woody

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.

He was making Hi-boy frames from about 1969 but I don't know whether the first years were just for himself or for sale to customers. They were made for a number of years during the seventies but I've no idea what the differences were throughout the range. You really need to find out from Millers which year it is, they should be able to tell you from the SM frame number. Then you may get an idea of what it should look like. Have a look on ebay UK at item number 220347140812 which is an early Hi-boy slimline bike.

Fantic tanks paint ok, no idea whether they are a different material from the Bultaco tanks. A mate of mine has a Fantic tank that has been painted for years and it hasn't lifted. Doesn't appear to be lined with anything. At the twinshock team trial last year Bill Pye's team were on Fantics and they all had painted tanks. They weren't lined as I asked him, just painted with 2-pack with flexible plastic primer. I've used Caswells on a fibreglass tank - is it made to work with the polyprop... tanks, can it stick to that? I had a Sherpa tank painted almost 2 years ago, not lined with anything, decals applied and then lacquered. I've never been able to use it as the captive nuts pulled so I couldn't seal the tap. It's had petrol in it but not for long but it must have fumes in it still. So far no problem. One day I'll get round to just putting a bit of fuel in it and leave it to see if it does lift the paint over time.

Love it - just the way it should be - happened to me a few times in the past so I know what you mean.... Nice bike. I agree with you about the engine, I tried one for the first time a while back and the motor was very smooth and quite torquey, felt a lot better than the TLR250 motor. I only tried it on a piece of flat ground and it didn't feel noticeably heavy riding it (as opposed to lifting it....) but I imagine it could be a handful up some of the more serious sections if it started to get away, especially rocky streams. Absolutely ideal for the Miller series though.

Painting not recommended as it won't stick - the stantions are the chrome tubes.... Assuming you mean twinshock TY (as from new the mono TY had painted fork bottoms/legs/sliders - take your pick as they have various names) the legs are polished and lacquered from the factory so whatever you do, the lacquer, or what's left of it, will have to come off first. Then you can either polish them or get them painted/powdercoated or whatever. Just personal choice. In our climate though, polished alloy, Japanese in particular, doesn't always survive too well and it can (not necessarily will) fur up or corrode unless it's protected. Not sure how you get lacquer to stick to highly polished alloy though as it would have nothing to key into. They weren't mirror polished from the factory. For what it's worth, I have some highly polished TY fork legs and they've lasted ok so far, although the bike's had little use yet and hasn't been submerged in mud regularly but it has sat in a damp garage and so far they're ok.

About the 1 minute mark - I love the way she fingers his antenna......... But he missed burying his helmet in the best two balloons in the arena... Going back to the Cobos vid, the man really has got some balls trying that given his serious knee injury from a few years back. Those get-offs were a long way down

I spotted it almost as soon as it came on but not soon enough, Colin phoned the seller but his phone was busy, when he phoned back some smarta*** had already been on and told him what it was - he had no idea until then. By the time Colin got him he'd accepted an offer of

Just had a quick look at this bike tonight whilst helping my mate set up his stand at the show. Looks like the TL frame with the TLR200 motor fitted as opposed to a new frame for the TLR. Could be wrong but with the quick look I had, that's what it appeared to be. Whereas I don't think the TLR Hondas are the best or most competitive twinshock trials bike (overpriced and over-rated to me) I don't understand why anyone who owns one would want to spend that sort of money on changing the frame as there is not much wrong with the original. The TLR chassis isn't bad at all and it's light too, it's the engine that puts it behind the other leading twinshocks, I can't see any gain in swapping the frame at all. The TLR is also a nice looking bike but this looks old fashioned to me in comparison, too much like the TL kit. The one thing I did notice though was that the silencer fouls the rear mudguard badly to the extent that the mudguard has a fairly large piece cut out of it to accomodate it. Not pretty and not a good design, it looks awful on a show bike and makes you wonder if anything else has been compromised. There's a very nice Honda on display on a stand just behind Miller's stand, next to Simon Bateman's Villers stand. One-off special TLR250 with a TLR250R engine fitted. Stunning.

