woody

??????????????? Just for the record, no I am not - just said I'd never seen one advertised in any of their catalogues in all the years I've had them. My exact words were - not saying there isn't one - which means I wasn't saying you've made it up.

Two routes will definitely benefit this series. The proposal was put forward a while ago and John Collins was taking it into consideration for next year. If you do a search back through the forum in Classic trials section you should find previous discusions on the topic

If you search in either the Yamaha or Twinshock forums for Majesty Frame, or something similar, you should find previous topics on this. Briefly, the rear shocks were angled by mounting top mount further down frame tube and moving bottom mount rearwards slightly. Swingarm length unaltered. Frame had the entire engine cradle lifted by 2" by (something like this) cutting 2" out of the top of the vertical tubes forming the V from the footrests up to the top frame tubes and by removing 2" from the bottom of the front down tubes. As the engine now sits 2" higher in the frame, it is necessary to cut away part of the frame bracing behind the toolbox compartment as the the sparkplug will now foul it due to the raised engine. The exhaust height needs to be shortened by 2" by cutting a piece out of the vertical part and welding back together. Steering headstock angle wasn't altered (on normal production/customer bikes)

I'm confused by this too as I've never seen a footrest kit for the TY250 in the Miller catalogue - not saying there isn't one, just never seen one advertised. They usual way to fit lowered rests (assuming you can't get a Miller kit) is to cut off the exisitng hangers and then drill into what's left of the lug on the frame and tap an 8mm thread. At the bottom of the frame there is a horizontal tube running from side to side at the rear/bottom of the engine. Sometimes this has a plug in either end with an 8mm thread, sometimes it is just an open tube. If the latter, weld an 8mm thread nut onto either end of the tube. The original footrest lug and the horizontal tube now offer two mounting points for a bracket to be bolted to the frame and to the bracket you can weld on your new footrest mounts. Positioning is down to personal preference but don't go too far backwards as you will make the front end too light. What I normally do is just put enough weld on to support my weight initially, then try the bike round the garden to get a feel for whether they are positioned ideally for me or not. If not it is then relatively quick to just remove the bit of weld and reposition. Trial and error really. Personally I wouldn't move them back any further than 1" and don't go lower than the bottom of the bashplate. If you search under 'Majesty TY footrests' or something similar in both the twinshock and Yamaha forums you should be able to find other topics on this but expand the search to cover the last 12 months if that is possible as it isn't a recent topic as far as I can recall. There is definitely something on it somewhere.

I'm surprised that you're finding the RTL engine too aggressive as the RTL is softer and smoother than a TLR250 in its power delivery. Both engines share virtually identical components as far as I know, with a different ignition on the RTL giving it the softer delivery than the TLR. If yours is too quick and not smooth it could be that valve/ignition timing is set incorrectly so I'd start by checking these. Then valve clearances. Carburation - which carb have you used. Early RTL used a 22mm carb, possibly the same as the TLR200. Later RTL, which yours is being a 1988, had a 26mm carb I think. If you've used the TLR200 carb it may be jetted incorrectly so worth checking the jets. For the 22mm carb they should be Main = 110, Pilot = 38, Pilot screw 1.75 turns out. Sorry, don't have the Slide number, Needle number and clip position Exhaust - which exhaust are you using. The RTL motor may not run well with the standard 200 exhaust as they are a bit restrictive. If you're using that fit a WES or DEP system. Where did the engine come from - did you take it out of a running RTL and if so did it perform the same in that bike or did it run correctly. If you have just bought an engine only and used TLR200 CDI/Coil they may be causing problems, try to get original RTL CDI/coil - Ellastone Offroad should be able to help if you need to. As regards the power, obviously it is going to have more than the TLR200 so it is going to spin up easier and it will be lighter on the front too. The TLR200 has more than enough power for twinshock events but they are not at all aggressive and find grip very well. The RTL power delivery can be made softer by reducing compression, either by altering the piston crown or adding a spacer under the cylinder but I've no experience of either so can't give precise details. Another way is to retard tha valve timing half a tooth by drilling the cam wheel in the appropriate place to achieve this. It makes a difference. Also fit a slow action throttle. A friend of mine has recently done the same conversion to a 200 and the only engine mod was to retard the valve timing and use a WES exhaust. I've tried the bike and it is very soft and smooth. I've also put a RTL motor in my Seeley and that too is smooth, so something fundamental is causing the problem you are experiencing, it isn't a characteristic of the engine. As regards the clutch, it's a Honda and Honda trials clutches are not very good. If used a lot they overheat, the plates swell and you get the cable go slack and constantly have to adjust it until it cools down again. They are also grabby and erratic, not very smooth - there are mods you can do to help overcome this, but depending on who you ask there are several different solutions - they don't all work. My mates with their TLR250's have yet to find the one that does. Being a 1988 model though, yours should have the later, bigger clutch, different from the TLR and maybe not prone to the awful snatching and jerking of the earlier model. They shouldn't slip though. Maybe the plates are just worn or the clutch isn't adjusted properly. Don't use fully synthetic oil as this may also cause the clutch to slip. I doubt the 4RT plates will fit but you really wouldn't want a 4RT clutch either - it's in or out with nothing inbetween. Good luck as it will make a nice bike when sorted.

