woody

You're kidding right? How is this any different from any other bike? The problem with the KT forks is that they are too soft in damping and spring rate which doesn't help when tackling long rocky sections at speed, the front end is difficult to control. The rake on the steering also makes it hard to bring the bike back on line quickly as the steering is slow. Turning tight on the KT isn't really an issue, it will turn tight ok, it is the speed that the steering responds that is a disadvantage against some other bikes. I have no idea about the rigidity of the frame but it is way over engineered and too heavy. The rear engine mount alone is overkill.

Don't know if you know about this site already but if you don't there is a list of specialists at the bottom. You might get a Gripper piston from one of the US specialists. Mats Nyberg Ossa site If you can't get one you can use a 72mm MAR piston which takes it out to 244cc, Gripper was sleeved down to 238cc with its 70mm piston. You just need to cut the slot in the back of the MAR piston using your original as a pattern.

Not to do with performance for me, rather the limited choice of tubed tyres now available, IRC and Michelin. The IRC grips as well as anything but has been spoilt by the butter-like strength of the sidewalls, if you weigh over about 12 stone they roll around all over the place. Increase the pressure to over 5psi to stiffen it up and you lose grip. If you can put up with the rolling they're fine but at 17+ stone I can't and I'm sick of the bloody things. They puncture easily too. The Michelin isn't a tubed version of the X11, I've no idea what it is but it's about as good as a racing slick on ice when used in a muddy trial. Didn't have one on long enough to try it on rocks. I'd bet a Pirelli MT43 is better.... Soft sidewalls apart. as regards performance in terms of grip between the IRC tubed and any tubeless tyres, if there is a difference, you'd have to be able to ride well enough to push the tubed tyre to its absolute limit and then be able to ride the same terrain with a tubeless and feel any difference. 95% of trials riders don't have to worry about that. Main advantage of tubeless is wider choice, less chance of punctures, stiffer sidewalls. Some tubed rims will seat a tubeless tyre with a tube fitted with no problem. Again there is a theory that the tubeless doesn't work as well with a tube in but if a rider can tell that they should be in WTC I reckon.

Aprilia ?????

All parts will be ok in the main but there may be one or two things to watch out for. If your 92 frame is the mk1 version which had only the rear facing tubes from footrests up to seat, if you replace with the mk2 frame which has the forward facing tubes as well, your tank, if it is the slimline fibrglass version, may need trimming to clear the forward facing frame tubes and the aircleaner to carb hose. If you have the alloy Homerlite tank/seat unit it should be ok on either. Brackets for a rear silencer could differ on early or really late 91/92 frames. Some late bikes may have had the boomerang silencer fitted, not the small triangular silencer of the early model. If you go for a later model 124/5 frame, the chain tensioner and mounting point may be different That should be about all though. Edit: - just noticed this 92 engine on ebay - give them a ring about the frame. Ellastone ebay item

I agree with you on the weight issue, I'm staggered anyone can consider any modern trials bike too heavy. The 4RT may be a little front end biased as regards weight whch gives the front a heavy feel, like Betas (not tried an Evo) but overall weight isn't an issue. That only matters to the WTC and top National championship riders who have to throw them up things that good national riders and below can only gawp at. Most riders could save themselves a lot of money on weight saving gimmicks and get the weight off themselves instead. Can't agree on your thoughts on adapting to 4-strokes though. Takes about 10 minutes, no difference from changing from one make of bike to another. A lot is made of the difference in technique that is required. It was never an issue before the 4RT, certainly isn't an issue in the enduro world where riders regularly change from 2 to 4-stroke. I ride my C15 exactly the same way as I ride a Bult, Ossa or KT. Only real differences are you have to hold the throttle open a little longer on climbs, a 2-stroke can be shut off earlier due to less engine braking to carry you over the top, together with engine braking in general. Much is made of using 4-stroke torque and riding off lower revs to gain grip. When a section starts in a rut and goes straight up a 40 foot climb of UK snotty mud there is only one approach - full throttle, let the rear tyre burn through for grip in as high a gear as possible. Try pulling low revs and you won't make the start cards, never mind the ends cards on 2 or 4-stroke. I've no idea why Honda are reportedly pulling the plug again, but the 4RT is now very expensive to buy and is not really a good bike for non-experts, at least not in muddy conditions. I know of several good national riders who have sold them as they cannot get them to grip in muddy conditions. These are national standard riders, not beginners. They know how to ride. The power, at least on the earlier bikes was too snappy, even with soft mapping and they spin up easily at low throttle and this punishes a beginner badly. There are easier bikes to ride, 200, 125 etc. Many riders don't need 250 upwards. I've no idea of sales figures but know of a lot of people who didn't buy another 4RT (me included) so maybe it is falling sales that have influenced a decision by Honda. Certainly can't be the lack of success at WTC. It will be a shame if they do go, in Repsol colours I think it is the best looking trials bike out there, but maybe it no longer has the appeal it once had now that many more riders have tried or owned one and made their own minds up since they first appeared amidst all the hype.

