woody

If it belongs to who I think it does, it gets ridden in the right type of events and was ridden at Bootle Classic. It wasn't ridden in the SSDT - the trial is a bit beyond the capabilities of twinshocks in places these days.

Not sure of cost but they will be priced to compete with the alloy bodied Falcons I would guess. No reason why they shouldn't be as good as Falcons but I'd want to try some before buying. The fact that they are DIY serviceable makes them attractive though. Leaving for Scotland in an hour or so I hope. I'm entered in the Pre65 too and as the C15 blew itself to bits last Sunday at the Hooper I've had some serious work to do to get it rebuilt - only finished it a couple of hours ago. Two nights of working through till 5am isn't the best prep for (hopefully) 8 days of trialling.....

Other way around, it was Robin who made the original batches of the original type Rockshocks for Pete Eddy I believe, before they parted company and Pete had them built elsewhere. For the new Rockshocks, Pete has used local engineering companies for all the components

Had a look at a prototype pair a few days ago. The new Rock Shocks are completely redesigned and are much easier to strip down for servicing and DIY fiddling than the old ones. Pete will be at the Pre65 Scottish to promote them.

YOU HAVE USED WORDS OR A PHRASE WHICH ARE NOT PERMITTED ON THIS WEBSITE. PLEASE DELETE YOUR POST/TOPIC. DO NOT TRY TO CIRCUMVENT THE FILTERS IN PLACE ON THIS WEBSITE are based in England, website address below YOU HAVE USED WORDS OR A PHRASE WHICH ARE NOT PERMITTED ON THIS WEBSITE. PLEASE DELETE YOUR POST/TOPIC. DO NOT TRY TO CIRCUMVENT THE FILTERS IN PLACE ON THIS WEBSITE According to the website the book isn't released yet - but there are some on ebay....

Can't confirm that number, but FYI when I rebuilt my 350 Gripper I used RAL1021 as it was slightly deeper than the original yellow which was too pale for me. RAL1021 was an almost exact match for the yellow gonelli guards too. You can see in the picture of the 350 (very nice by the way) that the rear mudguard is a slightly deeper yellow than the frame.

no no no - horrible As regards your noise Nitjay, it could just be a bit of knock/rumble from the 'float' ?? on the clutch basket which you can get on some bikes (KTM for example) My 94 TYZ has just had new mains and piston and there is still a slight noise but it is from the clutch rather than the engine. Only reason it had to have these was the bike had obviously taken in water at some time in the past before I had it. It ran fine but was noisy as the bearings had rusted up. If it hadn't been sunk at some time it would still be on the originals... I think you'll be pleased with the quality of the Yam motor.

Do you happen to know how those that smashed the boss in the crankcase casing were resolved? Under warranty?

Yes, they are the nicer side casings. Some are a much rougher cast and don't have the cloverleaf, just the word Ossa straight accross the middle. Mainly on 350 model I think.

Check RAL2004. My memory isn't that good but I think that is the colour I used (or rather the powder coater used) when I rebuilt a Gripper a few years ago. It was slightly deeper than the original and looked nicer in my opinion and was an almost perfect match for the orange guards. Very much like the colour in the photo above which itself looks deeper than the original. Could just be the monitor or PC settings though. Nice bike by the way Spud Plark

Getting a bit off the original topic now but this is a link to Cotswold Majesty discussion, although I suppose it is at least a Honda copy engine that is in a genuine new old stock mini-Majesty frame. Different wheels/forks can be specified by the buyer which affects cost. They were built to order only although Jon will still build one for anyone that wants one I believe. Price around the

A bike of this type is already in production, Scorpa 125/175. 4-stroke, no hi-tech stuff and perectly capable of winning club routes/events. And before anyone says they haven't enough power, the winner of last year's Air-cooled mono championship rode one - and I've tried that very bike and there is no power increase to the engine. It's just a nicely set up bike. Club routes/sections don't need 280 GasGas power. I can't really see a market for a new twinshock at

you're too old for that nonsense.... No, I don't understand it either. I had monos when they were new and the brakes were fine. Could be the shoe material or they're glazed maybe, bit of investigation required. I have two wheels and neither is brilliant, even with the brake plate with the external arm. It works adequatley but there is no real bite to it. I have another motocross brake plate to try with the twin leading shoes but have to work out how to fit it as the locating slot for the fork leg is in a different place and puts the brake cable locator on too much of an angle. Bit of chin rubbing required there.

