woody

Thanks Tim, that's the way I was summising. I'd had the magnifying glass on it and tried to suss it from the wear marks but that is a bit outside my technical savvy

Stripped a 198b engine tonight and like a clumsy pratt, caught my foot and let the gearbox that I'd removed complete, roll out of my hand onto the bench. Managed to keep it together, mostly, but the 4th gear, the last small cog on the clutch side of the layshaft, rolled off and onto the floor. So, refititng it presents the problem of which way around, as my useless memory can't remember from previous engine strips. It has a flat face on one side and a small boss on the other. Checked the Bultaco manual, Haynes and Clymer and typically, pictures of the cog show it fitted either way around, depending on which book you look at. Anyone know for sure which way around this cog goes - boss facing outwards towards clutch or inwards to the next gear? I think outwards from what I can remember of other 5-speed rebuilds I've done.

You should find a picture of it here http://www.ataq.qc.ca/galerie/index.php?folder=/Mus%E9e/Montesa/

HaHa - I know what you mean - if ever you find the secret to one of those, let me know...

Well, I think your first problem is that you have to pre-enter and the closing date has passed. Give the secretary a ring and see if they are still taking entries. They may do on the basis that you don't score championship points. Obviously, not a big deal for you as all you want to do is ride in the event. The trial itself is like any other road trial, doesn't make any difference that it is a classic event. Same principles apply. You pay for RTA cover if your own insurance policy doesn't cover you. You'll be given a route card with directions for the road work to the various groups of sections. There are also markers along the route for turn right, left and straight on. Pay attention and don't blindly follow the rider in front who may well be going the wrong way. It happens every event. The trial is usually single lap so you only ride the sections once. You'll either be given a punchcard or the observers will use boards for marking. You'll be given a finish time but it isn't a speed event and you'll have plenty of time to get around, it's only to stop riders hanging around all day waiting for sections to improve if they think they will. If it looks like raining, being first through is better at this trial. That's about the basics of it in a nutshell, but I'd give the secretary a ring asap to check whether you can get an entry. They don't take entries on the day/at the start as a rule, so best check.

Rear sprockets come in two sizes, 46 which was fitted to MK1 and 42 which was fitted to MK2 onwards. MK1 MAR is listed as having 46 / 12 but I'm pretty sure that would be quite high. I've never used a 12 tooth front sprocket. I always used to run 42 / 10 on my MK2 as I prefer low gearing using the smaller rear sprocket but you can have problems with the chain riding over the boss on a 10 tooth sprocket, so 11 is better. 42 / 11 gives higher but perfectly useable gearing in sections and you can use bottom for virtually everything with that. 46 / 11 is not far off the 42 / 10 combination for a lower option. If you don't mind the bigger of the rear sprockets, you could go for 46 / 11 as a lower option. Ultimately it's personal choice, but either of 42 / 11 or 46 / 11 will work ok.

