woody

Not sure about the gearing but front forks are same type as 200 Fantic etc - 35mm Marzzochis, so any of the trials dealers should stock them. Or just match them up at your local bearing/seal company.

No contest - 350 Bult is a far better bike. Standard TY250 has nowhere near the grunt of the Bult and some bits and pieces are no longer available from Yamaha. Plus they sound bloody awful with the standard exhaust. Look at this little beauty - 1976 type 159 325cc. They can be had for very reasonable money and there have been a few on evil bay recently. And I would guess there is nothing you can't buy new for this bike apart from maybe that particular style petrol tank. The other side Or how about this Bling Bling Bulto (bit too much bling for me but strip some of it off and it would be a real looker)

Very nice job, lovely looking bike complete with period cow-horn bars... One of those was my first proper trials bike and I have one in the shed waiting to be rebuilt like that - one day...

There is only one 200 Fantic as far as I know. The later ones may have had different forks and yolks from the early ones, not sure. Someone with better Fantic knowledge will know.

One classic round left and it is this weekend at Sheffield organised by Hillsborough. One of the best and hardest rounds. One Miller round left also, next month down south somewhere, not sure of exact details as won't be riding it. Last Miller round, the Greensmith (good trial) had about 60 - 70 entries with a fair spread of machinery - british, twinshock, trail and a few sidecars. Wrong topic for that one - no-one on this thread is going to give a hoot about FIM rules

Ossa MAR or Gripper - Cheap to buy, nice to ride especially a well set up MAR. Spares situation can be a nightmare, hopefully improving slowly Montesa 247 to 330 - early 247 are nice to ride, later bikes such as 242 are most competitive. Also can be picked up quite cheap but spares situation like Ossas, can be tricky to find stuff. Bultacos - Generally command the higher prices of the 'Spanish 3' but still under a grand for a good example. Personal choice as to which model you think of as best - a nice Vesty rep, suit you sir. Spares situation such that you can virtually build a new bike from parts thanks to the efforts of some geezer darn sarf. Yamaha TY250 / Suzuki RL / Kawasaki KT - In standard form not as good as any of the Spanish bikes in terms of competitiveness. Spares for the TY not too bad although piston kits and rod kits getting scarcer. Parts for Suzuki and Kawasaki harder to find probably. Majesty Yam far more competitive although some 250 models only on a par power wise with the standard TY. Not all had reworked engines. 320 is a great engine and can be softly tuned. Beamish Suzuki better than standard bike but steering is slow and not to everyone's taste. 325 is a great motor. Honda TL - TL250 is a great heavy lump and unlikely you'll find one for sale in the UK anyway. TL125 can be overbored to 150o or 180 and can be made to go very well. Can be picked up for a very reasonable price. Sound nice too with the right pipe. Honda Seeley - rare and commanding higher prices than more competitive twinshocks. Nice handling chassis. Fantic 200/240/300 - Probably the most competitive twinshock in standard form and don't really need anything doing to make them any better. Good examples easily had for under a grand. Spares situation not too bad but plastics may be harder to source. 200 is a briliant bike considering it's only 156cc and is the best bet for an average rider. SWM/Gori - 240/320 models are good bikes which can be bought quite cheaply in good condition and Martin Matthews is able to source spares and is having plastics remade. Rotax motor is generally reliable. 350 Jumbo the daddy of them all but the one on ebay isn't selling - why does no-one want it? Armstrong 250/320 Hiro or 240 rotax (or 350 Jumbo?) Good bikes which handle well but feel a bit short with the riding position. Hiro spares situation is not good. Rotax engine spares much better. Again can be picked up for reaonable prices. Aprilia 320 - Rare, hardly ever come up for sale and Hiro engine spares a problem Cagiva 350 - Rare and wouldn't want to try and find spares for one. Honda TLR - as you've already said, they're overpriced for what they are, particularly when compared to a Fantic.

Doesn't matter what eligibilty rules are drawn up by the ACU, it still requires club officials to enforce them at every trial and I can never see that happening. The rules are pretty clear for the Miller series but the modified bikes still enter in the normal classes instead of the specials. Club officials are just glad to get entries into the trial they have worked hard to organise and can do without the confrontation of arguing with riders about which class their bike should be in I would guess. Things have gone too far now to reverse. Personally I'm not against the modified bikes, it never bothered me riding a bog standard Ossa MAR against modernised TLR Hondas in the ACU Classic. Generally it is the better riders who have the modified bikes in their efforts to win. Put them all on standard bikes and the same riders will still win. It makes no difference to a lesser rider that the top men are on modified bikes. I could ride my 4RT against Thorpey on his Cub in the Classic rounds and he'd still beat me even with that machine advantage (Thorpey I mean as his Cub is probably better than my 4RT... ) If there were pre76 and post77 classes there would still be modified bikes and as someone has already pointed out, who has the knowledge to say which mods belong in which era. It's an impossible task. The modifying issue aside though, the 2 classes and 2 routes may encourage other riders to bring out their twinshocks. I have a few mates who would ride some ACU Classic rounds on an easier route but they couldn't cope with the single route we have now. On a personal note, If things stay the same I'm still happy as I still get to ride in some good old fashioned no-stop trials, hopefully on the Ossa again if I can get it fixed

