woody

It's like every other form of motorsport world championship. It's been totally sanitised for the benefit of TV, sponsors, sponsor's guests and whatever else you can think of. What, have the bikes ridden in muddy conditions..?? Oh no sir, can't have mud covering up the sponsors decals now, can we, or mudguards turned brittle with freezing temeratures snapped off at the slightest touch, sponsors decals crunched into the ground..... You only have to look at what the FIA have done to the world rally championship and the UK round in particular to see how things have progressed. Once a truly great event, the RAC rally ran for five days in November, one of the toughests events on the calender. First they reduce WRC events to 3 days with a greatly reduced mileage, with some stages driven twice. Then they tell the UK sorry, you can't have it in November anymore, the conditions are too extreme. Can't have rally cars sliding about on ice or sloshing through all those muddy British forests. If you want to keep the rally you'll have to run it in the summer. So the date was brought forward. Naturally the British summer took a hand and the weather was just as bad as it would have been in November. Poetic justice. OK, rant over. Sorry but your post just struck a chord. I remember the old style format of WTC from 70s and 80s, good traditional events in all conditions, with no indoor circus to get in the way, and when the British round was held, good centre riders could compete and ride alongside their heroes in a field of slightly more than a dozen riders..... Progress isn't always improvement I think.

Depends on your reason for wanting to use a tubeless tyre, but you can fit a tubeless tyre on the original tubed Sherpa rim without any problem by using a tube. Tyre doesn't need modifying in any way won't slip or fall off the rim. Still use the security bolts though. I have used an IRC tubeless tyre on my standard Ossa wheel for years and it has never fallen off the rim. The reason I use the tubeless IRC is because I have found it is the tyre that gives the best grip, not specifically because I want a tubless tyre. I also have one fitted to a Yamaha Majesty rear wheel, again, no problems. We have fitted an IRC and a Michelin tubeless to my mate's 72 Sherpa, no problems. If you want a tubless rim because you feel that it will give better performance without a tube in it you can buy tubeless rims, 36 hole, but when I last looked into it they were about

Andy (Booma) Just out of interest what shocks are those fitted on your Yam?

Not sure if you will get the old style braceless renthals now. Must admit though, the shape of the modern braced type have a better feel to them than the old style. Don't know why but definitely feel more positive on the steering. Not sure about the old ones being strong enough as we used to break bars all the time in the 70s. Can't remember the last time I broke a modern braced pair (so guess what will happen Boxing day when I borrow my mate's Sherco.....) Have you thought about lowering the footrests. Shouldn't be too bad a job on your bike as the brackets bolt on don't they, so you don't have to chop the frame? If so, make or buy some new brackets and lower the footrest hangers, maybe move them back a bit too but caution here as it is a short wheelbase bike and you don't want to make it too light on the front by going too rearwards. All of the Yams suffer from footrests that are too high for tall riders. I've had to do the same on my 320 Majesty. The footrests were almost 17" off the ground.....!! - almost like standing on the saddle. Lowering them has the same affect as higher bars but with the added benefit that you are standing lower in the bike, rather than over it, which helps balance. Like a modern bike riding position. Worth looking at.

Any chance of a close-up picture of that sticker as needless to say mine has long gone and no-one has any now. I can get one made from a copy

Don't know the TLR200 well enough to comment on it, although I'd give the Majesty the edge if both are in standard trim. As regards the Majesty I would also agree that it should be competitve enough in standard form as long as everything is working as it should - brakes, dampers etc. and you're not trying to compete against modern bikes. The 175 forks are a smaller diameter than the 250 but are up to the job. They can be a little soft on the spring rate and damping but it is easy enough to experiment with different oil grades and spacers to pre-load the springs. To change to 250 forks you will have to bore out your yolks to take the larger diameter 250 legs, or fit 250 yolks also. They should fit straight in as the 175/250 use the same head bearings I believe. Although yours is a Godden frame I think they still retained the Yamaha head bearings which are ball race (and a ball-ache to fit....) However, the standard 250 forks are also under damped and have softish springs so there is not really any point changing. On works or supported rider Majesties, they were revalved to firm up the damping. Mono forks are bigger diameter again. To fit a mono front end will require the headstock altering to take the different bearings for the mono yolks, or fitting the 175 stem into the mono yolks. You also have to bear in mind that the mono forks are leading axle, so they will increase the wheelbase and also alter the steering, making it slower. I would stick with the 175 forks and concentrate on getting them right. Try it in a trial first to see how they perform and take it from there. You'll never get the right impression from them practising. The engine should be powerful enough. It may well be a 200, being a Majesty. Just don't expect to pull high gears from low revs. It is an engine that has to be buzzed in low gears rather than plonked in higher gears, therefore ride it accordingly. And they will rev...... For an indication of how competitve it is you only have to look at the results of a Mr Postlethwaite who rides one up in Cumbria. He has humbled many a modern bike in the Lakes 2 day. It is a Birkett prepped bike I guess but still only a 200. Finally - very nice bike. Looks superb. I'm sure I've seen it at a trial with a previous owner. Did you buy it from around the Stoke/Cheadle area. If so I'd guess it is the the bike I saw. If so the rims are tubeless I think, as are the tyres. They look tubeless rims from the photo. Hope the 320 Majesty I'm building turns out that nice

