woody

If it was suggested it's running rich it could be too rich in oil or the carb could be letting too much fuel through - or both. Either would cause uneven running and excessive smoke. Oil - 75cc is a bit lean on oil for an old steel liner engine, even on modern synthentic, so that rules out too rich in oil. I'd suggest 100cc per 5 litres though which is 50:1. Castrol TTS is good and doesn't gum up rings and silencers. Carb - if standard jets are fitted, could be the float height set incorrectly letting too much fuel through. It's something that is difficult to answer without seeing the bike running or knowing why people thought it was rich. Did they just mean it was lumpy off idle, in which case it is more likely to be just carb adjustment. It could also be a gunged up silencer which can also give the same symptons as a bike running rich. First check to do though is the carb, make sure jets are correct, none loose, needle position correct and float height correct. If so, then a restricted exhaust could be a possibility. What they used to do on those is cut the rear silencer open, rip out all the wire wool 'packing' and then drill a hole in the end so the exhaust gas goes straight out, rather than exit through the holes underneath. No idea if this is worthwhile mod or not as never tried a 'before and after' bike but I'm told by someone who's done it that it makes them go better. If the middle silencer is gunged up you can cut it open and re-pack it. It's is a pig of a job but worthwhile if it's needed.

Sammy Miller sells them or you can make your own by knocking the centre out of an old spark plug, screw it in the head, find TDC, slide a pencil down it and mark TDC on the pencil level with the top of the plug. Take out pencil, put a mark where the timing should be above the mark you made for TDC (eg 2mm above if your timing should be 2mm BTDC) and you have a home-made timing tool. When the piston is pushing the pencil up through the plug, when the timing mark appears you are 2mm BTDC. Tool is obviously better though.

Loved Elias' pass on Rossi, even more so when he ran him wide in the corner. Loved it more so to hear Rossi's toys coming out of the pram and bitching afterwards about Elias' riding in a dangerous manner - rich coming from someone who isn't adverse to punting people out of the way or using them as berms, never so more blatantly than Gibernau at Jerez

And therein lies the problem. It's supposed to be a classic series with no-stop sections. Making them tight just encourages trick riding - against the rules but it is what happens when sections are too tight and riders aren't given a 5 for it. What's the bloody point in having a classic series with trick riding. That's what modern trials are for. I had enough of seeing that at the last round which is why I didn't bother entering this one. I know it gives the organisers problems, but I think the trial was much better when it was held in February and peeing down with rain or snow. Sections didn't need to be tight and the big climbs were a real challenge in the wet. Unfortunately I think the Classic series is losing its way and its sight of the original concept.

Greeves, is that the full model number of the Dellorto? Also, is it a type that is fitted to current bikes such as GasGas, Sherco etc. What size is it?

Sounds like you have a MK1 or 2 247 Cota with the 'bulges' either side of the fuel tank. Parts can be a bit hard to get in the UK, most likely sources are Miller, Mainly Spanish, Gordon Farley. Sandifords don't seem to have much at all for the older bikes. Bultaco UK are starting to cater for other makes but doubt he has much for an old Cota just yet. iN THE usa, Jeff Nolen in Texas specialises in Monts and has just bought up old stock from Sandifords. Can't remember the name he trades under, Vintage something or other but someone from the US should know. Also Southwest Montesa in the US. You should find it a nice handling bike but as I remember, they could be a bit slow/gaspy off the throttle, the later MK3 and 4 were more responsive. Don't know how it would compare to a TY250 though as never ridden one, only Majesty. Should be a 5 speed I think.

You should be able to make a flywheel puller fairly easily. From memory, assuming yours is the purple wheeled model, you need a strong plate of metal (ie, one that won't bend under strain) drill a centre hole and tap a thread in it to take a bolt which will screw up against the crankshaft. Ideally, taper the end of it so it doesn't damage the crankshaft thread. Drill 3 8mm in a triangle around the centre hole to match the three holes with 8mm threads that are in the flywheel. Put three equal length 8mm bolts trhough the holes and screw them into the flywheel. Be very careful not to screw them too far into the flywheel as if they protrude through the other side they will wreck the coil windings if you turn the flywheel. Screw the centre bolt through the centre hole and keep on until it touches the end of the crank. Keep on tightening and the metal plate will be pulled backwards away from the flywheel until it comes up against the bolt heads. Keep on tightening the centre bolt and it should pull off the flywheel. It helps to keep tapping the flywheel with a hide or copper mallet when it is under tension to shock it free as if it has never been off it will be very tight. You'll have to work out lengths of bolts etc. The centre bolt needs to be longer than the other 3 and needs to be a strong enough thread that it won't strip, so 10 - 12mm? and the plate should be 8mm thich as a minimum? Similarly, the 8mm bolts need to be screwed into the flywheel far enough that they won't pull out of the threads under load, but not too far in for the reason above. This is from memory as it was a long time ago that I made one for mine and have no idea where it is now, but it should give you the idea of what to do. If you are going to buy one, there were 3 different flywheels fitted during the production run of the TYZ and they all take different pullers, so make sure you give the dealer the engine number so you get the right one.

If it is the original carb and the bike has had a lot of use in its 30 odd year old life then the chances are the carb body is worn, as well as the slide and letting air past the slide. This is only noticeable on very small throttle openings, when air leaks around each side of the slide, weakening the mixture and can give symptoms similar to those you are describing. When on half throttle and above the slide is open far enough that it is pretty well clear of the venturi and therefore the effect of the worn body/slide isn't noticeable. It is also common for the engine to not shut off cleanly when the throttle is closed as the air leaking past the slide will draw fuel and make it run on a bit until it dies. If the body is worn you'll waste your money putting in a new slide as it will still let air through. If you are serious about using the bike, buy a new Amal. You can no longer get an original type 627 27mm version but the 626 26mm will work just as well. You can pee around for ever with the old carb and you may always be compensating for some wear somewhere when trying to adjust it. It could even have had the flange overtightened at some time which may have distorted it, another place where air can get drawn in - check it against a flat surface. If you replace the carb, I'd replace the plastic heat shield/gasket it bolts up against too. Jetting should be no problem if you buy the carb from Miller as they will know the sizes. Not sure if bultaco UK stock the MK1 amal. You could also go for the MK1 version which has a choke lever instead of a tickler. That's the only difference, same carb apart from that. From memory, I think jetting is 25 pilot, 106 needle, 160 main, 3.5 slide. Amal MK1 needles are all the same (2 stroke that is), there is only one type - set on middle notch.

I'd probably wait and see how the bike runs on the Amal first before moving to try another carb. As far as I understand it, the 340 does have a softer power delivery than the earlier 325 bikes. I have tried both Nick Shields and David Braithwaite's 340s recently and both have soft delivery, one has a Mikuni, the other the Bing. One was a tad cleaner off the bottom but may be due to set up rather than carb type. Personally, I wouldn't entertain the idea of a used Bing as it may be worn out but how do you tell. If it is and you don't know you could spend an age trying to get it to run right thinking the set up isn't right when it never actually will as it is worn out. If it runs too soft on the Amal there are other ways to quicken the power delivery. Get a second hand clutch weight and skim some weight off it (no idea how much though) and fit a 250 ignition flywheel (they're lighter) which will enable the motor to pick up quicker. Both should be available cheaply and it is something that isn't permanent if it's not what you want, just refit the originals. Re-packing the exhaust can also make a difference to the motor's performance and smoothness. I once split and repacked the middle and rear silencers on a 325 slimline and that motor, which is completely standard is still so smooth and torquey to this day. A pig of a job but worth it in view of the way it goes.

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