woody

Brilliant weekend - if any of you lads/lasses involved in the organisation of the trials are on here they were both spot on. Nothing tight, all sections cleanable, although it would take very good rides on some to achieve that (and there were) but most others still tricky enough to take marks if a rider wasn't right on line. So well done, thanks for the events, roll on next year. Only thing I'd change in the Bootle event is more sections in the rock streams as we just don't get to ride enough of that stuff down here, but there they are all over the place, everywhere you look, just begging to be ridden. But you could always find just one, really snotty one full of mud, just for Nick.

Exactly what credit should she get? Isn't she doing it for enjoyment the same as everyone else out there. Everyone apart from a fortunate few have to juggle time between full time job, family committments, travel, monetary priorities and so on. Lots of riders throw every spare penny they get into taking part in their hobby, a lot of time and effort in preparing their bikes and spend a lot of time travelling to and from events. If everyone packed it in because they didn't receive 'credit' there would be no sport. I've nothing against Becky so don't misconstrue this as an attack against her, I don't even know her. I've seen from event reports she's had some good results, so have many others, I just don't know what credit it is you think she deserves.

TY Offroad, ask for Colin TY Offroad

Measured them up against the original plates/brackets and they are half an inch rearwards and 2.5 inches lower. Don't think there is any need to go any further back but that's just personal opnion obviously. Just thought, as regards the height, I don't know whether the footrests on mine are original. The mounting is, so that is in the same place as yours will be, but the rests themselves may have been modified, so the 2.5 inches difference is relative to what was on my bike. As an indicator, the top surface of the new, lowered footrest is now about level with the centre of the sidestand pivot bolt.

Gave it a good try out today and footrest position seems fine, no adverse affect. Comfortable stance, bike grips well and still steers ok (for a 1960s Bulto that is, everything is relative....) So I'm leaving them in this position now. Just need to be aware that as they are now level with the bottom of the engine there is more chance of snagging them but it didn't cause a problem today on a variety of section types - unlike the bloody fuel starvation.

???????? there are 145 entries so there is a fair amount of travelling taking place

JT 6th - how's that for a prediction With the factory engine on its way things are looking good.

Yes, that was me and having ridden a couple of 200 conversions I don't, neither do the owners - I must state here though that I'm not talking specifically about John Cane's conversion as I haven't tried one, so don't mis-construe this. The bikes I tried were converted elsewhere, correctly I hasten to add, not botch jobs. Guess it's like anything else, it's all down to personal perception.

Any competent tig welder could sort that for you without too much trouble. Alternatively try Ellastone Offroad for a case as they have broken any number of Hondas

I wish you'd said 40 years ago - everything I have is buggered at the moment except for my 40 year old Bulto so, somewhat horrifyingly, I will probably be riding, or being mauled by that. Could change class to O/40 and ride my TYZ but I'm a glutton for punishment....

Ride it first - comment afterwards - there are too many people waffling on about how hard or easy certain trials and/or series are who have never actually competed in the events.... These 2 events are two of the best events I will get to ride all year and I wish I could get to ride in more like them I would say that the reason there aren't many twinshocks competing generally is because of the lack of interest in riding them. People seem to want to own them but not use them - that's their choice. If you kicked out the air-cooled and modern classes from this series the riders wouldn't automatically jump on their twinshocks and ride them instead - most don't own one and if they did the chances are they would still leave it in the shed and just go and ride their modern bike elsewhere instead.

Try Peter Knight, trading as The Rotax Man, advertises in the back of TMX or you can google for his website. Stocks most parts for Rotax engines - have your engine number ready as he'll want that.

Model 85 Alpina

No I didn't as I don't like the horrible thing so I don't use it. The other problem was that being a smaller diameter than the original pipe, the original collar wasn't a snug fit around the pipe at the port end so the pipe moved around inside the collar like a sausage up an alleyway. This made it difficult to centre the pipe over the exhaust port, so it would blow. The pipe isn't designed for a Majesty anyway so that didn't help. You may find that Craig's front pipe isn't a direct fit on a standard TY250 as the Majesty pipe is shorter in height than a TY, but Craig is the person to answer that one.

Probably a M91 with those inboard rear mudguard brackets, or maybe a 92 with a 250 engine fitted. If it's an M80 it wouldn't have been fitted with the Homerlite tank unit from new, too early. Tank stripe is wrong, should go all the way to the top but maybe looks better as it is.

Yes, I've lowered them about level with the bottom frame tubes and set them back but only slightly I made new footrest hanger plates (ie; the ones that bolt on) and then welded another piece at the bottom of each at 90 degrees to the hangers to get the rests as low as possible. I couldn't get them low enouh on the original hangers. This gives an L shape - or reversed L on the other side of the bike. I then attached the new footrest brackets at the bottom of the L (eg; on the toes if you imagine the L as an ankle and foot) I had to space the piece I welded on out from the frame so it didn't foul the frame downtube which sits out further than the original footrest hanger. The rear brake I've left as I can still reach it ok but as I hardly ever use it it's not a problem. The original brake pedal is a hideous concoction to look at anyway so I was going to replace it with a later alloy one anyway if I can get hold of one. The bike is now much more comfortable to ride with the lowered pegs. Once I've had a couple more rides on it to satisfy myself they are ok I'll remake the brackets neater. Can't post photos unfortunately but I can email you some if you need.

