woody

Personally, I'd say the cost of the 200 conversion for the TY175 isn't worth it. The difference in performance is barely noticeable, if at all. A couple of my mates had theirs done and there was no worthwhile improvement. As Tony has said, in today's classic/vintage events there isn't really anything a TY175 can't cope with. Even in our national classic championship here in the UK which has some pretty difficult sections, a standard TY175 can cope with most stuff as the sections are technical in terms of difficulty rather than big sections that require big power. They aren't as difficult as the national sections of the era for which a 175 wouldn't have been an ideal choice. Be better off spending what a 200 conversion would cost on chassis/suspension set up. A decent pair of rear shocks, angled like a majesty and good forks. If the chassis/suspension is working well it will be of more benefit than a slight power increase. Just my opinion.

Thanks for looking the info up Tony, I have a starting point now The tales are quite amusing, I'll be reading a few more over the next few days

Love the Ossa SSDT story on the blog - very entertaining piece. I can relate to all the tales about reversing Ossas and engines coming back from the dead as I've experienced them all too - they are a great bike, still my favourite. Thanks for the carb settings but one more favour to ask - the needle jet number. 182 is the jet type as opposed to the size. The size is denoted by a letter and number and the range goes from O2 to O8 and then P2 to P8 so your jet should be somewhere in that range. If you could have a look next time your messing with the carb I'd be very grateful

Nigel Birkett had some Z spokes made so may have some. He will also know whether the rear wheels differ from Pinky to earlier model (they don't as far as I know)

Having no frame tubes under the engine isn't a feature of a Majesty, the standard Yamaha TY250 twinshock was produced that way. Yamaha framed Majesty used the ordinary TY sumpguard, Godden frame used a flat sumpguard

Thanks Tony, but if you are able at any time could you find the needle number and needle jet number that are fitted. This is the really tricky bit on Mikunis as there are so many combinations. The needle jets come in two different types, either a 182 or a 175, the 182 sits flush in the main venturi and the 175 has a D shaped shroud protruding into the venturi. They mix the fuel/air differently so both have different type needles from each other.

Best way to route the wiring is out of the front of the crankcase directly under the right hand side of the barrel. Drill a hole through the front of the case (on the flat face inbetween the engine number and the first of the cooling fins - or whatever they are...??) into the ignition housing. If you look at the engine from the ignition side, this hole will enter the ignition housing at about 1 o'clock, just behind the top right ignition stator fixing point. The wiring coming out of the back of the stator can be run around behind the stator around the crankshaft from left to right and then up through the hole and up the frame downtube. To run the wiring behind the stator you will need to grind back the strengthening ribs on the casing in the ignition housing that span out radially from the oil seal housing. This gives the wiring space to sit behind the stator without getting pinched. The exit hole can be sealed with silicon sealer as the casing here is too thick for a grommet. Then just blank off the original exit point for the wiring - I welded mine up. No need to drill holes in ignition casing this way. Whether you have an early or later stator (ie; flywheel timing hole at 4 o'clock or 9 o'clock) will determine how far around the crankshaft you have to route the wires as the different stators have the wires exiting the backplate in different places. You can't go behind the top of the stator as there is no room behind the top of the backplate due to the transfer port. It is difficult to explain all this in writing but if you look at your engine whilst reading this you should see what I mean. Can't post a picture but I can email you one if you need. Also - question for Tony. Noticed you have what looks like a Mikuni fitted to your MAR in the picture. What model - VM26? Don't suppose you have the jetting/needle/slide numbers to hand do you?

As far as I know all Majesty bikes would have had the coffin tank. If it is a Majesty, it's possible the coffin tank could have been replaced with a standard TY item. Maybe it got damaged beyond repair or whatever. If your bike has a Yam frame you can easily tell if it is a Majesty as the frame behind the toolbox above the cylinder head will have a cut-out to clear the spark plug, necessary when the engine cradle was lifted 2" higher on a Majesty. On a standard TY the spark plug won't foul this part of the frame. If it is a Godden frame then it is definitely a Majesty. Memory isn't brilliant but Godden frame numbers began with the year of manufacture such as 81 *** or 82 ***. Yam frame should begin with 49*. Just out of interest, who told you that the frame number relates to a Shirt model?