They didn't go off the boil, Steve finished 2nd in 1986, Lejeune I think was 3rd. Although both were well placed for another crack in 1987, both lost the chance to win the '86 title at the last round, particularly Lejeune who was way down the results. Who knows when Honda made the final decision to quit, but after 3 titles with Lejeune on the twinshock, perhaps two years with no title was deemed a failure by Honda, maybe hastening a decision that was already being planned. For '87 Steve went to Fantic, Eddie rode his last season on the RTL and went to Merlin after. No real Honda factory involvement in WTC until the 315 almost 10 years later.

In 1986 Honda were pulling out of trials again at WTC level, Saunders went to Fantic for the 1987 season but Lejeune still had one year left on his contract so continued with the RTL for the 1987 season and went to Merlin in 1988

Andy, great trial today, rest assured all your hard work over the last few weeks and probably more, was well worth it. Really enjoyed it. Some really good sections, right level of severity, nothing daft and even the more difficult ones could be cleaned with a good ride and a bit of skill (as David Pye proved by going clean apparently - exceptional ride by a very good rider) It would have taken some effort to go around in single figures I reckon, never mind clean (twinshock I mean, not modern bike) Even the weather stayed nice and the ride around was very enjoyable too. Only hiccup was that some groups had minimal markers to direct from one section to another or the way out of the group which may have caused a few people problems with time, but that is the only constructive criticism, everything else was spot on. It would be a great pity if this wasn't a championship round again next year but therein lies a problem. Some riders rode last year when it ran as a 'feeler' to see if it could run as a championship this year. As it was non championship it had 2 routes on all (I think) sections. Riders who entered last year on the B route entered again this year but not being used to the Normandale series, didn't realise that only a small percentage of sections can have a B route, on the remainder they have to ride the championship route. Whereas the championship route was just about spot on, it was too hard for some as they didn't know what to expect. This isn't a failing of the trial, it's a failing of the standing regs for this series. This point probably needs another thread but the Normandale series is crying out for two routes, with the exception of a couple of events, one route is not sustainable. All that is going to happen is that the twinshock and Pre65 bikes are going to disappear from this series apart from a few diehards. It's becoming a modern bike championship for over 40/50/60. Run 2 routes, hard route for championship for all classes (I'm pretty sure that the class A championship contenders don't want to ride eased sections) The hard route can give the championship runners something to get stuck into. The severity of today's trial was right so I'm not talking about making the trials harder. However, running an eased route, on all sections if deemed necessary by the COC, for Pre65, t/s, aircooled mono and modern will open the trials up to other riders, particularly on classic bikes, who simply find the championship sections too hard. The riders most likely not to enter this event again next year under current regulations would be on twinshocks and Pre65 bikes. With an eased route they would ride again, no doubt. With numbers of classic entrants decreased, I can well understand the organisers of the event thinking bugger the championship next year, we'll just run as a non-championship Pre65 and twinshock trial. This would be a real shame and a loss to the championship. John Collins, if you're reading this, can we get this series back to dual routes next year and hopefully increase the numbers of classic bikes?