Exactly, and that is all that matter regardless of a bike's origin/history. Be interesting to know if the engine is modified in any way seeing as it was prepped for Rob Shepherd, and if so what was done

Yes, back brake works fine. Locks the wheel no problem. That brake arm has certainly caused some raised eyebrows, furrowed brows and chin rubbing and everyone says it is all wrong. The truth is, I never gave ratios a thought (I know that it should ideally be much shorter) as the problem was the positioning of the pedal relative to the footrests which I dropped about 3" in height. The pedal also now sits that much lower, so if the arm was any shorter it would foul the swingarm and the cable would stretch and operate the brake when the suspension is compressed. I just kept on mocking up the pedal until I got the moevement I needed without it fouling, although it still just catches now when on full compression. Brake works well - wish the front was as good....

Well Diggler, you're bike has certainly got a discussion going now... As far as I understand it, all 340 and white framed 250 Sherpas were built at the factory with the square section swingarm, as seen in the photo from Martin M. Commerfords supposedly took about 40 (??) of the last 340s and modified them using oval section swingarms - not sure precisely what else they did to the back end - they certainly weren't copies of the last version of Vesty's bike, maybe just the swingarm mount repositioned and shocks moved?? Don't know but Mr Renham will. I think Don Morely got it wrong in his Spanish Trials Bike book when he said these 40 were modified with box section swingarms as that is what they had as standard. A friend of mine has a white framed 250 that is a genuine and rare Commerfords conversion of a 250 with the oval swingarm. It's the only one I've ever seen and is very different from the standard swingarm - largely because it's oval..... Back to modified bikes, just because a bike isn't a documented Commerfords conversion doesn't mean that Reg May didn't do it. Dave Hooke had his 340 modified by Reg May about 15 years ago but it won't be documented anywhere. So there could be other bikes whose owners took them direct to Reg to have them done long after his Commerfords days. I have a 340 which has had the rear frame tubes bent almost vertical (a la Vesty) and the shocks moved forward significantly on the top and bottom mounts. A very neat alloy airbox has been made too. No idea who did it (not a Commerfords bike as I've checked) but it looks to be a neat job and although I've only ridden it around the garden, rear suspension feel is much improved over standard, which always felt dead to me on the Bults (so watch out Diggler as your 340 will have some competition when this one is done - if I can magically up my skill level that is..) A last thought - I always found it interesting that the batch modified by Commerfords used the oval swingarm, but Vesty's bike used the standard box section - or at least it does in the pictures I've seen. Wonder why not oval?

Aftermarket electronic ignition was supplied by Craig Mawlam. Uses the standard TY flywheel and comes with a new CDI type HT coil. There are no timing marks on the backplate so it is trial and error to get it running. Rather than machine the flywheel weight, have you tried it wit it removed altogether as they bolt on. Best way to get snappier (or just more) power out of the TY motor is to make it a 320 (this is just my opinion obviously as there are others who swear by the 250) Converting to 320 gives it all the power it needs and they can be quite sharp, without having to alter porting, reeds etc etc. But as I say, it's down to personal choice ultimately. Don't have any template or plans for the airbox though sorry, as it was made by a friend but the way it is made, it will only fit the Godden frame anyway which differs a lot from the Yam frame

Bugger.... Swingarm does look like the standard box section 340 job though, can see the threaded insert in front of the shock mounting. The 40 or so Commerfords bikes had an oval section swingarm and the pre-199b bikes all had round section arms (I think)

Looking forward to seeing this one finished and out in the Classic Diggler - if only in the hope that it stops you winning on that Majesty...