I'd made an assumption that most riders on the easier route would be on standardish bikes as most of the better pre65 riders have modernised bikes and would be on the hard route. 'Cheat' description used merely in the context that if someone was riding the easier route on a trick/modified/fiddle/modernised/call it what you will pre65 and winning, other riders on relatively standard bikes would probably moan that they are cheating riding it on the easier route and they should be on the harder route on such a bike. If there is no championship status to the easier route though, then no advantage is gained by having the better bike. They're riding for the enjoyment of taking part, not to win a championship. Where were you today - missed a good Miller round at the Greensmith. Mr Willmore was a bit of a hero riding his Matchless today and was going very well until the second half of the trial. It was a bit of a handful on some sections. Poor sod went over the bars 3 times when the beast bit back

that's the SSDT Missed section is usually 10 but maybe the rules are different for the Scott?

There's maybe two apsects to this class issue - Club events and championship events. For club events I can't see that it matters a toss whether there is a specific class to match a type of bike such as twinshock, pre65, aircooled mono etc. In previous debates, particularly about whether mono Yams converted to twinshocks should be allowed into a twinshock class (no in my opinion) one argument put forward by several people was that it is all about not taking things too seriously and people just enjoying themselves, bums on seats etc, so why not allow the bikes in. My thoughts on that are yes, we're all for more people being able to get out there and ride with their mates, but if it isn't too serious and just about having fun, then what does it matter what class you're riding in as long as you're enjoying yourself. So if you have an aircooled mono for example and your club doesn't have an aircooled mono class what's the big deal. You just pick the route (emphasis on route, not class) that you, or the combination of your ability and the bike that you are using on that particular day feel comfortable with, and ride that route. That means entering as an expert, clubman O/40, novice or whatever and riding that route. You're riding for fun, therefore so what if there is no aircooled mono class. For years back in the 90s I rode my Ossa MAR in club and centre trials and it never bothered me that there was no twinshock class. I just rode it on whichever route I thought applicable at the time, quite often the hard route for a good challenge... Also rode it a couple of times in the Loch Lomond and Lakes 2 day events. I never entered it as a twinshock or asked the organisers for a twinshock class. Just entered on the clubman route and rode against the other clubman. For me it was the enjoyment of riding the bike in those trials, that's all. Now if you're talking of a championship for a specific type of bike (either club or national) then yes, there have to be rules and the correct bikes ridden in the correct classes. The pre 82 (should it just be open as pre 82 rules out cotswold Majesty or RTX for example) and pre 76 classes are a good idea in theory but at the moment there is not enough support either in the ACU Classic, or the Sammy Miller series to warrant it. The ACU Classic has effectively become an O/40 and aircooled mono championship with pre65 and t/s as support, whilst the Miller series seems to be suffering from falling entries (why this should be was asked on another topic a while ago) I think if there was a dedicated championship for just pre65 and t/s run over two routes not one, as the old Sebac and Falcon series used to be, which could again attract an entry of around 100 regularly, then there may be a case for splitting the t/s class as suggested. The championship class could run on the hard route with a championship for pre65 british (including the specials) championship for pre76 t/s and championship for post 77 t/s. On the easier route, the same 3 classes participate but with no championship and if someone on this route is riding what is considered to be a trick pre65 it doesn't matter as there isn't a championship to be won or lost by virtue of a 'cheat' bike. This would once again provide a national series which should cater for riders and bikes of all abilities with riders not feeling disadvantaged because their bike isn't competitive in the series (as happens now - people feel unless you have the latest t/s tackle or a trick pre65 the Classic series is too hard - correctly so as regards pre65 machines) The question is, is there a demand for this type of series again? There was once, but what about now. There are enough pre65 and t/s bikes being bought and they can't all be being bought as investments can they?Also, with the current Classic championship being so well established it would be a bold move by the ACU to break it up. Personally I have no wish to break up the format for the sake of it as a lot of mates have now become used to being able to ride together on the differing types of bikes they have in some good events, but at the same time, it isn't really a classic championship any more. Quite a few riders have jumped from the pre65 and t/s class into the aircooled mono or O/40 class. Maybe the aircooled monos and the O/40 and O/50 classes could transfer to ride an eased route at Novogar rounds and if the dates don't clash some of those riders could dig out there classics again and ride a true classic series as well with pre65, pre76 and post 77 t/s classes. At the moment, in a series that allows all types of bikes, riders take the easier option of riding the more competitive bike. This is why our local pre65 club won't allow twinshocks as the riders will take their twinshock in preference to their pre65 and the number pre65 bikes at the events will decline. Food for though or just not enough support anymore for a dedicated classic series?

