woody

I was told at the weekend that the price for a 250 GasGas (not Raga) is

Woosters have got Michelin tubed on ebay now

Hard to tell from the photo angle but could be a Japanese aftermarket Kato I think Shirt tail pipes were only in steel

For 18" tube type you have 3 tyre choices - Michelin, IRC or Pirelli The Michelin isn't the X11 as that's the one they discontinued, it is a sort of remake of the old X1 but in our experience in the muddy Midlands it isn't very good. However, given the absence of mud in the Scottish it should be ok. The IRC tube tyre has very soft sidewalls, some seem better than others, but they can roll badly on the sidewalls the heavier you are. On a rigid they may roll but obviously I can't say categorically. Pirelli will work ok but not have as much grip on the rocks as the other two. Have you asked Clive Dopson what he uses on his Norton, may be worth doing so. Don't fit a tube tyre to a tubeless rim as it will more than likely give you problems. If you fit a tubeless rim you can use a tubeless tyre in Scotland, just fit a tube. No need to ruin the rim by drilling for security bolts as the tyre will seat just the same as it would without the tube.

The gasket between the head and cylinder is a metal (alloy) ring. They can be used over again, no need to replace it unless it is damaged in any way which is unlikely. Cylinder base gasket is paper, any gaskets you need and a fair amount of other stuff are available on ebay USA as well as USA Ossa specialists. See this site for links to various specialists; Mats Nyberg Ossa Site

You'll have to ride in the modified class with 18" you know....... (sorry, there isn't an icon for slapped wrist...)

The engine on a MAR won't come out before removing the cylinder without a huge amount of difficulty, there isn't enough room in the frame cradle to manipulate the engine into a position where it will come out with the cylinder on. If you manage it you'll be the first I've heard of and you won't do it without damaging the paint on the frame. Remove the front engine bolts, remove the rear top bolt and that will let the engine drop slightly at the front whilst pivoting on the bottom rear bolt which you need to loosen. With the engine tilted forward you can now remove the cylinder. If you don't tilt the front of the engine downwards there isn't enough height in the frame to remove it, it will just hit the top frame tube. Once the cylinder is off the engine drops out of the bottom of the frame, not lifted out from the side. To remove without tilting the engine you have to remove the two rear cylinder studs after removing the head. With those out of the way the cylinder can be tilted forward as soon as it has cleared the piston. If the engine is coming out anyway, tilting the engine forward is the easier way to remove it. Replacing is reverse of the above, engine has to go in without the cylinder, get the engine in then replace the cylinder. When removing the exhaust ring be sure to use some sort of tight fitting C spanner. If you use a hammer and drift to turn it, it can be done this way but it depends on how tight it is and should be an absolute last resort. You risk damaging the threads in the exhaust port which are very fine or the ring itself.

There is a pretty original model 92 on ebay USA at the moment with decent pictures if you want some reference points Item number 220343089293

Location, given the reference to road reg. and tax exempt is going to be UK. Bultaco is the easiest of the twinshocks to restore as virtually everything is available off the shelf from a dealer or specialist somewhere. Of the stuff you have listed the exhaust will be the most difficult to source. On the 92 the front pipe anf silencer weren't all in one like later models, they have a chrome front pipe and seperate silencer connected with a rubber hose and then a triangular spark arrestor inbetween the shock and frame tube (not required and usually missing anyway) No-one makes aftermarket front pipes or silencers for the 92 yet (decent ones anyway, forget the Miller versions which are awful quality and appearance) so you will have to trawl ebay USA for those if you can't find them here, they come up faily often. If you're just interested in getting it up and running to ride and not obsessed with originality then you can also use an exhaust from a type 125 or (I think) 191 and also use a banana or clubfoot rear silencer which quietens it down and just requires a mounting bracket welded to the rear frame loop. I've done this on mine. The earlier bikes without a rear silencer can be a bit noisy. Or you can also use an exhaust plus flange from a later square barrel 250 as they have the same exhaust port size as the early 325. Later 325 from model 159 (maybe 191, can't remember) have a larger exhaust port so won't fit the earlier 325. The only other items on the list you may have trouble getting are the seat and chain guard. For the seat, a Miller replacement used to be available, not sure if they still are, don't fit quite so snugly as the original but perfectly acceptable in appearance. Original chainguards are big ugly things, you may be better off making a smaller one from alloy. As much as I hate chainguards they are needed here in the UK really as they help keep mud from clogging around the final drive. The other stuff should be no problem. For parts, new or used, there are Bultaco UK, JC Motorcycles Port Talbot (John Collins, ACU Official who posts on here) or Sammy Millers Give the rebuild a go, finding a good running type 92 in the UK is difficult and even if you find one you may end up spending a lot of money on it too once you get it home and get into it, so you could end up worse off. At least with this one you know what you've got already.

