woody

It isn't possible to machine anything off the back of the actual casing as you'd be straight through the case and into the gearbox. Metal can be removed from the big mounting lug that takes the engine bolts but it wouldn't make any difference if it was 5 or 6 speed as it's the same on both. That allows the shortened pivoting mounting bracket to be moved even closer to the engine than if it metal wasn't removed, but it's millimeters at this point. The gearbox plunger bolt head is also machined down. On Vesty's own bike the engine was raised at the back and tilted forwards to get the pivot as close as possible, the sump guard had to be reshaped to do this. The 40 converted bikes had the pivot moved forward and a different swingarm fitted but not all the frame mods of Vesty's last bike, they were based on the first incarnation. There were also two 198B conversions, one of which is still alive and well, don't know about the other. The most radical was JR's bike which had no swingarm spindle so that the pivot could be moved right up to the sprocket and looks as though removing the clutch cover would be a real ordeal.... As with the Bultaco UK importer taking ideas to the factory, there was a similar story with Ossa and the UK importer doing development and making improvements to the bike. With Keith Horsman they did cantlever as well as reed valve conversions in several capacities, one of which was a short stroke 310 engine which gave 285cc. I had one and they were good. As with Bultaco, the Ossa factory ignored the UK development work and went their own path. More of what might have been...

The production KT came in two versions, 74/75 and 76, the side casings and airbox changed with the 76 model Early model had the K emblem on the casings and 2 bolt airbox, later model had Kawasaki in full on the casings and 3 bolt airbox I had a 76 model which didn't have the r/h gear shaft, it was blanked off. Don's first prototype was the bronze coloured 450 for which Kawasaki supplied just the engine, I think he made the frame. He then switched to a 250 which was how the bike was finally produced but his last prototypes were the 330 which was a nice looking bike. Two versions I think, one with upright and one with angled rear shocks. Kato still rides his in Japanese classic trials I think

The copy OKO is quite different inside, as well as a couple external differences. The proper OKO pilot and main jets are different as are their housings and don't fit the copies. I think the slide is a different size as well. The copy jets aren't numbered which is useful... OKO seem scarce in the UK at the moment, very rarely for sale on ebay, I have never tried OKO UK. They work well though, I have them on some bikes.

Yes, that's the right alloy tank for the UK spec bike. That shape is a copy of the fibreglass tank they fitted to bikes from 76 - 78. They then changed the shape on the 198/199 model to the shape of the plastic tank, although the first few were made from fibreglass, but the UK bikes continued to be fitted with the older shape tank up to the blue model like yours. You look to have made a good purchase with that bike if it is mechanically sound. The USA import is way over priced at £3k. There are a lot of over priced Bultacos for sale at the moment, yours was a realistic price.

The 199a has a blue frame as standard, the bike was all blue - frame, tank, sidepanels, mudguards. If it was a UK bike it would have had an alloy tank originally, the same shape as the one in the link above, It's either an imported bike or a UK bike which someone has fitted with the plastic tank afterwards The US import has a fibreglass tank. The plastic tank hadn't been introduced when that bike was manufactured and the plastic tank is a different shape from the tank in the picture. The people who are selling that bike don't appear to know too much about trials bikes judging from the prices asked for previous bikes they've imported and the description given to their condition and originality. That one looks as though the frame has been painted, shocks and seat aren't original Alloy tanks don't carry a premium, why do you think that out of interest?

They never have existed, there is no such thing in reality, there's an MOT that's all All that happens if you don't have lights on the vehicle is that they may just put an advisory on it that it's for daytime use only, but they don't have to. Any MOT station can do it by law, the problem is that some of them don't understand you don't need lights fitted

You can buy them new from Venhill

Nothing wrong with the term Pre65 as it can (or could...) be looked upon to mean any bike prior to 1965 which excludes trials specific Spanish bikes, specifically the Bultaco. All other Pre65 or Pre70 series are designated British Bike trials, so no issue with Spanish bikes being entered. All the bull**** about copy or replica parts and the 'enforcement' of rules on some, overlooking them for others is where the real issues started, not the term Pre65. But that's old hat now. The two pictures above are a bit misleading as they are both banana forks it seems (just been looking in my Greeves book I forgot I had) and are 1966 forks. The eligible Pre65 type have a different appearance with no visible dampers and the down tube is straight not bent, so I can see why they aren't allowed purely in terms of manufacture. But being pragmatic, why woould it be an issue to allow them? If it is all supposed to be about period appearance, which presumably is for the enthusiasts spectating (otherwise why bother about appearance) surely, someone who is enthusiastic about that era is going to appreciate seeing a bike ridden with those banana forks, even if they are 1966, rather than the *******ised, extended, welded and modernised offerings on most bikes..?

