woody

For a tank cover try Steve Goode motorcycles in Welshpool. He used to stock them so may have some left. 01938 850544. That number is off the top of my head but he advertises in TMX if you want to check it.

Fuji is too big to fit on one of those GP bikes...

As far as I know, Sherpas and Pursangs only had 35mm forks, the Sherpa forks being pretty much the same as Ossa, other than the leading axle. To clarify you should contact Dave Renham at Bultaco UK as he is the leading UK Bulto specialist http://www.bultacouk.com

It's fair to say I think that most 80s bikes have footrests much higher than todays bikes. As you have said, lowering them, as well as moving them rearwards slightly, gives you a riding position of standing in the bike, not on top of it and bent over the bars. Not only does this give a feeling of greater stability and enable you to balance better, it also shifts rider weight back a bit putting more weight over the rear wheel. It's definitely a worthwhile mod, especially for taller riders when rebuilding an old bike - I've done it on my Ossas and Majesty. Went a bit too far on the Majesty and had to move them forwards again a tad as the front wheel wouldn't stay on the ground. Problem is it means welding on new mounts and if the bike has been rebuilt, as yours has, it is going to mess up the frame.

Don't let anyone misguide you into thinking that a 125 is underpowered and no good for trials. If they were they wouldn't make them. A 125 GasGas will pull me fine (as will a 125 Scorpa) and I don't get any change out of 17 stone these days,so if it will pull my weight it has enough power for anything but the most serious of sections - ie; sections that are beyond most club riders ability regardless of the bike. All you have to accept is that they haven't as much power as a 200/250 etc. so they have to be ridden accordingly - correct gear, choice of line etc. is more critical than on a bigger bike. On a bigger bike a handful of throttle in a bigger gear can get you out of trouble sure, but only if you are good enough to use it. Chances are that if you have got into that sort of mess in the first place you're not going to get out of it regardless. Ross Danby, one of the top youth riders, is in our centre. He rides a 125 Pro and has no problems whatsoever. I've watched him in our trials. Does things on it that adults can't do on 250s, 280s, 290s 300s whatever. Never looks short on power. At club level, trials isn't about having loads of power anyway - if anything it is a hinderence, will get you into trouble and will cost you marks unless you know how to use it. From what you've said it sounds like your bike has a problem as it shouldn't die when you snap the throttle. The biggest of engines will do that if something is wrong. As it is nigh on impossible to diagnose from descriptions as it could be anything, you're best bet is to take it to a local dealer who knows what they are doing, let them try the bike and ask their opinion - or even take a trip to Shirty's as I am sure they would be helpful and they have the ground to try the bike there, so should be able to reproduce your fault and diagnose it. If I were you I'd try and sort the problem. Learn to ride a 125 well and you will be able to go on to ride anything after that. It will teach you to think about a section more, plan lines better, pick gears better and give you better throttle control in the long run - all of which are the essence of a good trials rider. Also save you money from changing bike for the wrong reason...... which is always a good thing Hope you get it sorted

Reason I don't use tubed IRC is because I just can't get on with them. I've tried them on my Ossa and on the tubed type spare wheel I had for my TYZ. Outcome was the same each time. The sidewalls are too soft and the wheel rolls in the tyre on cambers and when accelerating out of a turn up a bank. Increasing the pressure to eradicate this means no grip. I couldn't run it at anything less than 5psi, otherwise it would roll, although even at lower pressures it still wouldn't grip on either bike. Earlier this year I had a go on someone else's Majesty at the section I was observing on. I rode it over some angled rocks and straight away could feel the rear wheel wanted to slide down the rocks, not because of lack of grip, but because it felt like it was rolling in the tyre. Without looking at the tyre I said to him - this is an IRC tubed tyre isn't it? Yes he said. When he asked me how I knew and I told him he said now I'd mentioned it he had experienced it too, he just hadn't realised it was the tyre. It behaved in exactly the same way as those I have tried in the past. That is why I use the tubeless type IRC. For me they work better than anything else. Now I'm not saying that the IRC tubed is no good, it just doesn't work for me, but I know other people who are happy with them and don't seem to experience the same problem. Come to think of it, they are a fair bit lighter than me........ (and my Majesty riding mate)

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.