woody

I put Montesa by mistake (writing on another forum at the same time) and didn't finish editing it - its a Yam TY wheel, Yam torque arm lug and speedo drive in brake plate Forks are Ossa

Forks are Ossa, wheel looks Montesa 247/348 You can use anything together if you can make them fit

I forgot one of the bikes is accessible so measured the spacer which is 20mm. Spindle length is hard to get whilst in the bike but roughly 23 - 24cm However, as mentioned before the spacer length won't cause your problem. If it's too long the fork leg will be pushed out, not in. Too short and the spindle will just sit further in with more thread showing the other end, the leg will be unaffected and remain in its position. As Steve said above, the missing speedo drive isn't an issue, it is replaced with a spacer Are you sure the spindle isn't picking up inside the leg and pushing it inwards? Take the wheel out and make sure the spindle pushes smoothly and cleanly right though the left side leg.

The first thing I'd suspect is the ignition. A mate of mine has had one of those and it's been back to them four times to sort out and it still won't run properly or anything like. The bike is now back on points and running as it should. I know of someone else who has had nothing but bother with one as well on his 349. First thing I'd do if it was mine is put the points back on without touching anything else. If the problem persists put the original carb back on with the points and take it from there.

I'm guessing you mean that when you have the bike stationary in gear, with the clutch in, it lurches when you slip the clutch out as opposed to moves off smoothly? One possibility is warped plates, another is a sticking cable, another is the slots in the basket where the friction plate 'fingers' slide are badly ridged causing the plates to stick rather than move in and out smoothly. The cable and/or the ridges are the most likely although there may be other reasons. Remove the cable and pull the inner through back and forth, if it is notchy just buy a new one. To examine the basket, you'll have to remove the clutch case. You can see the ridges without having to remove the plates. If it is ridged they can be filed smooth again after removing the plates but it takes a lot of patience.

I was thinking the same, surely if they go up and down in a manner even resembling controlled, they're not elligible for a Pre60 scrambler...

MK1 and MK2 wheels are the same externally so either can be used. Only difference is inside the hub, the MK1 has narrower brake shoes The difference is in the forks. The MK2 fork fits up against the brake plate whereas the MK1 doesn't which is why it has the spacer on that side as well. I won't be able to measure anything until the weekend but if you refit the wheel with the spacer, push the spindle fully home and pump the forks, you'll see if they are in line or not. If they move up and down freely it could be as simple as someone just manually pushing the left side fork leg inwards and clamping it there for some reason

Hard to see how the spindle is pulling the forks in as the left hand leg 'floats' on the spindle. The larger diameter section of the spindle clamps against the spacer which in turn clamps against the bearing when the spindle is tightened. It shouldn't pull the left fork leg in as the spindle should pass right through the leg. If the spacer is too short it will just pull the spindle further through the leg until it meets the spacer. Is it the correct spindle which should look like this http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ossa-Plonker-250-FRONT-WHEEL-AXLE-PIVOT-BOLT-OEM-/400831268520?hash=item5d5367c6a8&vxp=mtr

Other models had the brake on the left but for the MAR, original fitment was always on the right for all versions

It's Alan who had the new fork sliders on his stand at Telford and they can be had with different size bushes to take different diameter stanchions. Looked very nice and very reasonably priced as far as I know. Much better solution than ruining two pairs of forks just to make one. As mentioned above, you just fit your stanchions straight in.

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.