If you want this year's it's on the ACU website here

Beautiful bike Ben. I never liked the black frame and will do mine silver/grey or white when it gets a rebuild. Makes the whole bike look lighter. I've done the same mods to mine apart from bar position is standard and I have Fred's uprated fork springs. Rides pretty well.

If it is all original it sounds like you have a Cota 350 - I had one of those from (nearly) new. It was the last incarnation of the 349 and there are three versions of it, the 349/4 which had grey frame, grey mudguards and red tank, the 350 which had grey frame, red tank and guards and then the MH349. All are the same bike with different colour schemes. Although they use the 349 engine the frame is much modified from the original 349 model and it is a much better bike. The most obvious identifying feature is the swing arm which kicks up at the rear spindle mount. A bit dated by the time it came out compared to Fantic etc. but still a good bike with one of the gutsiest trials engines ever. There is also this site which has a picture of the Cota 350 which the Southwest site doesn't click here

And they've also taken on Husqvarna recently - to fill a future hole left by Montesa's departure?

Personally, I wouldn't go to the additional work of moving the rear shocks. To get any real benefit from that you may have to reposition other things such as the swingarm pivot etc, as on the Yamaha Majesty - it wasn't just a case of angling the rear shocks on those, the whole rear subframe including the pivot point was moved upwards. I find that with a good set of shocks, well set up, the rear of the KT works pretty well. I get a lot of feel from the rear suspension and it absorbs impacts quite well. Not sure that just angling the shocks would make much difference. It is certainly effective enough for anything found in most classic events over here and copes well whenever I ride it on the B route in modern trials. It grips pretty well in mud too. On mine I extended the the shock length by about 1" to help quicken the steering as it is a little slow. It has enough lock to steer around any section but I find that up rocky gullies, if it gets off line it isn't easy to quickly pull it back on line again, as it is with an Ossa or a later Bulto. I'd compare the steering to a model 49 or 80 Bultaco. The longer shocks don't make a huge difference but every little helps. The motor really surprised me, it is pretty torquey, much better than a TY and it will pull 2nd and 3rd gear in sections. It revs its balls off if needed. It has a flywheel weight fitted but still feels as though it could do with more. If I hadn't looked I wouldn't have thought it had one. Personal preference as to how much weight I guess. The clutch works well, I was going to extend the clutch arm slightly as there isn't much room but I've since got a KX cover to try. The brakes are brilliant for a 70s drum set up and I can clutch/brake it with little effort, it is very stable as it doesn't take much effort. I use genuine KT shoes and clutch plates. The biggest let down is the front fork action. Typically 70s Jap set up, too soft on spring and damping if your over about 12 stones (170 pounds) I have fitted a pair of uprated springs from Fred in New Zealand and they work well. Getting the damping close to right is difficult and I'm using SAE20 oil I think but they will still top out. The damping rate is wrong really and set up ends up being a compromise of one sort or another. The KT is definitely behind the Spanish bikes of the era but not as bad as it is made out to be, in my opnion that is. Lose some weight from the frame, the engine is light enough, sort the steering and front suspension and they would have had a dramatic improvement which would have put them closer to the Spanish bikes. It wouldn't have taken too much to have got it close and it is a shame they didn't continue with it - especially when you see what they did with the works 330.

It's called the Mick Andrews Book of Trials and was published in 1976 when Mick was with Yamaha. No idea if it is still available but copies come on ebay every now and again. It appears that Yamaha never finished the 4 stroke project.

Yamaha were working on a 500cc 4 stroke for Mick in late 70s. There's a picture of it in his book with the motor installed. It's big and the frame had a lot of work done to get it in. The pressed tube that extends into the toolbox is missing, the engine is tilted forward and the head sits right up in the angle of the top tube/downtube by the headstock.

It's on the fixture list as 6th December.

You'd be better off just contacting a Bultaco dealer/specialist such as Hugh's Bultaco as they may have one in stock, or a used one. You could probably have one before someone has looked up the part, measured it and you've chased around bearing stockists to see if they can get you one. From what I remember, there are no part numbers on that bearing.