Yes, I wasn't sure what he meant either. Is it 1) the best forks from post 1980 from a manufacturer that also made forks pre 1980 such as say Marzzochis of a 240/300 Fantic which look exactly the same as the Marzzochis fitted to say a late 70s SWM but probably work better. or 2) the best modern forks that you could get away with because they look similar in appearance to a set of pre 80 forks.

I've used semi synthetic in the clutch of my C15 with no problem. Full synthetic not good for clutches apparently. C15 has a seperate clutch and gearbox so not bothered what goes in the gearbox as long as it's wet.

Talon do sprockets for the Seeley and TLR so a phone call to them will establish whether they can do them in 428

Has anyone got an old TYZ mudguard with the Hamilton full length decal fitted that they don't want and would like to sell, or alternatively, would be willing to take a good photo of and e-mail it to me. I thought I had one spare myself but it must have been sold on one of my earlier bikes. These aren't available anymore and I'd like to get another made. We've had one go but it's not quite right so need an original pattern, or good photo of, to work from. Or, if anyone has a bike with one fitted and isn't really bothered whether they have the decal on their bike or not, I'd be happy to buy it off you for the cost of a replacement new guard. Picture attached of the decal in question, unfortunately. not good enough to use as a pattern

???? The project was cancelled by Yamaha after the story broke in the weeklies. It was a twinshock based around the XT500 motor. I saw a pic of in the story mentioned previously. Oops - mised out the bit about keen to be first to win the SSDT again on a 4 stroke since the 60s

Story is that with the introduction of the Hondas in the 70s, Mick was keen to be the first rider to win the SSDT on a 4 stroke so he was developing a bike with Yamaha. Not sure if the bit about winning the SSDT on a 4 stroke is correct, although one S H Miller was supposedly up for the challenge, but he was definitely developing a bike using his works twinshock frame modified to take the XT500 motor. His works frame was different from the production TY bikes as it was still based around the cantilever model. Don't think the bike ever got ridden in competition, if at all. Shame, as another factory special 4 stroke with the added rivalry with Honda would have created a lot of interest.

Mark, there isn't a 320 flywheel, they used the standard TY250 item so you already have one. Just remove the weight if you want the engine to pick up quicker.

It's not the same as an Ossa is it, where you have to centre the crank in the crankcases by tapping on the appropriate end of the crankshaft with a hide mallett. If the crank is too far to one side this may cause the rod to touch the crank itself. Just a guess as I've never had a 350 Mont apart but I've had the same problem on an Ossa. I had a 350 Montesa back in 1985/6. All red with a slimmer tank than the 349. It was brought out to capitalise on Gorgot's win in the SSDT on the prototype 330, the production version of which was running late. So they modified the 349 into the 350 until the 330 came out (I think that's right anyway...) Whatever, I loved it. Fantastic motor, pulled really well, loads of torque and grip. Awful clutch though. Wish I still had it now. Wonder where it is.

The Cotswold Majesty is indeed a good bike and performs very well. There's never been a problem with anyone moaning about them being ridden in the twinshock class as no-one, quite rightly, considers them a fiddle bike. The frame after all is a mini Majesty frame dating from 1982 and the engine just a copy of the xl/tlr type motors from the 70/80s. It's got modern forks but so what, it's not the only bike to have them, others fitted them a while ago. Drums not discs also. I remember Jon telling me it is a bit of a shoe-horning job though to fit the motor and all the ancilliaries like airbox, exhaust etc. However, if you're planning to do your own, remember you will be starting with a Yam frame (175, 250 ??), not one of the Godden mini Majesty frames, unless you're planning to buy one of those of Craig Mawlam, so the frame will be a bit bigger with a bit more space available.