Hi Malc - just had a look at Gav's new toy but off to a trial now so only a quick glance. First thought is are you sure the frame number isn't stamped M85 rather than M80, or been altered from 85 to 80. There are a couple of things that are wrong for an 80 but right for an 85. I'll have another look later. M85 is an early 72/74 Alpina but exactly the same frame dimensionally as the Sherpa so not a problem if it is.

Not sure what comments you're responding to there as I've never criticised the age of riders in the event. In a previous post in this thread someone stated that it was a trial catering primarily for older gentlemen on old bikes and I responded by pointing out that it wasn't. The age of riders in the event is of no interest to me young or old, therefore I've no feelings to express on that subject. As for Mr Wylde I know someone who went to buy a Pre65 trials bike from him once. He was looking for an original example and given the man's well voiced opinion on originality, thought that the bike would be what he was looking for. Imagine his surprise to find that it had been modified by the owner to make it 'more rideable'. Another case of double standards. There's a simple enough reason as to why riders began to leave the genuine specification of Pre65 bikes behind and that was to gain any mechanical advantage they could over their fellow competitors. It began long ago and has eventually spawned today's cottage industry that provides 'lookalike' (that's a laugh in itself) Pre65 type components to 2009 specification. People these days seem to have been sucked into believing that all of these brand new components are 'must haves' in order to create a rideable machine. That in itself isn't true, a nice rideable bike can be created for a fraction of the cost of what is being spent. Unfortunately, regulations governing some of the Pre65 scene, not just the Pre65 Scottish, prohibit anyone doing it on a modest budget because of the 'eligibility' rules. And that is the biggest grievance that a lot of people have as it is an absolute farce

"Please remember that this is a Trial for Pre65 bikes and not Pre65 Riders and that the ballot is done by category and not the first 180 out the hat." So - borrow or buy one of the bikes that has been used by one of the regulars and that's it - guaranteed entry as it is all about the bike, not the rider, and that bike will have been accepted year after year - who is actually entered on it should be irrelevant...

Holes at a guess are 1.5 - 2mm but that is just a guess from memory when I've repacked them in the past. I have one lying around somewhere that I cut open as I was going to try and make one myself a while ago. However, fabricating isn't my trade and the external shape of the silencer looked too difficult for me so I gave up. If I can find it I can confirm the size but I have no idea where it is and it won't be until the weekend that I go back into the shed in this weather, as I've no heat in there. However, you can buy the perforated tubes so I'd save yourself the trouble of making one. I think Off Road Only (ORO) in Llandrindod Wells sell them, DEP will probably sell you one and most motocross shops will have them. If you can't get one with a big enough diameter, as most may be for motocross/enduro tail pipes which use about a 25mm tube, try a car exhaust manufacturer as they will have bigger tubes. It's about 30mm from memory in the middle box but again, I can confirm if I can find mine.

There are no baffles inside the middle box on the MAR, It's just a straight through perforated tube wrapped in wadding. The original, barrell shaped, push on tail pipe on the MAR has two baffle plates inside

I know the rider concerned

493 - 3... makes it '78 onwards yes. Yamaha UK customer services will date it for you if you phone them with the frame number, they're helpful enough.