Not too familiar with American bikes, which are the before/after pictures? ...... Only joking of course, very nice job indeed Charlie. Look forward to seeing the Cota if that is done to the same standard.

like a 330 Cota if you are a Monty fan. mmmmmmmmm.......... nice

MT13 is a very old design from the 70s, hard compund, MT43 replaced it in early 80s, softer compound than the 13 with unique tread pattern. Either will work OK on mud but are way behind current super soft tyres from Michelin, IRC or Dunlop. Those three will give superior performance by a long way, like you wouldn't believe, on mud and especially rocks/rocky streams. The pirellis will be unbeatable on snow or ice though as their harder compounds bite in better. Chances are your MT13 has been on for many years so may now be very hard and pretty much useless. Can't really help with the carb as don't know much about cubs. Guess you've elliminated the basics like the carburettor body being worn out, old jets etc. Apparently the Amals differ in some way depending on whether they are for 2-stroke or 4-stroke engine but don't know how. Make sure you have the correct type if that is the case. Someone else on this forum is bound to know. Could also be electrical?

Don't worry about that - it's what a forum is for...... Everyone has and is entitled to an opinion and I'm certainly not on a high horse over this. For me, it is a simple case of what I can't understand anymore, for the life of me, is this 'spirit of Pre65' thing. I've heard it from various quarters, usually in trials from someone who is not winning that day, but their mods are ok when they are winning...... I spend a fair bit of the year competing alongside and sometimes in Pre65. I've been lucky enough also to have ridden some of the top bikes, Mick's James, Peter Salt's FB, trick 500 Ariel. From my experience, modified bikes are the norm, not all to that degree though obviously. I noticed Duckwizard was in Scotland but I don't know where. Could be Southernmost and therefore competes in Pre65 in England where virtually anything goes now (discs would be pushing it but I'll bet the Paolis have been done somewhere.....) If he rides a standard bike he'd be at a disadvantage in England. May not matter to him I don't know, but it is why I did say I don't know how things are policed in Scottish club trials. I think things have progressed way to far in Pre65 now to stop modifications. Too many bikes have been done. Their owners wouldn't ride standard bikes by choice otherwise they wouldn't have modified them in the first place. Some people would surely go bankrupt as a whole industry would fail....... I think they should let all modified bikes compete in the Scottish as it makes no sense to me at all how they differentiate which bike is elligible or not. Some seriously modified bikes compete whereas some that are less competitive cannot. My feeling is let them all in and have a trophy for the best standard machine also, as well as the current awards. Riders can choose to ride as standard or modified bike and standard bikes aren't then competing against modified. Wouldn't be hard to judge if a bike was modified or not - just ride it over a few rocks......

Come on g4321, you have to be a bit more realistic than that. You can't just say fitting those carbs is not in the spirit of Pre65 therefore he shouldn't do it. Why not? As I said before, define the 'spirit'. Visit any Pre65 trial in England/Wales (I obviously can't speak about Scottish rules/regs for individual clubs) and the vast majority of bikes are modified in one way or another. By definition, that means not too many people want to ride standard Pre65 bikes, therefore to my mind that defines the spirit. Should you also not fit modern shocks, handlebars, exhaust systems. Where do you draw the line? You're giving duckwizard the impression that the bike shouldn't be modified at all. He's going to take it to a trial and then wonder why most of the others have been, unless the regs and rules imposed by the Scottish clubs really are that strict. But then how is eligibilty policed? As t-shock 250 has already pointed out there are bunches of very clever people around making modern components look like Pre65 items. There is only a demand for this because people want it. They prefer to modify the components of their bikes to make them work better than the originals - or to work better than other peoples. And that is because they want to win or do as best as possible. Maybe that is the spirit - to win by whatever means it takes..... And I'm sorry duckwizard, but in spite of all this I still can't offer you any advice on the which is the best carb to use as I simply don't know.........