Well, it's all down to personal preference in terms of one bike suiting someone better than another (note I didn't say one bike being better than another - don't want to start a forum argument off on that... ) The 325 Beamish, if yours is a 325, will certainly make the 250 Yam feel weak in the power department as the 325 Beamish is a stonking engine. If it's a 250 Beamish, there shouldn't really be much between them. The Majesty was developed by Magical and as such was designed for his riding ability, they were quick steering, short and a bit nervous or twitchy. Good on rocks but the 320 could be a bit lively in slippery conditions. The Beamish is the opposite, long, slower steering, lazy torquey motor and grips like buggery in the mud. Not quite so nimble on nadgery stuff. I used to like mine. You'll hear a lot of people say leave the 320 Majesty alone and the 250 is a better bike, but my opinion is the reverse but it is only my personal opinion. With the electronic ignition which enables much more precise timing adjustment, thicker (or multiple) head gaskets, bigger exhaust, it's possible to make the 320 quite docile but very torquey. To make the 250 go you'd have to give it to Shirty (no longer interested in Yams) or Nigel Birkett. No idea what they do to them as I've never tried one, but I did try an ex Scarlett 250 years ago and that was a cracking bike - nothing like the thing I had... But it's knowing what to do. To 320 it, you need a piston from a DT360 (or a DT400 which will make it 340) a new liner and you'd need to open the crankcase mouth slightly - I'm told this can be done with a dremel without splitting the engine as it only needs a tiny amount taken off - whilst taking care not to let dust/filings drop into the crank. I've an idea they may have had the combustion chamber altered too for the extra cc but don't know for sure. Food for thought if you really do think that the 250 is too gutless.

This happens sometimes and as long as the tickler plunger is depressing the float, there doesn't appear to be any logical reason why they won't flood. Normally, if you blow hard down the petrol tank breather pipe with the tickler held down you will get it to flood. If it is hard to start from cold once flooded try kicking it with the tickler held down too as this usually works - bit of a juggling act but it can be done. Just be ready for that Ossa kickstart to slip on the ratchet, which they can do, as if your juggling with the tickler and off balance they can give you a nasty wound up the inside of your calf if you're not wearing boots... That said from experience...... Can't help with the tap. Your only hope there is maybe one of the original dealers who may still have some old stock. Mick and Bill Wilkinson still have some Ossa stuff. Don't have their number but they own a garage called The Garage in Kettlewell N Yorks if you can find it from that. I use the modern replacements these days, readily available and neater looking.

Never heard of a 320 flywheel. As far as I know they all use the standard TY flywheel which comes with a detachable weight which is a heavy steel ring fitted to the outside. It is held on by 4 screws around the circumference. If yours has this fitted try the bike with it removed as it will pick up quicker without it. The 250 was always lacking torque though, unless modified, but I suspect that most had pretty much standard TY motors. I had a Godden framed 250 years ago and it was gutless, the motor, which was not knackered, was just like the standard TY250. 1st gear everywhere. If it was on any kind of incline and I had to back off, the motor wouldn't pick up again in anything other than bottom. Gearing was standard, not too high. It's all down to personal choice of course but I always prefer the bigger motor for the extra torque. They can always be de-tuned or softened off. Mine is very docile, I can do clutch out full lock circles in 3rd, but it will pull like a train in any gear.

Sidepanel was always white. The only part of the bike that was yellow was the frame, heatshield and the tank on the early bikes. If any were around with yellow sidepanel I would guess they were painted. Couple of pics of an early bike that was reckoned to be a Shirty prepped machine. Solid tank stripes as per the early model instead of speed blocks, shirty silencer and what looks like a larger diameter front pipe. May be an illusion due to being chrome but definitely looks larger.

WES system should be available from any of the major trials dealers or the twinshock specialists. There are no mountings for the heat shield, you'll have to weld some on, or, I made my own middle box for my Majesty and until I got some mounts welded on, used a couple of zip ties. They're still there nearly 12 months later.... I also used a KX80 tailpipe at one stage and it sounded and worked ok.

I know what you mean as I've bought stuff before that doesn't fit, although to be fair in this case, the WES exhaust is for the standard bike, as is Miller's front pipe, neither is advertised for a Majesty - or at least they never used to be. Don't quite follow what you mean about the footrests as none of the 250 bikes had bolt on plates, only the smaller bikes. Don't really want to get off Pitley's original topic, but if you have Yam framed Majesty you can adapt it to take bolt on plates for footrest brackets as follows. Cut off original footrest brackests, drill a hole into the stub that's left and tap to 8mm. At the bottom of the frame/rear of bashplate, there is an open ended tube (can be seen in the picture I posted) Weld in some solid bar, drilled and tapped to 8mm. You now have two mounting points to bolt on footrest plates to which you can weld the footrest hanger brackets. If you have a Godden frame then you don't have the tube at the bottom of the frame.