woody

I'd have said with that background you'd be fine with the Normandales. They aren't as difficult as a British Championship or Centre championship from the late twinshock era. Up until now, I've always ridden the twinshock class, so that's been the harder route. Pre65 and over 50 riders on modern bikes rode easier routes through some sections when a section was marked out with 2 routes. Because of the class changes this year, I don't know if the hard route will now be made harder, or whether the trials will stay the same as they always have been. I've seen no information on what the purpose of the class changes is. I only rode a couple of rounds last year for various reasons, so I don't know if there was some sort of discontent with the trials themselves. I haven't heard anything other than some murmurs of discontent about how some bikes are being modified. I'm going to enter the hard route for the first event, see how it goes and take it from there. If they're just going to tighten evreything up needing clutch / brake everywhere, which will encourage stop/hop riding on the 'more capable' bikes, which will inevitably go unpenalised, then that will be the end of it for me. I can buy a GasGas if I want to ride trials like that. I don't.

Both have roadwork Both have classes for twinshocks Miller series is on about the same level of severity as an average classic club trial Normandales are a step up from Miller in level of difficulty but can vary from event to event. The easiest is harder than the hardest Miller round. Normandales have a class change this year and the twinshock class has been moved from the harder to the easier of two routes, where two routes are used. Some trials may only be one route, but most now have a percentage of sections with two routes. The easy route is still harder than the Miller series. Normandale still has a twinshock class on the harder route but it is a class for twinshocks AND air-cooled monos now. I can only assume this has happened because of the more radically modified twinshocks that are appearing (not many but a sign of things to come?) and air-cooled monos being fitted with twinshocks. If riders are looking to win a championship, they will enter the hard route. If they are doing it on a bike that no longer resembles the original twinshocker or it is modified mono, maybe the ACU have decided to lump them all in one class with monos..?? An attempt to discourage it or just coincidence. Who knows. Of course, this doesn't stop someone entering the twinshock class on the easier route on a similarly modified bike, but I guess the thinking may be that they are less likely to bother going to the trouble and expense of making such modifications and just use a standard twinshock. Or maybe there was no such thinking at all. Who knows. I only know about the class changes because they are on the entry form for the first round. I've seen nothing on the ACU website about it. Doesn't mean it isn't on there but I haven't seen it. There are moves to organise and run some twinshock only trials this year, in different locations. These are seperate from the above two series. A sort of pilot to assess interest with the intention of running a series next year, no roadwork. Discussions are ongoing, logistics etc. whether there would be any interest, a set of sensible rules needs to be drafted, with the intention of 'discouraging' radically altered machines. It would be nice to see a series again like the old Sebac / Falcon series of the early 90s before it got screwed by making it one route. Entries of over 100 at virtually every round and a nice variety of pre65 and twinshock bikes. I used to enjoy that series, happy days.

Look forward to seeing the Italjet out. Someone rides one in the Perce Simon Miller round every year, a nice one too. Be good to see another one. I didn't know anything about the class changes to the Normandales until I got the regs for the Phil King. There's a twinshock class on both the hard and easy route now although on the hard route, the twinshocks and air-cooled monos are in the same class.

I think it is a factory 250 engine.

Normal circumstances ?? I've lost track of what they are these days I think conversations go along the lines of " I want to ride twinshock trials, so I'm going to buy an air-cooled mono and stick 2 shocks on it, or I'm going to buy a twinshock and then modify it to such an extent that it bears no resemblance to the bike it started out as". Because, " I need a highly modified twinshock because modern classic trials are so difficult that a standard twinshock can't clean the sections" Of the latter, someone point me in the direction of the classic trial that has sections as hard as the '70s Superstars trial that has been posted on here, or a typical early 80s British championship round. Anyway Dabster - when are you going to notice the hydraulic clutch on that SWM..

And the Scorpa gear lever... I thought the engine in that bike was one of the factory six speed versions, not a 175/200.

Late 70s, early 80s

Yes, forgot to mention it's a powerjet but I've no idea what it's supposed to mean or how it works. I just ordered it and I'll play it by ear when I fit it. Not sure if the jetting will be different. The spare jet they mention they'll supply seems bigger than the usual 112 that other OKOs I've had come with. The OKO carbs I have, some have an inlet banjo (ie: fitting to take a pipe the same size diameter as the overflow pipes or the powerjet pipe) in the top of the inlet stub of the carb. No idea what this is supposed to do or be connected to, I blank it off. If you don't it will just suck air in. Others I've had don't have this. They all seem to work the same..? The Armstrong airfilter and hose is one assembly but you can't get them anymore. Because I fitted a non-standard airbox I didn't bother to find out what they use instead now - or more likely I've forgotten.... Bostit will know but not sure how often he's on here. I'll send him a text and ask him to reply.

