woody

Even if the condition isn't so good, still a lot of bike for a few hundred quid. I recently bought a purple one for

Off e-bay by any chance? There was quite a tidy one this week. BVM have one that looks immaculate. Anyway 1993 White tank cover and guards with pink graphics, pink forks and other plastics (ie chain guard, rear disc guard) 1994 Purple wheels, forks, tank cover and other plastics, white guards 1995 as '94 1996 White tank cover, blue guards, white forks, grey other plastics, expansion chamber on exhaust, 10mm spacer under top yoke 1997 As '96 but with shorter silencer 1998 As '97 Some ignition changes along the way too 1994/5 model generally reckoned to be the best but they all benefit from lowered footrests. Steering can be a bit vague in mud but good on rocks. Great bike for SSDT. Probably the best all round trials engine ever produced - in my opinion. In fact, if Carlsberg did trials engines they would be TYZs

I remember trying the last of the 310 Monts at a test day. I had a red 260 Beta Zero at the time. The venue was mainly big banks/climbs, cambers, mud, roots but no rocks at all. In those conditions the Mont matched the Zero for power, no problem, was more forgiving to ride in the 'old school' style and trashed the Zero for grip. Suspension I would say was on a par with the Zero, maybe SpuLark had a bad one, although as said, I didn't give it any trial over rocks. I liked it that much I didn't want to give it back and would have gladly swapped the Zero for it. Problem was I had bust the bank to get the Zero and couldn't afford another change so the trade never happened and I never rode one again after that. It was also about the time I really was fed up with the way trials was evolving (hop bop up your own a*** etc) so I couldn't justify more expense to myself anyway. The Zero went and I went twinshocking. For a repair to your motoplat try the trader that used to trade as Bradford Ignitions in Cornwall but who has since moved to Spain and advertises in TMX. May even be called Motoplat something or other now. I had a couple of Ossa motoplat stators fixed by him before he moved to Spain and they work fine.

Well, the wiring colour codes checked out as you said so thanks again for that. So got it all connected up and gave it a try. Still no bloody spark so it's back in the shed again until I can muster the enthusiasm for another go. In the meantime, the Sherpa rebuild can begin, at least they are nice and simple.

Thanks very much for that, I'll give it a try tomorrow morning

Can any of you Seeley owners help me with the wiring connections on the Seeley. Mine was dismantled when I bought it and without a wiring diagram I don't know which wire connects to which from the generator and cam pickup to the CDI. I've tried the ones that look obvious, as the colours aren't an exact match and tried to get some assistance from an XL manual but the colour coding is different. I just can't get it to produce a spark. I have 2 wires off the cam pickup and one from the generator. The CDI has 5 wires coming out of it with male/female connectors, so that effectively eliminates two of them due to the type of connectors on the generator and cam wires. There is another wire off the CDI which feeds to the coil. I have no idea whether the CDI earths itself to the frame or whether one of the 5 wires earths to the frame, engine or anywhere else I've tried everything to get a spark but to no avail and the bike is close to receiving a flying lesson over the neighbour's fence. I've ensured both CDI and coil are against bare metal on the frame so that is out of the equation. If any of you can take a look at the way the wiring connects on your own Seeleys when you are able I'd be very grateful

No, it's just that the website hasn't been updated, probably since it was first built. The Scorpa was sold a while ago - so I was told.

On my Majesty I have a bigger diameter front pipe, my own bigger volume middle box with packing, not baffled and a GaaGas Contact back box. It has the standard TY carb and it is on standard jetting apart from a slightly larger main jet. I did have problems initially getting it to rev out and thought this was the carb but it turned out to be the ignition was too retarded. So as a starting point I'd put your carb onto standard TY250 settings and set the iginition timing and then take it from there. Settings are pilot = 35, needle tube = N8, throttle slide = 3.5, main jet = 160 (or thereabouts) Needle on middle clip (don't have needle number) I also have the same electronic ignition as you. This is difficult to time when first fitting as there are no timing marks so it is guesswork to get the engine to fire up initially. Once it has fired up though it can be timed with a strobe by marking the flywheel and casing with timing marks. Generally it will be the same for most bikes, anywhere Around 2 - 3.5mm BTDC, All down to personal preference. I don't actually know what mine is timed at as I did it by trial and error in the end. I haven't any experience of other carbs. My airbox has been made out of alloy. 2 reasons for doing this. The original one was broken and in a mess. They are also a pain to remove from the bike if you have to, Back wheel has to come out. Making one from alloy meant a top loading filter like the TY mono (or Scorpa in my case) could be used, it could have a larger volume and I also wanted it so that it could be removed through the side of the frame. Nick Shield's Majesty is a 250, not 320.

