ask greeves

Hi, 300 seals can be done in situ, the drive side seal is in a steel retainer outside of the main bearing, the timing side seal, is as a 240 and could be changed in situ (if your clever/brave enough) to attempt. As for Lee, he is now a proud father of a beautiful daughter.

Mr TT Spud, Looks as if you've put loadsa effort into these posts. Although I sympathise with the majority of your comments, surely the overidding factor is you can't turn back time, the complete sport of trials is always shifting, maybe not in the best direction, but nature compensates, good things progress, and in the end bad things disapear. More and more regulation, isn't in my opinion going to help the situation and the days of "in the spirit of the class" are well and truly gone, Hopefully all the bling expensive bikes will end up as trophies in peoples front rooms, talking points to impress the next door neighbour, and eventually broken up and the pre 65 content returned to it's rightfull place, in genuine pre 65 bikes. On the other hand, trials riders have always modified thier bikes, nobody complained when SM put titanium spidles in GOV, although when I own it, they had been removed, the story being that Jock W had put all the "trick" bits in the No 2 bike. Nobody complained at the beautifully modified Greeves that Don Smith used to prepare and ride, rather people would admire the workmanship, so what has changed, Seems to me a "cottage" industry has evolved, where you can spend money, just as deep as your pocket, and if "thats what turns you on" so be it......or in the words of Harry Enfield "i've got piles".

To repair this sort of problem, it's important to firstly understand whats happened. My humble opinion is that during the welding process, that particular area, got so hot as to drop (wether inwards or outwards) out of true, depending wether it was welded from the inside or outside. We don't have a photo, looking at the area from inside the machined surface, so could be either ( drop in or drop out). I would put the job on its machined surface onto a nice thick steel flat surface (steel surface plate or similar) and heat the case approx an inch above the dodgy area...and let gravity and maybe a few gentle knocks just above where its being heated. I know this sounds drastic and there's many if's and but's, heat it to much and the aluminium will melt and the difference between making the metal malible and melting is neglible. This might get the job somewhere near, for repairing the machined surface, to accept a gasket that doesn't leak.

The root cause of your problem isn't that the o ring has failed, rather the compression joint between the cylinder head and barrel has failed, the neoprene/rubber o rings job is only to retain water and not to contain compression. If it's possible to lap the head to the barrel, to recover the compression joint, then as previously stated jb weld or similiar would probably be OK for the low pressure o ring water joint.

When I go into my garage, it's always the Bultaco's that stand out, why I don't know, I've tried to explain to myself, but I just can't understand it. Maybe it's the white frame and blue plastics, but everything about these particular Bultaco's just seems to be right. The big fin barrel and head loverly, the tank I suppose is to long and the seat to far back, but the bike overall just (to me) looks perfect. Maybe it's because 'the last of an era' starting with the radial fin four speed, every collection deserves a Bultaco.

While on the subject of wheel building, does anybody know what years Bultaco used aluminum nipples on Sherpa and wether they were used on both front and rear.

I can recall that the trick with a 4 speed 8e, was to make a rubber band from an old inner tube (approx 1/2 inch wide) loop it round the clutch arm and fix to frame (under tension) so that the arm is back against it's stop and pulling the cable and lever also against its stop. Therefore when push rod is adjusted, it's more positve and not including any slop in the cable and lever.

Assuming the new clutch plates are slightly thicker than the old, the clutch pack when assembled, would need the clutch push rod to be adjusted longer, this would probably take up the play in the floating shaft, if it doesn't then maybe you've lost a ball bearing in the clutch push rod assembly (therefore not allowing enough adjustment to the clutch push rod). It's 50yrs since I played with 8e's, so please don't take this as gospel, only a suggestion. Probably the gearbox mainshaft has slightly excessive play, but previous post, noted gearbox worked OK, so limiting the end float by clutch push rod adjustment would probably be OK (could even have been part of the original design) and within limits for a 60 year old engine.

The fairest way is to sell everything on e-bay, on a 10 day auction. You must ignore the "have you got a buy it now price" e-mails, as these sort of people usually want to steal your item, so to speak. Remember "one mans trash is another mans treasure", and you could be suprised how much some items are worth. I'm just over the hill (so to speak) from where your located, and would be willing to help, to identify the parts. I would not want to purchase any parts from you, any parts that interested me, I would bid on e-bay along with everybody else. We've already had contact prior to this posting, so hopefully you'll understand, I have no alterior motive.

The Fantic 301 progress 2, the only differences (as opposed to a 301) were a cable operated front brake lever to a master cylinder behind the front number plate, and a strippy blue/white/red paint job on the tank, and a sticker on the side panels and maybe swinging arm, saying progress 2. The factory also made a 'clubman' 301/241 which had a drum front brake, but the disc front forks were retained with a 'trick' front brake anchor arm, that picked up on BOTH the disc brake holes, on your particular bike, it's had a lash up, by virtue that the front brake anchor point is just on one of the 2 anchor points. Also a 301 engine differs from a 300 by virtue a 300 has a small flywheel cover, whereas the 301 has a larger 2 piece cover, with the bottom fin of the barell curved to accept the larger flywheel cover. If you think you've got something special, think again, because i've never seen a works Fantic that's retained or even had fitted the steering lock . as for 403/proto 266 or No 44 SSDT bike, your having a giraffe.