The spirit of Pre65? what is that exactly these days? I don't wish to start an argument on this as that is certainly not the intention, but from the bikes I see, the original concept of the spirit of Pre65 is long gone. Having owned a standard B40, if I tried to ride it on todays Pre65 sections it would put me in touch with the spirit world, I know that much.... The Sammy Miller series was intended to cater for standard, unmodified British bikes and the sections were to be of the nature of 50s and 60s sections. This year they have allowed Spanish bikes to participate so I did a local round on my Ossa, mainly to get some time on the bike after not being able to ride most of the year and as it was a nice ride around the Clee Hills. All of the Pre65 front to mid runners were on modified bikes. I tried a 500 Ariel afterwards and was genuinely shocked at how good it was. I could hop the back end for chrise sake..... It was as light as my MAR, steered better, front forks were better, brakes better and it put the power to the ground better. And it is eligible and has been ridden in the Pre65 Scottish. None of the top riders in the Pre65 Scottish ride unmodified bikes. Modern steering, modern fork internals in old casings, alloy hubs machined from billet, alloy rims, modern clutches, primary chain drives converted to belt drive, cubs and BSAs that perform better than standard TLR Hondas. Hundreds, and for 4-strokes, thousands, of pounds spent on the engines. You only had to watch Mick Grant go up pipeline last year on his cub. When did cubs ever go like that? I defy anyone to repeat that ride on a standard cub - I don't mean to clean it, i just mean the way the bike performed. So where does the spirit of Pre65 begin/stop? Damned if I know now, things have moved on too far. I don't understand how people can be enthusiastic about riding British Bikes, but only after they have modified them out of all recognition. If they are British bike fans why not ride them as standard and limit the mods to just carburettors and electronic iginitions. These are the weak areas that can stop a bike from running. Modernising those components makes them reliable and owners won't be pushing them everywhere due to worn out carbs and electrics, but riding them instead, which is after all the point. Leave the rest the same as the factory made it. Then it is a 'truer' Brit bike, suspension, steering weight etc. But they are awful to ride like that though aren't they. It's why Malcom Rathmell won't ride one again. Quote - they were crap then and they're crap now. Personally, I see putting a modern carburettor on the cub as a really minor issue. After all, the intention is only to make the engine carburate more effectively which means, most importantly, consistently and reliably. The old British carbs, worn out, dribbling and flooding just mean you are more likely to spend time pushing the bike than riding it and there is not much point or fun in that. The owner is more likely to give up on it and chuck it back in the shed. Yes the carb will improve performance slightly but not that much in isolation. Not as much as Honda internals........ Having said all this I am certainly not against the modified bikes. I don't think they should be banned as things have gone too far and I think the whole of the Pre65 scene, specifically what can or can't be modified, needs looking at as the 'spirit of Pre65' has changed now. I can't understand why the Otter BSA feaured elsewhere can't participate in the Pre65 Scottish. I know the oil in frame isn't Pre65 but neither are the fiddle forks, lightweight hubs, modern engine internals and so on of the bikes that are allowed to compete. As good as that BSA looks it is still no match for the 'regulars'. Finally, please don't think I am anti Pre65 as I'm most certainly not. I love anything to do with off-road and I love the ingenuity of the people that do the mods. Wish I had a halfpenny's worth of their ability. I'm just confused about the 'spirit' issue nowadays. There are some beautiful creations out there, It's nice to see them used, I've ridden a few and I want one (some..!!) ....