You have to be joking... did you ride events in the late 80s early 90s when these were the rules. If so and you've forgotten what it was like, watch some of the videos/DVDs of Nationals from that time. As Timp already mentioned, the poncing around in sections and outright posing of the 'look what I can do' brigade was tedious in the extreme. Leg waving, revving engines, rocking backwards and forwards, touching the peak of their helmets (why..??) losing their balance and needing a couple of hops to get it back. Repeat these actions several times and then finally they were ready to move the bike forwards over a rock or whatever to the next part of the section before the whole sorry process began again, over and over until they were out of the section or in a heap on the floor. The stationary balancing with constant adjustments was pure pain to watch, especially if you were a few riders back in the queue, waiting, bored out of your skull, for your own turn. Watch the 1993 Colmore if you want to witness it. The challenge will be not to fall asleep as the cameraman vainly waits for riders to do something other than stand stationary on the pegs. Why are we trying to fix something that doesn't appear to be broken. Trials such as SSDT, Lakes, Reeth, non-Novogar nationals are all enjoying bumper entries. The vast majority in those trials ride the clubman route. So if riders want the more difficult sections on the hard route that require you to be able to display the full repetoire of tricks, why isn't the balance the other way around with those riding the easier sections in the minority? Setting out sections to force trick riding will not make people learn it and gain the technique. It didn't back then with the 'anything goes' rules and history shows that entries declined. That was riders choice, no-one else's. The skill levels are too diverse now for one set of rules. To be able to compete on the level required at the top, constant practise is required, there is no substitute for thime on the bike. Who has time for that? The majority of riders only get to ride their bikes in the events, few have time or facilities to practise. As I said before I don't think for a minute that adopting WTC rules will miraculously produce the next UK champion, if it would why didn't we have one 10 - 15 years ago when rules were uniform. Bottom line is, it is the majority that need to be catered for, not the minority and this has to be considered carefully before any rule meddling takes place. Given the success of the trials I mentioned previously though, does anything really need changing?

Saw it whilst having my tea tonight. If you have a DVD from any of the other indoor rounds from this year just watch that as it is the same old sections, and same old result. No doubting their ability but it is just so repetitive these days with nothing different. Most impressive rides are the non-stop rides up the waterfall, especially Dougie's. At least they are riding the bikes on that section, they may as well be on pogo sticks for the others

I have a mono front end on my Majesty using the mono wheel so I didn't check to see if the Majesty wheel would fit, but the following needs to be overcome; - mono forks take bigger diameter spindle than Majesty - Majesty wheel has torque arm whereas mono doesn't so you'd need a bracket fabricated to hold the brake plate - new wheel spacers would need to be made - speedo drive won't fit You can get a mono front wheel complete with spindle and brake plate from Ellastone Offroad but they probably aren't cheap. Check ebay as there have been a couple on there recently but watch that the rim isn't rotten anywhere. Further considerations; - Majesty yokes need boring out to take larger diameter mono forks. Mono yolks won't fit Majesty headstock as the bearing size is different. I fitted a new steering head to mine to take the mono yokes. - Majesty yokes have less trail than mono yokes so if you aren't altering the headstock it is best to use the Majesty yokes. This is what Nick has done. - Majesty forks are in-line axle whereas mono are leading axle so it will alter your steering slightly but it may not be noticeable. Nick's steers ok. I steepened the angle on mine with the new headstock. Later Godden framed bikes have quicker steering than the earlier Yam framed bikes (reputedly anyway, I don't know for sure but it stands to reason) I'd say it is less hassle to use a mono front wheel and although it may prove pricey it may be the easier option as all you have to do is to bore out the yokes and in it goes. It also has a better brake - usually anyway...

