woody

1982 Godden framed Majesty is a good possibility

You can use a 26mm MK2 Amal, as per Gripper, which are still available new and easy to jet, 25 pilot, 106 needle and 160 main would be pretty close at a guess. Or you could use a Mikuni as fitted to TY Yamaha twinshock, TK from a Yam mono, buy a new Mikuni from Allens, use a Dellorto from GasGas/Beta etc. but any of these will require time messing with jets to get right as there is no 'base' setting - unless Allens have jet settings for the new Mikunis they sell. Or you could be lucky and it would run ok right away as fitted with no changes. Amal is the easiset to work with. Are you sure it isn't just float setting or a leaking float that is causing the problem on the Bing.

I'm guessing that it is a TY250 twinshock Yam that you want to modify the pegs on. As far as I know there is nothing on the market that you can buy that will just bolt straight on to the existing lugs. To take any of the aftermarket trials pegs you are going to have to fabricate or weld something - unless someone else maybe knows of an option. You can by Hebo copy pegs/brackets for

You don't need to touch the suspension settings on any modern bike to be able to flick and hop the front and back around. It'll do it as it comes out of the crate, it's down to who's on it. Some riders may alter settings to their personal preference but it isn't necessary to make the bike do it. And just to back this up if you doubt it, one of our local lads who can skip and dance a bike all over the place, had a go on my Ossa MAR a few years ago. He hopped the front, hopped the back and then bounced the bike about six feet sideways in about 4 hops with both wheels off the floor together. At its best, the Ossa suspension is say, 10% as effective as a modern bike and has about 6" of travel on the front and 4" on the back, so I think a Beta can be made to do it without suspension alterations. I've also seen him do the same on a Honda TLR and a TY175 Yam. Just ride it standard, the suspension set up on a trials bike is not as critical as a MX/Enduro bike as the standard settings on a modern trials bike are more than good enough to cope with anything that novices, intermediates and most experts are likely to point it at. Far more important than twiddling suspension settings is your stance on the bike, using your body and weight to work with the bike and suspension and most importantly, timing. If you still doubt it, give your bike to one of those 9 stone young guns before you change anything and watch what they can do on it.

What happened to adherence to rules of any kind in WTC - for the last 20 years....

Had another read of your post and can't follow what you're describing in terms of the mod of adding 25mm to the top tube or how it affects ground clearance etc.. However, the top tube and head angle are unaltered on the Yam framed Majesty. Top tubes certainly weren't lengthened. Having just looked at mine, I believe that what was done is this; Front down tubes shortened about 1" and bent backwards slightly. This lifts the front of the engine as the mounts are now about 1" higher up the tube. Both front/rear frame uprights from the the footrests have about 1" removed from the top which moves the entire rear engine cradle and mounts about 1" higher up. Therefore the engine is now sitting higher in the frame than standard TY and possibly further back a bit too, which may explain why the bike feels light on the front. The exhaust mounting bracket is repositioned lower, back to its original height (in relation to the ground say) and it is now almost level with the top engine mount, unlike the TY which has a height difference of about 1" between the two. The toolbox and surrounding frame are unaltered apart from the indent just rear of the toolbox to clear the sparkplug. Exhaust front pipe is shortened in height. Rubber boot from the airbox to carb rests on the top of the engine on a Majesty, as the engine is higher but the airbox retains its original mounts. On the TY there is clearance. On a Majesty, if you look at the bottom of the 'V' created by the frame tubes above the footrests, the gap between the bottom of the V and the plastic sidepanel is less than standard TY due to the shorter tubes. Off the top of my head that's about it I think.

Not sure if what you say is right or not but if you look at the left hand sides of a Majesty and a TY250, on the Majesty the top of the carb and the cylinder head are almost level with the top of the side panel, on the TY250 they are much lower down in relation to the side panel. On the Majesty the spark plug is right up against the back of the toolbox where the frame is altered to accomodate, on the TY there is a gap between the plug and the toobox. On the Majesty the front of the cylinder head is much closer to the bottom braces of the toolbox where it meets the downtubes. So either the engine has been lifted or the whole of the top of the bike has been lowered down onto the engine. My money is on the former, I just don't know how if it is.

