2stroke4stroke

I use either the recessed bars in the floor that the rear seat locks on to or the square loops that the seat back locks on to.

Looks like what should be a standard fitment given the messing about that seems to be needed with these clutches.

I'll second that (don't understand why folk spend out on expensive pegs to have 'em pointing at the ground) and the cams, also spring clips on the outside of the chain, another bugbear for an old git like me from the era when nobody "serviced" a trials bike - you set it up properly then maintained it according to use, not some schedule.

All you need is a file. I have kept rests sharp that way for decades - essential to maximise control. Also, be sure to keep the footrests level as pivot and stop wear leads to drooping.

I registered a bike recently and insurance was not necessary. I have no idea why, as part of the process is that you pay for a year's tax, which can't normally be obtained without insurance.

Did anyone ever get the carburetion sorted on the 320?

The very early ones, as I recall, had a different gearbox spec with later versions having a change that lowered third and top slightly. A bit hard to tell in your situation though.

Of course, tyres are already restricted by regulation. Would you advocate a return to the use of full knobblies for grip in mud?

No doubt other old guys like me are smiling at the recollection of similar "where will it end" comments when the Spanish got the Bultacos and Montesas to ride so much better than the previous British stuff. I'll admit there is a difference in degree but it was ever thus. The tyre issue, one of his hobbyhorses, was raised frequently by Ralph Venables in his weekly trials column in MCN (current riders may find the idea that MCN knew what trials was and reported on loads of local events each week with the SSDT getting several pages hard to believe - their staff could actually write in proper English then too) and was always scorned but, in retrospect, perhaps he had something. As far as "ordinary" trials, as opposed to WTC go, rock steps which we routinely rode on early Spanish stuff now don't get used because folk seem to find them too demanding (though the modern bike practically rides itself up them). I observed at a trial last year which used straightforward sections unchanged from the Seventies and many riders were moaning when they saw them. I agree that WTC is beyond a joke, in many ways, but there does seem to be a marked lack of ambition in the young at grass roots level. As Breagh has said on occasion, an old twin shock could be (and is) used to clean the bulk of sections in the modern trials I now ride. Not that I'm complaining at my age but nobody would have laid out a trial to suit pensioners back then.

I assume EM (a business that has to have profit to survive) are selling all they can make, so why bother spending a lot of money for no commercial return? Works specials have existed for decades, perhaps not as extreme as the Honda, and are part of what makes trials what it is. I suspect many (most?) trials bike purchasers see the WTC as an irrelevance anyway. I know I do but also feel that trials is important enough to have a world championship; a bit of a dichotomy, I know.

If you can get more than a couple of inches through the hole then buy a lottety ticket as it is your lucky week. The packing needs to be evenly distributed and not too tightly packed - impossible to do without a large access. The rope is the wrong stuff anyway. I have used the same bag of loft insulation for years so it works out cheap, you could even borrow some from your attic? Ease of repacking was one reason why I bought a Beta and, given the importance of a correctly packed exhaust, then frankly any bike that can't easily be repacked has a design flaw in my opinion. I can't be alone in that.

Once you get in to the confines of a "proper" section you may find the bike seems somewhat snappier than you currently think?. Let us know how it goes.

The Dalesman is what it is, a product of the difficulties of the time, and it's good to see a piece of history in use; I did wonder if any would surface in trials. However, most folk found there was only one really worthwhile upgrade.......... a Bultaco.

Don't worry, Breagh is a Fifer so an expert on value and will have spotted that. In the Ossa context there is not that much difference using exchange rates, but "market value" depends on other, local, factors too.

What would you reckon in the UK Breagh, sounds optimistic to me? If you could find anyone willing to take one on.

That was my first reaction, but it is a lot cheaper than having a pistonless bike sitting doing nothing, so priced accordingly.

MX gear is a lot baggier to allow for full armour beneath - and is even more garish than trials gear.

No, the NE Centre and I never did the Little Bear. Might have been at Woodburn (west of the A68).

I seem to remember enjoying the occasional six lapper in the NE Centre in the Seventies. Is my memory playing tricks?

You're missing my point - it's not legal if you're not insured, which now would appear to be the case with certain policies.

I notice that some insurers are now requiring vehicles to have a current "MOT". Whether in response to the law change for older vehicles or not I don't know. It does raise the point of how you get a vehicle with an expired certificate to a test station though.

Just cheaper than the only obvious competitor, the 125 Scorpa, though the Scorpa silencer does seem to actually do something by way of noise reduction. You pays your money, you takes your choice.

You're possibly right; how many folk do an oil change every day at the Scottish, if at all during the event? However it does give the opportunity for a look inside. Apart from size, what's different between the filter and one doing thousands of miles on a road bike after all. As you say, with the oil changed every six trials per the manual there's not much to filter out. After the first time, I now find the filter easy enough to remove and refit (every second oil change) but it is a design glitch by Honda - a fraction off the back of the flywheel by way of a chamfer would remove the difficulty and, if critical, the weight could be added elsewhere on the flywheel.

I don't know about bhp figures but it is about as far as you could get from an Alpina equivalent, being based on the motocrosser in both motor and cycle. It's more a Frontera equivalent.

Is it not still referred to as motor spirit in UK legislation?