woody

See the ones you mean but it's the reds / blues etc we're after.

Yep, they're the ones Perce - our local AMCA use them but can't remember where they got them from as it was years ago. We use flags at the moment but the yellow and green disappear into the background in a lot of places. They perish quickly too when the cows get at them...

I've got mixed up then, thought Rathmell was at Suzuki before Birks but obviously the other way around as the works RL325 was from about '76 I think. So 1978 is late enough for the first 325 Beamish which explains the article you're referring to with Rathmell riding one. Thinking about it I seem to remember him in yellow riding gear too which would suggest Beamish as the works bikes were red/orange and silver. Just assumed he would have been on a full works bike rather than a Beamish as he was highest paid factory rider at the time if I remember correctly. Didn't realise there was another works RL still around though - sitting in a barn is a shame, be nice to see it used. Birks uses his with a Beamish frame due to the fragility of the original. Engine sounds absolutely superb with a lot of go.

Thanks for the link, still not quite what we're after but some other useful stuff on there as well, so a good site to know.

I didn't think that Rathmell rode a Beamish, thought he had the factory 325 which was then campaigned by Nigel Birkett after Rathmell went back to Montesa. Birks still has the bike now. There was an ex-Reynolds bike on the Beamish stand at Telford.

Tried them but they only have flags, not the white cards with arrows

Yes Pete, your diagram is the perfect illustration of what I am talking about. Blatant cheating - much has been made of Alderson's bike swap in the SSDT but this is just as much of a cheat as that was. A trial can be won or lost by someone taking this cheat line and getting a clean when others have attempted it properly and lost marks. Can't understand why some observers allow it. SDC - are you saying that you would have allowed it if the rider had done it but not gone against the direction of the section?

I'd love to find some of these too but also drawn a blank. Only one I know to is a video of the 82 or 83 British world round from Pateley Bridge (maybe both years, can't remember) I did have a copy of this years ago but someone borrowed it or it got taped over or something. I can remember a brilliant clean by Schrieber on the Jumbo up a rocky gully or suchlike. Don't remember anyone else getting near it. There must be footage around that companies could put on DVD as there is coverage of the Scott that has been posted on Youtube. At the begining of the 6 from the Scottish there is footage from the 73/4/5? event including Rathmell on a Homerlite tank Bultaco in a snow shower at Edramucky (spelling??) So coverage of that exists and it would be nice to see more of that event. There are a couple of foreign videos that have made it onto Youtube covering a couple of world rounds from mid and late 70's plus one from early 80s but that's about it as far as I know. Outside of the people who enjoy riding them, there seems little interest in anything twinshock in the media, which is a pity.

Pretty certain they only do Amal, but happy to be corrected... You got yourself an Ariel then Bostit...??

Thank you for the offer to help. If I am able to come I will be travelling with friends also, so won't be on my own and we may have 4 bikes to bring with us (I'm definitely taking 2 as I'm not going all that way to retire if one breaks - two breaking would be very unlucky, but not impossible....) It is difficult to arrange transport of bikes with anyone else as it depends on work situation whether I can come or not, so I can't make definite plans yet. If I am able to come then friends will come with me so we will be ok for transport. I just have to decide which ferry to use, but thank you for your offer to help. If it is possible, I will be there this year, it looks like a superb trial.

Thanks all for the replies - the more I think about the Ferry crossing to Spain, the more the travel time makes me wince... Paul - which company did you travel with from Plymouth and can you remember the cost roughly, type/size of van, number of occupants? The sailing times of the two companies I've checked so far aren't suitable.

I've recently heard, from two seperate sources, that the definition of a section boundary is no longer what it was. For ease of example I'll take a single route section, marked with blue on the left, red on the right markers. In the good old days, the blue designated the left hand boundary of the section and the red the right hand boundary. By definition, this meant that the boundary was the invisible straight line between each blue marker on the left, and each red marker on the right. Or in other words, they were the pavement on either side of the road, you ride up the road, you don't go on the pavement. If you went out of the section on the left between two blue markers it was a 5. If you went out between two red markers on the right it was a 5. Aceppted, riders have always pinched an inch or two but blantanly going outside for say a foot or more was a failure to stay within the section - a 5 It seems this is no longer the case. I don't know whether this is an ACU directive or not, JC may know, but we have now been told that a rider can go out of the section between 2 markers, as far as they like and then come back in again. It's even been suggested that this is how it has always been. We're told that if you want to keep a rider within the markers they must be taped. Like that can happen when you run 3 routes - it would be like a bloody spider's web with tape criss-crossing all over the place. And how much tape would be used marking out a single event... I like using tape on parts of some sections as they look more 'professional' but there are limits... This is ridiculous if it's correct. Example. You have a nice rocky stream that will present quite a challenge to ride feet up. Blue markers are up the left hand bank, red up the right. A rider enters the stream and turns left out between two blues and onto the bank. Turns a big circle back towards the stream, crosses the stream without touching a rock and goes out of the red markers on the opposite bank and performs the same maneouvre. Repeat this crossing of the stream all the way up and a clean is achieved without touching a single rock. Joke. But by the above definition it's acceptable. Another example. Section starts and goes up a bank turning right on a camber and further up the bank. The objective is have riders turn right up a slippery muddy camber. Rider enters section and just before the turning, turns left out of a blue marker and rides down onto the flat field, turns around and has a 50 feet run up back into the section and straight up the bank, completely cutting out the corner. Again, this is acceptable by the above definition. So has anyone else come across this 'new ruling'? If this is the case, then for our next club trial I'm going to put a start gate at one end of the ground, an ends gate at the other and say to riders -go through the start gate, ride where you like then come out of the ends gate, come back and tell me your scores. No need to bother with section marker flags inbetween, you can all have cleans and be joint winners. I always thought the enjoyment of trials riding was to ride the sections that had been laid out, as the plotters intended, not to ride all around them!!! Then again, the 'new way' makes section marking easier I guess... And no need for standardisation of coloured markers as none will be needed. OK, rant over, but riding out and back into sections like this is just another form of cheating that really winds me up.