No, it's already well and truly stirred - you've just given it another prod.... To be honest, the whole Pre65 thing has got to a point where it can't go back now. Way too many modified bikes out there. I don't pretend to know what the answer is and I can see both sides of the arguments that are put forward - to modify or not to modify. I'm not against people modernising them but do think it is a farce when the extreme machines are still entered in the Pre65 class at say the Sammy Miller rounds, instead of in the specials class. Anyway, in terms of your own bike, whatever frame you eventually find to purchase, if you aren't intending to enter it in the Pre65 Scottish then I don't think you need worry about its design as in the Pre65 class at club events, I doubt it is going to bother anyone. Be interesting to see what you end up with.

No, but there's a very nice Matchless on ebay at the moment just begging to be bought....

Strange that your 92 is snappy off the throttle as they are generally a softer power delivery. Mine was quite soft even when it was fully rebuilt, a mate owns it now and it still has soft delivery despite a new piston/rebore. I also remember another 92 that I used to ride when they were new and that was pretty soft too, especially compared to the 159 that someone bought when they came out. Returning to the original heavier flywheel may help damp things down a bit and retard the ignition as much as you can. Check also that the big flywheel on the clutch side hasn't been lightened as well as this was sometimes done in conjunction with the lighter ignition flywheel to quicken throttle response. Never tried head spacers to lower the compression so can't comment on the effect of that on the Bult. Fit a domino slow action throttle. Amal carb probably isn't the best out there but should work fine as long as it isn't worn out, my old 92 still has the original Amal and it works fine. A Mikuni may possibly liven it up a bit more if it carburates cleaner off idle than the Amal. You can swap over the front brake and clutch arms as the front brake arm is longer. Alternatively, just lengthen the clutch arm by cutting in two and adding a piece in. In the UK, Venhill make featherlite cables which are teflon lined (or something) and these give a smoother lighter clutch action due to the lesser resistance of the cable. They work. Maybe there is something similar in the US if you can't get Venhill there. In the UK, a mod for the brakes is to replace the chrome liner in the hub with a steel insert if the chrome has worn out or is pitted/flaking. Yes it adds some weight but (my opinion only) people get far to obsessive about the weight of a bike. In reality it isn't going to make a scrap of difference in a negative sense to the way it rides. I used standard gearing on mine. Slightly longer shocks will make it steer a bit quicker if the steering bothers you - never bothered me but they can feel a bit long, depends what you're used to. Hope you get it sorted to your liking - they're a nice bike

Yamaha TY250Z

Yes I've seen that and did wonder why.... I've noticed that a couple of twinshock specialists have sold one or two things on ebay without knowing what they actually are Wonder how much that Majesty is. Mate of mine was going to enquire so should find out. I'm guessing at over

