woody

Who is it ??

Can you explain a little more 'reduction'

Can't see that fitting forks from a TY Mono to a Majesty is a problem as they are no better than a pair of Marzocchis off a 240 Fantic and both were available when Majesties were being ridden. Yam Mono was competing against twinshocks as it was out a good 12 months before other monos. A pair of modern GasGas or Sherco forks is a different matter. The bike that Chris Koch won the Phil King on is not a converted monoshock Yam. It is a one-off frame built by Jon Bliss with a Yam mono engine fitted. This is what I mean about building your own twinshock lightweight chassis - where is it going to end.

Miller's Hi-Boy frames were Reynolds 531, Beamish Suzuki and Whitlock Ossa were as well I think. Not sure where all this replica frame building is going to end - hopefully not like Pre65. Genuine Pre65 bikes are pretty awful to ride, hence the modernisation which has brought some of them up to the level of good twinshock bikes. The thing with twinshocks is that they are good enough as they left the factory to handle the sections in today's classic/twinshock trials. A Bultaco or Ossa in some new lightweight frame, lightweight hubs, modern forks is no longer a Bultaco or Ossa - is it? Sure, on twinshocks, some people will want to tweak head angles or move footrests or rear shock mounts but that is nothing that wasn't being done at the time. The basic production bikes are still plenty good enough though, the aforementioned tweaks are personal preference and any improvement is probably marginal. Are we going to see new lightweight frames to take later aircooled engines that were never housed in an original twinshock, modern forks, lightweight hubs etc. etc. Probably, unless the regs are tightened up. Maybe the twinshock criteria needs to be altered to state 'twinshock at original manufacture prior to 1984' But then what do you do about the exceptions such as RTX, Cotswolds, Cotswold Majesty........ As those bikes already exists they could be allowed in as they aren't what you'd call trick - Cotswold Majesty uses an original Majesty frame with a Chinese copy Honda 200 engine so no problem with that. The intention would be to stop new specials being built. We all know what a twinshock is, they were the bikes we used to ride and were produced by the factories at the time. People ride them because they have an affinity with a particular marque or because they just fancy something different from the modern scene. Personally, I've no interest in having a superlight frame built for my Ossa or Bult, they are what they are. So far people have been sensible with mods on twinshocks but it only needs someone to start producing specials and we will be going down the Pre65 route again. There's already one out there though, so has a precedent already been set and the horse bolted again....

It's not obvious from a picture but the whole frame/engine cradle has been lifted as in the Majesty, the frame tubes from the footrests up to the frame are shortened, hence the cut-out in the frame to clear the spark plug. Original Yam framed Majesties used the Yam bashplate. Definitely a Majesty, just wrong numbers on engine/frame

Yes, that's it exactly, glad you understood what I meant. So much better this way, no more split or mashed wires. I've always used silicon to seal where the wires now come out with no problems at all, it stays sealed.

Well, I'm not familiar with TY Mono frame numbers so can't comment about that number relating to a 1988 model but it definitely isn't a TY twinshock frame number. Looks like it's been messed with. As there are no records of which TYs were converted to Majesties, other than anything Shirty may have had ( I have no idea what he had as I don't know the bloke but GIZZA5 suggests he won't have records) I don't see how anyone can confirm that a bike is a Majesty just from a frame number. However, I wouldn't let all that bother you as the bike is definitely a Majesty and the irregular frame number will only cause you a problem if you ever want to register it.

Just out of interest, as I don't want one, who is it that you have heard is making Majesty frames for

I'm still confused as to where you're getting the info from the T & T site that says the frame number relates to a Majesty. I've looked and can't find anything. What is it you're looking at, where is it? As far as I'm aware there is no info in this respect. It is definitely a Majesty frame, regardless of what number is on the headstock. The frame is cut around the spark plug, the frame around the rear shock mounts is strengthened for the new shock position, the engine/frame cradle is raised and the exhaust is altered. The mods that Shirty did aren't DIY mods and it would take someone very skilled to make a TY250 frame look like a Majesty. I really can't see that anyone would want to take on alterations like that or that there are fake Majesties out there, the conversion is a major exercise. It's a 30 year old bike remember and who knows what has happened to it over the years, previous owners could have done all sorts to it. The kickstart isn't a TY item for example. Mis-matched engine/frame numbers mean nothing in isolation, it could easily have had a replacement engine at some time, mine has different frame/engine numbers. However, you have to consider that the strange engine and frame numbers could mean it was nicked at sometime in its life, as many bikes have been - unfortunate but a possibility. I'm only going from memory here but the engine number looks to be in the wrong place, they are stamped further to the rear aren't they - can't remember without looking at mine. Another point on engine numbers - bikes built for the Japanese home market had different engine number configuration again. Going from memory again here but I think they only had the prefix, no following number. Anyway, back to the frame number relating to a Majesty - where are you getting that from?

