have vague recollections of riding the burn but none of the steps. I do however have stronger memories of an arena trial held there another year for the same purpose. The organiser no longer has an involvement but I see him occasionally at the SSDT on his BMW. No doubt B40RT will be on soon with some recollections.

Unless you're going to run it properly and get it up to a good temperature to drive out the condensation then you are better not to bother. You will also probably not be a***d sometimes (too cold/snowy to be standing out doing that?) and if you leave petrol in the carb too long you will find a solid gunge developing which takes a hell of a getting rid of. Take it from me you only let that happen once, I had twin carbs to deal with and it took a few strips and cleans before they were right. Drain the carb - it's only a screw turn after all.

Gloves? I always buy from Pete Edmondson at the Pre '65. Not the latest colours of course but sensible prices - even better then the mountain bike gear.

Don't ignore that advice about new circlips.