Nope, can't say I disagree with anything you're saying here but I have no idea what the answer to the situation is. I have no idea what they were riding in Spain prior to 1965 in trials, if they were actually riding trials, but I still think that a period modified Sherpa N or Impala should be ok. Problem is that the bikes entered aren't. Someone told me there was an Ossa in this year's event as they asked me if I'd seen it. As regards my own fate, even with the illegal front end on my bike, it is still a mis-firing, twisted, uncompetitive peice of crap compared to the front runners' bikes. I'd hoped to have an eliigible front end fitted by the time the trial came around but just couldn't find the parts. I still haven't found C15 forks yet. Seeing as how everyone wants to junk them for more 'modern' items you'd think they were ten a penny, but each time a set appears on ebay some nutcase outbids me and pays a ridiculous price for them so I'm still looking. Have managed to get a Bantam hub and a set of yokes at least, so nearly there. I went in the notebook yes, and felt sick when it happened as I thought I was the only one as it was a clean page that he was writing on. Hopwever, he then showed me 2, maybe 3 other pages with many other rider's numbers on, so I wasn't the only one. I have no idea who he was, he wasn't Scottish, Geordie I think, can't remember now. I politely enquired what notes he had made about Neil Gaunt's bike or Mick Grant's. He replied he hadn't got around to them yet. In other words they weren't on the list and probably wouldn't be - you don't need to see their bikes to know they aren't Pre65... All I can do now is wait and hope. I haven't entred yet as I'm hoping to send a picture of the bike in with the entry form to show it complies - but I have to get the bloody forks first. There's a set on evilbay now so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

I think using toes to lever is allowed indoors - different sport with its own rules. No, the subject probably wouldn't be debated if it was Raga or anyone else, only reason it made news is because of the association referred to between Lampkin and Colley. However, doesn't matter who it was, the rider failed to get over the ledge, sumped it, stopped and then used toes to help lever the bike over, more than once. That isn't allowed so incurs a penalty. Brave decision by the observer. As is normal, the crowd only want to see their own rider(s) score a clean and anything contentious or dubious is ignored, must be a clean at all costs and ignoring the use of the feet, they were whooping and baying him to the ends cards which must have increased the pressure to take the easy option and signal a clean

Yes, saw that, nice buy - I did wonder if anyone knew what it was as there were no bids on it every time I looked. Classic Experts would be a good trial to debut the bike in, coming up soon - tell Pitley to take his bike this year What happened to your topic about the TY forks ??

But nowhere in the regs does it say that the bikes have to be British only - just Pre65. Both Bultaco and Montesa had 175/200 trail bikes which were being adapted and used in trials well before '65, the Sherpa N and the Impala, Ossa may have had something too, not sure. The Bultaco and Montesa entered in Scotland are a Sherpa N and an Impala, never saw the Ossa, therefore they should be eligible according to the regs, so there aren't any rules being broken. Unless.... the Sherpa has a later engine fitted and I think the Mont did too and both probably had other later model parts from trials models fitted, so they're no longer Pre65. But that is no different to the modern Cubs, James, Francis Barnetts, Ariels etc from the British ranks - a lot of which have Spanish and Japanese parts fitted, modern cylinder porting, nikasil/chrome liners, Jap clutches etc. etc. Not saying any of this is right or wrong, just the way it is. If bikes with parts that are not acceptable (definition..??) weren't allowed in the trial, I'd have a rough guess that two thirds of the entry would be ineligble and with it every one of the front running riders wouldn't have a bike to ride. This year I went in the notebook for having (I'd guess) unacceptable forks, yokes and front hub - the rest of the bike is standard C15. The yokes are Montesa 247, basically what Alan Whitton has copied for his billet yokes that all the Cubs, James etc. have fitted. His yokes are ok it seems (cost about

He uses his feet 3 times to maneouvre the bike over the ledge so a one mark penalty was light. I know what it's like to have big feet that get in the way, it would have been easy enough in that instance whilst stationary, to have shuffled back on to his toes on the rests and then tried to rock the bike over without toes coming into contact - no cause for debate then. But I doubt the bike could have been rocked free, up and over without the use of the toes.... Before that however, when the bike first failed to get over the ledge it also rolled backwards - only a bit but backwards nonetheless following a failed attempt to clear a hazard - correct penalty, a 5. Of course, in the good old days, a rider wolud have only been allowed one no-stop attempt at clearing the ledge and that attempt would have been an unquestionable sumped out, come to a resounding halt, failure - no debate required about whether it was a dab or not.