Well, in respect of the production motors, don't have any part numbers to confirm anything but my mate has stipped a few TLR250 and RTL motors and components such as valves, pistons, rings, cam, head etc are the same on both. The RTL does have a different ignition. From riding both the gear ratios appear the same, no noticeable difference. (we have a couple of TLR250 and a Seeley with RTL motors fitted) The clutch on the later RTL, '87 on I think, is a bigger item than the earlier RTL which is the same as the TLR. It has 1 more spring in the pressure plate than the early one. Whether it works any better than the earlier woeful clutch I can't confirm.... The exhaust port position on the production RTL/TLR head is the same and it will fit in either the twin downtube RTL or the single downtube TLR/Seeley with no problem. The RTL with the single front downtube was the works bike, you don't mean that do you as there is no documented info on those anywhere, they were complete one-offs. To get to 270cc was a major exercise even for HRC, stud pattern widened, oil feed relocated, piston was offset on the gudgeon pin.

Have another look, unless we're looking at two different bikes with rusty white frame and blue forks, the bike in the link in the very first post has no alloy bashplate, it has the bottom frame rails

Yes, I'm with you and have already said as much. I had the head angle altered on my Majesty but it's back to (hopefully) somewhere near normal again now. I'm also well past giving a flying f*ck what people do to their bikes. I'm only interested in enjoying getting out and riding my bikes. If there are no twinshock events on at a weekend I'll ride them on the middle route at modern events and have no interest in whether there is a twinshock class to enter against or not. I steered my Ossa MAR round every section in last week's modern trial without using the clutch on one single turn. It has the original steering angle and coped fine. As long as there is a route that the bike and me can cope with that provides a good challenge that's good enough - ie; yellow route at South Shrops or Llanfyllin events It's a pity we can't have a national twinshock championship like the Spanish series. Paioli's starting point is a good basis, but even if we had rules established. riders would still break them, no-one would try and enforce them and how many people would actually know what to look for anyway. How many organisers would know the difference between say a 76, 77 or 78 Sherpa and be able to spot any parts that shouldn't be there in a Pre77 class. Agreement would never be reached on rules anyway. Personally I don't think lightweight replica frames should be allowed but equually I couldn't really care if someone has one. The new Majesty frames are a difficult one as it is only reintroducing a frame kit that was available at the time. Could be argued I guess that it could have been made to weigh the same as the original as a true copy. Others will think that a replica lightweight frame is ok whereas some don't think Yam mono forks should be fitted. I've lost count of the number of times I've said that mono forks are only on a par with the last Marzocchis to be used on 240 Fantics and the like. If I'd had a pair of Marzocchis I'd have fitted them to my Majesty to replace the sh*te originals. I didn't, but I did have an old knackered mono which provided it's forks for nothing. Fitting GasGas or suchlike forks is going too far but again, couldn't give a stuff anymore if someone does it. This weekend I will be mostly riding my 1968 Sherpa complete with chopper head angle and thoroughly enjoying riding it too - providing it doesn't break down, first time out on the road on it. Ah, but it will have modern footrests fitted so I've entered the specials class..

Or if you want to lose the big rear sprocket you could use the gearing from the MK2 onwards MAR which was 42 rear and 10 or 11 front. Which front is personal preference. I like 10 as I like the gearing low but you have to make sure you have a gearbox sprocket nut with the flange on one side which fits against the sprocket. This spaces the nut away from the sprocket. With a flat nut and a 10 tooth sprocket you can have the chain ride over the nut as it almost as big in diameter as a 10 tooth. This makes the chain snatch.

I know what you mean - the 250 pipe is horrific as well. Couldn't quite believe it when I got it that someone would sell something so poorly finished.

198a...?? It's a 198, there is no alloy bashplate, its got frame tubes and mesh guard. The swingarm is 198 not 198a, it has no strengthening plates down each arm Comes to something when an Ossa man has to put you Bulto types right........

The 3 day at Easter isn't the trial he's asking about. The Exmoor 2 day is organised by the Acorns AMCA club and runs usually the first weekend in August. Phone the AMCA office as they will have the exact date from the fixtures calendar

This is getting confusing to keep track of as the same questions are being asked on two different threads, this one and the twinshock thread, so you're missing the answers to your questions. Answers to this question and previous one are a few posts back on this thread, but to reiterate; I really wouldn't bother altering the head angle on your Godden framed Majesty. It will make an already twitchy bike worse by quickening the steering and shortening the wheelbase (using the existing forks) and the bike is already short as it is. Unless you're top drawer expert class that is not what you need as the bike will require constant steering check and body lean to counter the twitchy steering and keep it pointing in the right direction. Top riders have this, others don't. There is nothing wrong with the Majesty geometry as it is, an expert may well notice the quicker steering of the new frame but in actual riding in sections 98% of riders would get no benefit from it. The standard bike will easily cope with twinshock sections, the Majesty is a good bike as it is, altering the head angle won't make it suddenly perform like a modern bike. New replica frames have modern geometry purely because that is what is thought correct these days. Doesn't mean it translates into real benefit in sections. Mono, or any leading axle forks do not alter the head angle if they are the same length as the originals. Forget that line of thinking. As already explained they are fitted to replace the poorly sprung and damped originals. An added benefit is that as they are leading axle they can improve the straight line stability and help preventing tuck in on corners, but this again is personal rather than a hard fact. Best mod on the bike is to lower the footrests as they are very high (obviously depends on how tall you are as to how much it bothers you) Lowering them to just above or level with the bashplate gives the bike a more comfortable riding position and if you are comfy on the bike that is a major benefit in terms of riding as it is one less thing to worry about. Don't go too far back with them as this will also mess up the steering by weighting the rear to much and making you stretch for the bars, especially on full lock. You need to read back over this thread and the twinshock thread for the info you're asking about.