woody

No idea about your stators but I used Bradford Ignition years ago, before they went to Spain (they're back now) They repaired two Ossa Motoplat stators which have worked fine since.

You don't need a stop light or reflector for MOT You don't need a speedo for MOT You can use a bulb horn due to the age of the bike - assuming it is Pre-73

Probably 15 - 20 is ideal. Not too far for the slower bikes and gives the field a chance to spread out a bit and reduce the chances of queues If that reduces options for the number of groups, if I was plotting it, I'd just ensure the better groups like Weston Wood and others with the big climbs and cambers etc. are in. The last group last year was a bit too tight and nadgery with a lot of leaning on trees and a bit of stop/hop in evidence. Getting some gas on up those slippery climbs, roots and rocks like Weston Wood is where it's at. There've been some good sections in there the last couple of years - oh yes, and as much mud as you can find...

Re: Magical fork springs. Magical don't do damper rods, only springs, spacers and fork caps. The replacement damper rods for Yamaha twinshocks are from Craig Mawlam who runs Yamaha-Majesty.com. He sold Magical products as well but the damper rods are his, not Magical.

I ended up using a standard road cam All I can remember about the sports cam and the high compression piston, it ran very hot. I can't remember how it actually performed but I went back to normal cam and low compression piston and ran it like that until I sold it.

My memory is not so bad then... My name is Dave Wood but your dad won't know me, I only saw him those few times he came over to the quarry and a couple of times when we went in the van to a trial, sitting in the back on the wheelarches... this would have been '76 and '77. Plus a few times at the shop around the same time when my mate Neil was working there as apprentice. When they had that crazy dog that chased cars down Slade Road. I actually saw more of Roy as he was a member of my club at that time, Sutton Town, in the 80s. I doubt Roy would know me by name but he might still recognise me. Last time I saw him was when he MOT'd my TYZ about 10 or 12 years ago If you're at the AMCA trial this Sunday, I'll be there on my Bultaco or Ossa MAR.

Nice job, you ought to market that.

I didn't remember it looking like that, if your dad is Norman? I remember Norman riding a Bantam in the 70s, he came over to the quarry sometimes that we used to ride in as kids which is now the golf range and Asda on Queslett road. I went to a couple of trials with them as well, as my mate at the time worked at the shop as an apprentice. I can only remember it as having an alloy tank with orange stripe across it - but it was a long time ago...

Their tubed Radial was utter rubbish. A Pirelli Corsa would have given more grip in mud.

If you have Akront rims on your bikes (like the SWM has) you'd be ok as at normal trials pressure the tubeless tyres sit ok on Akront tubed rims using a tube. No need to change to a tubeless rim to use the tyre. The DID and Takasago rims can be a problem though and I've never been able to run a tubeless tyre on them, they drop into the rim at anything less than 10psi Not sure about other makes as I've never had a bike with anything else.

It says you can't run it tubeless, you have to have a tube inside it. So you have to consider that if you're thinking of fitting a tubeless rear rim and are thinking of entering the trial. This presents a real problem if you have a puncture as you are going to have a real problem getting the tube out as you have to break the bead of a tubeless tyre to get at it. That is very very difficult to do without a bead breaker or something else to hand to do the job. Unlikely during a trial so it could end your day. It's one of the daftest and ill thought out rules - actually acheives nothing.

True, but I've had bikes fitted with a grease nipple there as well.

I'd imagine it only applies to insuring your own bike, in other words a bike that is registered to you, as this is generally a standard requirement to insure a vehicle For a definitive answer you need to speak to the insurers themselves as the answers you get on here will no doubt vary.

It's debatable whether they are any advantage these days - with modern soft linings which can be oversize, then machined down to fit the hub better, brakes are better than they were back in twinshock days I still had perfect working brakes on my Ossa yesterday at the end of the trial which included several sections in streams.