I agree, emptying the tank is the best option - I just forget... I may learn the hard way one day...

I've just bought an OKO off ebay for a Bultaco from a seller called extremeimport who is in Peterborough. Should have it by Tuesday next week, postage was free, cost was £59. The OKO I fitted on my 320 performed pretty well out of the box, as they seem to on all bikes I've tried them on. In general, only slight changes to pilot or main jet have been needed and maybe moving the needle. I've never fitted a different needle or needle jet. I've got one on my 310 Ossa and 340 Sherpa and both run very well (26mm and 28mm respectively) I no longer have the jet sizes I used on the Armstrong unfortunately, I can only guess at 118 main (normally they come with 112 as standard) and something like a 40 pilot. The jets are quite cheap for a box of 12, so worth buying a range of pilot and mains. I'm not convinced that there is any worthwhile performance difference between the various carbs. I think when people fit an OKO and feel a difference, it's more likely that they feel the difference between a new carb and an old worn out original and the same difference would be apparent with a correctly jetted, new Dellorto, Mikuni or Amal. My other 340 Sherpa has a Dellorto fitted and it runs every bit as well as the OKO bike. When I had Armstrongs new, they ran absolutely fine on the Amals which were obviously new as well. I can honestly say that there was no noticeable difference between how the 320 I recently rebuilt with the OKO ran and how I remember my old 320 with the Amal. I thought about buying another Amal as there would be no problem jetting it. The only thing that stopped me putting a new Amal on the rebuild was the price of £140 plus which is a lot more than an OKO and a fair bit more than a Dellorto - and the fact that I had an OKO already. Taking the above into account, if you're prepared to play with the jetting, the cost of the OKO makes it the more favourable option for a new carb. Edit: - forgot to mention that Bostit has an OKO on his 320 with a standard airbox. I can't help with knowledge of the fit of the OKO with standard airbox as I had the alloy one made to use a different filter and hose.

The shaft just pulls out, there's no need to undo anything. The spring fits to the selector plate that is part of the shaft. The three screws hold the selector mechanism in place, you don't need to touch this to replace the spring. The manual that covers all 5 speed models will be good enough, even if it is based upon an earlier model. There were some changes to internal components but this was to things like gearbox bearing sizes, selector fork design, crank design, number of main bearings (some had one, some had two on the clutch side) The fundamental design of all of them is the same, so the manual is good enough to serve any of the 5 speed motors. The one obvious thing you'll notice is that on the earlier bikes the gear selector shaft is very short and locates in a blind hole in the clutch side crankcase. On the later bikes the shaft runs the full width of the engine and allows a gear lever to be fitted on either side of the engine. Whichever, the spring location is the same and the method of removing the shaft is the same - just pull it out.

Not a very good picture but the only one I have of Kato's works Yam (or rather, one of them)

He did the original build yes and he took some stick on that first trial when, in all its bling and glory, it wouldn't start... sorry mate, if you read this..

Our local dealer had them at the time and I had a ride on one. Forks were very notchy and stiff, we think it was caused by the mudguard brace pulling them out of line. Rear shocks not even average. Motor gasped at bottom end, just where you need it to pull cleanly. I remember Jon Bliss riding one in the Sebac series for a while. He converted it to reed valve and sorted all the problems out and it seemed to go reasonably well, but in standard form, at that time, as a budget entry trials bike, you'd have been far better off with a used mono Yam which would have comprehensively slaughtered the RTX in performance in all areas.

Why the original Bantam was done like that I don't know, as you say, probably just an engineering exercise as Rob Homer is a quite a handy fabricator etc. and it was his own bike I think. The coil on the SWM was still up under the 'tank' and yes, very difficult to get at, evidenced in it's first trial when it wouldn't start which was caused by the lead hanging out of it. Getting it back on was not easy... A conventional tank would have made it a lot easier to deal with. The bike has changed a bit since then, Aprilia watercooled engine with aircooled top end, longer swingarm.

Yes, Rob Homer was asked to do it in the same manner he'd made a Bantam frame where the tank was part of the frame

Basically Russian yes, and not very good out of the crate as a trials bike. Wrong back mudguard and Yam MX seat plus TY decals on tank

No problem, glad to help, there are plenty of people on here that can help with Bultaco questions. Sounds like a good buy, glad it was at least what it was supposed to be.