There is no such thing as a Majesty engine number as the engine is the standard TY lump, therefore it will have the normal Yamaha TY engine serial number stamped on it. They will usually start 434 for an early bike or 493 for the later bike. Not sure how you can determine from T & T site that it is a Majesty engine or have I missed something. Only Shirty would have a record of the chassis numbers of TY250 bikes converted to Majesties. Originally, the frame and engine numbers on a TY250 would have matched, therefore they would on a Majesty also (Yam framed bikes, not Godden obviously) but it is possible that someone in the past has fitted another engine. As a TY motor starts with the above mentioned prefix numbers, could someone have put a DT engine in it? TY engine number doesn't begin with a Z.

That is the Mini-Majesty frame as opposed to the 175 Majesty frame. Although they take the same engine the mini frame is physically smaller. On the bigger 175 frame the bottom of the front downtubes bend backwards towards the engine. On the Mini frame they are straight.

That was Chris Koch riding the bike that Jon Bliss built. It's Jon's own frame, very light, designed to take twin shocks, modern forks and a Yam mono engine. It's apparently allowed as it qualifies as a twinshock at original manufacture. So a precedent has been set, the barn door is open, the horse is away and the race is on to see what other enterprising people will present as twinshock bikes over the next season or so. Deja Vu Pre65.... ??

1) Apart from an awful clutch there isn't really much to improve, it's a perfectly capable bike that will outperform most riders in standard form. Rear suspension is about the best there is and the bike has more than enough power for 95% of us. It's been said it's too heavy but the most effective weight loss would be from us riders not the bike.... It's not too heavy. Can be a bit erratic finding grip on them in good old Midlands slop but very good over rocks. I never liked the high tickover speed but there is nothing you can do about that. In standard form the power delivery was sharper than I'd like and the only way to alter that is by mapping but I'd ride it stock before you get into that as it may suit you fine the way it is. Any other changes are purely personal preference really 2) best advice on this point is don't try and start it in gear. The clutch doesn't free off fully and causes a certain amount of drag on the crank when kick starting in gear - put the bike in gear and try and push it with the clutch in and engine off if you want to see how much drag. The drag means that the engine may not fire properly if starting in gear and this can cause it to kick back. To many kick backs, or just one if you're unlucky, can smash the crankcase where the kickstart return stop plate is bolted behind the clutch. This is a fragile area. If I were you I'd only kick it in neutral. No matter what oil you use it will probably always be hard to find neutral with the engine running, my 05 was. It was also hard to find with the engine off sometimes.... Mitani clutch plates may improve things or maybe a clutch from a later bike which are supposed to be better but I have no experience of either. I have however, experienced the smashed crankcase. 3) Just ride it and make your own mind up. My personal opinion is that the dramatically changing your riding style stuff for a 2-stroke or 4-stroke is way overstated. I constantly swap between 2 and 4 stroke and it isn't a problem. I know other people who've done the same for years and it's never been a problem. It only seemed to become an issue when the 4RT was introduced, it never merited such discussion before but that's just my opinion. There are plenty of people on the Pre65 scene who regularly ride a 4-stroke one week and a 2-stroke the next, both equally as well - not a problem

The bolt replacement doesn't cure it. Mine had the replacement bolt and still broke

Best..?? the one that suits you the most or you enjoy riding the most - any of them will out perform us riders.... Don't know about one, you could buy three 240 Fantics for the cost of a new Majesty frame..... You could also buy one for the cost of the Majesty petrol tank that has just sold on ebay - didn't see the final price but was told it was absurdly high - about twice the price of a new fibreglass mini majesty tank. Someone must have wanted it badly.

You can use the mono ignition (stator, CDI and coil) on the twinshock using the twinshock flywheel. The stator bolts straight on (probably the same backplate on both) and you just have to find a way of neatly mounting the CDI and coil under the tank and routing the wires. However, getting it timed up is a bit of an ordeal as the keyway is in a different place on the mono and you may have to elongate the holes in the stator to reposition it to get the correct firing point with the Maj flywheel. I tried it once and did have the bike running with the mono ignition on it but when I tried again at a later date I couldn't get it working. Gave up and bought the kit of Craig Mawlem, although it was a bit cheaper then than now. From what I've heard, other people have used them. If you have both engines side by side you should be able to work out where to position the stator on the Maj engine. You may also just end up ripping your hair out....