Does anyone know where section marker cards can be purchased from I've seen them on ebay before now but nothing at the moment and a quick search of google threw nothing up. I'm thinking of the white cards, about 6" square (thereabouts) with the coloured arrows. Any suggestions anyone?

Personally, I don't have any problem with what is happening at the moment. I get up and down the country a fair bit following events and the use of different colours by different centres has never caused me a problem, so it wouldn't bother me if things stay the way they are. The way some are marked out has, but that's another issue. What could be an issue is if a club, or centre, has just recently invested in a nice new stock of laminated (or whatever) section markers in the colours that they have used for years. If colours are standardised and they aren't the colours used by those clubs/centre, I'd guess that they wouldn't be too willing to junk most of them in order to comply with standardisation and spend further money buying more. I think it is more important that the markers used are big and clear, no matter what their colour, in order that the routes are marked as clearly as possible. Nothing worse than a green or a yellow marker which is a painted stick the size of a witch's tit hiding in yellow/green foilage or undergrowth. Ultimately, it's the riders responsibility to sort out their route at the start and to look at the section properly before riding it, but many still choose to stand at the begins cards and ask anyone who is listening where it goes. I'd put money on the fact that even if sections had a painted line in the colour of each route from the start to the ends cards, you would still get that most irritating of questions to an observer - 'where's it go mate?'...

Make a note of which way around the clutch push rod is fitted when it comes apart. It is shaped differently at either end and the manual doesn't state which end goes which side. I've no idea what happens if it is fitted the wrong way around (if anything) but something to watch out for. I guess it's fair to assume that if your clutch has been working ok, the way it is fitted now is correct.

Giving serious thought to doing this event this year, work permitting, now that Scotland is out of the picture. Has anyone from the UK who has ridden this trial travelled by van using the ferry from Portsmouth to Bilbao? Does it really take 36 hours which is what the P&O website suggests (although it seems to be 24 hours coming back...?? must be a hell of a wind/current...) I'm not sure I can cope with that long stuck on a boat - boredom threshold may be seriously tested. Isle of Man crossing tests it enough... The ferry cost is the wrong side of

The Kato bike is a very nicely made copy, built by Craig Mawlam who does the Majesty stuff, using a frame built by Mick Whitlock

Yes, you're probably right, I had a feeling I'd got that wrong, I can never remember those models properly - don't like them much which is probably why - ugly things.

There's an easy answer to your 'Bultaco, all you need to know' question Malc. Ossas are much better - Gav should have bought one of those... However, in simple terms M10 - original 250cc 4 speed radial head 1965/66 M27 - next version 250cc radial head (may have been the first 5 speed, can't remember) 1967/68 M49 - 5 speed 250cc like the one I was riding last year 1968/70 M80 - Updated M49 250cc with slimline one piece tank seat unit (available as a kit on the late type 49 before Bultaco standardised it on the 80) 1971/72 M91 - updated M80 250cc with new small front hub, new arched bottom fork yoke iin alloy (previous models steel) 1972/73 M92 - as M91 but first 325cc engine M124 - updated M91 250cc with different exhaust and rear wheel, new forks no longer tapered fit into top yoke, new shape clutch cover 1974 M125 - as M124 but 325cc M150 - updated M124 250cc with different exhaust 1974/75 M151 - as per 150 but 325cc M49 to M151 were essentially a continual design of the same bike. UK models from late 91/92 through to 150/151 were fitted with alloy blue/silver homerlite tanks seat units (homerlite = company that made them in Wolverhampton) M158/159 (250/325) 1975/76 through M182/183 1976 to the M198/199 1977/78 - New model (the one that Martin Lampkin is usually associated with) with different frame, seperate tank and seat, new exhaust, rear wheel, 250 downsized to 238cc (French tax laws) engine internals and frame changes along the way. All bikes red with silver frame up to this point (from the factory) M198a - Now all blue in colour with seperate bashplate, new timing cover with thumb logo, reinforced swingarm with big gussetts up to shock mounts 1978/80 M199a - as 198a but 325cc Somewhere along the line a 250 model got it's own frame design but then reverted back to a common frame for both, can't remember which model this happened on M198b - Basically a remodelled 198a with new square section swingarm and rear frame loop cut off - white frame/mudguards, blue tank/sidepanels/yokes/forks 1981/83 M199b - as per 198b but engine overbored to 340cc with Pursang piston and fitted with 6 speed gearbox That's it roughly in terms of major changes but numerous detail changes thoughout the model range Edited to add some dates next to models As per Martin's post below M27 didn't have radial head