Click the link and all will be revealed Ossamaha

If you read what I said, I didn't say a fly by wire throttle was likely to stick open - I said an electronic malfunction in the ECU could tell the throttle to snap wide open all on its own at a very dangerous point in a section. I didn't say this would happen, I said it could. Nothing to do with sticking throttles. Electronics play up, indisputable fact, that's why your home PC does things it shouldn't, or things that you don't tell it to - like crashing. It's why my car randomly but suddenly suffers momentary but complete switch off of fuel and ignition - because there is a fault either in the ECU or one of the 30-odd sensors that is either causing overboost on the turbo when it isn't required, or detecting overboost that isn't actually happening. Whichever, it won't show up on a diagnostic, even when it is happening but there is obviously something wrong. If a blip did cause a fuel surge at the wrong moment, the fact that a bike will automatically cut off in case of severe over-rev isn't going to help as by the time the cut-off sensor has done its job, rider and bike are already in free fall for an unplanned meeting with terra firma below. Neither is the automatic cut-off after 7 seconds of the bike lying on it's side of much use to the rider who's body is also lying on its side next to it at the foot of a nasty drop off and whose own cut-off has been triggered due to the trauma suffered from the multiple injuries received. Anyway, this thread was supposed to be about comparisons between the performance of the Sherco 4T and the others. The Sherco doesn't have EFI so all the arguments are irrelavent, the point is what is the Sherco like to ride in the sections relative to the others. I owned a 4RT for 18 months, I've had a brief try recently on a 2005 Sherco with all the problems sorted out. I liked the better torque of the Sherco, liked the way you can chug it along at very low revs on the throttle only, liked the steering better. 4RT had better rear suspension, front is pretty much the same on all current bikes to me. Both have enough power unless you're a top national runner and want more from the Mont. Average Joes don't need it. Sherco had a better clutch action. Mont was a bugger to start in gear, Sherco wasn't. I didn't dislike the Mont but wouldn't have another unless the tickover could run at what I'd call normal for a trials bike and the clutch was sorted. The Sherco didn't cough stall when I tried it but I didn't try and snap the throttle wide from zero revs as you don't do that in sections, so pointless. Someone mentioned that the 4RT won't stall snapping the throttle open but as it doesn't idle at less than 1800 revs it's not a similar comparison. Both are good bikes, the Mont has proved itself generally reliable although there are cases of the crankcase being damaged around the kickstart return stop which can be very expensive to fix if not inside warranty. The Sherco had its teething troubles but it remains to be seen how the 07 fairs with reliability. Only way to really find out which is best for you is to try them yourself and get along to one of the test days that must be coming up soon and ride them back to back on as many different types of sections as possible. People will give you all sorts of opnions but bottom line is yours is the only opinion that counts when its your money...

Runs on the Saturday of remembrance Sunday weekend by Malcom and Anne Bates of Rhayader club. Road trial which takes place around Rhayader for classics using some of the sections used in the British Experts, British Championship and World Round from the 60s and 70s. Two routes with a class for pre65 and twinshock on each route. Good trial, good sections, mainly rocky streams but a bit of mud and a few climbs too. Very enjoyable and well worth entering.