Yep - 4-stroke enduro bikes can also push the front end in certain conditions compared to a 2-stroke - ie; anything slippy. Down to the engine and the extra weight. Anyway, this test that you are going to run boys. Do you want me to bring my TYZ along so that you can judge the power characteristics of your bikes against the benchmark of what a REAL trials engine should perform like....... seamless torquey endless power. mmmmmmmm nice..... Oroit, Oi'll get me coat,

chuffed = happy

On the subject of bike tests, I think no matter how honest or objective a tester tried to be, even down to listing what they believe to be the bikes strong points or faults, it is ultimately just an opinion - their opinion. Whilst it's natural to value some people's opinion higher than others, due to their ability on a bike, as a development rider, their experience or whatever, it's possible that the characteristics of the bike that they feel and report may not be apparent to most club riders due to their lower level of ability, so is there any value to be taken from a test by Joe Clubman anyway. Personally I think not much as I still believe the only way is for riders to try the bikes themselves on 'proper sections' and under proper 'event conditions' in order to get a feel for whether a bike will actually suit them. One publication that does tend to try and 'tell it like it is' is TBM. I remember when the WR400 Yam came out and in addition to pointing out its virtues, they also criticised it heavily where they felt it was warranted - too heavy, tank too big, not easy to move around on and they really went to town on the cardiac inducing hot start routine and the lack of the leccy start. Result was a big fall-out with Yamaha UK who subsequently wouldn't provide anymore bikes for tests and I think withdrew advertising. A couple of years or so that lasted for I think before they 'made up'. But they stuck by their principles and have criticised bikes since, whatever the marque, whenever they think it is justified, including Yamaha again with the WR450 as being too heavy and too powerful. However, as informative as their tests are, it is still possible to try a bike that they have provided a very detailed write-up on and come to a different conclusion on some of the issues raised. Hence my opinion that the only way to know is to try it yourself. We know by now that the TMX or Dirtbike tests of trials bikes are only going to give a high level overview of the bike and that the only way to be sure is try before you buy. On the subject of importers/dealers withdrawing advertising it has happened before to TMX remember, when the grey import issue first surfaced 6 - 7 years ago. One of our local blokes was a prime instigator in this... The importers and some dealers withdrew their adverts from TMX in protest for a few weeks - I think because the 'grey' dealer was advertising in TMX also, but can't remember now. So there is a precedent for them to do it if they get upset by things they see or read that they don't like.....

Don't think there is anything wrong with the TYZ motor, it's penty good enough to keep the SY competitive for a while yet, but perhaps the question is how much longer can/will Yamaha supply it. It could be that issue that forces Scorpa down an all 4-strole route. (I have no idea obviously, just a possiblity)

If you ever get to ride a 4-stroke enduro bike down a snotty Welsh hill you may change your thoughts on that as the back overtakes the front....... In the dry it's useful, in the wet it is a clutch in and brakes job. I'm still of the opinion that you can't categorically state which is best for grip, 2 or 4-stroke. Regardless of the physics theory and mathematical equations it comes down to the type of engine and bike and the conditions being ridden. I've owned a YZ426 and a WR426 Yam. The YZ has such quick power off the throttle it was impossible to feed power in gently in slippy woods. It would just spin up and step the back out. The WR is more gentle so power can be fed in a bit slower with less spin. Still a handful though. Mates 2-stroke 300 KTM is very soft so doesn't spin up and finds grip much more easily. All three make about the same horsepower but the Yams have a much quicker delivery. Technically I can't even begin to explain how that works.......

Had my Ossa wheels built by Central Wheel about 12 years ago using stainless spokes. Bike has been used regularly in all sorts of events including Lakes and Loch Lomond 2 days and never had to even tighten one spoke in that time. Shame I can't say the same for the rest of the bike though but it has had a hammering. After that I've used stainless every time and they also stay bright and don't corrode. Galvanised don't corrode either but just look scabby (my opinion) Even the original Ossa stainless spokes have remained good in wheels I haven't rebuilt. The problem with them is the alloy nipples which corrode so you can't tighten loose spokes. As you can't get the nipples now it means the spokes are useless.

Charlie - I don't really think there were any specific mods of the kind you mention that were done to these bikes at the time. The works guys were always experimenting with stuff but those are the changes that probably found their way onto later models, but the later models were different bikes again. Settings/geometry from later bikes don't necessarily work on an older model. Why do you want to mod it (that's a genuine question, not a 'you shouldn't do it' statement) The bike is just as competitive as the Bults and Ossas of that era. Which one you rode was personal preference as they could all win events straight from the crate. There was nothing else to touch the Spanish three really until a few years later on. If you modify it you may not be able to compete against same era bikes - don't know what your rules are. If you want to make it more competitve, you may as well go for a later twinshock like the 330 (oooh yes please) as no matter what you do to the 247 the later bikes will destroy it performance wise - unless you change it beyond all recognition. I've been down this train of thought with my MAR. In the UK the national twinshock series is full of Fantics, TLR Hondas etc. My 74 MAR is by far the oldest bike that turns out on a regular basis. There is no pre75 class, twinshock is anything after 1965 and single route sections. If the sections get tough the MAR is outgunned. I've tried to think of ways of making it more competitive against the later bikes, but without radcally altering the chassis, re-engineering the clutch and fitting different wheels for better brakes it will never have the feel of the latest twinshocks. It just wasn't worth it and I don't have the skills anyway so I am now getting a Majesty ready for the 05 series. One day I might have another think about modernising the MAR but only because I have enough scraggy bits lying around that are in such a condition already I'm not going to ruin anything by trying. If I only had one MAR, I'd leave the mods to just personal changes like footrest position. If I were you with that 247, I'd rebuild it like the one in the picture that HondaRS posted. That is a stunning bike. If you could find a second one however, then go for it...