Peronally, I just can't buy it that riding to the two different styles (or rule sets - whichever term you prefer) can be such a hinderance to a riders development or progression. Watch the WTC events and the BTC and there is very little difference in the way they ride anyway. In BTC the bikes are still hopped around sideways and maneouvered backwards relative to the direction of the section, as they are in the Novogar or non-championship nationals such as the Lakes and even the SSDT which is proper no-stop. If there is a line of thought which says riders can't cope with two rule sets, then should riders like Dougie enter the odd event on an enduro/motocross bike or use one for recreation, as the different technique in riding one will harm or dull their trials skills. I think not. Riders who are good enough and have the ability will always adapt, that is why they are that good. To play Devil's advocate again, remember the dark days of the early 90s when trials was suffering badly from excessively hard sections and the sport was dying on its knees. We rode the same rules as FIM then - the stop, hop, do whatever you like nonsense etc. No two sets of rules to worry about then, so why did we not have British riders filling the top ten of WTC when they weren't disadvantaged by different rules...?? Same reason as now, there were better riders elsewhere unfortunately. Don't misunderstand, I would love to see British World Champions in Trials, Enduro, Motocross etc. but if we don't have them it isn't going to affect my enjoyment of trials or enduros one jot. Bringing back full on trick riding however most certainly will. Aligning rules to the FIM in the hope that it will produce a champion isn't the answer to the sport in general. The vast majority of riders can't perform like that and those rules encourage section layout that they can't handle, so they'll give up - just like they did back in the 90s until a return to no-stop rekindled things. Do what you like with the proper BTC rules and the handful of riders who contest it, but leave the rest as they are, otherwise things may well go full circle.

Also wins the odd supermoto, motocross, Weston beach race, Erzberg Iron Mountain, Hell's Gate in Italy and he rode a fair portion of the Scott on flat tyres....

one more

another

another

It is a bit isn't it... I tried to post some more pictures of it but apparently I've reached my quota and it wouldn't let me. I'll try again tonight or put them in a new thread. You can't see just how slim it is around the seat area from these.

I know what you mean. I didn't look too closely to see exactly how it was done though, but what I could see was the headstock was definitely moved backwards. I could see this from the positioning of the headstock against the two bracing plates that are welded either side onto the headstock/frame. The headstock sat further back into them, noticeable from the line of weld running top to bottom down its length. There was less of the headstock visible forward of this weld as it sat further back. I know the person that owned it before the current owner and he said it definitely steered quicker. Was talking to Dave Renham at the show about modifying the steering on Bults as it happens and he said that the way they modified the steering was to cut a slot into the top of the top frame tube, under the forward end of the tank somewhere. Then, run the front wheel into a wall or whatever to push the wheel back until the desired angle was attained and then weld a piece into the V that has been opened in the frame. I asked about the downtube and apparently they just gave and bent accordingly. Woudn't want to take the engine out though - be like a coiled spring lettin go.... bet it was a bugger to get it back in as well. I know someone who modifies his cubs in this manner but it only requires the frame to be heated, not cut, as it is that soft it just bends when given the 'wall' treatment.... I rode an ex-Thorpe 340 (so I was told anyway) about 3 years ago and that had sharper steering and it rode very nicely. Still didn't turn as quick as my Ossa over the same sections, but much better than standard. Motor was beautiful too. No rear frame mods that I could see but a very nice bike which I tried to by on the spot but the owner was having none of it. I have a 340 now which needs a rebuild and it has the rear frame modification with the dampers moved forward although it's not a Commerfords bike. I've only ridden it around the lawn but the back end certainly seems to have more feel as opposed to the 'dead' feel I usually get from Bults. I'll post some pictures sometime.

