trapezeartist

I've just spent a day at Muddy Wheels, which is pretty much what you described daggs888. There were three of us on Muddy Wheels' bikes and three or four people practising on their own. Of the three, there was one returner who was very competent, one who was effectively a first-timer and one who had never even ridden a motorbike before. All three agreed it was a brilliant experience. I would recommend this to anyone thinking of buying a trials bike, before they jump in with their cheque book. It may be a bit of a jaunt for many people, but you get to see a lovely corner of Gods-own-county too.

Didn't take long to make the decision then.

I don't think a speed element is necessarily what is needed to attract youngsters. BMX racing is a very small part of BMX overall. I've never even heard of skateboard racing. Yet both of those are immensely popular, and a nice lead-in to trials. If we want to recruit more young riders, I think there are worse places to start than at BMX and skateboard facilities.

Originality is an issue in every sort of old-vehicle motorsport. Cars and bikes. Racing, rallying and trials. Even karts. It's especially a problem when (at the time the class was contemporary) the bikes or cars were modified versions of something more mundane. The best you can really say is that modifications must be "in period". Even then, tyres are bound to be somewhat different because you can't get the original construction or compound.

This is the sort of point I was trying to get at. Let's just say we could establish a real hierarchy of performance amongst the Worlds class riders; Make A is the best, Make B is second best and Make C is third best. Wouldn't it be possible, perhaps even probable that Make C would be the best bike for an average wobbler? Because (as baldilocks just said) it may be more forgiving, which a champion doesn't need but a novice does.

This thread in the Montesa forum got me thinking (well, I didn't have anything else to do): Works teams employ top-class riders to show how good the product is, and then the average (or not-even-average) clubman will be encouraged to buy the same. But is that a flawed logic? It may be that the best bike for a Bou or a Dabill is not the best bike for you or I. And perhaps a bike that they would consider uncompetitive would turn out to be the best for those of us with less exalted abilities. Or perhaps I'm talking rubbish again.

An interesting choice of analogy. I suspect the extra 6kg takes a rather more useful form than cartons of milk though. I would be interested to know what form the 6kg actually takes: a 4T engine is inherently heavier than an equivalent 2T so maybe 2 or 3kg there? The rest likely to be in either the gearbox or the frame, where it hopefully provides a bit more robustness. Certainly all the Mont fans make claims for the durability and reliability. I'll admit I was slightly surprised by the 6kg difference. It's more than I thought. Put another way, it's around 9%. So back to my question: why do secondhand bike buyers want to pay more for something that is 9% heavier and allegedly less manoevrable?

There's your solution, especially of your mate has got the milling machine for a hobby. He's probably dying to find a useful job to do on it.

This is a question that intrigues me, because there has to be a reason why Montesas are more expensive secondhand than any other bikes. Heavier? Not according to the manufacturer's figures. Not so good on tight stuff? Hypothetically perhaps, because they are 10-15mm longer in the wheelbase, but I suspect they are just as hoppable if you're into that sort of thing. Quality? The Honda engine is the product of a world-renowned mainline company, whereas all other trials bikes are made by specialists wit hlimited resources. So perhaps that's true. I don't know. More opinions required, preferably with reasoning.

I would prefer one to a gold watch.

I wasn't comparing, I was contrasting; exactly because you are doing very different things to achieve very different objectives.

Thanks, guys. There are lots of things I would like to reply to. I entirely get the stuff about "sag" even if it is the complete opposite of when I was trying to set-up a racing car with "zero-droop". I also get the point about adjustability of bump and rebound damping. My issue is the change of wheel rate with deflection. I suppose I was hoping someone would explain why falling rate geometry on a twin-shock is a good thing. I suspect the most meaningful answer comes from pmk who seems to be saying "falling rate is there but it doesn't matter as much as other things". Perhaps falling rate is an inevitable consequence of the packaging and the effort to jack-up the back of the bike for longer suspension travel and steeper head angle. Dual-rate springs go some way to beating that, and maybe that's why mono-shocks pushed twin shocks off the scene so abruptly. I've read the trials-enduro-news article before, and very good it is too. I'll read it again sometime soon. I'll have to polish up my German before I can get much out of Trialsport Magazin.

What's the theory behind the rear suspension on a trials bike? There has been a trend towards leaning the suspension units forward on twin-shock bikes. This implies a falling rate as the angle between the unit and the swinging arm reduces as bump deflection increases. On the other hand, dual-rate springs imply a rising rate. I find it hard to work out what's going on with monoshocks as the linkage mechanism is partially hidden. It would need careful measurement and drawing to sort that out. But perhaps someone already knows.

BVM seems to be the trader closest to home, so that has to be a possibility. I just had a look at TMXNews: a few interesting adverts but it's often hard to tell where they are. With only a mobile number they might be just around the corner, or in Scotland.

Thanks for all the suggestions, guys.

Where are the places to look with a view to buying a secondhand trials bike, either private or from a dealer? I've found eBay, Gumtree and the advert section of this site of course. I've also found a few other websites that just re-hash adverts from other sources (pretty pointless). Are there any others I should be looking at? What about dealers? I've found a few in the north of England but they're too far away, and anyway I'd rather buy a bike that hasn't spent too much time bouncing off rocks. I heard of BVM but they don't seem to have much on their website apart from new and nearly-new. I also found RCM in Cornwall but they are also a long way away, in the other direction, though it would be a more attractive journey. Any others?

sirdabalot: a man of exquisite taste. (I trust you're a fan of Adge Cutler too.)

Try http://www.gasgasmotos.es/en/manuals.html The manuals I've looked at there have the service intervals near the front and the torque settings near the back.

Far more important than the colour-scheme, I like it for it's design: I like the frame construction, I like the forged swinging arm, I like the offset rear spring/damper (creates a lot of offset loading, but everything is so stiff I'd be confident that it is "good enough" (oni nou )). The real proof would be in the performance though.

That age-old design conundrum: is "good enough" good enough? As a returner to trials I have no direct experience of the GasGas kickstart: someone complained about it not being good enough. I looked at it purely like I would look at any new design and commented on what I see as the potential cons. If the known problems with it don't correspond to my hypothetical criticism of the design, I'm happy to accept it as "good enough".

If you're adequately hydrated, consider the headaches may be due to tension in the back of the neck (you spend a lot of time with your torso leaning forward and you head up). I used to suffer similar. Solution: take a paracetamol before the headache starts.

I quite like it, insofar as it matters at all. Quite an interesting bit of two-colour trickery at the steering head.

I'm not convinced the design is OK. The fine serrations need to be held to very close tolerances, and even then, a steel shaft in an aluminium body! If it has to be steel and aluminium, I would prefer to see a slot and pinch-bolt.

What's the difference between a TXT and a TXT Pro?

When I came to photo 3 I expected to find a micro-model resting on the seat. Now that would be cool