Steve was from around the Midlands originally and used to practise in our local quarry along with Arthur Browning and Dave Smith (enduro rider, nice bloke sadly no longer with us) As well as being a Bultaco sponsored rider Steve was quite innovative and used to come up with his own designs for trials frames/swingarms (and other stuff including BMX) He had made various frames throughout the 70s, not sure exactly which bikes for apart from Bultaco. John Collins has one of Steve's Bultacos which he rides in Sammy Miller events now and again. It has a novel airbox/fuel tank layout. No idea if that Montesa is one of Steve's or not. It is so close in design/appearance to the standard Mont frame though. Forgot to mention, he lives in Cornwall/Devon somewhere now (or did at least) no longer involved in trials

It comes with a short cable (say about 3") which goes between the lightner and your clutch lever. Then your existing clutch cable fits into the lightner. There is a lever inside the lightner with a 3 pivot points to get a leverage ratio, both cables fit to either end of the lever. The problem with this is that unless you shorten your clutch cable you end up with a very big and tight loop on its way down to the arm on the engine as it's fastening point has now moved by about 6". The Yam cable is already overly long as it is. The increased bending to route it may just negate any gain the gismo has. Having tried one on an Ossa in the past I didn't think it was that effective to be honest, but this is all subjective/personal opinion. First thing I'd do is fit a Venhill Featherlite cable as they can make a difference on their own, cheapest and quickest option. If it still isn't light enough for you then extend the clutch arm. How much by doesn't come into it due to its location. The shape of the engine casing means you can only add about 1" max, maybe not even that much, from memory. It's steel so you haven't got to find a welder who can weld alloy. If you do those two things I'd be really surprised if you didn't find it light enough. Mine has and it's a one figure pull easy.

If you want to lighten the clutch action without removing springs just extend the clutch arm under the engine

No, TY frame didn't change after that. The Yam framed Maj still had the red/blue seat but used the standard seat base, it was just re-covered. If I put the Yam frame seat on my Godden it's not a snug fit and will move from side to side as the curved edges are wider than the frame rails, so I was guessing that the Godden seat would be too narrow for the Yam frame. I'll try mine and see sometime. Is yours a seat from Craig then Bo? If it is then they obviously do fit as I'm sure he only sells them for the Godden frame, or at least used to.

It's not the wheelbase with the Bultaco that causes a problem, its wheelbase is about the same as any other bike, most are between 51.5" and 52.5". It's the steering geometry that makes it a bit lazy when trying to get it back on line after you've lost it. A bike with quicker steering can be brought back on line quicker. Ossa MK2 has the same wheelbase as the Bulto as near as dammit and it is really agile up rocky streams as it has quick(ish) steering compared to most other bikes of the time. The MK1 Ossa was shorter at 51" but for the MK2 they added about 1.5" to the swingarm to help keep the front down on climbs and aid grip. It steers exactly the same as the MK1 as the geometry is the same but the MK1 will turn a tighter circle because of the shorter wheelbase. Either is a very agile bike and can be ridden really slowly up rock streams/gullies and basically placed wherever you want it to go. So the wheelbase isn't the problem. With the Bulto they have to be ridden quicker and more in a straight line up that type of section due to the lazier steering. Can't say either one is any more stable though. To be accurate, no bike is going to be stable if the rider can't hang on to it and hold the line, they'll all fly all over the place. Best thing to concentrate on is getting the suspension working as best you can front and back as that will give the best benefit up rock sections. The damping in Bulto forks is too soft and it's hard to stop them topping out on rebound. I've even had them at the point where I've too much oil in (and this is 30 weight) so that they hydraulic on compression but still top out on rebound.... Not much you can do with that. I cured it by fitting some Ossa MAR damper rods as the Ossa forks work better. The rear suspension mod is done by tipping the engine upwards very slightly due to the shape of the rear of the engine, in order to allow the swingarm pivot to be moved as close to the engine as possible. Don't know the exact measurement by how much they pivot it upwards but it's not much. They didn't use the standard swingarm on this mod though, a longer one was used, otherwise the wheelbase would be down to under 51" and that is without moving the steering back. As regards the flywheel weights, why do you want to lighten them. Do you really want a 325/3400 Bult to pick up any quicker? The trade off is that you will lose the additional flywheel inertia that gives the engine so much plonk at low speed. You'll end up with an engine that just wants to stall at slow speed and which will require constant use of the clutch to prevent that. I'd leave it alone to be honest. Or if you must experiment, try the flywheel and crank weight from a 250 both of which are lighter as at least that is a bolt on/off solution. For rear shocks I'd use Falcons and ask for an additional top mount which is 10mm or so longer so that you can experiment with the difference longer rear shocks make to the steering. Easier than cutting frames.

