woody

Try these Website for EMPF Not sure about any ACU rule/guideline about using power washers (irrelevant if the rider doesn't participate in ACU events) but how it can be environmentally unfriendly when a large number of bikes have been circulating around an event for the best part of the day has me a bit baffled. Some issues can be taken a bit too far in today's PC ruled (ruined..??) world. Without question, if a landowner doesn't want power washers used on his land, that is a different matter altogether and their wishes should be adhered to

Yes it was and yes you can sill get them, also from Miller and maybe Bultaco UK too. Lots of info on this site, may also be able to download a manual (sort of) from there. Also keep an eye on ebay as Ossa manuals appear on there now and again. Mats Nyberg Ossa As an alternative carb you could use Mikuni, Dellorto etc. but you'll have to use trial and error for jetting as there isn't a spec sheet for jetting anything other than an Amal - unless someone is using one successfully and can provide the jetting info.

This used to be the rule under the original stop/hop/reversing allowed rules. If you stuck a foot down when stationary it was a 5. The way around this for riders who were about to lose there balance whilst stationary, was to move the bike forward slightly and take the dab, therefore it was a dab whilst moving forward to regain their balance, not a stationary dab and a 5. Then, the whole process would start over again. The rider would hop the bike back to where they were originally, stationery balance again and try and line the bike up again for whatever obstacle they had to negotiate. It took ages for riders to complete sections, the queues were massive and it was a real pain in the @rse to be stuck in one. Time limits are ok in world rounds but totaly unfeasible in club/centre trials. When riders did stationary dab there were arguments and rows as to whether they were stationary or moving. As ever, top riders got the benefit of the doubt over stationary fives, average Joe didn't. And what happens when you sump out on something having failed in an attempt to get over it. Stationary balancing whilst sumped isn't balancing, the bike is being supported by whatever is under the sump after the rider has FAILED to get over it. However, a 5 wasn't given and the rider was free to spend ages wriggling around to get back off whatever they were sumped on, reverse back and have another go - and again, and again until they got over it or eventually fell off - usually the latter - so much more efficient to 5 them for failing to get over it originally..... Allowing stop/hop etc means tighter and much harder sections. The real fact is, there are very few riders (relative to the overall numbers competing) who can perform the tricks properly. That's why WTC has so few riders. The British Championship class doesn't even have enough riders participating to fill all the points scoring places and the difference in scores between the top 3 or 4 and the rest is huge. There are too many riders competing these days with abilitiy that is nowhere near that needed to perform the simplest of wheel hops. One set of rules allowing trick riding will just kill their interest and put trials back where it was back in the early 90s with entries for all the major trials including the SSDT decling. My own view is that things seem fine as they are running 3 sets of rules - all the major events are well supported/OVERSUBSCRIBED that run under the stop allowed but penalty is a 1 rule, or the full no-stop rule like SSDT. The riders who want FIM do what you like rules have them for the British Campionship - look how well that is supported. So it's not hard to see what the majority would want if ballotted. But I think it would be wrong to impose one set of rules, whichever they may be. It's just not workable any more. I still can't see why there is confusion over what set of rules you're riding to in event. READ the regs, it seems pretty simple to me.... As for observers not knowing what rules they should be enforcing, observing has never been consistent regardless of the rules - this isn't a criticism of observers, just a fact. For example; Stationary dabs were not always penalised as a 5 Stops under no stop rules not always given a 5 Stops under 'stop permitted but a 1 mark penaly incurred' - dab not always given Stationary dab should be a 2 not always given - maybe never... Rider using tree/stream bank/rock to support self/bike not always penalised etc. etc. etc. And riders will still bend or blatantly break rules to gain an advantage win at all costs, bugger the spirit of the event - I've seen full on trick riding under full no-stop rules on a tricked up Pre65 bike. The riders know the rules, so do the observers, but because it is a leading rider, pulling off a clean, the observer presumably feels they should give it and no penalty is incurred. There's no simple solution to the problem of 'observing rules', but I think the days are gone that one set can be applied to all events.

