woody

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...

It's not about getting involved. I was interested in the original question as, not being an engineer or mechanic, I hadn't a clue what it was about, which I'm quite happy to admit. I know absolutely nothing about balance factors. I was interested to hear others' opinions, that's all. I read your first reply and thought maybe you must know each other and were taking the pee. With your next post it became apparent you weren't. So my only purpose in commenting was to wonder why, if you have the knowledge to help, you didn't and instead preferred to seemingly belittle a person's question - a response that if your honest and objective about it, was unprovoked - unless there are issues I don't know about. Other than it being on a public form, I accept it's none of my business and won't comment any further. I have no issue with you, just confused at your response to the question as if I'm in a position to help someone, I will. The last comment in my last post was tongue in cheek, not derogatory.

Jesus H Greeves, what's gnawing at you? Jon (whom I don't know) asked what seems to me, a perfectly reasonable question in his original post. I haven't a clue what he was on about technically, but understood that all he wanted was for his bike to run as smoothly as possible. Straightforward enough. Don Morley may not know his a*** from his elbow technically for all I know and he does make a few factual gaffs in his Spanish trials bike book, but he may well have got that percentage from a factory rider from that era. Who knows? As for name dropping, you're joking, surely? As for people having trouble following the thread, read it again. Your first reply was sarcastic within its first sentence and you've carried it through ever since. You chide people about wanting to quantify themselves whilst all the time treating everything they say with a fair amount of derision, itself suggesting they're talking crap and you know better. Hypocritical !!?? You never once tried to help, you went straight down the sarcastic route. If you have an opinion on whether there is any benefit in trying what he suggested he'd like to do, or if you have a suggestion for the percentage required for smoother running, or how to do it, then why not just help the man? And if you must pick issues with people's standards, I'd suggest you spell check your last sentence...

Rear Shocks - Betors are inconsistent in their performance, you buy one set they're too soft, buy another, too hard, buy another, they may work ok. It's a lottery. The gas helps add a bit of pre-load to the springing and doesn't affect damping so if it is the damping that is too stiff, letting gas out won't have any affect, unless a previous owner has messed with them and gassed them themselves. Should be about 90psi. Leave it in. Don't check the pressure unless you have a proper screw on guague. A normal push on type will expel all the gas before you can do anything about it. I'm never sure with Betors whether they are supposed to work either way up. Check with Millers, as they are the agents and if not make sure you have them fitted the right way up. Once you know the answer to that, take the spring off and push the damper rod fully home, slowly. If the shocks are designed to work upside down, put the top mount on the bench and just push down on the body. If they work conventional way up put the bottom mount on the bench and push the rod down. Either way, you should be able to push it home easily by hand. If not, the damping is probably too stiff. If you can, then check the spring rate as there are two or three different spring rates for the Betors. You may have too hard a spring. Front forks - sounds like too much oil which will stop the fork travelling through it's full distance. Drain them and refill with the correct amount. Also check nothing is twisted and that wheel spacers are correct as if the forks ar being pulled in or pushed apart at the bottom through incorrect spacers, that will also affect their travel. 10W oil is usually a reasonable weight to go with for older forks.

Hi Martin, it was 4 years ago that I rode it, so not sure if / how it may have changed. Can't remember if they had 3 or 4 routes. Back then I rode the hardest route and it was on a comparison with the harder of the Normandales in terms of difficulty. In other words, the sections were rideable, there was nothing you looked at and thought 'no way' but they were difficult enough that it was easy to lose a lot of marks, not overly tight, but very little room for error. To get a good result you had to be on line and everything timed right. Get it wrong and it could easily be a 3 or 5. Your bike needs to be well prepared too as the hard route puts a fair bit of emphasis on clutch brake control and the motor needs to pick up quickly and cleanly to clear ledges, steps etc in the sections. The run ups can be short so acceleration needs to be clean. The approaches are enough, but shorter rather than longer and if the bike is gasping or slow to pick up, then life gets a little harder... The 200 Fantic is more than capable. I was riding my standard 340 Sherpa and it was set up for our local trials, lazy motor, soft suspension (plus poor clutch action and little in the way of brakes) I noticed the better riders were all clutch / brake, lively suspension and their motors picked up quickly (be a nightmare in our local trials) I had a go on a few Pumas afterwards - chalk and cheese... The next route down I would say is somewhere between the Miller 'A' route and the lower end of the Normandales. On a scale of 1 to 10 with Miller being 1 and Normandale 10, I'd say a range of 4 - 6. Depends on whether you'd like to get a result near the top of your class or just enjoy a challenge and not bother about the result. On the hard route, there are some very good riders, so a 'result' doesn't come into it, it's about your own personal challenge with the sections On the next route down, if you ride at the top of your game, you'd stand a chance of getting near the top of the awards. Love to do it again, and Santigosa. As ever, it all depends on work so can't make any definite plans.

Yes, that's the one. Look very neat when fitted to the bike with the dished sprocket.

I wasn't sure if the Vega was another name for the Europa to be honest as I've never seen one. I had an original 323 with the Tau engine and later I had a 240 Europa. About that time I remember a budget version of the Europa coming out called the Weekend which was red and had a rear drum instead of disc I think. I also remember the SR as Rob Sartin was riding one. But never heard of or saw a Vega at the time.

This is the Vega but the Europa was pretty much the same bike but finished in white, not red.

Yes, they're still available here for the flat sprocket conversion but there used to be one for use with the dished sprocket as well, different from that one. I think I might still have one somewhere, it was 'put away' after the dished sprockets were no longer available. If I can find it I'll post a picture but it may be long gone now.

Try Brian Griffiths Motorcycles in (or near) Hereford. He had a fair bit of JCM stock years ago. You'd need to google for the number / email etc. Joel Corry speaks good English so if you email the shop in English you should get a reply Steve Goode was also a JCM dealer so may have some old stock The Europa engine is I think pretty much the same as the GasGas aircooled motor and, I think, derived from the Bultaco, so not sure if Bultaco rings would do the job?

Or there used to be an aftermarket replacement spacer that doubled up as a 4th bearing carrier for use with the dished sprocket. Can't remember who made them, may have been Keith Horsman, who sadly died a few years ago now. Never seen a swingarm that allowed different shock positioning. They were experimenting with shock position on Evertson's works bike, moving the bottom mounts forward for more travel, but that never made it to production as the swingarm would bend / break (don't think they reinforced it at all) They settled on laid down shocks for the next bike, the MK3.