I don't know John, do you really think it would? Surely the same problems would exist around interpretation - also, isn't a Villiers pre-unit, or does it just mean 4-stroke pre-units. Anyway, a bit drastic and unecessary in my view... As a serious point of discussion, I wonder just what the various clubs really seek to achieve, or think they are achieving, with the eligibility rules. It's long been accepted that the bikes are modified and in reality, there is no such thing as a cheat bike any more. Back in the early days of the Sebac and Miller rounds, or even the Scottish Pre65, a few riders were having their bikes modified 'under the skin' to improve performance and at that time it was all hush hush, nothing was admitted. Lots of secrecy and lots of gossip as to who had done what. It was cheating as it was undeclared and gave a distinct performance advantage over those on standard bikes. I remember seeing the Pre65 class bikes turn from unwieldy lumps of iron that bounced through sections like kangaroos on steroids, into lightweight, beautifully crafted machines that now out perform most twinshocks. Isn't it ironic that the Pre65 cut-off was to exclude the early Bultaco which is now hopelessly out-performed by the very bikes (modern variants of course) whose extinction it caused.......? Yet it's too modern to compete against them... As the years rolled on it just became accepted that bikes were going to be modified and the 'silhouette' rule was applied. As long as the bike looked 'period', internal mods were accepted. But this is where it all got subjective as to what exactly is 'period'. You now have the situation whereby any component can be reproduced as long as it is of Pre65 design. But, even if all the parts meet that criteria, the sum of those parts, the complete bike, looks nothing like the 60s original, therefore it's not as though you have 60s looking bikes ascending pipeline in front of scores of appreciative spectators. So why the obsession with components when the bike itself looks more modern than the last twinshocks? Do those spectators really care about that? Do they care if that bike has a Grimeca wheel, or that bike has Montesa or Ossa yokes, or that Cub doesn't have a swan neck frame? Does it really matter if the shock mounts on that BSA differ from original, or that the shocks have been repositioned, or that the rear mudguard loop has been cut-off? Do they look, do they even notice? Would it really detract from the spectacle? So, you have to ask, is there any point to it? To my mind, the development has gone about as far as it can go on non-rigid bikes. What more can be done? Would it be more pragmatic to just say, no hydraulic brakes and clutches, no disc brakes, no reed valves on two strokes, but allow the use of old components from twinshocks or post 65 British bikes such as Spanish or Jap hubs or wheels, Triumph 4 bolt forks. Allow Spanish or Jap forks with the spindle directly under the fork, allow Spanish or Jap yokes. Would this really detract from the spectacle, would it have any sort of detrimental appearance on the bikes themselves, bearing in mind they look nothing like original even when they meet current rules? If you're honest about it, you'd have to say no it wouldn't. It doesn't in other events where no scrutineering takes place and no-one complains about components. So, are clubs just trying to implement rules for the sake of it, out of habit and because they feel that it is what should be done? Is that working? I'd have to say yes and no to those two questions. Maybe it's time to sit back and take a pragmatic view and think about what the objective of the regulations are and whether they achieve that objective. Maybe it's time to relax the rules a little and accept parts that are not accepted at the moment. Look at the following comparisons: A Gremica hub with fins removed looks like a Rickman. Therefore it meets 'Pre65 design' appearance but isn't allowed. You'd be pushed to tell them apart on a bike. Montesa yokes resemble the allowed billet yokes. Montesa aren't allowed. Ossa fork legs resemble Norton or AJS/Matchless. Ossa not allowed Bultaco front hub with fins removed resembles a Rickman. Bultaco not allowed Bultaco rear hub with fins removed is similar to modern billet hub. Bultaco not allowed. Personally, I see no sense in the above. Is it just me that has that view or is there sense in it?

Frame is black on the Ulf Karlson replca, see here http://www.ataq.qc.ca/galerie/showimg.php?file=/Mus%E9e/Montesa/montesa1977cota247karlson.jpg Exhaust should be in three pieces, front pipe plus middle and rear silencers. The silencers are available from In Motion, see here http://www.inmotiontrials.com/ Decals available here http://www.classicbikedecals.com/montesa-247-ulf-karlson-replica-set/ The red is an red-orange more than pure red, depends how fussy you are or how obsessed with originality... A decent match is Ford Sunburst red, as used on the Ford Escorts from early 70s. The front wheel fitting could just be a mistake but some people do reverse the fitting to get a better front brake, theory being that years of use wears the drum in a particular way and if the wheel is turned around, the shoes get a better bite now that they are acting in reverse. I've no idea if there is any truth in it. I remember someone telling me it did because a front brake always works better when the bike is rolling backwards, but I always put that down to the fact that it was barely moving when rolling backwards and there was no loading on the front wheel... The 247 is a nice bike, good luck with the rebuild.

