2stroke4stroke

I was working from memory too so you may be right about that central boss, but something certainly did act as a stop against the bolt.

The Government consultation on this closes at the end of the month. A petition has been set up via here http://www.fightvnuk.co.uk/petition.php and there is an update here http://www.mgcc.co.uk/vnuk-an-important-update/ , which seems to be more than the ACU has communicated. The petition needs 10,000 signatures to get a response from the Government and 100,000 to be considered for a debate in Parliament. It currently has just over 12,000 so will get a "response" but the numbers are hardly likely to persuade MPs that this is an important issue. There are petitions on the site that have absolutely no chance of success but still attract around half a million signatures. If motorsport disappears (it could not continue legally, as the insurance industry has informed us that it would be totally uninsurable, without some sort of exemption being granted) then I suppose we deserve it given our apparent apathy. It seems incredible that the vast numbers of competitors and enthusiasts who would be affected are simply sitting back. Notwithstanding Boris Johnson's opposition to the measure (and I still can't decide if that is a good or bad thing for us), who are the politicians more likely to be influenced by; a handful of signatories or their pals at the head of the insurance industry who must be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of the income from insuring lawn mowers, golf buggies, kids' electric cars, the new e-bikes etc where payouts will be minimal? I urge you to sign the petition but, much more importantly, write to your MP as what is needed is more than an exemption for the sport; an exemption could only cover formal organised events so those practice sessions with your mates will be a thing of the past. You will have to insure even to keep the bike in the shed and not use it and probably won't be able even to give your bike away such will be the state of the market. Read what the link says about premium levels in Finland; 4000 Euros for insurance puts the cost of a new bike in to perspective. Not having insurance is being treated increasingly seriously - currently six to eight points on your licence with a fine on top. The EU could alter the Motor Insurance Directive to avoid all this but seems to have no inclination to do so before the ruling would have to be implemented here, the opposition seeming to have fizzled out. Difficult though it may be to change things at the current time I reckon it will be even harder to get it off Statute once we leave Europe, but by then the sporting industry would have collapsed anyway. Act now.

My Rev3 had dome headed screws, with locknuts, in the bosses. There should be a matching boss in the centre of the yoke that makes contact. Google will produce photos.

Thanks JR, that's what I was after.

Could anyone possibly give me the reference number for the needle rollers used in the 3 pivots in the linkage, and indeed the swing arm bearings? Thanks in advance.

There was an article (last year?) in On The Pegs about setting up preload on trials bikes. You should be able to find it.

The one I saw was made by Acerbis - try them?

I think I maybe went just on to the edge of the curve, so could use a flat plate. I probably reused what was cut out - I had to stitch drill holes together as Dremels were just science fiction here then. You can poke the filling in to the ends of the box from that window. Now I think about it I perhaps only cut three sides of the window so that I could just fold it back. A pal has a 240 Fantic which had an alloy tail silencer and it really was like a motocrosser, even after repacking the tail silencer. Our complaints eventually got the better of him and he fitted a standard item and now it is fine but the Fantic has an element of baffling in it unlike the straight through Montesa one. For its day the Montesa was quite quiet so you should be able to obtain a satisfactory effect. Let us know how it goes.

I did this back in the Seventies. I cut a rectangular hole in the back of the box then welded a plate on after packing. If you can make a removable plate then so much the better as repacking made a big difference to the way the bike ran, being smoother at the bottom end. WES type silencers are not very quiet anyway but I feel that these old bikes run better (and certainly sound better) with the original silencer - if you can get a Montesa tail silencer then you can repack as above.

I had a run on a 2017 standard 260 at a test day today. Bike was on standard 10/41 but somehow felt lower geared than that. Tickover (apparently set correctly) in first felt a tad slower, if anything, than my 09 on 10/43 and was less sudden on opening the throttle (in both maps). Though there was not the opportunity to ride in rocky streams I got the impression in the woods, mud and riding over logs that I wouldn't want to gear it down if I had one.

It's the lowest screw on the pump cover if I recall correctly (the one with the sealing washer on it).

Apart from the Pirellis is it not basically the spec of an earlier TXT, or whatever it was called at the time, but with a more sensible tank size and a QD seat? As such, people bought it quite happily then.

I haven't been inside my 09 to see what previous owners might have done but assume it has a full complement of springs and original plates (which I believe are different from some earlier models). Clutch is lighter than my Beta was and whilst my stock of Silkolene caused a bit of drag now I am on Rock Oil the clutch has the lovely action it did when I bought the bike over 18 months ago. Hope that may help.

Aye, but Oni Nou's mention of abrasives didn't refer to TRS. The issue appears to be a general one related to new style clutches.

Correct Ross. Regardless of the power of the works rider's finger a clutch should be designed and produced to a consistent standard (which seems to be the nub of the problem here as some clutches would appear to be light and others not) such that it works to the satisfaction of the target purchaser within his expectations related to contemporary standards. Which is what the 1970's clutches, except probably Ossa, did. In that context a Bultaco clutch appears to be "better" than some described by users above. If pack thickness is critical then that should be addressed on assembly at the factory, not left to the metalworking skills of the buyer.

Who would have imagined, as we spent five minutes adjusting the spring tension on our Bultacos to get the plates to lift square back in the Seventies, that progress would be such that this far in to the 21st century people would have to be messing about with emery to get a clutch to work properly? Surely modern design and, more to the point, production methods, can do better than this.

Having used my 4RT to backmark a trial last year whilst carrying a 5 litre container in my backpack (I really had no idea how far I would get so erred on the safe side) I now have a 2 litre black plastic petrol container (from ebay) for this year. That might work for you? I need the bag anyway and I'm not a fan of upsetting Honda San's steering arrangements by having liquid slopping round.

Just as well we never experience seriously reduced visibility at the Scottish? I think you might have problems with flashing rates on the indicators, especially if the brake light was on at the same time, if the tester was picky (I once had a bike fail due to no split pin in the rear wheel spindle but apparently the same "fault" at the front was not worthy of comment - he said he hadn't noticed) but you could possibly wire in a small battery, though where you might put it I don't know, for test purposes only. As far as I am aware the change in law that exempted "off road" bikes from the need to have indicators but, with lights, still get what is colloquially known as a full MOT is still extant. I don't know what use you intend to put the bike to but, up this way, there'd be a very slim chance of it still being there on your return if you left it parked anywhere, locks notwithstanding.

It did mention the name of the disc manufacturer. The bulk of the relative front/rear weight distribution must be down to the rider weight and footrest position so perhaps not seen as being as consistent or important as on a fast road bike placed on the scales?

A lot of that info seems to be available via a link on the Gas Gas UK website. Don't think I have ever seen any manufacturer give a fore/aft weight distribution figure.

I seem to remember in the UK, pre VAT, my pal's new Bultaco motor came in a separate box, and was a different number from the frame.

Stick them in a black poly bag in a reasonably consistent temperature. Out of light and ozone.

According to the Honda blurb it is the crankcase decompressor that has brought about an additional reduction in engine braking on the 2017 model. I have an 09 and wouldn't want any less engine braking than that offers, but then I ride in an old fashioned style.

Funnily enough I saw Uri Geller mentioned on a front page through the week but it would be strange if he had picked on someone in NI.

It's in its genes. Every Bultaco owner had a length of scaffold pole to straighten the rear subframe and swingarm? But seriously, sounds like it must have hit something - did you give anyone a shot on it?