I'd say it's a one-off - certainly never seen anything like that offered by Bultaco - it took them until 1999 to copy Miller by getting rid of the bottom frame rails and use a seperate bashplate. The only thing that looks to be altered chassis wise is the fitting of the bashplate, engine doesn't appear to have been moved from original position and suspension mounts are unaltered. I'd have thought the opposite about the bashplate, it's that over done that it would be very costly to to produce, more like a one-off. Major changes to create the Majesty were rear shocks repositioned and engine/frame cradle lifted 2". Steering angle altered on a very few Yam framed bikes, probably supported riders only, later Godden frame had different angle from original Yam frame

They aren't supposed to be no, but depends who you are I guess as there were some competing this year. As far as I know Scott Ellis created his own oil in frame C15 when riding for BSA before 1965, but as it wasn't a production model BSA stopped him using it as he had to be seen riding what the customer could buy. So although an oil in frame BSA existed before 1965 it wasn't a production model, hence the problem with them in the Pre65. This may or may not be true but it is what I have read or been told over the years - with a few variations of course but that is the essence of it. The original Otter frame is supposed to be a copy of Scott's bike, and the Miller / Faber frames have evolved from that.

Well, to me it just appears to be an M49 which someone has cut off the bottom frame rails and added their own bashplate and updated the exhaust and cylinder head to M80 type like they did with the 'kit' that was offered to customers to update their M49 to a slimline - or maybe now it has an M80 type motor fitted. Fuel tank off something else and a seat unit made out of alloy - similar in appearance to the Homelite unit that was fitted to UK bikes around 1974 (except that was welded to the tank as a tank/seat unit) Non standard silencer. The rest appears standard Bultaco. I prefer the look of the standard bike.

But how technically advanced has a trials bike got to be to meet the requirements of the purpose for which it is intended? They've done fine up to now in their archaic state and not being at the cutting edge of technology keeps the bikes fairly basic and more importantly - cheap - you've only to read the other threads about the cost of trials bikes to see what the majority opnion is there - people want cheap not expensive bikes and more development and electronic wizardry will bump up the price. As for fly by wire throttle, I like the idea of being able to map the speed of the response of the throttle (although you can do that now with a slow/quick action throttle...) but I'm not sure if I'd have full trust in it. Electronics do play up occassionally, fact, and just imagine the consequences of one little blip sending a message to the EFI to snap the throttle wide open - just when the bike is approaching a serious drop off.... unlikely? - probably, but not impossible. And where does the electronic gadgetry finish. Once they get started, how long before grip sensors and traction control arrive on the scene, retractable spikes in the tyres at the flick of a switch for those really snottly sections, remotely adjustable tyre pressures from a switch on the handlebars, electronically controlled damping adjustment. I'm not against development but look what it has done to superbikes and motogp - success is more attributable to how good the electronics are on the bike now than the rider's right wrist. The racing is no longer as pure as it was a few years ago. Back to the original thread and as I said before, I've tried Jon Bliss' 320 Sherco and the motor is smoother on that than my 4RT was, it starts no problem hot or cold, grips very well and was very easy to ride - an 05 model sorted with some very minor but knowlegeable mods. Is the 4RT EFI more efficient - undoubtedly (even though I ran out of fuel 3 times on road events before reaching the fuel stops - twice in the SSDT...) But does that efficiency translate to better rideability on the bike - not in my opinion - not until they sort it so that when you close the throttle the bike ticks over a true trials bike speed - for me, a fundamental requirement of a trials bike.

Shirty would have made the replacement tail pipes, similar to those he did for the mono but chances of finding one would be very little. You could adapt a mono one to fit if you could find one of those which is what I did, or one of the early GasGas contact type. Only thing new you can buy is the WES tail pipe but it isn't a particularly nice shape, personal opinion though. Not sure it fits directly to the Yam system either - may need modifying as it's made to go with the WES middle box.

Nice find Early bikes were yellow frame and tank with white mudguards and sidepanel. Depends how fussy you want to be as regards the red tank decal - early bikes had a solid red stripe before they changed to the 'speed block' type Personally I'd run it on Castrol TTS rather than Silkolene as it is a lot cleaner and doesn't gum up rings and exhausts. Either one should be 50:1 max though on a steel liner. Registered in Birmingham - wonder who's it was.

Steve Wilson also had some frames and swingarms made but chances of finding one of these now is remote