Yes, new liner or find a later 325 cylinder and bore it out - you won't notice any difference (with early 325 cylinders the liner is too thin to take the bigger piston) As regards handling it's personal preference really, what suits one person won't suit another so it's difficult for other riders to make suggestions. Everything has been mentioned in previous posts so it's up to you which way to go. You may find that longer shocks is all you need. If the bike with Pursang front end suits you then go for that mod, at least it's bolt on/bolt off with no hacking. The Pursang forks must have been modified for damping though as they're not suitable for trials as they are.

Your bad day is just about to get worse - Have another look in TMX - It's been in every week for the last few weeks and it's mentioned twice in this weekend's, once in regs, once in What's on.

No, quite right, I wouldn't expect anything from the club as it's their business, but someone has told me today that an entry did go in so it would seem just desserts have been served.

I agree entirely that as he abused the rules, falsely claimed a finisher's award and got caught he should not be allowed to ride the event again. As this thread petered out back in June before restarting with the recent post stating he got what he deserved by way of a refused entry, my point was, did he have his entry refused or was it that he didn't actually enter. There is no statement anywhere based on fact to confirm that his entry was refused. So I was just wondering, as the discussion has now turned to people expressing their pleasure that it serves him right he didn't get in - had he actually even sent an entry in??? Or are epeople just assuming. I absolutely hate cheating, hence my statement about not condoning what had gone on. There's nothing to reason with. Cheating of any kind winds me up badly but unfortunately it is common. From the rider that stops and hops in a no-stop trial and gains an advantage, those that know their way around the SSDT and miss out huge amounts of moors by riding their own route on the road, those who arrive bone dry with clean kit at a group of sections immediately after a filthy moor crossing in p***ing down rain as they've arrived with their bike in a van, those that alter sections (blatantly in some cases) and those that screw up a section and cajole or intimidate an observer into giving them a re-run which they then clean. The list is endless. This stuff goes on all the time and some riders are well known for it but repeatedly get away with it. They can live with it because that is the way they are, win at all costs and they are thick skinned enough to bear it - quite brazenly. How more brazen can you get than the Ferrari/Schumacher era when they cheated regularly under the public glare of millions of eyes and were repeatedly allowed to do it. The bigger the 'name' then generally, the more they get away with. As NZRalphy said, bikes still disappear into the factory 'facilities' at the SSDT to be sorted and fettled by the mechanics whilst the rider puts his feet up. When a friend of mine tried to bring a spanner to me in the parc ferme one year he was told no and to get out, I had to go and get the spanner myself which cost me valuable time whilst struggling to repair the bike on my own. 30 feet away some riders were handing their bikes over and getting them back with some new parts. Some didn't finish the week with the same engine they started with. No-one seemed bothered about all this but my mate couldn't even pass me a spanner. Who said cheats never prosper. Sadly they do and on a regular basis. Ah well, at least one got caught out. Still don't know whether he actually tried to enter this year though.

Just because he's not on the list, is it a fact he had his entry returned or did he even enter..... As regards swapping bikes it's hardly the first time it's happened and it probably won't be the last, he just got noticed by the wrong people (from his perspective) I'm not condoning it as rules are rules, but he isn't the only one to have ever done it. I know of instances back to the 70s where that happened.

Never knew Rex Caunt did Barnett plates, they aren't mentioned on his website. I bought Barnett friction plates from the States and although I've only tried the bike once, as I then broke it, the difference with the clutch was impressive. I used original steel plates and springs with the Barnett frictions and putting it into gear you'd have thought that there was no chain on the bike, no clunk or anything, perfect disengagement. When riding, same result, immediate disengagement whereas previously it may have disengaged by the time the next trial came along.... As far as I know all MAR models and Gripper have 5 steel/friction plates but it's been a while since I've been into a Gripper engine so can't be sure. I've also got a distant recollection that the motocross drive plates are alloy, or is that the Bultaco - can't remember. Again, as far as I know the pressure plate acts as a 6th steel plate as it is next to the last friction plate. The inside steel plate is the thickest.