woody

The MK1 had spacers both sides, the MK2 onwards had one spacer only on the opposite side to the brake (it formed part of the speedo drive) The MK1 forks have flat bottoms with one 8mm pinch bolt per side, so easy to identify

Correct fitting is on the right (sitting on the bike) Some people reverse the forks and wheel as when the hub gets worn the brake works better with the wheel rotating the other way round (allegedly - not tried it myself)

Have a read in this section, plenty of info in there http://www.trialscentral.com/forums/forum/76-road-legalmotinsurance-etc/ You can date it here using the chassis or engine number (should be the same, just a different prefix letter) http://ossa.2y.net/ossa/reference/ossaref.html

The top two damper rods in that photo look nothing like any rod I've seen out of a Bultaco.

Depends on the fork brace, some are more rigid than others but no idea which is the best. My M92 twists all over the place, especially on rock sections and I have to regularly kick the wheel back into line. Another couple of bikes flex a bit and another bike is quite rigid. They all have aftermarket braces, as far as I can tell, all the same...

If I remember correctly,,,, Malcolm is Ian's uncle

Those two photos are of Malcom Pederby

Cores? they were just a solid rubber moulding when I used to use them, no cores

No such thing as far as I know as they can't get them to deform as a trials tyre has to. Normal moose may be ok as although they're 14 psi equivalent, the weight of a rigid Ariel may flatten the profile and put some deformity in it...

Don't know Martin but try again, I've just deleted loads

Results are out but I didn't get any either. I mistakenly thought they e-mailed them these days but seems it's still done by envelope so if you didn't send one with your entry (like me...) that's probably why you haven't got them. If you e-mail the secretary Julie, she'll e-mail them back to you, which is what Colin did. I got him to send them onto me. I can send them to you if you want, PM me your email.

Seemed to me he wasn't really serious and was just doing it for a wind up.

Spud, you're either being deliberately obtuse, missing the point altogether or are just so blinkered you refuse to accept anyone else's view. I wish you'd stop calling the earlier rules ambiguous. When an event is organised for bikes manufactured before 1965 then that is all the ruling you need. How else can that be interpreted. Bikes and therefore components of Pre 1965 origin, as they were at that time. There is no ambiguity If riders chose to start bending that rule by hiding modern components in Pre65 skins that is not the fault of the clubs. How could they know what was happening at first, what were the signs when the bike looked unmodified. This is a point you can't answer and just turn it back around to being the fault of ambiguous rules. They weren't, clubs simply didn't have the resources to check bikes once it became apparent what was happening. Whether you like it or not, your own rules for your original class are allowing many of the modifications you disapprove of...!!! The point of my example of me turning out on a late 50s AJS was completely missed or deliberately disregarded. Which is that your 'original class' rules allow modifications that people who can afford it or engineer it themselves will make the best use of with improvements using modern technology and components. Those that can't do it or afford it are immediately handicapped with an inferior machine because they are riding against a modified special in the original class. There is nothing ambiguous about that fact. As for this being a conscious decision on the grounds of practicality, you're having a laugh aren't you. I thought the 'original class' was to enable riders on original big bikes to enjoy a competitive ride against similar big bikes. Instead they're up against legally modified specials in the originals class. A bit like it is now.... If you want a trial for standard bikes, it's simple. With the exception of anciliaries such as tyres, shocks etc, you need just one rule - the bikes must be of a type manufactured before 1965 and so must any component not on the exceptions list. No replica parts whatsoever. Your team of scrutineers can visually check external components and I'm assuming they will have the experience to establish whether internal mods have been ,ade. Remember, if a rider bends that most unambiguopus of rules - manufactured before 1965 - it will be the fault of your club, not the rider. But as you seem confident that riders are out there who want to ride these big bikes in their hundreds, they should all be like minded, not cheat and you won't need any scrutineering, will you. That aside, it seems you just want to exclude every bike other than a big pre-unit. It's been seen before I know, but take a look at the film in this clip of fit young men, some of whom were top riders, struggling like hell on 50s machinery and ask yourself, how many 60+ year olds could hang onto one of those things now, over those types of traditional sections. And you might understand why many of them are riding lightweight bikes in order that they can carry on riding rather than lying in plastercast and being fed through a straw in hospital

Yes Deryk, we know you invented Pre65, as you keep telling us... But my reference to the 80s was to a specific series, the Sebac, not what you were doing a decade before. You formed your series for very different reasons, a group of club riders who found that trials had become too hard for your old bikes, you couldn't afford the latest, so you created a series to ride your old bikes in using more traditional and straightforward sections - at least that's how I interpret what you said, I don't mean it as a derogatory comment.. The Sebac was created to run within modern trials originally but quickly became its own series. The big difference between that and what you did was that the riders who took part in the Sebac also rode modern trials on the then current bikes which were monoshocks. As mentioned before it attracted some good centre riders as well as ex champions and British and world round winners. The latter were still very competitive and had lost none of their will to win and as before, I imagine they wanted the best chance of doing so by having the best equipment, as they had in their supported days. The difference now was that development had improved components and they knew people who could make modern components fit inside Pre65 skin. What they were doing was nothing different from what they had on their works bikes, better tuned components than customer bikes, but obviously this time using better components than were available in the machine's own era. In the spirit, no, not really, but when you've the mindset to win world and British rounds, it's the way it is, only the best will do. And the best was modern parts hidden inside a British shell.

