woody

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

There will always be contention with observing decisions whatever the rules. Personally I think there is more contention with FIM rules than with no stop because there are more of them. Riders aren't supposed to travel backwards are they? How many times do you see a bike move backwards relative to the section to gain a couple of feet whilst being jockeyed around, hopping front and back wheels. Technically it's a 5 but is never given. Same as when they weren't supposed to hop the front wheel sideways whilst not moving forwards but it happened and was 'allowed' without penalty under the guise of 'dynamic motion' whatever thet is... But to get back to the thread, the observing rules or section time limit have no bearing on riders dallying around and being outside of the overall event time limit. This is nothing new, it's happened for decades, famously in the mid 70s at the British Experts when most of the entry was out of time for spending too much time hanging around waiting for others to scrub the sections in. They arrived at the final group out of time and were excluded. The sole reason for riders hanging back is because they don't want to ride sections that will improve with the weather, passage of other riders or both. The only solution is to call riders to ride the sections by their rider number or award 10 for a non-attempt. I remember this happening at the Vic Brittain one year, early 80s, when the observer on section 1 had half the entry stacked up with no-one wanting to ride it first. Having had enough he started to call riders through or take the 10. It worked and got things moving. He took some abuse but was strong enough not to let it bother him. Not all are. Employed in the BC, it's going to penalise some riders perhaps, but if seeded riders are last away it's not going to affect the final result and give any particular rider a regular advantage through riding numbers. Harsh on the lesser lights having to scrub sections on the first lap but it happens anyway. This way just eliminates the time problem. The rule already exists so why not use it. Introducing more rules for time percentiles per lap is just complicating things further and unecessary. It still won't stop them hanging back for as long as possible on the first lap.

Well, a mate of mine bought the TLR250 on ebay and got it for

Fantastic effort by the organisers to run the trial, given how the ground conditions must have been leading up to it and as ever, a really good event. Shortened lap didn't compromise the quality of the trial at all and the sections were set just right for a national championship. Hard but nothing daft, plenty to go at and a 5 could be pulled back instead of ending your day. A large piece of rather solid Cumbrian rock ended my day when it wiped out a footrest on about section 6 or 7. Managed to finish the lap but a second lap wasn't possible. Still, disappointment aside, thoroughly enjoyed the 1 lap I did do - made working every evening after work for the last 2 weeks until about 11pm to put the bike back together worthwhile - not to mention the night before the trial too until 9.30pm. Then half an hour before the start to run it in. Is everyone else this well prepared... Top event, well done. Now, where's the welder, only 3 weeks to the next round.

If it is cancelled is there any possibility to run it later in the year?

Apparently, not all Majesty Yams had the forks revalved, more than likely just those used by sponsered riders, the rest had standard TY damping. So if you compare the two there is no difference. I have 3 pairs of Majesty forks and they are all standard. (I'm referring to the 250 bikes here) If you take the damper rods out of the forks you will notice that at the bottom of the rod there are 2 holes opposite each other which are about 6mm diameter. Near the top of the rod are 2 more, about 2mm diameter. These control the oil flow but what you need to determine is which are for compression and which are for rebound damping. After lots of careful studying over a glass of Tizer, I still couldn't work it out. So I thought I would employ the trusted trial and error method. As a starting point with mine I reduced the 6mm holes to 3mm but noticed no change in damping, they still collapsed and I could still top them out. I may have then tried them at 2mm, can't remember, but whatever it was, still no change. I then reduced the top holes from 2mm to 1mm. This seemed to slow up rebound damping (too much) but I don't know whether it was solely down to the reduction in the top holes or a combination of that and the already reduced bottom holes. I now had compression which still felt too soft and rebound that was now too slow. It was trial and error all right, but error was way ahead in the race. It was at this point that I turned to alcohol, lost all sense of reason and boomerang'd the forks accross three of England's finest counties and fitted the TY Mono front end. The twinshock forks can be made to work well as I have ridden a bike with the damping modded and it was very good. You just need someone who can work out how the oil flows and then reduce the size of the appropriate holes accordingly. Easy...

I agree with that, but with the exception of those Homelite blue/silver models. I can't ever recall seeing them with the alloy guards, even though they were slimlines with a different tank seat/unit. They must have had the alloy guards when they left the factory so were they changed to white over here (not Gonelli, some other type) The picture on the Haynes manual also shows the white guards - I think, I'm confusing myself now.... I'm curious now though..

The TY Mono uses the same size tapered roller bearings top and bottom in the headstock - can't recall the ID and OD size or depth off top of my head. Not too sure about the smaller Yams but the 250 Godden frame I have uses the standard TY250 Yam bearings which are the ball bearing type and different sizes top and bottom. Mono yokes won't fit in these bearings and Mono bearings won't fit the Godden headstock. Maybe there is enough meat in your yokes to bore them out to take the Mono forks, or if the 200 head bearings are the same as the 250 you could fit 250 yokes and bore them out to take the mono forks. I used the mono yokes as I had a new headstock made as I was altering the steering angle anyway. If I hadn't done that I would have bored out the original yokes.

Yes, standard TY t/s forks are a bit soft in the damping and also under-sprung. There is a mod to the damping rods which involves brazing over the holes and re-drilling with a smaller diameter to slow up the oil flow. I experimented with mine but couldn't get it just right so I went the mono fork route. I tried Craig Mawlam's bike with the modified standard forks and they work very well, with the stiffer damping the soft spring rate wasn't really evident. If you can get hold of him he might be able to describe exactly what to do to them (he was told how they did it by Shirty when he bought up the Majesty stuff)

One piece tank/seat unit would be original equipment on this model (I'm assuming it is the model that it is supposed to be...)

Andy, try Ellastone Offroad as they often have Mono parts available. What are you going to do about the front wheel though? Majesty wheel won't go straight in as the bearings are smaller than the mono and if you can overcome that problem you'd also need to make something to hold the brake plate. Majesty yokes will need boring out to take mono forks. Best bet is to fit the mono forks and wheel. Mono has a better brake and there is always the option of fitting the motocross brakeplate with the external arm, or even the one with twin arms if you can find one. Ellastone should be able to do you forks and a front wheel Then again, whilst I'm waffling away about all this, you may already have a mono front wheel... Just go mine back together today - cutting it fine for Bootle as it's not even run in yet. I seem to have been in this position before.....

Most of the Hondas, RS200, TLR, RTL etc seem to be based on the same centre crankcases so most engines have the same mounting points to the frame. I've fitted an RTL engine to a Seeley and it went straight in, no changes required. The positioning of the head-steady mount on the cam cover can differ, as can the way the carburettor is mounted, but that is about it I think but I'm no expert on Hondas. That TLR on ebay doesn't actually look that bad, it's shabby but it could all be cosmetic. A stuck valve isn't necessarily a disaster, both valves were stuck in my engine but a few sharp taps on the tappet freed them off and the engine is very healthy (I know I'm going to regret that...) they were just stuck from lack of use. The last one on ebay, a few weeks ago, sold for almost

Slimline Bultaco was red/silver fibreglass tank/seat unit. The 74/75 had the Homelite alloy tank/seat unit, unique to UK due to fibreglass being outlawed, painted in light blue and silver-grey. If this is the bike you mean there is one on ebay at the moment under item number 4619432087. The only decals they had were the Bultaco roundel badge on the tank and the yellow Bultaco decal. Originally they had white mudguards whereas the one on ebay has blue gonellis. This model is also pictured on the front of the Haynes manual