ok, now the hysteria has died down, I'll have another go. Firstly though, I find it unacceptable that there is a view that this trial is above reproach. It's a public event and no matter how much time and effort go into it, people are entitled to an opinion. Far more time and effort go into organising F1 and Motogp - there is plenty of opinion on those that passes without objection. I'll go back to the originator of this topic, Cubette, whose comments were the context of my original comment and not the trial itself. Firstly, I find it disappointing that someone can indiscriminately come onto a forum and publicly call for fellow competitors (assuming he competes) to be banned from an event. Secondly, he accuses them of disrespecting the clubs rules by "blatantly abusing the Eligibility Ruling". Now, unless he is the person that excluded them or was at the event to see exactly why they were excluded, does he know the specifics of their infringements to make that statement. Given the vagaries of some of the criteria, did they know what they'd done? (Not saying they didn't, I don't know) He was asked to state what these infringements were and so far, nothing, so to call for riders who have possibly been caught unaware to be banned from an event without knowing the details is over zealous at best, spiteful at worst. He went on to say "after all, the 175 other riders have taken the time to make sure there machines have been compliant. If nothing else as I stated in my opening post , exclusion from next years event would discourage riders from blatantly abusing the Eligibility Ruling in the future". This is what I take exception to as clearly, there are riders in that other 175 that DID NOT do that and the fact that their bikes were allowed to compete shows that 1) his statement is wrong and 2) the rules are not enforced consistently. They were accepted from the photographs with the entry and they were accepted through scrutineering at the trial when the frame and subframe DON'T resemble the Pre65 original design. There is no room for interpretation there either, they don't. People who then come on here stating the rules are clear and what's all the fuss about is what then fires the debate. It's not the rules themselves, it's people disputing that they are applied inconsistently. This is why it crops up year after year. Hence my first response was to take his comment to task and say that he had a very simplistic view of the rules. The rules have anomalies so big you can drive trucks through the gaps and the interpretation of what "Pre65 design" means is subjective at best. I've ridden classic events since the late 80s, have seen the evolution of the Pre65 bikes from that period on, been in Scotland on a good number of occasions and seen first hand the bikes that have competed. My comments are based upon that experience, from knowing and talking with riders over 3 decades at trials up and down the country. Regardless of what you may think, there are a lot fed up with the interpretation of Pre65 rules and what is or isn't acceptable. Not everyone bothers to voice it on an internet forum. And few will go 'public' because they don't want to jeopordise their chances of getting an entry. Like it or not, that's how it is. Today I had a very enjoyable day riding the Classic Experts. No scrutineering, no bikes that raised eyebrows, no checking whether Cubs had swan necks or not and most importantly, no complaints from any rider about another rider's bike. Just everyone enjoying riding their modified bikes and no-one giving a toss that the BSA over there has a Grimeca front hub in it or that the one over there has Montesa yokes on it.

Hi Paul - as above, definitely not wound up about it as it doesn't affect me, but as a point of principle, I just don't agree when people say there is no problem when clearly, bikes are in that shouldn't be - it's as simple as that, the situation is mis-represented on here. The people commenting are either ignoring the truth or they genuinely haven't noticed. I'm just saying how it is. Anyway, as I said there is no way I'm naming any as it will achieve nothing positive for me and I've no gripe with any bike or rider. But I've a right to comment generally when I read comments that aren't 100% correct. As for the number complaining, it depends who to and in what environment. There's an old adage that applies to many walks of life that says if you want to be part of the in-crowd, keep quiet, play their game and you'll be accepted - a reason some people stay publicly quiet perhaps

HaHa, I know it probably seems like that but that's the problem with the written word as opposed to conversation, the context it's meant in isn't obvious. It's definitely not something I get wound up over. Life's too short and there are too many Bultacos in the shed requiring attention...

seperate issue - rule interpretation. Take the Cub Triumph Tiger Cub machines must be fitted with a frame which has tube construction and “swan neck” steering head. In 1964 you could put a Cub engine in a Bantam frame or a Victor style BSA frame if you so wanted. The Faber frame resembles both of these BSA frames in design, none are swan neck but of Pre65 design. So why do you have to have a swan neck frame on your Cub when it can be deemed as Pre65 appearance without it ? - ''Pre65 Design only'' How would you rule on that?

What niggles with people is the inconsistency of certain aspects being allowed, overlooked, missed or whatever on some bikes but ruled as unacceptable on another. As I said above, there were more than 5 bikes that didn't comply but only 5 ruled out of the trial. Why? This is just disregarded as though it doesn't happen. There are bikes where the subframe or frame clearly don't comply but for whatever reason are allowed or unoticed. There's no way I'm giving examples as I have no issue with them and have no wish to cause any riders problems - so don't ask for examples. My view is I don't care who is or isn't in, which bikes and components are or aren't acceptable, I've no interest in it, but I can't accept it when people are saying there are no issues and that the process is as simple as it appears when bikes that clearly shouldn't be in the event by the literal interpretation of the rules, clearly are. To refute this is ridiculous and that's what I can't accept - the rules I couldn't care less about as I don't enter.

New tubeless 36 hole rims are now very difficult, if not impossible to find and if you do, the last price was over £200 Other option is a used one but condition is obviously an issue and they can corrode on the inside, particularly if they've been used with a tube and water has sat inside the rim for a while. Never tried an X-lite and never likely to with their price but the X11 and IRC tubeless usually have no problems sitting in a tubed Akront rim even without the mods, so maybe the X-lite is different in some way. As mentioned above, the mod people usually do if necessary is to modify the bead of a tubeless to mirror a tubed tyre (must admit, I can't tell the difference....) The mod to the rim sounds beyond my skills with an angle grinder too...

