woody

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.

Hi Michael, I don't begin to understand the theories around what you describe as regards steering geometry so I'm not going to try and dispute it.... However, I put a pair of leading axle forks on my Ossa MAR once, same length as the Ossa items using the same Ossa yokes, and it completely screwed the steering, the bike was slower to turn and the nimbleness that the MAR has had gone. Obviously, the bike is longer with the front wheel pushed an inch further ahead. The difference was very noticeable when riding. Magical himself said so too when he tried it. Strangely, a set of leading axle forks on the Majesty doesn't seem to upset it at all

I don't know what the angle is, probably as per GasGas. Yes you can change the angle on any bike by various methods, cheapest and most common by cutting the frame behind the headstock, running the bike into a wall to push the front wheel backwards which opens up a V in the slot you have cut in the frame. Do this until the required angle is achieved and weld up the frame. On a Majesty I really wouldn't bother, it doesn't need its steering altered and you'll get no worthwhile handling improvement at all. Its steering doesn't need to be any quicker. Modern geometry is for modern bikes to help stand it on its nose and spin the back around. Twinshock sections can be ridden around, they're no-stop trials anyway so stopping and hopping the back doesn't come into it.

The main reason for fitting mono forks or Marzocchi forks or whatever to the Majesty is because the original forks are too soft in both spring and damping. Depending on how heavy you are this may not be an issue but it is when you're 17+ stone. The forks sag badly and top out, essentially they are crap. It's nothing new, I've seen Majesties fitted with mono forks for years, particulary in Cumbria and I rode a Majesty 340 15 years ago or more fitted with a Fantic front end. Some Majesties, when they were new, had the fork damper rods revalved by Shirty to give a much more plush action, for supported riders only I would guess, normal punters got the stadard TY fork set up. I've tried a bike with these revalved forks and they are on a par with Marzocchis as fitted to Fantic, Armstrong etc. So fitting Mono or Fantic forks is only putting the bike's front suspension on a par with other bikes from the era or the 'works' bikes with the revalved standard forks. Other people like the leading axle of the mono forks for added stability and as a cure for tuck in on turns but that is down to personal choice. It can't alter the steering angle as already explained but it makes the steering slower than standard. A new Majesty frame with steeper steering angle fitted with the standard forks (ie; in line spindle) is going to turn quicker still than the original bike which should be interesting as they are a 'nervous' bike to begin with. Fitting leading axle forks may slow the steering up a bit to something like a standard bike but with the steeper head angle I guess it will turn tighter.

Steering angle is changed from original as is the footrest position in order to give it a more modern feel, everything else is the same. They are made from lighter tubing than the original.

If it is in original condition and has a black frame it will be the Ossa TR77 which is 77 - 78. If it has the green frame it is the Ossa Verde which is 79 - 80 (essentially the same bike restyled) The engine/frame numbers should match (apart from the prefix letters) and if you go onto the site below and scroll down a bit to the Pictures, Links, Articles and Info section there is a frame number check list link from which you can confirm which model you have. Mats Nyberg Ossa site If your brake plate is just broken try and get it fixed if possible as they can be TIG welded. They usually break by snapping off the casting where the slot is that locates the plate to the lug on the swingarm. It's an item that is not easily available, try the usual breakers or keep an eye on ebay if you do need another. Watch that it is the same as yours though as they can differ slightly inside depending on year (no idea why) as the flange that sits against the wheel bearing can be different lengths. You can't tell from the outside and if you get the wrong one it won't fit properly.

They aren't what you'd call the best operating forks around, both damping and springing too soft which becomes more apparent the heavier you are. Bit like the TY250 Yam. Try 15 - 20 weight oil, not much point in exceeding the recommended oil level by more than, say, 10 - 20cc or you will just get hydraulic lock. Packing the springs with additional spacers will only result in the spring becoming too compressed before you have even started to depress the forks. New springs are probably still available from Honda as yours may be well used by now in a 20+ year old bike but even new they will still be too soft. Maybe WES do replacements for the Hondas? Or chuck them away and fit a pair of Marzocchis like those fitted to Fantic/Beta/Armstrong etc. Much better and they are the same diameter as the Honda legs. They come up on ebay from time to time.

No Brian, completely standard bike bought new recently by one of our local riders, only change is a slow throttle.

Pignon = sprocket so yes, I'd guess at sprocket size for front and rear, but as I don't know what the standard sizes are I can't recommend a reduction...

I used RAL 1021 for yellow and RAL 2004 for orange. These are a deeper and nicer colour than the originals (only my opinion obviously) The original colours were quite pale and don't quite match the Gonelli mudguards whereas these two match the mudguards very well. I don't know the codes for the originals but if you search the Twinshock forum someone posted them not too long ago

Tried an 08 Sherco 4t at the weekend and they have a lot of power. This in itself shouldn't be a problem but it is the way the power is delivered. Very quick off the throttle (slow action fitted), snappy, picks up revs very quickly in any of the first 3 gears, very easy to spin up the rear wheel. This was in a quarry, don't know what it would be like in mud. Very strong engine braking, more than the 05 4RT I had, about the same as an 07 Scorpa 4T I tried. I found it difficult to ride without using the clutch because of the snappy power delivery, it made it difficult to feed power in gently at small throttle openings, not impossible because I'm used to riding like that but not easy enough. It felt like it could do with a lot more flyweel weight to temper the delivery and give it a bit more overun. It's more suited to riding on the clutch than the old fashioned way, not like an 05 bike I tried last year with a weight fitted - much more rideable. That could be lugged around on the throttle like an old-fashioned 4-stroke. The 08 can't really, too much power delivered too quickly. It also stalled 2 or 3 times for no reason and didn't want to start up on one kick, it took a few. I'm not saying this is a problem, maybe the tickover was too low, which may also have exaggerated the engine braking. Wasn't my bike and I don't know what the tickover setting should be, I just got on it and rode it. However, the higher the tickover the more unsuitable it becomes to ride without the clutch. I ride my C15 with no tickover and it starts first kick everytime, no messing about getting the piston here or there before kicking.... but the modern 4-strokes aren't like that, they're more fussy. Personal opinion is that I think they are too much of a handful for anyone other than a competent rider with modern riding technique. It could get you into trouble. Definitely not a novice bike.