woody

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.

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