trapezeartist

9/42? That's even shorter than mine! I would think that would make second gear similar to first on standard gearing. Throughout my first day of riding I didn't use first at all. It would have had me on my a*** in no time.

I had my first ride today on my newly-acquired 300 4 stroke. Despite being told that the four stroke is nice and docile, it seemed pretty lively to me. The bike even offered me the opportunity to inspect the ground at close quarters on a couple of occasions. So now I need to calm it down a bit, as well as tune myself up considerably. A slow throttle will be the first thing, but I'm wondering about gearing. The standard gearing according to the manual is 11/42. When I spoke to someone at Lampkins, he suggested 10/42 for a novice. This puzzles me slightly as that is 10% shorter, so while speed at any given revs will be 10% slower (reducing the need to slip the clutch) the torque at the back wheel will be 10% more. Any ideas why this would be considered more beginner-friendly? Furthermore, my bike is actually 9/40 which another 5% shorter. What gearing does the panel recommend?

I've used the SKF equivalent to repair a worn shaft in a water pump. It lasted twice as long as the original before finally needing total refurbishment. Not sure how it would work in this application though.

Brilliant! Thanks, Mike.

And still the same bike!

Now that I am finally in the happy position of having bought a bike (collecting it on Thursday), I decided to re-read the recommended article on suspension set up for a trials bike. According to a previous thread, the link was https://view.joomag.com/trials-enduro-news-december-2014-vol-49-issue-12/0716551001416757092?short but sadly that no longer works. Does anyone know if the article is available anywhere else?

If you go to a place selling bearings and seals, I'm sure you will find a version of that seal with a stainless spring and a version with a carbon steel spring. I think you can probably guess which one you need .

When I last rode in trials (40 odd years ago!) "no stop" was strictly enforced and everyone knew where they stood. Since then "stop allowed" has come and (largely) gone but the interpretation of "no stop" has been left in a rather woolly state. Having been observing recently, I've been happy to allow "hesitation" but penalise "stop" and no-one has complained, but I agree that it's not very precise. The complaints about experts hanging back to let someone else scrub the moss off rocks were around 40 years ago. The modern system of starting groups at various different sections should make things much better. Road trials were good 40 years ago because it was easier to find some good sections and join them up with a few miles of road. But modern bikes are not really sensible on the road. Just run road trials for Pre-65 and Twinshocks and take the temptation away from any over-keen coppers.

I would be interested to know why the frequent-oil-changers think they know better than the manufacturer. (Sorry, it sounds a bit aggressive, which isn't the intention. I'm just curious.)

Looking at the descriptions of the various boots on various websites (which is mostly marketing puff anyway) it seems as if the only boots that make a claim to being waterproof are Gaerne. Can that really be true? Seems odd considering that trials boots will be walked through water every time they're used.

Seems a good idea to me. Have you ever seen one trying to stop on wet cobbles?

Yes it's all very confusing, but more information is never a problem. Obviously I'm going to have to ignore the advice of some people as there are some diametrically opposite opinions. Please don't be offended if I ignore yours: I appreciate everyone's help.

While I am grateful for everyone's opinions, I'm not all that much further forward. Buy a 4T. Buy a 2T. Buy any 250. Buy a 125. Don't fall off and land on your shoulder. (That's a view I will definitely try to take on board.) When observing I've noticed a lot of 125s being revved and driven a lot harder than the 250s. That's what puts me off them. I do find the argument persuasive that the various means of taming a 250 should be sufficient. And so far no-one has come out strongly in favour of one make or another in respect of power delivery. Perhaps I can just look for the best I can find at my price, regardless of make.

¿Los dos tipos de moto? ¡Poco a poco! I assume I will probably add more clubs as I go along, but I was just looking for guidance for starting off. ¿Porque español?

Everyone seems to agree that the best bike for a novice is a Beta 200. Unfortunately they seem to be about as rare as the faeces of a child's equestrian toy. So the alternative may have to be a 250. Which is the most docile 250?

My original plan was Twinshock but I've been seduced by Modern. I follow the Facebook page, and that has guided me to the events I have attended. Unfortunately I've forgotten which clubs they were. I'll try Gasserguy's recommendations. Thanks.

How about getting the load space dimensions off the Ford website and applying a bit of geometry (as you can load the bike diagonally if necessary)? I have a much smaller vehicle (Citroen Berlingo car version) and I'm hoping to be able to fit a bike in that. If I can't, I'm right up S__t Creek because that's what I bought it for.

Hopefully I should finally be getting a bike soon and then starting to compete. So I need a club membership. My reasoning at the moment (possibly flawed) is to join one AMCA club and one ACU club, in order to give a wider choice of events. I live near Bristol so both Cotswolds and Somerset are on my doorstep. I'm already a member of Golden Valley (AMCA) so I'm assuming that entitles me to enter any AMCA events. Right? Which ACU club would people recommend? Will I need to join one in the Wessex Centre and one in the South-West Centre? I've been going to a number of events in the last few months and observing, but to be honest I've forgotten which clubs were running them.

I have no practical knowledge of flywheel weights, but thinking through the theory leaves me sceptical. While the weight will significantly increase the inertia of the moving parts of the engine, when you add in the weight of bike and rider it will be largely insignificant. Now someone, tell me I'm wrong.

I just learnt that the 2013 onward 200s are based on the 250 engine, whereas the earlier 200s were based on the 125. What is the practical significance of this changeover? If I was hovering between buying a 2012 and a 2013, how important would that change be?

I do think it's a bit of a stretch, but it just had to be said. There is a little bit of a serious point to my comment: one should never assume that a company with a good reputation is bombproof. Indeed, reputations both good and bad are usually an exageration of a valid reality. Honda really can't duck the fact that they have made a complete pig's ear of the F1 project and McLaren can't duck the fact that they likely just assumed "It's Honda so it will be good".

I'll ask Fernando Alonso.

Where else would Cornwall be? Unless Mebyon Kernow are planning their own indyref.

Why not contact Montesa and ask when he will be there? You've nothing to lose.

320 lb is actually 145 kg.