Another option is to buy a TY250, of which there are plenty around for low cost and do most of the mods that were done to make them a Majesty - unless you specifically want a Majesty for the name, but a modified TY will be just as good. Reposition the shocks like Majesty 320 the engine with new liner and DT360 piston and a spacer (2mm roughly) under the barrell to restore port timing. Crankcase will need opening out to take thicker liner but not by much, can be done with a dremel I'm told, with care, no need to split the motor. Leave it as a 250, a lot of 250 Majesties had standard motors, not all were tweaked. Birkett's will tweak a 250 for you. Fit a Majesty tank from Craig Mawlam, he still has some full size tanks left (or did) or the new fibreglass mini majesty type Majesty engine was lifted in frame for more ground clearance (don't know how this was achieved but it's about 14" clearance....) but in my opinion it's not really necessay as the standard TY with decent shocks and front forks (TY mono front end?) should have ample clearance. The front pipe was shortened in height on the Majesty due to the engine being lifted. The lower engine should balance it a bit better too. If an exhaust is needed, a Sammy Miller front pipe and WES sliencer system will go straight on a standard TY250. The front pipe is too long for a Majesty due to latter being shortened, reason as above, so they don't sit quite right. So, for not too much work (less if you leave it as a 250) and a lot less money you will have a bike that will perform just as well as a Majesty, it's just not a genuine one, but what does that matter if it rides like you want. Other things such as electronic ignition, lowering and repositioning footrests etc, all very much personal choice. In terms of engine cc, my preference is the 320. Amazing torque but can be made very docile off the bottom, not sharp at all, can be ridden around off the throttle without having to clutch it, but when you want it to go, it will go. People who say they are too much of an animal should try them when they are softened. Very rideable. Alternatively, if it is just a good twinshock you want, buy a Fantic 240, the best of the lot and one that needs no mods, just get on and ride.

Speedo isn't a requirement for MOT test itself, they just put not displayed as the odometer reading on the certificate, but you do need one and it must be working if you're riding on the road. Seeley is fitted with what were the common Marzocchi front forks of the time, as fitted to early Fantic 200 and the speedo mounting on Marzocchi forks was always on the rear of the right hand fork leg. Most bikes using these forks had Grimeca hubs with the speedo drive on the right but the Seeley uses Honda CR hubs. If you have got a speedo fitted for the MOT they will take the reading, but it isn't part of the test to ensure it is working, if they notice it isn't it is just an advisory note, not a fail

Had a ride on the 05 Sherco 4T that Jon Bliss bought recently and modified himself. Bike was warm when I got on it and it started first kick without any problem. Put it in 3rd gear, pulled away and rolled it on tickover down a 4' side of a ditch, into the bottom, merest whiff of throttle to ease up the other side which was about half the height, over the top, full lock turn and back accross the ditch. All without touching the clutch in 3rd gear, no sign of a spit back, cough stall or whatever. Power was very smooth and very soft. Very rideable. Mods as I understand them are heavy flywheel weight so that the bike will drop to nothing on the throttle, like a TL125 or TLR200/250 and it is virtually unstallable, maybe a different carb, but I don't know what sort. Whatever he has done, the bike doesn't appear to give any starting problems, hot or cold and I have seen him ride it in 3 of the Classic rounds now, with no problems at all. I've also seen it grip like s**t to a blanket. The feel of the bike is just right too, light and maneouverable, nice steering, suspension and plenty of torquey power when you want it. The most impressive thing though was the way it just plonked along at tickover in 3r gear, which meant I could ride it purely on the throttle without constantly slipping the clutch to go slowly. That was the biggest problem with my 4RT, the high tickover because of the EFI meant it couldn't be ridden slowly on the throttle, always needing the clutch to slow it down. Personaly, I don't see the need for EFI as if the carburetted bike is set up correctly there is no reason why you should have starting problems with them 99% of the time. No problem with TLR, TL Hondas or the many Pre65 4T being used, so why should there be with the Sherco, although there will always be the odd riding mishap that floods anything. I'd like to try Blisser's bike on some proper sections but based on just that quick spin I don't think I'd be disappointed.