I'm guessing you have a copy of the old green hand written logbook, not a V5? The problem is that the number was most likely never recorded at DVLA when registration number recording changed from paper records to computerised in mid / late 70s. This was done automatically when the vehicle was next taxed but if it wasn't taxed the registration number wasn't recorded on the computer. Owners were given to about 1982 to apply for a V5 for vehicles that were 'off the road' and if they didn't, the reg number was effectively lost. So even though you have logbook with all the vehicle details, DVLA have no record of the number, so won't issue you with a V5. Vintage Motorcycle Club in Burton on Trent can help you with this. Speak to Annice in the Library section http://www.vmcc.net/ They are on the DVLA approved list of clubs that can verify the age of vehicles. If they don't have information on Montesa chassis numbers, if you can show them a website from a Montesa specialist that does, such as Southwest Montesa, they will use that as verification of the details and also add it to their own library of information. Take photos of the chassis number and engine number (latter not really that critical) as well as full side on photos of the bike as VMCC will probably want to see them. If you can find sales brochure pictures from the period, use those also. If you speak to Annice she will advise exactly what you need to do. They'll charge for the service but it isn't much At worst, if you can't reclaim the original number, you can apply for a new registration on an age related plate.

First thing to be sure of is that it is what is says it is - a 1978 model. I've seen plenty of Sherpas advertised incorrectly, some of which are years away from their correct age, fitted with earlier / later components, wrong tank etc. Also, carrying a registration number of a particular year doesn't mean that's the model year. A bike could have been registered late ( I have an Ossa that is T reg which is actually a '75 model) The only true way to date the chassis / engine is by the number. A 1978 model should have a frame / engine number whose first 3 digits is 199 (there will be a letter prefix to this) The engine / frame number would have matched from new but it's not the end of the world if it doesn't. Anything could have happened in the 30 odd year life of the bike, replacement engine etc. However, you'd still want the engine to be from the correct model range, therefore it should begin 199. At the end of '78 the next model was introduced. The first 3 numbers were still 199 but the number now ended with an 'A' suffix to both engine and frame So a '78 bike could be either of these. The first model 199 was red tank, side panels and mudguards with a silver frame. The second, with the 'A' suffix was blue frame, guards, tank and side panels. The A model also had the frame tubes under the engine removed and replaced with an alloy bash plate. In 30 odd years though, someone could have changed the colours and quite often, the blue frame of the A is painted white to make it look like the last model Sherpa that Bultaco produced in '81 - another 199 but this time with a suffix of B If the frame or engine number begins 198 it is a 250 not a 350. The 350 is actually 325cc although you can get them out to 350cc with oversize pistons. Other than that, advice is as per above and the usual things to look for on old dirt bikes. The bonus of a Bultaco is that they are very well supported for spares by Bultaco UK and that just about anything is available, although engine rebuilds can be a bit pricey now due to 350 pistons being upwards of about £170. If the chrome has come off the brake hubs, relining is necessary which is about £40 per hub but this means stripping and rebuilding the wheels to get it done. What's the asking price? Model 199 Model 199A

Thanks Matt, I just don't remember them at all

No different from actually riding it in terms of the law. You need to be fully legal to be in charge of it, which includes pushing it.

Funnily enough, so did I... although Robinsons who I bought it off were complete arseholes when it came to having it back for a Yam. They re-wrote the book of excuses when it came to giving me reasons why the Yam wasn't available at the time. Got a better deal elsewhere luckily.

So which came first, the Vega or Europa? I had the 323 as a new bike in '86, can't remember the Vega at all as the next JCM I saw was the Europa and the SR was out around the same time.

Well how about that. Only the other day I mentioned on another thread, watching Norman Hanks ride his Bantam trials when I had just started riding trials bikes in our local quarry. Then I read that it's going to be on display at Telford... If it's the same bike, which I'm sure it must be, I remember it as being a chrome and alloy finish, alloy tank with orange stripe. The frame, if I remember correctly again, but it's been 40 years, had a larger than normal diameter tube running from the headstock to the seat and down to the swingarm pivot. Maybe that's the big beam reference? Looking forward to seeing it again, some very fond memories of bike time in that old quarry. I see they'll also have on display the genuine article of Rossi's championship winning 2001 Aprilia 125 - except he won the 500 title that year on a Honda...