Should still be OK, I've tried Nick Shields' bike too which is a Godden frame with mono forks and that steered fine also The front brake plate is a YZ item from an early 80s bike as they used the same hub as the Mono, even the shoes are the same. Hard to come by I think. It was supposed to make the front brake work better but it is still dismal... Grimeca front brake is better I think. If ever I use Yam mono forks in anything again it will be with a Grimeca wheel made to fit somehow. You can also use another type of YZ brake plate with the twin leading shoes but they are even harder to find. The slot for the anchoring lug in the front fork is also at a slightly different position on these plates so the brake cable may sit at an awkward angle when the wheel is fitted - unless there is a way around that.

The leading axle forks in a Majesty don't seem to upset the steering at all, maybe slows it down a bit and makes it a bit more stable. I've tried someone else's Yam framed 320 with Mono forks in and it rode and steered without any faults at all. If you have a complete Marzocchi front end I'd go with that and not bother spending money unecessarily on mono forks. The Marzocchis are every bit as good as Yam Mono forks and no-one can bleat that you have non period forks fitted (although Yam mono forks are period anyway as they were ridden at the same time as twinshocks) Best idea is to get another set of Majesty yokes (as in normal TY250 yokes) and get them bored out to take the Marzocchis. That way, if you don't like that set up you can revert to the original forks. If you do like the set up you can throw the original forks as far away as possible... Try Ellastone offroad for some yokes or there are some on ebay now.

Do you know if the clamps are from a specific model - GasGas, Beta, Montesa ? and if so from which year? The clamps I tried were from a 98? GasGas but the inside diameter was too small for the Betor forks. Maybe the work is to machine the outside diameter of the Betor fork to make it smaller to fit the clamp - or machine the clamp to make the inside bigger - or both... I think I still have the clamps somewhere but it was a long time ago. If I can find them I'll have another look at the sizes.

Honest answer is it's impossible to say. A standard Bultaco 340 in very good nick seems to make about

I've tried to use front mudguard clamps like that in the past but they are too small in diameter to fit over the Betor forks. What are they off - any idea Mr Greeves? or are they made by Puma specially for the Betors? Also - what is the back mudguard. I've noticed these on several bikes from pictures on Todotrial but can't work out what they are. Any idea? (re-shaped Gonelli?) Lovely bike.

Am I wrong here? - none of the Repsol replicas have looked anything like the factory Repsols have they? Have you tried the bike in some serious mud yet Dabster. That is where I found mine as well as others (I'm talking 05 and 06 bikes here, haven't tried a later one) to be unpredictable. Some types of muddy sections grip was good, other types it was like riding on the rim with no tyre, the bike just wouldn't move. A lot of riders up this way have found that. Even Mark Hicken had trouble getting his to grip consistently and he is brilliant in muddy sections

Some very encouraging performances from JT during testing I'd say in a dry race he could be looking at around 6th place maybe. No doubting his talent as a rider but he is up against similarly talented riders on full factory bikes so a podium may just be expecting too much - although you could never rule one out. In a wet race however, I'd definitely put money on him for a podium

You'd find the opposite here though. The TY250 didn't have a good reputation at all over here and was not considered anywhere near as competitive as the Spanish bikes when it was introduced. As other models developed the TY stayed pretty much the same and became more and more overlooked as it became less and less competitive against the others - until the Majesty. I know a few people who rode TY175 at the time (with boost bottles...) in preference to the 250 and who even sold a 250 to go back to a 175. I'd never actually ridden a TY250 until a few months ago when I tried a mate's bike. We'd removed the flywheel weight and I was surprised at how nice it was to ride given what I'd heard about them. It wasn't as good as the late 70s bikes from other manufactures but nowhere near as bad as I was expecting. The motor was reasonable torquey with the weight off, it steered well and was quite nimble over the rocky sections we had at the time. Not too disimilar to my Ossa - no surprise there... My personal choice would be the 250 but I still think that the 175 is a perfectly capable bike for today's classic sections. One will pull me around and I'm 17 plus stones (245 pounds) I know what you mean about the bigger motor - the 325 Bul is a superb engine. I'm building a type 92 at the moment. Can't wait to get it done.