another

As we're on a modified Bulto thread, thought you might like to see these pictures of a late 250. This bike, now owned by a friend of mine, was once owned by Hedley Cockshott and he rode it in the Sebac rounds in the mid 90s. It was modified for him by Keith Horsman, along the lines of the last Vesty bike, although it is not an exact copy as Hedley wanted specific changes to his own taste, such as the rear top shock mounts moved inwards to slim the width of the bike around the knees. The steering head was moved back a little too although the angle was unaltered. Also has a reed valve I think. Sorry about the picture quality, they came out a bit blurred, something I thought was impossible on a self-focus digital camera.... blame the operator

GIZZA5, that was just brilliant. I remember it all and I'm grinning away as it all comes back - except eating raw jelly - couldn't stand the stuff and still can't. Water balloons - what a weapon. Remember sneaking into the Odeon Saturday matinee in Brum city centre as a naughty bunch of 15 year olds and launching a full volley of balloon water bombs into the audience from behind the partition at the back of the seats in the stalls. The timing was perfect, the lights had gone down, there was a hushed silence from the kids and their mothers waiting for the film to start. The bombs sailed silently through the air in the dark, signalling contact with their targets with a series of dull splats, very quickly followed by a chorus of 'waaaaaaaahhhhhhh' piercing the silence as umpteen wailing kids got drenched. Must have scared the hell out of the poor little b*ggers. Unfortunately one of the 'lads' had taken things a bit too far and had launched one or two eggs as well as balloons. He then covered our escape with a few lit bangers as we fled out of the emergency exit. All seems pretty tame now but secretly, I'd love to do it again...

Hmmm It has got some looks in a strange sort of way. It looks neat and functional but not quite to my liking - although I don't dislike it. Definitely like to try it. Can't help thinking though that it looks like a twinshocker with the tank and seat missing.... As regards twinshock eligibilty I can't see why not. In my view, twinshock class exists as people still have a passion for the bikes that they rode in days gone by, from an era that many think was the begining of the end of traditional trials and the start of the hop and bop circus. Ideally therefore, twinshock means bikes from that era but I think this bike has been built in the true spirit of twinshocks and this is the key. It wouldn't have looked out of place at the time they were current, unlike if it was built around one of the current watercooled engines. There is nothing super trick about it. So although it is a new creation, I think it would happily sit alongside the original line of twinshockers. Will we see one in next year's Classic then..!!??

I mentioned it to our centre steward when they ran the first pre65 inter-centre. Asked about having a t/s class in it as well, or the possibility of a t/s event but it got nowhere. I would love to see it happen and I can see no reason why it shouldn't be well supported. Have you already had thoughts about this then Pitley and how to get the ball rolling? PS - Are you going to the Classic Experts on Saturday? Riding? Watching? If riding what are you on?

If you had a frame number you could try the Vintage Motorcycle Cub in Burton-upon-Trent to date your Beamish as they are pretty well up to date with information on most bikes. A dating certificate from them is sufficient to obtain an age related plate from DVLA. DVLA will only register with an age related plate from frame number. Q plates are also issued when a vehicle that is not new is being registered without proof of its age, such as certificate of newness or dating certificate. Beamishes were registered as new vehicles with no problem on correct letter plate as they would have had a certificate of newness from Suzuki as they were official conversions. Check the date it was registered, it may not have been done at the time of original purchase from a dealer. Once a Q plate has been issued to a vehicle it cannot be changed at a later date to an age related one, so I was once told, but the vagaries of DVLA are such that the rules are interpreted differently from area to area and even from individual to individual within those centres, so it may not be impossible. If that rule still stands however and you can get proof of age, one possibility is to just fill out the form and apply for a registration as though it had never been done. If you have a vehicle you know was registered but no longer have the V5 or record of the number for, DVLA can't/won't advise you of the registration number from the chassis number, even though it is obviously on their database. When I asked about what I could do to obtain a number for a bike I knew was registered, but I didn't know the number for, they said apply in the normal way. When I asked if a new application would bring up the old number, bearing in mind the chassis number would be the same, they said no..... If it did, you are only in the situation you are in now, still with a Q plate. For MOT, you only need a horn that emits a constant sound, no lights, speedo, mirrors etc. so just get a bicycle one from Halfords. 1973 is tax-exempt cut-off date.

I've had nothing through the post but found them on the Hillsborough club website. Can't remember the link but a search in google or whatever will find it.