Nothing really trick on it to be honest. Mods are as follows; Footrests lowered as far as they will go (too low as it happens after wiping one off at Bootle) Still too high for me though. Taller bars next or maybe a modified top yolk (depends how busy my machinist mate is..) Front forks changed to TY Mono as the standard t/s forks are undersprung and under damped (crap in other words) and I'm not clever enough to modify them to make them work properly. I was going to put Marzocchis on (Fantic etc.) but I prefer the cleaner look of the mono forks so they went on. Had to use the mono front wheel as Majesty one doesn't fit. Unfortunately the brake is no better.... Steering angle steepened for quicker steering although I may have overdone it slightly. Bike is quite 'nervous' but I can live with it. Nice up rock streams, a bit twitchy in mud and cambers. Steepened steering meant an already short Majesty wheelbase was now even shorter so I wanted to lengthen the swingarm to get a wheelbase back to 52" and a little bit. Didn't want to hack the standard Godden swingarm as it's irreplaceable, so I practised on a couple of old TY ones until I got the length I needed. I was then going to ask a mate to make me a new one out of box section as it looks nicer than round but he was too busy. I can't make one myself so easiest way for me to do it was to shorten a TY Mono swingarm which is box section and use that, which also meant using the mono rear wheel. Just prefer the look of box section swingarms. Bigger diameter front pipe which I made (badly, but now it's painted black it isn't so obvious...) together with an alloy middle box (GasGas 300 enduro tailpipe suitably modified with approx 30mm centre core with packing instead of the standard baffle plate Yam job) and a GasGas Contact, I think, tailpipe, all for larger volume and to try and get rid of the horrible Yam exhaust note. Airbox made by a mate out of alloy for larger volume with a top fitting Scorpa SY airfilter. Mainly wanted a new airbox as the old one was badgered anyway and was also a real pain to remove. This one just unbolts and comes out sideways through the side frame tubes nice and easy. No need to take out the back wheel now... Electronic ignition fitted, flywheel standard with the weight fitted. Carb standard, motor is standard 320 with 2 head gaskets. Ignition run slightly retarded, 2 head gaskets, flywheel weight and bigger bore exhaust all intended to take any snap out of the power delivery as I like the motor as soft as possible so I don't have to fiddle with the dreaded clutch to often. Motor plonks to nothing and picks up again cleanly in 3rd gear. Very torquey. Nice... That I think is about it. No hidden trick or fancy bits. TY Mono forks and swingarm have raised some eyebrows as in 'not in the right spirit' but I could have fitted Marzocchis which are just as good and were a period mod and no-one would have said anything, I just prefer the cleaner looks of the Yam forks. And the mono swingarm is just a swingarm and only does the same job as a lengthened Majesty one would have so I can't see that it is a big deal (someone did think it was a TY mono bike with twinshocks fitted...) Not like it's made out of titanium or something and shaves a few pounds off the weight. Mono wheels offer no advantage, certainly no lighter but I'm not someone who is hung up on this 'weight' issue anyway. I don't feel as though I've done anything really that couldn't have been done to a Majesty when they were current and I'm just hoping other people see it that way too. I've just tried to tailor the bike to my own riding style (for want of a better word... ) Certainly didn't want to create a fiddle or cheat bike, hence no Paioli forks or discs... Just something that rides how I want it to. Trouble is it does, so now I've no excuse - other than a really heavy clutch that needs sorting

On road trials, bikes always used to be examined, to make sure they were roadworthy such as working brakes, no loose spokes or any other obvious structural deficiencies and also to ensure they were road legal - horn, speedo tax disc etc etc. Over the years this has died out, road legality became the responsibility of the rider and it is very rare for the bike to be checked at all now, although they were in today's Phil King. Can't say for a closed circuit trial I can ever remember having a bike checked.

Doesn't look like that now though after today's Phil King trial.... Jackman - Footrests are normal Hebo, lowered a fair bit, but you can't mount them straight onto a TY as they need modern type brackets. They are about

other side

For you Majesty fans, this is mine now I've finally finished it

I can't confim for definite whether they differ. I had a 350 Gripper with a damaged crank and had a good 350 MAR crank. I was told different tales by different people as to whether the cranks were the same, whether the pistons were the same etc. I couldn't see any difference between the two cranks but unfortunately lost the Gripper piston so couldn't compare it to one from a MAR which I then had to use. All I can tell you is that the bike never ran the same as it did before. Although it was worn and rattled a lot when I bought it, it seemed to pull well and the motor seemed strong and picked up well. With the new crank and piston it always seemed rough, couldn't get it smooth and the pick up was sluggish. Never could get to the bottom of it so it is possible there was/is some difference between the two models. If you are in the UK, there is no-one that I know who has a detailed knowledge of Ossas that can answer this question. Try one of the USA Ossa specialists such as Keith Lynas or Hogans, as they have been in continous involvement with Ossas since the 70s and may have part number catologues to confirm whether they are the same or not. Probably have the parts too. You will find their contact details on the bottom of the home page on this site Mats Nyberg's Ossa Webpage