woody

No pictures but when I did mine it's apparent that the selectors will only fit one way as no two are the same fork diameter and unlike the 5 speed you can't fit any of them upside down losing two gears if you do...

I use a BP7ES with no problems

ok, misunderstood your last post, thought you'd been there. I have someone to do hubs, just wondering who the person you used is out of curiosity as he's near here

Does he live by a river?

Just curious as to who the person is in Birmingham as I've never heard of anyone here that does them

In Birmingham? Where?

Check the depth of the thread as well as sometimes bolts that are too short are put in and strip, but there is enough thread left for the correct length bolt

I think there were three prototypes before the actual MAR appeared, white with blue stripe, orange with white stripe (as in Sparks' picture) and then white with orange stripe but I could have the order wrong. The white with orange stripe was the '71 championship winning bike I think and the picture of Mick riding it on the beach was put onto a sticker to commemorate it.

Yes, I understand that, I've seen it done and was going to do one myself, just wasn't sure if you meant the stem only.

That's good news as I wanted to make the weight on my 250 a bit lighter. A phone call to my engineer friend I think...

Just the stem? Can't see how this helps as the yokes have the rake built in, or do you mean the entire yoke assembly from the Alpina / Pursang (only certain years work) They are parrallel as opposed to the anngled Sherpa yokes but the spacing of the forks is wider which means new spacers have to be made for the front wheel and I'm not sure how the Sherpa mudguard brace will cope with the extra width. I think the lock stops may present an issue too. I was going to try it not too long ago but didn't bother in the end as the hassle wasn't worth what would have probably been a minor and barely noticeable improvement

To save machining the clutch weight (it's supposed to be difficult as they are hardened but I'm no engineer, just what I've been told) you can fit the clutch weight from a 250 which is a single weight, not double. Also, you can fit a 250 ignition flywheel which is lighter than the 350. If you fit both, pick up will be very quick but the motor will stall a lot easier Just fitting the 250 ignition flywheel will quicken pick up but the 199a shouldn't be that lazy anyway. I think the electronic ignitions have more retardation at low revs than they really need, especially when built for a purpose made trials bike which had the right power delivery (well, most did) from the factory by engine/porting design. The bikes that benefit most from the revised advance curves are Pre65 4 strokes as they were never made as trials engines. 200cc is too much for the Bultaco forks, you'll lose travel through hydraulic affect, but it's up to you if you want to continue with it. Fantic forks only use that and they are over 2" longer, plus, look how short the Bultaco legs are. They are basically the same fork as the Ossa but the Ossa had longer legs and the most they take is 180cc. I mentioned why they may be topping in my previous post, and the affect of fitting different forks, all of which are longer.

200cc is a lot of oil for Sherpa forks, and with 20 weight it could make them very hard with limited travel, which may be the reason you're having trouble. I'm using 180cc absolute max, generally 7.5 or 10 weight and I weigh 110+kg or around 17.5 stones in old money. Put new springs in, there's a choice of In Motion's own springs, Magicals or HFS. The latter two are a more modern, progressive action, I have Magicals, a mate has HFS, both work well (this is the HFS clubman kit which doesn't have the cartridge insert. I tried one of those and nearly threw it over the wall in frustration at trying to set the pressure. Springs are all you need) The bush at the top of the damper rod has a fibre seal around it. If this has gone hard or worn it will let oil past which reduces damping effect as instead of being forced through the damper rod holes it just flows past the bush. If they are worn, replacing them will make a difference to fork action and allow thinner oil. I doubt you can buy them new, you can make new seals from PTFE card. Sherpa forks aren't quite as good as Marzocchis and although they seem identical inside to me, not quite as good as Ossa forks either, but they are more than capable of doing the job. Looking to swap to other forks is wasting your money, it's not going to make a significant difference from properly working Sherpa forks. Other forks are also longer by about 2" so you can't fit them in the Sherpa top yoke unless you lap out the shoulder inside, otherwise you need yokes too. Also be prepared to have the new legs sticking out of the top yoke by about 2" because if you don't their longer length will give you something that looks more at home in Easy Rider. The 199a is more than capable of handling today's classic trials, there's no need to start cutting the head angle or top yoke. Yes they offer an improvement if done properly, but not really necessary, it's still down to the rider holding the bars.

Life is full of injustice unfortunately, those with money are able to influence what shouldn't be influenced The loathsome Bernie Ecclestone - wipes out his charges of bribery and walks free courtesy of a nice large payment. The man he bribed was sentenced for accepting the bribe that Ecclestone orchestrated and paid.

Even when they've obviously fived the section and the crowd are still urging them on? - yes I do think it makes a difference.