Taking nothing away from Graham's performance, but I can't understand why riders are allowed to enter extreme enduros on a trials bike. The challenge is supposed be the rider's ability to get an enduro bike round a technically difficult course. If they all entered on trials bikes it wouldn't be an enduro..... Just my opinion obviously but extreme enduros should be ridden on enduro or motocross bikes.

That could easily have broken his neck or back if he had been a little less fortunate. He had two big moments in the last round as well, one when he came off the side of the tyres section, but fortunately got away with both. This time not so lucky. With the indoor sections getting more and more severe (ridiculous??), how long before someone has a bad one?

I didn't think they were produced with oil in frame. Funny then, how today's oil in frame replica Ariels are allowed to compete but BSA C15/B40 aren't. I know all about how big and heavy a 'proper' HT5 is. A mate has one in its original trim, completely standard like your photo. He entered one of the Miller rounds last year - it was hard enough just to get it to the sections, never mind ride them. It really is horrible to ride...

As I understand it, no. You'll obviously know far more about what was on the boil at BSA back then but even though a C15 existed prior to 1965 with oil in frame and no bottom frame tubes (wasn't Scott Ellis riding an oil in frame bike prior to '65 before BSA stopped him?) these were not features of the production bike, therefore not allowed. Which is why the Miller/Otter/Faber framed bikes are not elligible (although I would love to see what happened if Sam entered on a C15 using his own frame..) On the subject of oil in frame, was an Ariel HT5 production bike oil in frame? I know Sam's bikes were but what about the production bikes? I didn't think they were oil in frame, but the replica HT5 frames carrying oil are ok in Pre65 Scottish. As for a mono C15 from 1964, I would love to see the reaction that would get....

Still a few sections a bit tight for a no-stop trial which results in the inevitable stop and hop but pretty good overall with the sections getting better towards the end. Day to forget for me though with about eight 5s from a flooding carb everytime the bike was pointed down hill. Nice.

Exactly, I can't understand why comparisons are being made. A trials bike around the tough one course is so much easier to ride than an enduro bike and a better tool for the job. It proves nothing about the bikes or riders. I rode it last year in the clubman morning race and there were 3 obstacles in particular that were really difficult on the KTM, one of which, the log pile, we had to be helped accross each time (so did the pros which is why it wasn't in this year I guess) If I'd have been on a trials bike I wouldn't even have noticed they were there. However, if I entered a normal WOR hare scramble on my trials bike I would be a few laps down after 3 hours than I would on the KTM as the trials bike wouldn't have the speed required on the faster going. So it proves what..?? Taking nothing away from Michael Brown here obviously, he's a tremendously talented rider, but comparisons about anything in that race are pointless really

There is no way the likes of Dave Thorpe and co are going to ride uncompetitive standard bikes - they ride to win and to win they need the most competitive bike. He's not going to ride the ACU Classic championship series on a standard Cub and get thrashed by a lesser rider on a more competitive bike. It's just not going to happen - he wants to win the championship. You're looking for an ideal that doesn't exist I think. If these riders enjoyed riding standard bikes they would be riding them. They don't which is why they ride the modified versions. If it was at all possible to police the use of modern components hidden inside old casings and completely eradicate trick bikes (which it isn't) I think you would see a pronounced reduction in the number of people riding Pre65 events rather than turn out on standard bikes. Magical has nothing to prove and did turn out on the Douglas?? a couple of years ago in the Pre65 Scottish but even for him it looked an almighty uphill struggle. Not sure whether 'fun' came into it.... I still can't see a problem. With everyone on standard bikes the same riders would win. On their modified bikes, they haven't got an unfair advantage over each other and the rest are never going to win whatever they are riding. You don't need a modified bike to get around the Pre65 Scottish sections, a standard bike will cope but obviously will take more effort. So if people want to ride a standard bike they can, the fact that the front runners are on modified bikes should have no bearing on whether someone else wants to ride their standard bike in the event - surely..??

I didn't realise he'd ridden it, I picked that up from one of Wrighty's SSDT forums a few years ago when Malcom was the guest speaker. One of the questions was about Pre65 trials and that is when he came out with that comment. Didn't mention (as far as I recall at least) that he had ridden the Pre65 on a cub - possibly because because of the result.......