Not sure the Majesty seat will fit the Yam frame. They are made for the Godden frame and that is a little narrower across the seat rails than the Yam frame. It may not sit right - and for that money you'd want it to sit right.

Can't help with the forks/wheel but unless you're handy with the cutting and welding gear, if you can afford a Faber frame go for one. I've seen a picture of the latest one with the bottom frame tubes (still oil in frame) and it looks a lot nicer than the old one. Raising the engine, dropping the subframe etc. is a lot of fiddly work, Faber is the easier option

No, practise isn't allowed there, trials only as far as I'm aware (our club, Stafford Auto, uses it for events as well as Acorns and BMCA). If you want to double check though you can try phoning the AMCA office ans see whether they can give you a contact number for Acorns trials secretary as he will have the definitive answer, but I'm sure it's no.

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing missing in the first photo where the metal is torn, no idea what has happened there. Bolt on footrest kit is available from Sammy Miller and fits in the way Bo D has mentioned. Trail and Trials may be the same kit, I don't know. You don't want to mount them too far back though as it will make it very light on the front and also bugger up the steering due to the altered riding stance. The modern 'standing in the bike' riding position doesn't necessarily work on older bikes. Just lowering them should be enough really without going back, but personal choice in the end. The shocks mount directly onto the frame tube yes, but the whole of the rear cradle was moved on the Majesty so you will probably never get the exact positioning on the standard frame. However, just angling them should improve things. A triangular gusset was fitted in the angle between the shock uprights and the seat tubes. See the post in the Yamaha forum about the bike on ebay. Booma has posted a photobucket link to pics of his Yam that has the shocks moved and a gusset fitted with pictures to show. The footrests on the ebay bike are quite a way back though. The Majesty tank mounts in the same way as the standard tank, two rubber mounts at the front fitted to the tank locate in the C shaped brackets on the frame. Only the seat holds the back of the tank in place. Edit - Booma has removed his link and replaced with one photo. PM him for his link if you want to see the photos.

The TY twinshock doesn't need a tool to remove the front wheel spindle so guessing you have a mono. You just need a large enough allen key with which to unscrew it. I expect a Yam dealer could get you the actual Yamaha tool which also removes the spark plug and rear wheel nut, but it isn't really necessary, just find an Allen key or hex drive large enough. If you can't, you can always use a bolt with the appropriate sized head with two nuts locked together on the other end to hold them in place. Use one end in the spindle and put a spanner on the other to turn it. If you have a twinshock it just pulls out after loosening the clamps.

Lizzy, you really need to know which carb you have because as Feetupfun has mentioned there are quite a few different types of Mikuni and parts aren't interchangeable between all of them. I can't see how B&J or any dealer can supply you the jets without knowing which type you have. Even the new VM carbs that you can buy come with two different types of needle and needle jet and they must be paired correctly. They won't work with each other. Mikunis are an absolute minefield to jet because of the many variants. If you could post a picture someone may recognise it if it is an OEM carb from another bike (which is probable) Does it bolt on to the cylinder or does it push into a rubber hose. This is a link to the website of the Mikuni importer here in the UK, Allens, and it lists all current carbs that they can supply new. Take a look and you will get an idea of the number of variants for carb bodies, jets, needles and needle jets, just for the current range.... Allens