woody

Have a look here at TY Offroad website. He has built two electric start Hondas, there are pictures of both on this page. I've ridden the blue one and it performs very well. http://tyoffroad.weebly.com/restoration--modification.html

As above, looks like a normal 250 flywheel from an early bike - pretty sure it's like the one on my M49 but that's tucked away and I can't get at it. Fitting the 250 flywheel is a way of making the engine pick up quicker due to the lighter weight, so not too unusual to see a 250 flywheel on a 325 motor. The nut does look to be sticking out too far but I can't remember whether it's the same nut on the 250 and 325 engines. The 325 flywheel is deeper, so maybe the 325 nut, if different, sticks out more with the 250 flywheel. Or as someone else mentioned, there could be pack washers behind it or the flywheel isn't fully home on the shaft.

I've never seen a breakdown like that for the 247 Cota, only ever seen the listings that say 21Mxxxx is a 247 Cota. As that comes from a dealer that is a specialist in vintage Montesas, if the VMCC are happy to acknowledge that Rocky Mountain are a specialist, and there's no reason to think they wouldn't, then I think they'd be very happy to accept that listing as a basis for dating Cotas.

Christ Ross, why do you want pictures of Jim's backside... Can get you plenty of pictures of him in sections on his backside... To give him his due, old Snowy does put a nice bike together

The VMCC are very helpful and are keen if people can provide info that helps them increase their records portfolio of old bikes. If you can provide them with copies of sales brochures showing pictures of the original bike that confirms its age, then as long as the pictures of your bike matches the brochure pictures, they'll usually issue a dating certificate. Annice is the girl / lady that deals with dating certificates and she is knowledgeable on the subject of documentation to acquire age related plates. A friend of mine has obtained dating certificates from them for both and Armstrong and Montesa 330 by sourcing and providing library / brochure pictures.

You could try Sandifords, or the Vintage Motorcycle Club in Burton on Trent can do it for you - check their website for details

The certificate of newness only applies to new bikes - for a bike that is old you need evidence of its age from either the official importer, or if they no longer exist, a body that is on the DVLA approved list. For the Fantic, the importer is long gone. No doubt Bill Pye could confirm its age, but I'm not sure that Bill Pye would be on the approved list and if he isn't, DVLA won't accept his confirmation to obtain an age related plate. I think there may be a list of approved providers on the DVLA website. If Bill Pye isn't one, the Vintage Motorcycle Club in Burton-on-Trent can provide confirmation - check their website for details. You may be lucky and get away without an inspection - not all regional offices adopt the same procedures... When it's done follow some more of Gasserguy's advice - enter the Miller rounds. In the case of the Gas Gas, the importers are obviously still around, therefore they can provide proof of age of the bike.

I don't know exactly what's involved to do it, but a C15 engine will go into a Bantam frame. I've seen a few over the years and the person I bought my C15 from about 10 years ago had built one - which is why he was selling the bike I bought

There's only one possibility

I've heard, unofficially, but from someone who rides each year, that the modern mudguard brace as shown on the Ariel may also be unacceptable in Scotland next year and only the traditional stay type will be allowed. If that's true it's going to cause some people a lot of work. So if you're building a bike with the intention of entering then it would be worth checking with them before modifying whatever fork bottoms you use, as it would be a real pain to have to weld back on original stay mounts you've cut off...

You git - It's frying my brain trying to work out who you are.... especially with my memory I've one idea - I'll see if I'm right on Friday..

earlier a member said that a bike that had mismatching but close numbers could have had an engine removed because it was better and then used as a factory engine in a factory bike , this is not the case. Blame Don Morley for that one..... I always thought that was unlikely as they'd have been out of sequence for the rest of the model run, unless they skipped numbers.

From what I can remember from the 159 I had years ago, the airbox had two fixing bolts at the top which bolted to two brackets that sat between the frame tubes under the seat. As the 175 uses the same type of airbox, it's most likely the same, so worth a look to see if that's how it mounts

Funniest part of that video - If the bike had electronic ignition, I'd say he was more bothered about his ignition being wrecked rather than the guy getting his elbow socket popped by a few thousand volts... The suspension action is important but a good rider will always ride around any defficiencies as they work the bike more, a novice would benefit more as they are more static and rely more on the bike itself. The suspension action on the bike you noted could have a lot to do with the riders style and weight transfer, not just the suspension itself. I've watched someone ride a bike at a trial and the suspension seems to work well but having then tried it afterwards I've found it felt like a plank

Yes, I can fully understand that and no-one of wants to see a fellow enthusiast in any sort of trouble. But as you say, how many people have the time to deal with this legislation. Trials clubs aren't like car clubs that have huge manpower. Some clubs function on 2 or 3 people only. It just seems to me that these regulations were drafted for car or speed trials and that it is the word trials that causes the issue. Certain events gain automatic approval and from the MSA's own criteria, our events seem to fit right into examples b: and c:

I've seen them fitted using the same mount on the rear loop, but if you have the 124 model middle box, the clubfoot inlet may not mate up with the middle box outlet as there are different diameters and outlet shapes to consider. If you repack a banana silencer and also the middle box, that combination works pretty well and isn't noisy. Look at the Spanish bikes by Puma, he removes the baffles from the clubfoot and makes it straight through - which is what the banana already is...