Wiggy's second card score was 2...... Bloody brilliant given the conditions - ice, ice and did I mention ice. Although so was 11 for the first card.

Can't speak for Fantics but I have fitted a 26mm OKO to a 320 Majesty and it ran perfectly, started first kick, straight from the box, no mods or even adjustment of the pilot screw. It will stand on its back wheel from idle in 3rd gear and revs it nuts off so the carburation is working right from idle to full throttle. I've just put a 28mm OKO on another 320 (bought for a Bultaco) just to try it and got the same result. No adjustment, 3rd gear off idle and it's on the back wheel. That engine isn't yet run in yet so I can't say whether that carb revs right through. I'm not saying one thing or another here and I may have been lucky that the jetting just suits a 320 Majesty, but from that experience the pilot circuit is working fine on those two carbs.

No - take a look at the ages of some 'invited' riders and take a look at the bikes they are riding when you go. Many are brand new and don't even come close to being replicas of the original 50s/60s bikes they are 'based' on (not something I have an issue with personally) I don't think there are any people (or if there are, very few) who have any objection to ex-factory riders from yesteryear having an automatic or invited entry into the event. They are names and attract crowds and as you have said the event is viewed as prestigious and it should have these names in the entry, particularly as some of them can still ride a bit... However, there are other issues that people get disgruntled with and I think fairly so. A lack of transparency and double standards with rule application being at the head of the list but I've no intention of rambling on about them as firstly it's pointless and secondly I can't be bothered. What I will say is that I have no bone to pick with the organisers doing what they like with entry selection, it's their event and it's up to them, but there should be tansparency at least. Is it to be viewed as a serious competition or a 2-day riding social event? Most riders would consider it the former. So riders who compete regularly in their pre65 events all year round get a bit wound up when they hear of something along these lines - organisers contact rider (not an ex-factory rider or 'name' or even a regular competitor) to voice surprise they haven't put an entry in. Rider says I'm not really up to it anymore so didn't bother. Organisers say don't worry about that, just do one day if that's all you can manage.... How does that sit with someone who competes regularly, aspires to ride in Scotland where they feel they could get a good result, but despite entering on many occassions can't get a ride?

Generally, Yamaha don't sell piston kits, the components are sold individually so if it is a genuine Yamaha piston you shouldn't have any problem getting just a set of rings. As already mentioned try a Yam main dealer. Nigel Birkett should also be able to help if they are for a trials bike and may even have some in stock - he does for a 320 Majesty for example (you don't mention which bike)

I would say that is probably the case

I sort of half guessed at 1979 as my memory is useless but I have an old Which Bike magazine from that year with the new Majesty range on test. I thought they were introduced earlier than '79 but I let the test convince me otherwise but it isn't really conclusive I guess as they may have been testing them some time after they were introduced. Thinking about it, I'm sure I've seen 'S' reg Majesties over the years and 'S' reg was 77/78 so 1978 could well be the year they were introduced rather than 1979. Didn't see you at Clyro Bo, I don't think anyway, saw Andy but can largely only remember how bloody cold it was.... The KT is going quite well and I'm pretty pleased with it really, particularly impressed with the motor which is strong and will pull 3rd in sections no problem if I need it to. I'm enjoying riding it, only downside really is the front end, forks are typically Japanese and too soft and steering which is a bit slow, bit like an M49 Bultaco.

Does that relate to the OKO in general or just on a Fantic?

The Yam framed Majesties carried the original Yam frame number so they can be dated from that by Yamaha UK. There aren't any records (available) that show which frame numbers were converted to Majesties if that is what you mean unless Shirty kept any. First bikes appeared in '79 using the Yam frame and changed to Godden frame in '81 I think so Yam framed bikes will be dated between '79 - '81.

Well, the ballot gods were smiling on the Allan brothers then, with both of them successfull in being drawn out of the hat (first time of entering too ??) I never knew they were regular Pre65 trials competitors