Page 25 of today's TMX

It's standard, that's how they were on this model as there were quite a few changes from the original 349. This is the model that that the MH349 was based on

Yep, this bike weight nonsense really does have too much emphasis put on it. Just because you shave a few kilos off your bike doesn't mean you are going to ride it any better. It may make a difference at WTC level yes, but normal club/centre trials no. Bernie Schreiber could bunny hop a 340 Bultaco weighing 95 kilos(?) over about 14 people. How many club/centre riders could do that on Raga's super lightweight indoor bike at say 65 kilos? He could also clean sections on the 340 that club riders could only dream about cleaning on a new bike. So a weight saving of around 30 kilos doesn't help much there then..... It's the rider, not whether your bike weighs a few kilkos less

It's very well done, there is an article on it somewhere on the net but can't remember where now. However, someone has done an even better one than that. On Todotrial somewhere, there's a picture of a blue Bult converted to 4 stroke using the Bult bottom end - you have to look twice to realise the top end is not what it should be.

The original long stroke 305cc motors were stroked TL250 type engines - probably using a crank from a XL350?? - as that would give the 305cc retaining the original bore size. I'd assume they kept the 4 valve head used by the TL250. The big bore, short stroke 305 was a different engine altogether, no idea what it used as its basis, maybe a complete one-off. It had the gear lever high up on the gearbox and they were supposed to be 2 valve engines. These later evolved into the full 360 by using a longer srtoke (about the same as the TL250 stroke) Whether these short stroke engines were always 2 or sometimes 4 valve is a question you'll probably never get the answer to unless you are on good terms with the man himself - S H Miller - he should know but not sure who else would

Ford silver fox is as close a match as any

Why do you say they are set out for modified bikes? The only trials I've come accross that you need a well modified bike for are some of the rounds in the ACU Classic series. There are one or two where you could still manage on a standard unit or 2-stroke bike but the majority no. However, that is a National championship and is run over one route and has to cater for other classes on that same route (although that has changed this year) so couldn't cater for standard Brit bikes. However there are other series for them (3 national championships....?) In other events, I don't think the sections are set out for modified bikes. Scotland isn't, you don't need a modified bike for those sections, the fact that people do is their choice. Same people will win it if on modified or standard bikes, scores would be a few marks higher that's all. We have a local Pre65 club who use 2 routes and where standard bikes are ridden, the Sammy Miller series isn't set out for modified bikes and there is an easier route that is perfectly suitable for original bikes if anyone thinks that the harder route is too much. The question you have to ask is are the original bikes lying about in sheds and garages because people don't want to ride them because they are bloody awful to ride..... Mick Grant obviously isn't keen on a standard HT5.... People were modifying them back in the 60s to make them better and the bikes that the top riders were on didn't always resemble the production bikes, some being considerably different - GOV 132 for example. So what would you call original when they were modified back then to make them better - ask Malcom Rathmell for his opinion on an old Brit bike and why he has never ridden the Pre65 Scottish on one "they were crap then and they still are so why would I want to ride one of those again".... (or words to that effect) As I mentioned in another post the riders that used these bikes back in their day are now pushing 60 years old minimum. They are the riders that would look back on these bikes with any degree of nostaligia but in their sixties and seventies they are not going to be as physically able to ride one of the things like they did in their teens or twenties. Apart from Cubs and the 2-strokes the other bikes are big, heavy and unwieldy things, even on straightforward sections.When things go wrong the bike will take over. These riders haven't got unlimited years left riding, if a Pre65 class is going to continue it has to attract other riders and obviously they are going to be from a different generation and probably won't be interested in riding a standard bike whereas even a slightly modified one would have a certain amount of appeal. I think the silhouette approach is an acceptable one, try and keep it looking reasonable period and accept the mods. A final thought - what can be considered original anyway - as soon as you fit modern shocks and electronic ignition, alloy bars, originality is lost but no-one seems to think these mods are unacceptable, so where can you draw a line.

That's not a bad price for a pair (I'm assuming that is the RRP) The Yamaha TY rear guards retail somewhere around

The SM tank won't look like your MK1 tank as it is copied from the UK alloy tank - slimmer and more angular at the edges. However, it should be the same length.... that is what I'd call an inexcusable mistake to get past the proptotype stage. They haven't sent you a Suzuki tank have they - SM used to make a replacement tank for the Beamish Suzuki RL......