Why not? All the WTC foreign regulars used to ride it years ago and some won it. Why any different now? As for no-stop rules being impossible to observe - total rubbish. There was just as much controversy, variance and incorrect observing when the rules were stop allowed but no reversing. Riders rocking back and forward when stuck, rolling backwards, and blatantly maneouvering the bike backwards against the run of the section by hopping front and back wheels sideways but in a backwards direction, were regular occurrences that went unpenalised Whether no-stop is the right decision for WTC is a different argument but don't blame the rule for poor observing decisions. They were there under stop allowed too. And people in the crowd are just as much to blame, putting observers under terrible pressure by hooting, screaming, sounding air horns and applauding riders when it's obvious they have incurred a 5. The rider presents their punch card to the observer with applause and airhorns going off - what would most people do?

Assuming they are the original spokes / nipples, as far as I know the original nipples are no longer available. So even if you managed to remove the old nipples, the spokes can't be re-used as new nipples are manufactured with a different thread, so won't fit. You need to check this first obviously, but if still the case you may as well just cut through the spokes as a complete set of spokes / nipples will be required

Did the Dellorto come ready jetted and if so from where? Have you got the needle, slide and jet sizes, as it would be interesting to compare them to those in the Dellorto on my 340

The last model 349 is completely different from the previous white model and is way better than a TY250, there's no comparison. Great motor, nice handling / geometry with quick steering. The front can be lifted and pivoted on the throttle, doesn't feel heavy. The only issue, as with all Monts, is the clutch which can be snatchy but the motor will pull from nothing, has so much torque and is so strong you rarely need to touch it. The chassis needs no mods at all. Much stronger motor than the 330 which was a bit of a let down. They're a very good and under rated bike, people still think of the white model when talking about the 349. The last model was called the 349/4 (red tank, grey mudguards) then they called it the Cota 350 (red tank, red mudguards) then it became the MH349. All three are the same bike apart from some differences to the forks I think. With Southwest Montesa, I'd guess you should be able to get parts for it in the USA

Sorry, can't help with steepening head angles, I wouldn't have a clue how much to do it by. However, having ridden a mate's black frame 280 recently I thought what a nice bike it was and wonder whether the small gain you'd get from altering the steering is worth all the effort. If I owned that black frame bike I definitely wouldn't bother, it didn't feel as though it needed it when riding.

No, sorry, don't know any figures but the head angle is very similar to modern bikes. Footrest position is personal taste really depending how tall you are, I'd say there was nothing wrong with it for average height riders. I lowered the pegs on mine a bit but didn't move them back

The difference between the Jumbo type frame (350 or 240 version as the frame is the same) and the previous blue frame is quite noticeable when riding, even just standing on the bike. It's much tighter on the Jumbo and the steering is much quicker. As mentioned above, it's lighter on the front and more maneouverable. The SWM with the Jumbo frame is a very capable bike.

The additional bonus with that bike is that it should also hold its value. Nice find Make sure you turn the forks around though - they're in back to front......

To put the subject into its original perspective , as I've since spoken to the owner of the bike mentioned in my earlier comment. The original poster asked for opinions on converting a mono to t/s. My reply pointed out that many people don't like the idea and although not everyone says so outright, that's the way it is, with a lot of background chuntering whenever one appears. On the flip side there are those that don't have a problem with it, as don't some organisers. The purpose of mentioning what happened at the weekend was to highlight what could happen. Look at the picture of John B's lad a bit further back in this topic, all smiles after an enjoyable day riding his bike. Imagine the same scenario after a day riding the converted Fantic. All happy, then you get wind of someone complaining about the bike, especially if he's had a decent result. Maybe they lodge a protest and the organisers decide to uphold it and he's excluded from the results How's the lad going to feel if that happens, he's not going to understand at his age. Day ruined and left wondering whether to ride the bike again. Now back to what happened at the weekend twinshock event. I was under the impression that the bike had been moved to the mono class because it was deemed a converted mono. The owner has spoken to me and is pee'd off and has told me that wasn't the case, it was moved because of the 38mm forks due to a misunderstanding, the bike isn't a converted mono. From my own perspective, the purpose of my mentioning a bike being excluded was purely as an example of what could happen with the Fantic which would be upsetting for a young lad. Nothing more and not to bring a debate about concerning individual's bikes.

Anti-christ.... - don't be such a drama queen. I assume you see nothing wrong with the concept, so why not an early GasGas Contact, Beta Zero, or why not a GasGas Raga. What's the difference? I'm hardly in a minority of one with my view on converted monos. In the end it's up to people to do what they want and organisers to say whether they accept them or not. In this case they didn't as the intention of their series is to encourage riders to bring out their 70s and 80s twinshocks. It's what they want to see people riding in their events. The bike that was excluded also had modern forks and a bottom end motor that looks more like a later water cooled version than the aircooled one. It wasn't just the fact they deemed it to be a converted mono that resulted in it not being accepted.