I know it's sold now but just in case you come accross another Gripper with missing kickstart; The MAR kickstart works fine on the Gripper, the only difference is that it isn't cranked over at the top like the Gripper one to tuck into the head, but it doesn't get in the way or catch your leg because of this. It would do until a Gripper one could be found. Where to get one from is another matter. In Motion (Bultaco UK) may be able to source one from Spain.

As well as the ACU clubs mentioned, there is also the local AMCA who have a few trials clubs and meet not too far from you every Wednesday night somewhere in Burntwood or thereabouts. There are 2 trials you could go have a look at tomorrow locally, one as already mentioned is the ACU Dudley club at Kinlet, near Bewdley, the other is an AMCA trial at Liveridge farm, also near Bewdley (neat local calendar planning again...) Liveridge is found by going accross the bridge into Bewdley and turn left at the church onto High Street, then follow the lane and it will be signposted off there somewhere. As far as practise goes, there is one official site at Rugeley but I'm not sure what the situation is there at the moment, you'd need to contact the AMCA as it is affiliated to them. There is nowhere else unless you know any landowners who will let you ride. You will know more about Cannock Chase than I do but these days it is a big no-no (never was a yes, but I know locals with a bit of local knowledge used to use it) As far as buying a bike, if you want something cheap and cheerful to start back with, I can put you in touch with a mate of mine who has a good '94 TYZ Yam for sale for around

Can't help with suggestions for <mention of this company is not permitted on Trials Central> but Nantmawr is on the map and is just off the A495 a couple of miles or so south of Oswestry. Pretty easy to find and the quarry start will be signposted off the A495 I'd imagine.

And I really hope you do as it sounds like it will be a very good event and I really hope I can ride it. Can't see anything wrong with your original idea with the year breaks if people would like to see their bike fit into a specific category. Hopefully people will be sensible about it and know which one their bike belongs in and there would be no arguments. As I said before, not something I'm bothered about though myself. Personally, I'd do whatever causes you the least admin. If our club was running one, I would just keep it simple, run two routes and on each, have one class for twinshocks, one for pre65 and one for specials (or call it whatever) for anything outside of those two. Two routes covers any rider machine combination so there is no reason for people with really old twinshocks, or, lightly modified pre65 bikes to feel that their bikes won't be up to it just because there is no pre72 class or whatever. They can ride the easier route.

