woody

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.

Don't know if you can still get them but I think WES used to do a replacement silencer for the 247 which replaced both middle and back boxes with one alloy silencer which exited just behind the shock. Failing that, the middle box just needs as much volume as you can give it in length and width (door open for no amount of inuendo....) Don't bother with baffles, just a perforated core of around 35mm diameter and pack it with silent sport packing, the stuff that is like strands of wool. The longer and fatter you can make it, the better. You can make it to take the new repro Cota backbox or just to work on its own.

A stone in weight isn't going to make any difference to the shock performance. My opinion only, but too much is made of weight issues of all types. 3 or 4 stones difference and yes, you'll probably notice but not one. If you bought them new they should be under 6 months guarantee I think in which case if they don't work as requested you should be able to send them back and have them altered free of charge. Phone them and ask. To do yourself they are a pain to dismantle and you'd need to be able to refill with 90psi nitrogen which not many people are able to do at home.... Altering the damping is achieved by adjusting the shimming either side of the piston to increase or decrease the oil flow to allow the damper rod to move quicker or slower through the oil. Basic stuff in theory but difficult to judge how much adjustment is required without the experience of having done it before. A few years ago I took my bike down to Falcon to get them set up as that way I could try the bike and make sure they worked rather than trusting to luck that they would come back correct if I sent them by post.

Have a look here, same question asked on the twinshock forum recently Bulto frame colour

I always thought that the frame on JR's bike was done by someone else, not one of the Cheney frames. Don't know why, something I must have heard years back. Keith (not Eric) Horsman also made mono frames for the Ossa as well as the reed valve barrells (referred to as Harpower reeds)

oooooohhh - the mark up on your parts has just increased....... Dabster, what about these frames, are they 340?

There is no attachment to the engine. They are just the stub spindles you mention, mounted directly to the frame plates either side but I couldn't see exactly how as it is all very tight. I think just a bolt pushed through the bush from the inside and a nut on the outside. The spindle is so much closer to the final drive than on Vesty's bike. It worked well as JR had some good results on it when the Bult was past it's best and up against 240 Fantics etc. Maintenance nightmare though as just to get the clutch case off looks like removal of the swingarm or the engine....

I'd put money on that being John Reynolds' Monoshock Ossa as he was the only Ossa UK 'works' rider on the mono at that time. Can't remember who made them but not Cheney. Don't think they were Whitlock either, pretty sure he only did the twinshock frame.

No, the spindle doesn't go through the engine, it is mounted either side of the engine

Yes, thought it was you. Didn't recognise you though at the Peak Classic I rode late last year at Bracken. Think you were observing on one of the sections on the Sunday - I missed the Saturday after Friday night reunion with some old work colleagues but was still feeling it Sunday... Probably why I didn't recognise you as I still couldn't see much. It was like looking through one of those kaleidescope things that were around when we were kids. The bike is a pretty good copy of the frame mods to Vesty's bike except the swingarm hasn't been moved but I know someone that can do that for me if I want to go that far. It needs the rear mudguard mounts repairing and all the welds and joints need tidying but he can do that too. It would be nice to copy the JR one but it is a lot of work and you have to move the engine or swingarm just to get the clutch cover off so a bit impractical. But it would be nice to do it.... Biggest job is that it needs an exhaust making as the standard Bulto one won't fit between the shock and the wheel. Hope to have it done this year but I'll be lucky

Fact is this. The rebuilable makes are ALL as good as each other IF they are set up properly. If they don't work as you like when you get them the damping can be altered by the shimming inside and/or oil weight. Obviously it it is better if they work correctly when you get them as you don't want to be messing with them, just fit and ride. As an illustration I had a pair of Falcons for my Seeley which worked as I wanted from the box but I put them on my BSA which was used more and needed shocks and they are the same length and angle as the Seeley. They work very well on the BSA. When funds allowed I got some more for the Seeley, exactly the same order as before. These don't work. Spring rate is too soft and damping may be too hard, difficult to tell untill the spring rate is corrected. How can this be, two identical orders for the same bike, one works the other doesn't.... It's not the end of the world and can be corrected, just a nuisance. BUT, if I was a customer who had only bought one pair of shocks, that being the second pair, what do you think my recommendation to others would be - don't buy Falcons, they're no good - which obviously isn't true. Had I bought only the other pair I would be singing their praises. See what I mean, people will recommend on their own experiences and from what they expect from the shocks. Hence my opening line. Rockshocks - again different opinions. I know people who have them and are very satisfied. I have a pair that don't work the way I want as again the spring rate is too soft. Until that is corrected I can't tell if the damping is right. So again, if I didn't understand what makes the shock work I could be deterring people from buying Rockshocks as my experience is that they are cr*p. Again, this would be wrong as they aren't, it's just the set up of that particular pair and I knew the springs would probably be too soft when I bought them. Higher rated ones are available shortly. In terms of alloy or steel bodies, it isn't going to make the slightest bit of noticeable difference to the way the bike rides. It will save a bit of weight but so what, it means nothing in reality. As Malcra has said, the biggest gain would be for us to lose weight, not the bikes... Alloy shocks definitely look nicer though. I've a mate with Betors on a 72 Bultaco and they work reasonably well and another with them fitted to a 240 Fantic. They work well enough but are a bit soft as the bike came from someone considerably lighter. The action seems good though. As far as I know they aren't rebuildable so obviously, with these units you are stuck with what you get as there is no way of altering the damping characteristics, only spring rate. So pot luck if they work as you want when you get them. If I were you and funds permit, I would go for a rebuildable pair as at least they can be tuned if they don't work as you like from the box. As for as which brand - personal choice. Forgot to mention - one thing to consider is that the Rockshocks are far easier to service at home due to the way they are put together. The top/cap unscrews unlike Falcons and there are no circlips to fight with. They were designed with this in mind as other shocks, especially old style original Rockshocks can put up one hell of a fight when trying to remove the cap from the body and with circlip removal...

Yes, I'm also assuming it's a 340 frame. You're right about the back end having more feel OTF. Mine has the shocks moved up the swingarm although the pivot isn't moved (was it you I bought it off?) and the difference can be felt over the stock bike as Bults always feel a bit dead at the back. They work, but just not much feel.

You're not kidding - have you ever priced up the plastic swing arm protector that runs top/bottom of the swingarm?

If it was January and off the A44 it would be the Evesham Midland Centre Championship trial.

Dabster, tried to PM you but it won't let me as it says your inbox is disabled or full. I'll buy one off you if you're selling as mine is badly damaged. I could maybe sell the other one for you too if OTF doesn't want one.

No appologies for again mentioning the results achieved by Dave Hooke on his standard 340 in the ACU Classic series a few years ago now, winning many rounds over the seasons as well as the series outright. The bike is plenty capable, it's down to the rider. OK, back in the day it was lacking against the latest twinshock machinery but trick riding was in full swing and the last of the twinshocks were developed for it whereas the Bult wasn't. Classic trials are non-stop so those disadvantages disappear and it can hold its own against the rest under such rules. I'm not saying don't modify it, if it is done well and the mods improve its performance there is no reason why they should devalue it, but in my opinion the bike is for riding, not an investment and ultimately it's your bike to do what you like with. Anyway, to the point - some pictures. Vesty's last bike JR's bike - serious mods

Still looking for one of these decals or an old mudguard with one on that I can get copied. Come on guys, there must be some TYZ owners out there with one of these decals on an old mudguard that they don't want. I'll buy it off you for the cost of a new replacement plus the postage costs