I don't think both are banned as I know someone who has ridden 3 times in the last 4 years with an original Greeves fitted with those forks, presumably the earlier set. I don't know the difference between both sets but I understood one to be acceptable, the other not.

This is the last Sherpa with the alloy guards. All UK Sherpas from '75 to the blue '79 model had this shape tank http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bultaco-Sherpa-350-T-1977-direct-from-a-US-museum-the-best-youre-ever-going-see-/321971214207?hash=item4af6fad77f:g:~IoAAOSwX~dWkRJ8

Which year model are you asking about. All UK Sherpas has alloy tanks after 1973. Up to the model 150/151 they were made in the UK by a company called Homelite and fitted by the importer. They were blue/silver and completely different from the red factory slimline fibreglass tank unit. These bikes in the UK had plastic white mudguards but from the factory they were alloy From the model 158/159 the new shape tank was introduced and was made from fibreglass, but the UK market bikes were supplied with an alloy tank. They were the same shape as the standard fibreglass tank. These were fitted up to the model 182/3 and they all had alloy guards. The 198/199 had red fibreglass tank which was changed to plastic and plastic red guards, then came the all blue 198/199a with a plastic tank. Both continued to be fitted with the alloy tank for the UK market. So in the UK, the models from '75 to '79 all had the same shape alloy tank, first red then blue. Finally, the 340 had the plastic tank but UK models had another UK made alloy tank as an option which was a slightly different shape from the plastic tank.

That just about sums up the stupidity of the rules if picture 1 (B&W) is banned and picture 2 (colour) is accepted. Yes there may be a difference but just how pedantic can it be! Pic 2 looks a lot more authentic and period than a pair of Nortons with welded on extensions and modern mudguard brace. Total farce. And as the trial is no longer Pre65 but Pre68, then they should be allowed anyway, along with all the other Villiers engined bikes mentioned above

Re: tensioner, that's how they were, the last model Beamish, which is the frame you were trying to fit your engine into, didn't have a tensioner, they didn't fit them on that model for some reason. They just had a roller fitted onto a bolt that was welded to the inside of the frame behind the footrest. You'll need to weld a bracket onto the arm if you want to run the original tensioner set up, or find another means of mounting one.

I did try burning the rubber before the drill, forgot to mention that method, but for whatever reason, the rubber in the bushes in my Beamish arm just wouldn't melt. It just seemed to glow red and get harder.... but it came nowhere near to melting so no idea what it was made of. I'd used burning successfully before on some 247 Cota bushes. Good tip about the discolouring as mine did discolour slightly on one side with the heat but it's hidden by the slipper pad that Jim from Beamish Owners Club sells, so not a problem

Thanks for the replies, I'll pass the info on

10 out of 10 for perseverance with DVLA - nice write up and explanation

I did mine a few months back - living hell... I don't think there is a way of pressing them out. I drilled through the rubber section, all around the inner steel tube of the bush on both sides until the inner was effectively separated from the outer case. We could then press the inner steel tube of one side through the swingarm and out the other side, pushing the other inner steel tube out with it, as well as the centre spacer. Now we had just the outer cases to remove. We heated them and very carefully used a very thin chisel to tap between the swingarm tube and the outer case (which is quite thin) and collapse it inwards, bit by bit and taking care not to score up the inner surface of the swingarm housing. Eventually the cases will collapse enough to just drop out. I replaced them with original type bushes again (from Jim at the Beamish owners club) as in it's next lifetime following its current resurrection it will never get enough use to wear them out, so I won't have to go through it again