He's still pretty good isn't he....... and pretty fit

I wish people would read threads properly before they comment - If you read what I said you'll see I never said that at all. I couldn't give a fig if people want to convert monos by adding 2 shocks, modern front ends and discs and ride them against modern bikes in modern trials. Their choice, up to them. None of my business. I don't care what individual clubs do around the country in terms of a twinshock class in their modern trials, or what bikes they allow to compete. If I turned up on my Ossa to a trial in another centre and found that converted monos were competing as twinshocks in the twinshock class, I'd think it a farce but I wouldn't go bleating to the organisers to get them kicked out. But on the flip side, if I came out as the winner of a twinshock class riding a 305 Fantic or Beta TR34 with 2 shocks, beating Ossas, Monts and Bults, it would feel a hollow victory with no merit in it - just my view. And where do you draw the line? Is it ok to put 2 shocks on a GasGas or 4RT? If not, why not, who says so, there are no rules to govern it. But, there is a national championship for twinshocks, it's the only series we have for twinshocks in this country and it's the only twinshock class I care about. I'd hate to see it spoiled with hybrids edging out the genuine bikes once the 'who can build the ultimate twinshock' bandwagon got rolling. It's intention, years ago when it was introduced as the Sebac, was for people to be able to compete on their twinshock bikes that were by then obsolete and uncompetitive against the modern monos and the tight trick sections. It was a chance to get them out and ride them again on traditional type no-stop sections. That series evolved into the ACU Classic and the twinshock class has stayed true to that original ideal all through and although it now consists of more modern twinshocks, there are still a few Bults, Ossas and very occaisionally Monts competing. This is how it should be. Converted monos or bikes with discs aren't eligible for points in the championship, that's the ruling. As far as twinshocks being tricked up and built to compete on ever tighter sections, where is this happening? I've yet to go to a classic/twinshock trial anywhere and find sections that are too tight. They certainly don't appear in the ACU Classic and a 70s twinshock with the right rider on it could have cleaned every section at last weekend's two classic rounds, no question. There are maybe half a dozen people on this forum who ride the ACU Classic and none of them have ever said the sections are too tight, so where has that come from? To be honest, I'm fed up with the ongoing, pointless arguments/debates/discussion as to what is or isn't a twinshock. Everyone knows what they are, there is no grey area. Twinshocks ended in '85 with the odd exception - RTX and Jon Bliss' Cotswolds and Cotswold Majesties. None of these are trick bikes and they aren't any more competitive than the last of the factory produced twinshocks - which is why I wouldn't like to see pre85, as that excludes these bikes. For the record, I think your Fantic is a very nice bike, looks well put together and is nicely finished. Just that in my opinion a converted mono is not a twinshock for obvious reasons, that's all - this is also the opnion of all the other regulars riding twinshocks in the ACU Classic. And as for true twinshock enthusiast, yes I've ridden my bog standard 1974 Ossa MAR in the Loch Lomond 2 day, Lakes 2 day, numerous other modern trials and used it regularly in modern trials back in the 90s - as mentioned on one of the CJB end of the year round up videos from back then - so proof is there on VHS. Which is why it is so worn out now.... So I guess I qualify as a twinshock enthusiast but I also like enduros, some modern trials, some pre65 trials and classic scrambling. I also like baking cakes dressed in red braces, black leather and pink flip-flops but that's for another forum

Unfortunately, I can't help you with the length as I don't know, but, 1976 was a model change year for Ossa Mar as the MK3 MAR came out in late 76. So you need to know if you have the longer front forks as fitted to the MK3 or the shorter front forks fitted to the MK2 as both can be classed as 1976 models.

I still smile at the 'this bike isn't as competitive as that bike' theories and arguments. There is an element of truth in it certainly, for example, a world championship or British championship event, where you have the best riders in the world/country, you are going to need the most or at least an equally competitive bike to be successful Drop down a level to current day classic events and you have a massive spread of rider ability throughout the entry. Now in my opinion, Fantics are the best performing of the twinshock bikes, just buy one and ride it without the need for mods, whether it is a 200/240/300 - even the 200 is as good as anything, better than most. In this weekend's ACU Classic rounds, there were very capable riders on Fantics taking part. Yet, Saturday's event was won outright by Nick Shield and on Sunday he again topped the Classics and finished second overall to a 4RT - and what bike was this achieved on? - Fantic, Honda, Majesty, SWM?? No, on his 340 Bultaco, a Spanish bike that is supposed to be a dinosaur compared to the later stuff. How can this be? Simply because, as I've said before, doesn't matter how good you think your bike is, or has to be, you still have to ride it. And just for the record, it is not a trick bike and I know as I had a ride on it. It is lightly modified, that's all and performs well, but nothing trick or cheat about it. In fact it was nice to see not one twinshock with discs at either event, all had drums and there was nothing that was modified in a fashion that would have put it 'outside the spirit' of these events. And even if there was and I missed it, it still didn't win did it. Just a quick mention on the three classes mentioned for twinshocks. On a personal note I'm not bothered about having them (generally I mean, not the trial in question) but I'm certainly not against them or think it is a bad idea. But, how can you police it? Who has the knowledge to ensure the right bike is in the right class. Whichever year you use as a breakpoint, some models are going to overlap. For example, Beamish Suzuki came out in 75/76 and continued through to 81 so who would have the knowledge to put a Beamish in the correct category whether you have pre77 or pre80. Majesties appeared 78/79 and ran to 83 so which belongs in pre80 or post80. 348 Montesa came out in 76 so can be pre/post 77. Ossas will be difficult to date and Bults are a nightmare with many repainted in older or newer colour schemes. It's just that I can see all sorts of arguments from people complaining that 'that bike is in the wrong class' when they've been beaten by it. Even though they are all 'riding for fun' of course - until the results come out, or someone is noticed to be performing well on the day and someone else decides they are in the wrong class. It will happen as you only have to look at other topics/posts on the forum to see it. PS - this post isn't a swipe at anyone in particular. Just read it again and realised it may look that way, but no intention of that kind meant.

