2stroke4stroke

Helmet needs to meet the requirements for road use and bear the appropriate numbers in whatever form they use nowadays.

As you have discovered, the bike is grossly overgeared with 12, I think, being the standard front size (not sure about the rear). It's a wonder you can use it in trials going (if you do). I don't know why it would have been changed so drastically. I assume still on the 420 chain? I seem to recall someone trying one tooth up from standard in the day but can't recall how satisfactory that was in terms of trials use. You could always work out the overall ratio in each gear then choose sprockets to match what you know the bike will pull. I'm sure you can get the necessary info to do this from the net.

The TY is a rather short bike. As Scottie said, "Ye cannae beat the Laws o' Physics". If you can't master it then extending the wheelbase is the way to go.

The Fantic petrol cap had an oil measure on it I think. Or get a large syringe, which will be less than 27 dollars; free if you know a trials riding doctor or vet?

If you keep your eyes open there's scrap plastic all over the place. I found a broken council household bin on the beach. The bit I rescued kept me going in chain tensioner blades for years. A sharks fin should be easy to make. There's monie a mickle maks a muckle as the saying goes.

50 to 1 was the Fantic recommendation in the day.

Has anyone discovered a match for the paint on the clutch case on an 09 model?

I recall waiting at a junction on my way to school on the Bultaco when it hiccuped and when I let the clutch out I reversed in to my French teacher's car. Fortunately, even a four ply 400 by 18 was fairly soft.

I must have the old rules somewhere in the attic but, as I recall, they said you could not cross your own path. This was eventually dropped when it was seen to be incompatible with the then new stop allowed rules. Eventually replaced with something like "no looping".

Silkolene advised me to use 50 to 1 (TY 200) unless in heavy going such as deep sand when 40 to 1. Worked fine and also in my SWM. I never found any deep sand to strain the motor. But did have to cover three miles or so flat out in bottom with a clogged front wheel (I gave up stopping every two bike lengths to clear it) and no apparent ill effects at 50 to 1.

I don't think anyone else has had a problem with the standard gearing so will have no alternative advice to offer. Though some used to go up a tooth for the SSDT, but that is a different matter.

Ypu don't want a warm feeling in the ignition. Electronic systems have been known to suffer with electric welding. Take care.

Funnily enough, the Lothian Trials Club events, aimed at beginners from the start, initially brought out a lot (comparatively) of interesting old monos both air and water cooled. Folk seem to have moved on to new Monts and Ossas. Is there a message somewhere in that?

On your TY the guard had two tubes between it and the motor so did not have the opportunity to get very bent.

Perhaps the private owner would be amenable to allowing viewing for a small fee? Seems reasonable to me.

My Beta does this from time to time - it is the wider joining link in the chain striking the head of the rear brake pedal bolt. Yours may be something similar.

You are no doubt correct but, outwith the Michelin laboratory or unless ridden by a famous Yorkshire rider at the extremities of grip, how much is the extra flexure of 1.5mm of soft rubber really going to affect things for most riders (many of whom seldom seem to check tyre pressure anyway) in comparison with steady deflation due to leaky spokes?

You are right, it is not acceptable, but if a replacement tyre is not forthcoming, for whatever reason, then the tube offered is better than not using the tyre. Most trials riders don't want to get in to extended wrangling over consumer issues. The more common reason was to cure the leaking spoke nipples on earlier rim designs.

You can't beat Elbow Grease, £1 for 500ml. Good for getting chain marks etc off jeans too.

This is in danger of becoming dragged out but, to explain my post. The facts seem to be that some folk successfully use a tube with a tubeless rim and tyre and others don't. We all know that, regardless of security bolts, a tubed tyre on a tube type rim does eventually creep and take the tube with it so we keep an eye on the valve and straighten things up every so many events. As a tubeless tyre gets a really good grip on the rim, once properly blown on, it should not creep, certainly not any faster than a conventional tubed setup with its relatively poor grip on the rim. The puzzle is, leaving aside faulty manufacture which normally is not the problem, why should some tyres happy at 4psi without a tube move so rapidly at 4psi with a tube that the rider does not get a chance to notice it and the valve tears out, but others stay put?

My observation was in the general, not particularly the current Sherco/Dunlop issue, context of tubeless rims and tyres where the pressure is the same as without a tube thus the tyre gets the same grip (designed to be airtight unlike a conventional tubed setup) on the rim as it would normally so security bolts are not a consideration?

So, people have mixed experiences with tubes in tubeless tyres, though I have heard no problems reported from the Pre'65 Scottish where, I am told, the rules demand that if a tubeless tyre is used then a tube must be fitted. I'm intrigued with ND's apparent experience that a correctly made and fitted tubeless tyre will creep despite the much greater grip such a tyre has on the rim than a conventional tubed setup. I have not been aware of this happening and will be marking my tyre to check movement for my own interest. Good to see that Leeky got sorted out with a new tyre. Notwithstanding consumer law my understanding was that Dunlop refused to acknowledge a problem thus dealers would have to bear the cost from an already narrow margin with some being more willing than others to do so.

Dog turd not much use if the bike is sitting in the garage not being used 'cause the tyre does not fit the rim ? Can't see why the tyre should move on the rim such as to drag the tube then consequently the valve? I know someone who used a tube for years with no problem.

Personally I don't care if anyone uses "unapproved fuel" in a trials bike, provided it is not producing hazardous emissions, as we all know that, in trials, the fanciest of fuel does not a winner make. But, as suggested above, it is perhaps time that the rules reflected reality.

Both tyres and rims are supposed to be built to Standards to ensure compatability so it looks lika a QA problem somewhere. A newcomer out on his brand new Sherco on Saturday had been through the Dunlop/Sherco loops but the problem was solved by another dealer fitting a tube. Better than junking a new tyre and I doubt whether many regulars on here could tell the performance difference between the tubeless and tubed setup on a blind testing.