Thanks Guys

Good question - I don't know... Well out of touch with modern bikes and forgot there were differences in the suspension, I'll have to find out

A couple of local lads bought a new 4RT each a few months back and are having issues with the fork seals. One bike sprung a leak on one leg and it was replaced under warranty. It has now blown the other seal and the other bike has also now got a leak from one seal Neither bike has had hard use as they are both novice standard and just go out and play on them, not ride trials. They've only been used half a dozen times. Another rider who had a new 4RT has said it's an issue and replacing the seals with new standard Montesa / Honda seals won't cure the problem, you have to use green seals. The dealer is miles away but will only provide standard replacements under warranty, if they want the green seals they have to pay for them and the price that they've been given (not by the dealer) is something like £60 a pair... Has anyone come across this problem with the latest 4RT and if so how was it fixed? Seems strange to me that Honda should have a problem with fork seals, but both bikes have suffered the same issue and it also happened to the bike belonging to the rider who mentioned the green seals as a fix. Anyone know what the green seals are, or any reliable replacements other than the standard seals if they are in fact giving problems?

Do you think it's worth anything near that much Stuart? Would even a restored bike put back to original or near original get that much? I've seen much better examples than that one go for a lot less. I guess it depends what someone would want it for, if you just wanted to get it good enough to ride you wouldn't have to spend too much on it, the engine sounds healthy enough, but you have still ended up paying a fair bit over 4k for something that isn't worth it If you want one to put back to catalogue spec to just look at and not ride, or treat as an investment, it is going to end up owing you around 6k with labour unless the owner does a lot of work themselves. At a quick glance the following would need to be done for catalogue,spec: Full exhaust and heat shield - £260 Frame repaint - £100 Sidepanels - £30 Rims are wrong, new rims and wheel build - £300, maybe more if new spokes needed Tank repair, lining and respray - £300 Original mudguards - £200 Polishing / Rechroming parts - £200 Seat - £160 Original style number board - £40 Original shocks - £150? On top of that you'd need original bars with welded levers, IRZ carb and speedo kit, no idea if any of these are available or how much, although I guess they are in Spain, but maybe another £2-300 needed? You end up with a bike owing you a lot of money which is fine if you don't mind spending it and it's what you want but risky if you ever expect to recover it one day. I've spent more on some of mine than I will ever get back (although nowhere near that much) I think it's way over priced, not sure I'd even want to give half of the opening bid price for it.

Although on a personal level I don't care what they do with the rules of this trial, Including the M10 is a strange decision at best, especially after all the fuss they make about bikes and components being of Pre-65 origin and appearance, but the rules and their application have always been a contradiction If they meant to clarify that 4 speed Bultacos manufactured before 1965 - ie: Sherpa N, are allowed to compete then they've screwed up completely choosing wording which simply states 'Bultaco - 4 speed models only', as that obviously includes the M10 - a bike which is not, however anyone may want to try and convince themselves or anyone else, a Pre-65 bike. That's enough to exclude it alone. Put it in the exclusions - No M10 Sherpa T models. Then there is the final eligibility statement: None of the above exclusions shall apply to any component of any machine which is, or proven to be, Pre ’65 original factory fitment to that machine. So the M10 shouldn't be allowed on that basis either, it's a bike that wasn't manufactured until 1965, therefore you can't prove that any component fitted to an M10 was fitted to that bike before 1965 as the bike did not exist before 1965. Add to that the forks, wheel, some engine components and not to mention the overall appearance of the bike differ noticeably from the 1964 components and bike and you have another reason. By accepting the M10 into the trial, does that mean they consider that the parts fitted to it are considered Pre-65. So why are Bultaco forks and hubs listed as an exclusion on British bikes? Does it work the other way around and the M10 must use an IRZ carb and not an Amal which wasn't fitted to 4 speed models by Bultaco? It just gets more and more bizarre every year...

Seems DVLA have changed the requirement for insurance and you only need insurance now if you're registering to an address in Northern Ireland.

What about the 4 speed Ossa and Montesa - why only the Bultaco I wonder?

Early M10 had round, later M10 had the flat bottom tank