I just don't get this convert a mono to twinshock and calling it a twinshock thing at all. People ride twinshocks, generally, because they are the bikes they enjoyed riding when they were younger and they enjoy the no-stop traditional type of sections which don't call for trick riding and don't require the finite braking performance needed to stop and ride back up the tyre tracks you have left on the way down. A converted mono will never be a twinshock - no argument whatsoever. If people want to convert monos to twinshocks, add discs and ride them in modern trials against modern bikes that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that but a twinshock it will never be. Why the need for a 'specials' twinshock class. It's creating a class for a type of bike that never existed. If people are riding monos with twinshocks added, why not just enjoy riding the bike you have created as a Novice, Inter or Expert, whichever is applicable. About 10 - 12 years ago, inbetween the Sebac rounds, I used to ride my Ossa regularly in modern events which had no twinshock class back then, sometimes on the hard route with the aim of doing the best I could, or, if that was too hard, the next route down. I never requested or wanted a twinshock class, I just entered as expert or inter and enjoyed my day out. The ACU Classic series is specific in that twinshocks must be twinshock as at original manufacture and no discs. So far it is working ok and most agree there is no need for discs, neither do they want them. If you want a good days sport on a twinshock why not get a standard 240 or 300 Fantic and see if you can beat Mr Wiffen on his unmodified 300 before he romps away with the twinshock class again this year.

Now this is where things get mis-construed. Converting an RTL to twinshock would be to attach twinshocks to the RTL and lose the monoshock. No point whatsoever in my opinion and could never be considered a twinshock bike. He's not proposing that, just to use the RTL engine in a twinshock frame, and probably forks/wheels too, assuming the latter aren't rotted through. I'm assuming, from his post, this is because the RTL is knackered and beyond repair or needs unobtainable parts or whatever. This is a different thing altogether from converting an RTL to twinshock and I can't see anything wrong with it as an RTL engine is about 95% TLR250 - which is why I proposed that buying a sorted TLR250 which would be just as good and wouldn't cost that much more than building the new bike - and he still has the RTL. RTL - best bike of its time...?? Not a chance, Yam mono was much better

Any idea where and if they are for sale as I know someone who may be interested in a Seeley less its engine Back to the frame kits, I was thinking of the Honda-Kit frames made by BPS Engineering in France due to the mention of kit in the topic title, I'd overlooked the RS200/250 replica frames that are available from (I think) Track and Trial along with the alloy swingarm. They have a website but the frames aren't advertised on it. One thing to consider with the RS replica frame is that the carb is mounted outside of the frame tubes on the right hand side of the engine on a Honda RS, not through the middle and under the seat like a TLR. This will affect the choice of tank/seat unit fitted to the bike as it will need to give clearance to the carb and carb - airbox hose and could rule out the one-piece tank seat units. See their website for pictures of RS200 bikes and for RS type carb mounting under sold items. Track and Trial