Somehow I'm thinking not as the can of worms seems to be already open and crawling everywhere with this MSA issue. The more authorititive bodies that become involved, so the chances of objection and prohibition rise, especially if they start to take an interest in the bikes. It seems a road trial as we know it is teetering on the brink of a very deep precipice and if it topples over, it will never come back The ACU have provided an example of a format for a road trial, on their MSA page, that wouldn't require MSA authorisation. Why can't this format be adopted, or am I missing something?

I've seen leading axle forks modified to remove the leading axle bit at the bottom. Then a new piece is welded on and machined to take the spindle so that the spindle is then located directly under the fork. More machining I guess to the sliders to remove evidence of caliper anchor points etc, paint them black and they're done.

You can buy perforated tubes, no need to make them

In that case you'd need MSA approval to get from home to an event and from an event back home as in every instance you are only using the road to get to an event that is held off road. In a road trial the road doesn't form part of the competition, unlike speed trials for cars which is what is was intended for. Travel on the road is purely to travel to and from locations where the event is held, so how does that differ from getting to and from a closed circuit event - especially if you ride your bike to the event instead of transporting it (yes, this is still done sometimes) As I mentioned before, it would be interesting to see what the two clubs holding the Normandale rounds next week have done to comply, also the Vic Brittain organisers in our centre which would also have been approved

Pete, are you sure you're not over doing this? There is nothing in a motorcycle trial that is licenceable which is what I understand a temporary authorisation is required for - licenceable events for which the organisers don't hold a required licence If you need one for a road trial you'd need one for any closed circuit trial too, the type of trial would be irrelevant, surely. If you had a beer tent organised I can understand you having to apply as selling alcohol requires a licence There are two road based Normandale events next weekend which obviously have permits issued, why not give a call to the secretaries to see how they achieved it. Unfortunately these days, just because you have an answer from the police on something, it doesn't mean it is correct and they may have misunderstood what the event actually is. Ask five different officers what a bike needs to pass an MOT and you'll get five different answers...

Falcon on the back, Magical springs have worked well in my Bultaco forks. WES springs used to be ok but the last ones I bought were useless, way too soft and nothing like those in my mate's 240 Fantic which were bought years ago. We tried them in several bikes with the same result. Too soft. WES no longer exist in the UK and have been bought by someone in Spain.

Re: the ACU letter, they're are looking at ways of exempting trials from the act The act has to be open to interpretation, so let's hope they find a loophole. This legislation is utterly uneccessary for road trials where the competition itself takes place away from public roads. It could be argued that using your bike to get from group to group on a road trial isn't any different from riding your bike from home to a closed circuit event and then home again. You're only on the road to travel to the event, not to compete. Not the same thing at all as speed events conducted on public roads such as car rallies I'd wager the trials reference in the title of the act relates to vehicle speed trials that take place on public roads. Surely this act is being wrongly applied - hopefully..!!??

Again, if it was me, I'd go out on the bike and try it as it is, then remove the airbox, fit one of those foam filters with the integral hose that are used on a lot of Pre65 bikes and try the bike again That way I would have a direct back to back comparison between performance with a standard airbox against the unrestricted flow of no airbox. That way I'd see first hand if there is any difference rather than relying on subjective opinions that are going to vary considerably. Having ridden Normandale rounds for the last 20-odd years, as well as riding standard Ossas and Bultacos on the B or 50/50 route in modern trials, I can assure you that there is nothing in those events that a standard 240 Fantic in good working order won't do with its eyes shut.

The following types of events receive automatic authorisation, it need not be applied for Type B - An event on which no merit is attached to completing the event with the lowest mileage, and in which as respects such part of the event is held on the Public Highway, there are no performance tests and no route, and competitors are not timed or required to visit the same places, except that they may be required to finish at the same place by a specified time. Type C - An event in which, as respects such part of the event as is held on the Public Highway, merit attaches to a competitor’s performance only in relation to good road behavior and compliance with the Highway Code. I'm no legal expert but couldn't a trial be categorised as either of these. Type B is a single lap road trial. The 'route' is advisory only, competitors can use their own route to get from point to point if they wish, there are no checkpoints, the route isn't timed Type C is so wide open that you could say that if a competitor isn't reported for non-compliance with the highway code, they are merited with a finisher's award in the event. There has to be some scope in using either of these two for automatic approval?