The gearbox and clutch share the same oil - 1 litre - I use Silkolene light. The gearbox drain plug under the engine is the only drain. The small screw towards the lower front of the clutch case is the level plug, not a drain. You put the oil in through the inspection cover by the kickstart

Even if you do, I don't see how it can grease the bushes. If one is fitted (there is a pre-drilled hole in the swingarm) and you pump grease in, as far as I can tell, all it will do is fill the cavity in the middle of the tube between the two bushes. How can it actually get into the bush itself? Don't you need to modify the spindle with holes / grooves so that the grease can actually get between the bush / spindle - using new bolts possibly, that are drilled and have a grease nipple in the end, the bolt also has holes drilled cross-sectionally, so that when you pump the grease in, it can escape through the holes in the bolt, through the holes in the spindle and sit in the grooves which will keep the bush face with the spindle lubricated? Or something like that anyway...

Personally, I favour the Castrol oil over Silkolene as Silkolene used to gum up the exhaust with its oily residue whereas the Castrol (now called Power 1 I think) is much cleaner. For the rings as well. I run at 50:1 but as said, it's personal choice and you'll get varied answers. I'd say anything between 40 and 60:1 is ok, most I know use 50.

I'd have thought any modern gearbox oil would do the job, such as Silkolene or other manufacturer's equivalent. 600cc As it is separate from the clutch you don't have to consider the affect of the oil on the clutch action, so whether you used say, Silkolene light, medium or heavy, I doubt there would be any difference I use Silkolebe light in mine with no issues If you still have a steel clutch, use ATF in the clutch. 300cc If you have fibre plates, you can still use ATF but not sure if light gearbox oil would be better. I still use ATF and I have Barnett plates.

No-one is going to worry about a TLS brake. There are no rules excluding them anyway, it's a drum brake and a period mod, available on a YZ from '81 I think. Nice bebuild to a nice looking bike - I sincerely hope that you're going to get it absolutely caked in crap at your Miller round. i had a ride recently on Ian Pederby's 200 Whitehawk, same model as yours I think and also has Yam mono forks. It's set up really, really well, as he's spent years sorting it. Rode superbly, a really nice bike.

Vazquez doesn't speak English The airbox is from the earlier 325 models from '76, '77. The works riders used to replace the airbox on the last red model and blue models with that airbox as they felt it provided a better airflow. I don't think they are available anywhere as a new item, you have to look for used.

Thanks Jim, there was no wear in it that I noticed. It's Philpotts that I'll be sending them to, so good news that I don't need to remove it.

The 175 came out in 1978 and is an early 1978 250 sleeved down. The early '78 250 is pretty much the same as a '76 and '77 250 and quite different from the Pre-76 250 that you had. So if you buy a 175, just boring it back out to 250 will give you a '76 - '78 spec 250 (which had a different frame from the '76 - '78 350) The 175 was done for the rental market which had a restriction on engine size in some countries. It was never really intended as a proper trials version. The 250 is much better.

Just removed the stanchions from the sliders of a black engine Beamish (last model) as they need re-chroming. I'm a bit confused at to what I've found, it's the first time I've worked on Suzuki forks. I removed the spring, tipped the stanchion up and out slid the damper rod assembly - surprisingly, there's no shuttle valve assembly like Betor or Marzocchi have, so I checked the manual on the owners club website and that's how they are. There's one thing I can't fathom though. In the bottom of the stanchion is what looks like a bush and it feels pretty solid, as though it is pressed in, picture below (not the best...) I've looked at the parts diagram again and I can't see this as an individual part. If it's part of the stanchion, that's fine, but I don't want to send them off for chroming and to then find that it is something I should have removed and is either missing or damaged. Anyone know?

It will be at Telford next week, so you can put any questions direct to Colin of TY Offroad

Make sure it is not just the weight that has worked loose, it's not uncommon. When it does and the engine is running it is a very noticeable rumble at low revs What can happen is that when the weight is fitted, the woodruff key gets pushed upwards at the back slightly which stops the weight from sliding fully home on the shaft. When the engine is run, the key may settle a bit after a while which allows the weight to move further up the shaft, enough that the nut is no longer securing it, so you get a slight rumble due to the weight moving on the shaft. Or, the nut just comes undone meaning the weight is loose. If you think it's not a loose weight, easiest way to check if it's the crank is remove the ignition flywheel and see if there is any movement on that side