I rode it this year for the first time and yes, it is an enjoyable weekend so I don't think you would find any disappointment in that respect. Just lots of like minded individuals enjoying riding the trial on their favourite bikes. At the end of Sunday's event a lot of riders stopped off on the ride back into Douglas at the pub (don't know the name) by the tram station on the Prom to have a pint, natter and enjoy the glorious weather. It was a great atmosphere and nice to see so many twinshocks and Pre65 bikes parked up at the side of the road. Can just imagine trying to do thast here.... As Cubby said, accomodation is down to personal preference and riders are spread far and wide, no 'communal gathering place' as far as I know. You don't need an expensive or trick bike to compete in this trial. A TY175 is easily able to cope with the easier route sections and with a capable rider, could cope with the harder route sections too, no problems there as power isn't the name of the game. As long as your bike is well prepared and everything works as it should, then you will have no problem. The most important thing is that the bike is reliable and responds predictably, no nasty surprises with misfires, lurching flat spots, bits dropping off, leaking shocks etc. It's a long mileage over two days and any weaknesses will undoubtedly been exposed. The less you have to think about worrying whether this or that component is going to fail, the more you'll enjoy the ride around - trust me......... Take spare points and condensor with you, unless you have electronic ignition fitted of course. It's a good idea to move the condensor out from the stator and up by the HT coil and mount a couple of spares up there also with wires and connectors attached. That way, if a condensor fails you can swap it over without having to remove the flywheel. A good pair of shocks is a good investment too as the sections are predominently rocks - plenty of time to save up and fit a pair of Falcons. Go for it, it's a great weekend

Forgot to mention, although someone else did I think, if you're using the standard all steel plates in your clutch then you should use 300cc ATF - Once clutch is adjusted correctly there should be no slip or drag with ATF

As a bike to start with you could do a ot worse than a Yamaha TY250 mono as you will get a good one, preferably one of the last models with a front disc as standard, for less than

If you look in either the Bultaco or Twinshock sections and do a search on Bultaco clutch, you should find a very useful piece by John Collins in setting up a Bultaco clutch - obviously it assumes that your plates and basket are in good working order. As for colours I use what I want, couldn't care less what anyone else thinks, it's my bike. On the Sherpa, Ford Radiant Red and (I think) Moondust Silver look better than Sunburst and Silver Fox in my opinion - deeper red and and more brilliant silver. At least I think it is Moondust Silver...

I don't see how the rules are to blame for the scenario that started this topic off. Rules are quite clear - you can't go backwards, it carries a penalty. You can't use your feet, it carries a penalty. The bike clearly moves backwards, that's a 5. Observer gives the benefit of any doubt on that one. Feet, as in the toes, are definitely used to assist getting the bike unwedged - more than once, therefore a penalty is incurred, could have been a 2 rather than a 1. The problem is that of observers having to give marginal decisions in high profile events involving high profile riders. If the rider pulls off a skilfull maneouvre, albeit one that is outside of the rules, resulting in much applauding and airhorn blowing from an assembled crowd, then there is (unconscious) pressure on the observer. Because it is a difficult section and the rider has put in a lot of effort, chances are they'll not always get the correct penalty. Trials riders, particularly at higher levels and because of who they are get away with a lot. If a tennis player puts in a super-human effort to return an impossible shot and it lands a millimetre outside of the line, they lose the point, no matter how hard they tried or how much effort they put in - they don't get awarded the point just because it was a difficult shot. Same with the golfer who nearly pulls off a 50 yard putt over an uneven green. If it rests right on the lip of the hole, they don't get the shot just because it was hard. The rules are applied. Why should rules at trials be bent just because a section is hard. Don't see how the rules are the cause of the problem. And I'm not criticising obrerving standards here either, it's a thankless task which I've done a fair share of.

In UK, the red slimline tank was replaced by an alloy tank/seat unit due to fibreglass tanks becoming illegal around 1973/74. These tank units were blue/silver and used on models 91/92 - 150/151 If I knew how to show a picture I could show you one... As for colours (UK paint that is) Ford Sunburst Red and Ford Silver Fox, 1970's colours, are commonly used as they are reckoned to be a close match for the slimline, with Ford Electric Monza Blue for the later blue Sherpa 199a.

Woodruff key sheared on the flywheel? If the flywheel has turned on the shaft it could backfire as the timing would be out

??????????????? 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.