Not sure you will find anyone with one of these kits in the UK (assuming you mean the kits made out in France called the kit-pro) As an alternative, the RTL, TLR RS200 motors all share the same basic centre crankcases, so the mounting lugs are all in the same place, so the RTL engine will drop straight into a TLR 200 or 250 frame but on the 200 (not sure about the 250) there is a slight clearance problem with the kickstart fouling the frame at the swingarm pivot, due to the RTL having a different length kickstart shaft than the 200 - may well apply to the 250 too, don't know. There are often TLR200 frames on ebay or available from breakers, so that's an alternative. Question is why do you want to do it. Although I'm not a fan of the RTL, I find them horrible to ride, high footrests and too much trail on the steering, it seems a shame to break a complete bike, unless it is really beyond saving. The engine is barely any different from the TLR250, different cam, electrics maybe, gear ratios maybe and visually the side casings obviously, but in terms of performance there's little if any difference. For the money it could cost to build the retro kit, which will also need an airbox and exhaust purpose built, it may not cost much more to buy a sorted TLR250 and keep the RTL too PS - You've put this in the Pre65 forum

Just in case anyone isn't aware, you can still by the Eddy Lejeune Incredible Trial Techniques video. It's still on sale from Trials outlets in the UK and appears on ebay from time to time. Cost is around

The trial wasn't intended to be as hard as it turned out, the appalling weather did it's worst. Rain began at about 7am and continued, very heavily, throughout the trial. Nothing the organisers could do really as it is virtually impossible to get around 40 sections of a road trial and change them. Had it not rained it would have been won on a single figure score. As it happens, almost every section remained rideable (eg, I don't think Nic Draper incurred a single 5) and it was possible to ride some of the worst sections for a 1 or a 2. Very few were 3 or 5 only types. Maybe I'm warped, but I really enjoyed it, just like a good old fashioned National or centre championship trial from late 70s, soaked to the skin, roadwork, single lap and plenty to have a go at. Back to the James, is there really a problem with bikes of this nature or are we just creating one. As has been said before, the people who are going to win, will win, whether they are on a standard bike or not. The riders that win are also more competitive by nature and will look to improve their bikes and gain an advantage over each other, it's how it's always been - compare GOV 132 to a standard HT5... Full of parts not available to Joe Bloggs at the time. So if those riders are on trick bikes, they are still only competing against each other. Joe Bloggs is not going to beat them, even if he is riding a modern bike. So is there really a problem? Possibly, and as I see it, it is this. The riders on the 'specials' or 'trick bikes' are not competing in a specials class. They are still entering in the 'ordinary' pre65 classes (as in the Miller rounds for example) Therefore, average riders on machines which are closer to original spec than the 'specials' are never going to win their class as they are competing against better riders on better bikes. The Miller series was intended initially for riders on standard(ish) bikes and the old rigids etc with sections to suit. I'm pretty sure this is one of the reasons for the drop off in pre65 bikes in the Miller series. They think I've no chance of doing any good against these blokes so bugger it, I'm not bothering anymore. If the specials were moved into the specials class by the organisers (if the riders don't enter it voluntarily) then this would leave the ordinary classes populated by the Joe Bloggses on their more standard machines to fight for class wins and the championship overall. The better riders on their specials then fight for the win in the specials class. I don

The float isn't meant to be adjustable but people who like to tinker make it adjustable by warming the tangs on the float that hold the needle and then bending them from their normal horizontal attitude into a different position which will raise or lower the float from standard. Why? - no idea, but may be worth checking yours to see if they've been altered. If they aren't in line with the horizontal top side of the float then they probably have. This is generally unlikely though and as per the post above the problem is more likely to be a faulty float or sticking needle. The bike should run fine with the Amal as long as it is in good nick.