No problem boghopper, just wanted you to be sure I wasn't nit-picking your bike. I'm no originality buff, just enjoy riding it as that's what they're for.

Early 250 Sherpas had the double weight, then they went to the single weight but not sure when, maybe '75. The 250 198B uses the lighter Pusrang weight on a single row cog, really picks up quickly.

You may have the best of intentions Spud but your rules can be easily exploited. In addition they do nothing to keep a level playing field of bikes in original Pre65 trim, which I believe, was the intention? Modified forks in the original class??? So if you have the money to pay someone (£500) or the machining skills to do it yourself, you can have a set of roadholder bottoms with modern internals, or even machine or cast your own new replica bottoms to take modern internals. Meanwhile, Joe Average with little money, no machining skills, is stuck with the original and utterly ineffective forks. You say it's for practicality but I see nothing practical about it. Surely it's the very thing you're criticising? And, it's where it all started back in the late 80s as forks were the first things to be modified (and disguised) You're allowing the people that can, to create modern exhausts, airboxes etc. If they are fitting alloy rims then whilst they're at it they'll fit replica alloy Cub hubs to lace them to and pain them black - that's running to £1000 a pair of wheels. Practical or just favouring the man with money or engineering skills? I can't see the difference between that and what's already happening. Joe average ends up in his original bike, someone with means and the desire to do so ends up with a modernised machine, superior in many respects, at a hefty price. Unless you have a scrutineer that is able to virtually dismantle certain components, there is no way your rules will stop modern parts being used. This is why they are now accepted. Because back in the 80s, when the modifications first began with the advent of the Sebac series and the increasing popularity of the Scottish, there were some very good riders (ex champions and world round and national trial winners) taking part - far removed from the disgruntled band of average club riders who formed Pre65 10 years earlier. They were still very good riders and just as when they were factory or supported riders they had a very strong will to win. Many had ridden genuine Pre65 bikes in that era but had experienced much better machinery in the intervening years. Better components were now available but obviously not allowed - yes, there were rules back then, just the same as yours are now in terms of what components could be used. These riders wanted the best machinery, just as they had benefitted from in earlier times. They had modern internals slipped into their forks. The forks looked standard but anyone with a bit of nouse could see they actually worked up rocky sections as opposed to the pogo action of the standard items. Then they wanted the engines better, so internal mods began on those. Then exhausts. Then the clutches and ignitions. All disguised in standard casings The bikes back then, late 80s, early 90s, still looked pretty well standard. How would any club official prove that illegal internal mods were being made using modern materials without taking components apart. Who would have time to do this and which rider would sit there and let someone dismantle a bike before the start of a trial - or at all... Then the quest for lightening the bikes began with replica frames. The frames were then modified to give better geometry but that's not exactly easy to spot. 'Ordinary' riders with money to spare or machining skills of their own began modifying their own bikes, or bikes of friends. And so it went on. So how can you blame any club or organisation for this? How can they be responsible? The rules were there, it was riders who bent them and there was little a club could do about it. The same would apply to your proposed rules and the rules originally drafted by Deryk. So what do you do? Follow what happens in other motorsports and have all competitors report for scrutineering the day before the trial in order that a team of expert scrutineers can thoroughly examine every bike, including removing components where necessary (a condition of taking part) and then where appropriate, move any bike they deem ineligible to the specials class? Unworkable with people having to stay overnight in accomodation for the event the next day, meaning two days away, increased costs and where does every club get this team of expert scrutineers? The 'problem', if there is one in Pre65, is that there are very few riders left now who rode these bikes in their era, that aren't below their late 60s in age. As has been mentioned before they can't or don't want to struggle with a big heavy bike any more, They want to go out and enjoy riding a modified bike. Hence the popularity of lightweight Bantams now. The remaining (most of) Pre65 competitors now have streamed through from late 60s and the 70s which was a different style of riding with harder sections (although some of the video I've seen of some earlier trials from 60s, I wouldn't call them easy) These riders don't really want a section that is akin to riding up a green lane. Neither do they want British Champs style severity sections. They want something that provides a challenge and that's why it has evolved like it has. It's just evolution. If the riders are still out there who want to ride a standard big thumper over traditional sections, then why doesn't someone put a series together and make it clear what it is for - Completely unmodified bikes. It's been done for twinshocks this past year so why can't someone do the same for Brit thumpers and create a series for unmodified bikes if the demand is there? Leave the rest alone, whether you or anyone else agrees with it or not, what's done is done and can't be reversed, the bottom line being being more people seem to prefer riding the modified bikes than the standard version - So did Sammy... I was watching a video of the Ilkley grand national recently, from sometime in the late 50s I think, and it was very difficult. Big rigids stuck up to their engines in mud with their fit young riders struggling like hell to free them. Riders, again fit young men, being bounced all over the place up rocky tracks which were just lanes. These were what are now referred to as traditional rather than modern sections, but show me many 60 to 70+ year olds who who are the riders from that era, who would want to ride a big bike like that at their age.Many? There is more than one reason they've been modernised