What the **** is going on here - 'Modern twinshock' conversions.... Rubbish..!! There is no such thing, they are just monos with twinshocks stuck on. How have these got any relevance at all to a twinshock class, or just forget the class, any relevance to riding a twinshock bike. These are nothing bikes, they never existed, so how can anyone have an interest in them. At the risk of repeating myself and others, the whole point of riding a twinshock is because it is a bike you enjoyed riding once and still have some affinity for, or wanted but couldn't afford at the time. If you have to create something to ride in a 'twinshock' class then you're missing the point - or just building a cheat bike to gain an advantage. As for twinshocks costing in excess of

It is an air screw on the MK1 Amal. If you screw it in it shuts off the air, screw it out it lets more air through. Try 1.5 turns out for a starting point.

Rode it last year for first time but due to the weather they had to drastically re-route the course and set new sections, so I'm not sure what the usual trial is like. Therefore difficult to say how the usual sections compare with Nostalgia, although I'd say they probably aren't too different from how they were last year. Definitely more straightforward, not as twisty or tight as Nostalgia (which was a lot easier last year) It was very enjoyable, nothing silly but enough to make you think and study lines. I'd do it again this year but it clashes with the Inter Centre Pre65. Sections probably of similar severity to Alvie 2 day. Definitely worth a go.

Try Wakefield Offroad as they have broken a good number of trials bikes over the years. Number will be in TMX or google for it.

I've put a 28mm OKO on my 340 199b and it is straight out of the box, no jetting or needle changes were needed, just a small adjustment on the pilot screw. Runs fine. Doubt very much it is any different from how it would run with the original Bing in as new condition, but that wasn't the purpose of fitting it. Like yours, the Bing was worn out and I needed a replacement carb. The OKO cost

Not sure about vague - plain stupid and inconsistent I'd say - Yorkshire Classic for example will allow and overbored/stroked Cub (not possible pre 1965 with the pistons/parts they are using now) to use a Dellorto carburettor, something that is prohibited everywhere else. But you can't even move the shock shock position on a C15 - did no-one own a hacksaw and gas bottles pre 1965..... Why should Cubs be favoured for choice of carburettor? Pre65 Sottish puts a lot of emphasis on the silhouette approach - it has to look period. They don't allow tubeless rims/tyres even though the tyre is still black and round like a tubed type. Tubeless rims look the same as tube type unless you are closer than 5 feet, early ones actually look the same. You can however have 2009 nice light, shiny billet hubs which look just like their pre 1965 counterparts - big, made of steel, black or silver paint and heavy.... Whole thing is a nonsense. The best thing you can do is check with the clubs you are most likely to be riding with as attitudes change from lax to lenient to don't care. Most people are sensible at club level and don't turn up with a Cub/James/whatever with a Sherco front end. It's generally only the pre65 Scottish that causes real arguments. Manx Classic for example are far more pragmatic. The ACU don't govern all of the classic clubs so you won't really find rules on their website - a lot of them are AMCA. At club level the ACU leave it to individual clubs. They govern the two national series, Traditional and Miller and each of those has eligibility guidelines.

You need the continuous tone horn (bicycle will do) and a speedo, doesn't have to work as you say, they just enter 0 or not recorded or something like that for the mielage on the MOT. Chainguard I'm not sure about, I've never had one. That's it legally but, it will depend on your test station. There are one or two that won't do them without lights as they don't know the law. Some also insist on a rear reflector - what use that is in daylight hours is beyond me. Some don't like the 'not for road use in USA and Canada' wording on Michelin tyres and seem to think that it somehow applies to the UK. Some don't like not for road use on a tail pipe but a sticker takes care of that. Try to find a test station in your area that someone else has used for trials bikes (successfully that is....) Once you have the MOT you can get it registered and Bultaco UK, The Vintage Motorcycle Club or Sammy Miller will give you a dating certificate so you can get an age related plate. As it is not a kit or a new vehicle (or manufactured since the SVA regs came in) it is not subject to SVA and all that stuff.