The auction for the Seeley was withdrawn before its end date. You will need to search under Motorcycles - Completed items - Seeley Or just search from home page under the item number which is 4510018278

There is a very nice looking Seeley on ebay at the moment and the bidding is just about to start launching skywards by the look of it (and I mean nice in appearance, not condition as that is hard to tell from photos) What you can see from the photos is the Ossa forks and front wheel....... Not quite original spec. then

Sorry Charlie - I can't help you out with the science of it. It baffles me too and I have no idea how it works the way it does. By all reaonable thinking, releasing the compression should make it go quicker you would have thought. If I pulled in the valve lifter on my 426 Yam whilst rolling down a hill in gear, throttle off, I am pretty sure it would accelerate. I not going to try it though as valves are expensive..... PS - it is a must have accessory for the discerning Spanish 70s classic owner. Period fitment..... or at least in the UK it was. It was definitely the only way to stop the buggers

Munch - it's still light outside, why aren't you still out on it. Or are you hiding from Dabster.....

It provides very effective engine braking when the engine is running. It will stall the engine on anything up to say three quarters throttle. Over that the engine will carry on running. Consequently, as long as the clutch lever is not pulled in.... and the ground offers enough traction it becomes a very effective rear brake on downhills. By slowing the engine down it also slows the back wheel, giving the braking effect. Once you get the feel for this you can use it as a brake without stalling the engine, juggling it on and off during a decent. It works pretty well. Of course, if the ground is too sippery to offer much traction, the decompressor will just stall the engine, as it would if the bike were in neutral, as the rear wheel has nothing to drive against to keep the engine turning. When I used to use my Ossa MAR on the road regularly back in the 70s, hooning around with my mates on their road bikes, not to mention the odd trip to school, in the absence of efective brakes the decompressor made a very good substitute. Makes a hell of a noise too if pulled in at speed. For those familiar with Monty Python, it must sound like Mr Creosote farting. Pedestrians would leap out of their skins when the decompressor was pulled at 50 - 60mph for some hard braking. Bus queues were always a good source of amusement too. If you brake using the clutch/brake method, the 'deek' is no use to you but if you use the engine it can be a very useful tool indeed. Also audibly warns other riders inspecting the section to get out of the way - Ossa with no brakes approaching rapidly... Oh yes - I almost forgot. That really is a cracking Monty. Beautiful looking bike - almost as nice as a MAR

Having owned a 400 Yam you are correct BUT remember how much more power the Yamaha has than the KTM - try comparing like for like - a 250 2st - say a CR Honda - this has a lot less traction than a 400 Yam - watch the start of a MX race - the 4strokes power away first. In addition the Yam can be made more user friendly by addition of a flywheel weight. The 200 KTM is a very soft engine by comparisson. I understand what you're saying there but the terrain and grip level at the start straight of a motocross track which is a flat out blast, differs a lot from the snotty, slippy going in a typical woods/forest based enduro, where careful throttle control is needed. Modern high revving short-stroke enduro/motox motors need good riders to overcome their willingness to break traction in those conditions. An XR400 and even an XR650 will be more forgiving powerwise in those conditions than a 400/426 Yam or CRF450 Honda, due to the engine characteristics. My mates 300 KTM 2 stroke, which is more on a par with the 426 power output, is still more forgiving and grips easier than my Yam as it is again quite soft lower down the revs. I just think, from my experience, that there is no definitive 2 stroke is better than 4 stroke, or vice-versa, in terms of the ability to grip, it's more down to how the engine delivers the power. And after the last 2 events I'm definitely on the lookout for a 2 stroke enduro...