This is an M92 weight This is from an M49 Looking at the M92 weight, it has a more square edge than I remember but without seeing the weight from a later bike I can't remember how different they may be now. All I can remember is that when I tried to fit a casing with to an engine it fouled on the weight - but I can't remember which combination of case / weight it was now... not much help unfortunately.

Reason I mentioned it being a 91/92 is because it has a couple of features introduced on that frame. The frame is recessed where the spindle nuts locate, M49 is flat for the bolt on plates. It has the oiler in the swingarm and the headstock gusset is different from the M49 Not picking holes in it, just an observation

If it is the big double weight it will be the same as the 325 Sherpa, or 250 models from around '68 to '70 The thing to watch out for is the profile of the outer edge of the outer weight. There are two types, one has a flat, sharp edge, the other is rounded off. If I remember correctly, the weight with the sharper edge will foul the inside of the earlier clutch case - ie: the one fitted prior to 1975 that was up to the M150/151 which had the later style case.

Mentioned in my earlier post but essentially, observer at last double sub in second group (I think, where we rode down a track with a new wall on the right hand side and sections were the other side of the wall) blew his stack at me after I replaced a log that was being used as a section boundary. A sidecar had run over it and moved it so I was putting it back, observer thought I was moving it to my advantage probably, and was yelling his head off at me which got me a bit riled so went to explain. He was ok about it but was pretty well steaming with riders trying to go beyond the section boundary at the bottom turn before the last climb out, basically out of the section to get a better run up the climb. It was pretty obvious where the section was intended to go and the tyre marks also gave it away, but there were no blue markers on the trees which formed the boundary, just the log which had got dislodged by the sidecar. I thought it was strange there were no markers as all sections were marked pretty clearly, but not this one. He then explained that there were markers originally but they had been removed by a rider or riders. He put the log across as a makeshift boundary. He was bloody fuming and to his credit was taking no crap from anyone. Anyone that went too wide was getting a 5 and they got no change out of him if they contested it. Could do with more like him, good lad. So, either the markers fell off all by themselves or someone took them down. They were there when the observer arrived and were there when my mate rode it early on, but there were none when I got there.

Yes, can see the yokes clearly now, I thought the bar mounts were missing in the original photo but can see what they are now. The bottom yoke is very similar to the mid 70s 250 Sherpas Now I can see more of it, your white frame looks more like a model 49, maybe a 27 but never seen a 27 frame, most likely 49. Rear shock top mounts match positioning of series 1 49 but picture not clear in that area so can't tell if modified or not. I think probably original. The rear sidepanel mounts aren't original, they've been added to take the slimline tank/seat unit mounts. Rear mudguard mount matches 49 type. Bolt on footrests are 49 type (also fitted to 80 but the frame headstock gusset is 49 as it has the mount for the rubber top hats either side. Your 49 model in the background is an M91/92 series 1 frame, not 49.... (not that it matters)

In respect of different weights and crank balance, I can't answer from an engineering aspect as I don't know. I've not had any issues swapping them from one bike to another, that's about all I can comment on that one As for the weight suitable for your bike, I don't know as the Alpina 350 is a longer stroke and bigger capacity than the big Sherpa, and I've never ridden one. I've no idea what the power delivery is like, whether they have any similarity to the 325 Sherpa, so I can't even make a guess as to the effect of different flywheels. The Alpina is a trail bike, different gearing from the trials bike, so not sure what it would be like in trials sections, especially more nadgery ones.

I wondered if it had been machined down but the holes threw me. Never thought they might be to balance it. I tried machining a Sherpa one down recently. Nothing came off it and I just got a squealing noise... Pays to know what you're doing I guess before trying to machine what is probably case hardened (what ever that means) metal...