woody

Colin at TY Offroad has Barnett plates for Hondas, not sure if it is just for the TLR that he has them for, or wether they are the same as the TL200E. He's at Telford show this weekend http://www.tyoffroad.co.uk/

I've never really understood the purpose of those vents or how they're supposed to work. All I've ever had from them on most bikes with Betor forks is a squirt of oil in the face when the forks compress. I've always closed them off with a blob of araldite, so can't help you with this one.

Take a look here on Charlie Prescott's excellent BSA Otter site. It covers a bit more than BSA and there is a piece about my rebuild of a Sherpa 49 and how much was spent. The bike owes me around £2k in total and I have no idea whether I could sell it for that amount, but I rebuilt it to keep and use, not sell, so not bothered. I may have missed a few items in the overall costing but only minimal, it gives you an idea of what you can have to spend if doing a complete cosmetic job as well as mechanical. As well as my bike there is lots of information about bike rebuilds and lots of articles on other peoples' builds as well. http://www.bsaotter.com/dave_woods_1970_bultaco_sherpa_model_49.html There is also a piece on the 198a model I've just finished, with the overall cost coming in at about the same total http://www.bsaotter.com/dave_woods_sherpa198_a_rebuild..html I've also saved a bit of cost by doing a lot of the work myself, such as exhaust repacking, engine rebuild etc and I can get polishing, chroming and anodising done cheaper than normal retail costs, so that needs to be factored in too. As has been mentioned in the good advice by people above, you really need to want to do this out of enthusiasm for the bike you're working on as it's a long slog and the costs can spiral. If the job is done thoroughly, the bike will never be worth what it costs you to rebuild - see the number of unsold Sherpas for which silly money is being asked

Just wondering with the heat from the silencer, how it will affect any lacquer - might tarnish or yellow it? Don't know anything about temperatures reached on the silencer or the sort of temperatures that can affect the lacquer, but just a thought. Only other issue I can think of with lacquer is if it starts to lift anywhere and starts peeling off in places - I have seen lacquer lift when applied to bare alloy such as fork legs, car wheels. It shouldn't be a problem for your anodiser to strip off the anodising they've done, polish it and then anodise it again. As someone else mentioned, not a bad idea to use some of the off cuts to have polished and anodised as an indication of how it turns out

I've had lots of anodising done over the years by a mate who works at a plating company. The finish is dependent upon the finish of the alloy prior to anodising, so to get a bright and shiny finish from the anodising, you need a bright polished finish on the alloy. The other factor is the actual alloy itself as it can affect the way the anodising takes. I've had two rims done at the same time with the same polished finish and both in the anodising tank at the same time - different tone of colour red on each rim, despite the same treatment, dye etc. With what they call 'bright' anodising, if you have the alloy polished to effectively a mirror finish, as with rims or engine cases, and then have it bright anodised, it gives the appearance of a mirror polish but with the benefit of being anodised which keeps it that way and immune from oxidising of the alloy which eventually dulls and corrodes a polished only finish. They don't use lacquer on anodised parts. It's used on polished only finishes but usually to protect from oxidising rather than providing the shine. You silencers are a fantastic job, very impressive

Saying a 300 is suitable for a novice is not the best of advice. Most average to good riders are over-biked with a 300, never mind a novice. A 250, even a 200, will do anything an average to good clubman rider will ever ask of it and it will also be capable of doing a lot of things that they don't have the ability to make it. A modern 300 is too powerful and fitting spacers, weights, compression reducers etc etc is just needless when there is a 200 or 250 option. I rode a 125 Gas Gas recently that would do anything needed in a club trial and I'm pushing 18 stones in riding gear. I also tried a 300 Sherco and unless you are riding sections that require that kind of power - ie: monumental climbs or 6' steps with no run up, it's pointless. It was ferocious and would drag a novice through a section. I wouldn't want to ride one. Look at most of the traditional type nationals now, there are twinshocks and Pre65 bikes right at the sharp end of the clubman class results, heading many modern bikes, and there have been one or two outright wins as well - and that includes 175/200 Yams. 300 power just isn't needed and is of no benefit to a novice rider.

Start with 200cc per leg, recommended is around 220. Which weight to use is personal preference but maybe SAE10 where you are due to it being a bit hotter than here The recommended quantity in manuals is usually the maximum which can give a stiffer action, you can generally use less than recommended. If you start at 200 you can add a bit at a time if you find them too soft

ok - the online manual I have works differently, there's only one page with the index so you have to click the link to get to a page. Never even tried to scroll on this one... Found it now. Not sure what it's showing me though as it just mentions the two types of carb. Mick's bike had the double needle carb but the production bikes used the single needle version as it was reported to soften the power delivery. Mick used the double needle to sharpen throttle response, so what I meant in the post above is that carb may still be the one with the bike. As the current owner mentioned naff IRZ carb he may have been thinking of binning it when it could be the original factory fitted carb and a piece of the bike's history.

I can't access page 87, just throws an error The bike in the video is the 1971 bike which won both european championship and SSDT, just with different colour scheme again. The 72 SSDT winning bike was a proper MAR

Forgot to mention - check the IRZ carburettor, the works carb had 2 needles not one. I think as well that it was the 1970 version that had the twin coil / plug ignition.

I'd forgotten about this topic, nice to see it active again. It's hard to guess exactly which bike you have as I think that the various colour schemes of the tank units may have been used on all of the prototypes at some point as opposed to one colour per bike. The 1971 bike can be seen with both the orange with white stripe and white with orange stripe. The registration Spanish B775073 may have been used on more than one bike during 70 and 71. It definitely appeared on the last prototype, the 71 SSDT winning bike and later in 71 on pictures of Mick's first actual MAR. I think the 1970 SSDT winning bike still had the full frame cradle under the engine with a sump guard bolted to it but I've never seen a picture of that bike showing it's registration. After that, either that frame was modified or he had a new frame which had no frame tubes under the engine. It was probably a new frame as they made a lot of changes to that last prototype which was the basis of the MAR, the bike was shortened, engine repositioned etc. All of the prototypes were, I think, based on modified enduro frames So at a guess, if yours still has the bottom frame tubes it is most likely the 1970 bike as the '71 winning bike didn't have them but they all seem to have used the various colour schemes on the tanks. There are a few pictures on this site http://www.mickandrews.net/ Here's video of the 1971 bike in the USA at a trials school, now wIth black / white tank with reg B775073

The changes are massive if it's a full replica you're looking at. Airbox and exhaust need complete redesign to fit. And they weren't a pretty bike either... With modern tyres and rear dampers I'd guess it's really not worth the trouble, the rear end on the later Sherpas works as well as anything else really, Fantics and Hondas aside which work better, particularly in light of the sections they're ridden over now. I know a few people who rode Vesty's last bike in trials after he finished with it and to them there was no real noticeable advantage to what had been done

Yes it will fit, the manifold fixing is the same and the outlet to rear silencer should be the same. The front radius of the B is very slightly longer than the A but whether that is noticeable in riding is debateable, I'd doubt it. The 199 front pipe will fit too, it looks longer than both. The pipe off a 250 won't fit as the manifold has smaller stud spacing for the smaller exhaust port.

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