woody

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

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