Yes, good point as I forgot to mention the carb on my Ossa is 24 or 25mm, not sure which but it works fine, it doesn't need to be 26mm (original Amal was 27mm)

Can't tell you exactly what it's off but looks the same as the type I have on my Ossa and they were generally of some Jap bike from the early 70's, usually Yam or Suzuki road bikes, I think Suzuki TS trail bikes used them as well. Vale Onslow is still there and in the same place although you can barely see it under all the scaffolding - it's crumbling slowly but surely and needs a bit of support to stay up now. The two brothers run it, Peter and Len (who was in the same class as my dad in school) Len's pushing 80 but his knowledge of the older bikes from memory is amazing. For the cost of the part I'd just order one from Allens as I'd gamble the part from a later carb would fit and it's probably cheap enough for the risk. With Onslow's, you'd have to take the carb in, I don't think you'll have any success getting an answer over the phone, given the unknown origin of the carb.

Monty - there were more than 5 bikes that didn't comply but only 5 were excluded That's generally what the fuss is about.

If it is a bolt on carb to go straight onto the original manifold it is probably from an old Yam or Suzuki road bike as they were popular conversions back in the 70s Allens may be able to sort one for you, I don't know if the thread size or shape of the screws differs on the later carbs. If you're ever over Birmingham way you coould do worse than to take the carb into Vale Onslow and see if they can help. They have absolutely masses of spares for British and 70s Jap bikes. Waste of time phoning though, you'd have to take the carb if you don't know what it's come from. If you have an adaptor fitted to take a push fit carb with rubber hose fitting, it could be from an RD Yam Or it could be a much newer carb and it should have an ID number cast into it. They're usually the VM round slide carbs which Allens should be able to sort out. Put a picture on here, someone may recognise it - or if you can't email one to me and I'll put it on

No, I know that used to be the mod to the clutch but the Barnett plates are modern material, will put up with real abuse, no slip, no drag and they don't stick if the bike is left for a few months. With the extra bite they give I can run less tension on the springs and the clutch is one finger light - not that I use it much generally, but the bike with a bit of porting needs a bit more clutch than a standard engine. Miller trial last week, 30 sections and didn't use the clutch in one of them on the old M92....

Do you mean a dealer or someone you know might have one. It's a new one I need not a used one and I'm going to need more than one. Barnett clutch plates because I just prefer them

Thanks for the tip - sounds as though they may be a bit more helpful than Venhill.

Anyone know if the original style rear brake cable that had a bend in it where it located into the swingarm is available from anywhere I know Hugh's Bultaco have a pattern with a bend in it but they are a last resort due to the import duty. I've only just been stung for some Barnett clutch plates from the US A far as I know only Venhill are available here but their cable doesn't have the bend and flexes far too much to get a decent pull on the brake arm. They refuse point blank to make me one to special order even though I can give them a pattern... really helpful, thanks a lot. The one I'm after is like this

It's a 1974/5 250 with an M80 engine fitted. The frame numbers began 150 for 250 and 151 for 325. It's the model shown on the front cover of the Haynes manual. The HB doesn't stand for Hi-Boy, it's Bultaco's own prefix and used to change from model to model, JB, RB etc. The 150 model's fibreglass tank unit was replaced in the UK with the Homerlite tank, so the tank unit on your bike is correct for that frame. I think all SM frame numbers were prefixed SM and weren't as long as standard Bultaco frame numbers. They all had a bashplate instead of frame tubes.

Or, I've found that if I use low ethanol fuel such as Shell V Power, it doesn't affect the tank. My M92 Sherpa has the original tank and it has no ethanol damage and it isn't sealed. Similarly, when I had my M49 it wasn't sealed and had no ethanol damage. Neither did the fibreglass tank I had on my Majesty. The M92 tank has age related wear and there were a couple of splits in the tank where fuel was leaking but these have been temporarily repaired with araldite until the tank is properly repaired when the bike gets rebuilt. I've seen a tank that has what was presumably ethanol damage and it had turned to jelly inside. It was a modern Ariel tank and I don't know if the problem was caused by ethanol or whether the tank was just of poor construction. If you're going to seal it I'd say Caswell too as it has good reports Shell V Power and Texaco (whatever it's called - the performance one) have 5% ethanol I think, the minimum allowed Cheaper fuels can have up to 15% which is the current maximum and it's maybe these that do the damage. So far, using V Power I've never had any kind of problem.

I don't know Charlie - the MK3 Faber for a BSA is ok because there was a 1964 BSA frame that didn't have a bolt on subframe or swan neck. I've not much knowledge on Cubs but given that a non swan neck frame was available in 1964 that you could have put a Cub engine into, then I would have thought there wouldn't be a problem