You would have to remove 1st outer clutch cover, 2nd complete clutch assemble and front (engine) drive sprocket and chain, 3rd remove inner clutch cover, then you'll be at the(final drive) sprocket and nut. I'd make sure first that the correct size sprocket, that you require, are available to purchase, The other alternative, is a bigger rear wheel sprocket, or even maybe a smaller engine sprocket, but that would put more torque through the clutch.

Looks to be a genuine 301 Fantic(circa 1985), forks are correct(ish) although being silver, could be 303, just had the front disc wheel, replaced with a drum brake...Good Luck.

I would ask an Egyptian, they managed to build pyramids using levers and fulcrums, so a SWM rear brake should be no problem....Also remember, position the rear brake lever wrong, and rear suspension action, will cause the rear brake on and off, if worked by rod.

Your 'little monty' is trying to talk to you. He's saying "fix me"..."fix me". It is almost a certainty that if the clutch is sliping during starting, that the clutch is slipping when your riding the bike, you may not notice the slippage, but it's almost certain.. it is. "Fix me" ..."fix me".

should have shelved this post for 3 months, would of been a great topic for the 1st april 2015.

Mr Pierre, I must add, I personally was never happy, trying to replace the timing side oil seal in situ. My previous answers were purely a reply to your question.

Hewson, Had to really think about your question ? The picture of the part would be the description and the number next to it....the number. Merry Christmas

Hello, Mr Grib's got it spot on, also be careful on the drive side seal, the lip of the seal, can catch on the 'sharp edge' when assembling (and unhook the spring and turn the lip on the seal), with regard to the timing side seal, best way to extrecate, is with self tapping screws (maybe with a slide hammer), screwed into the old oil seal (but will destroy the old seal), but great care is needed, as not to damage the bearing behind the seal. No probs 'turning the seal' on the timing side, as the taper for the flywheel, acts as a 'natrual lead' for fitting the timing side seal.

Hi, No you donot have to split the crankcases. from memory, the reed valve engines do have a different oil seal, to the piston controlled engines. Have ordered oil seals from the so called experts , and have been sent seals for the 300/303-241 engine . All forward kick engines apart from the original 240, the seals can be changed in situ (if your clever enough).

Any help ?

Sorry, Didn't make myself clear, a normal 8mm allen bolt, usually has a 6mm (across flats) hex to accept a 6mm allen key. A 9mm allen bolt takes a larger across flats metric allen key. As 3/8 unc allen bolt is similar (but not the same) as 9mm, the hex in the top, where the allen key would be inserted is also similar (but not the same). I'm just trying to say the imperial hex in a 3/8 cap head is larger than the hex in a 9mm cap head, as maybe a way of determine wether the thread in question is either 9mm or 3/8th unc, but of course you would need either of the coresponding allen keys for comparison. Just a simple way, to maybe identify the bolt. Woody is your middle name axlerod ! Do you know what...I've never ever seen a M9 allen bolt...have you.

Hope i'm not talking breeze, an easy way to check, if 3/8 unc..a 9mm allen key probably wouldn't be a nice fit, would have to be an imperial 3/8ths allen key. Haven't checked just a surmise.

It will be noted, that even at the end of the twin shock era, the width of the foot rests (fore and aft) was approx 1inch. Modern footrests are a lot wider. So maybe without even really realising the solution, the 'sweet' answer maybe found. These wider footrests natrually, by design, help the riders weight bias..hope this makes sense. Or without moving the position of the footrests, the rear of say a 3inch wide foot rests are 1 inch further back an the front 1 inch further forward, rider imput uphill, would tend towards the front of the footrest and towards the rear for gaining traction.

I don't think the question should be 'what is the modern position', I seriously think the question should be 'is it really necessary' If you feel your missing out, then it's got to be a necessity to make the 'super trick' upto date mods. Suppose it's a bit like Levis jeans, you wouldn't want to be seen in brown couderoys.

If at full compression of the rear suspension, the rear wheel comes within 1/2inch of rear mudguard, if 2 inch extensions are fitted to the shock absorbers, all it means the rear wheel will come within 2 and 1/2 iinches of the rear mudguard before it stops. On the other hand, the rear wheel starts its travel (at full extension of the shock absorbers) 2 inches lower. The down side of the extended shock absorbers,is the angle of the swinging arm, which starts its travel outside of the 'sweet spot', where power through the chain, helps to push the swinging arm downwards. The force from the chain trying to push the wheel/swinging arm is deminished even more at full compression, because the angle of the swing arm has been reduced by 2 inches by virtue of the shock extensions. The 2nd photo of BSA shows chain so low, that forces through the chain would pull the swinging arm upwards. Of course there's other forces working at the same 'moment in time', forward motion through wheel spindle and swinging arm pivot, which is helping to offset the bad chain angle.