woody

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

What Cubette called for happens anyway because if you get pulled up for a component they deem ineligible, you won't get a future entry and that's their perogative, it's their trial. Saying people showed total disrespect to the club was slightly over the top. Riders will get away with whatever they can with any rules, some get away with it, some don't,including behaviour in sections. There is ambiguity in the criteria which is evident from one bike being allowed shock mounts that bear no resemblence to the original and another being asked to change them. Why can one bike run a bashplate with no frame tube under the engine which isn't original but another can't? There is ambiguity and more than 5 riders had bikes that didn't comply.

Yes, not sure to be honest exactly when they replaced the U bolts for the clamps. A lot of bikes back then would have had the Miller top yoke fitted so it clouds things. I did like my M49 and had some good use out of it, but not sure about your last comment. I ride a lot of modern trials on B route or 50/50 than I do classic and my 340 is more capable on the harder sections than ever my M49 could have been.

As I mentioned before, it isn't one of Jim's Bantams Both you and Cubette said you couldn't understand what the fuss was about regarding eligibility as you think it's crystal clear. Yet neither of you will give an opinion on a particular bike. If rules are so clear, what's the problem, it's only an opinion, you're not deciding for real. Maybe not so clear are they? Why did you have to modify your Cub shock mounts when the Bantam mounts don't reflect 1964 Bantam mounts? Point proven I think. I have no axe to grind. The people building these Bantams make really nice jobs of them, and the Cubs and whatever else. The smaller bikes like the Bantams and Cubs enable older and less fit riders to continue to compete on a nice light competitive bike. Not everyone over 60-odd has the fitness and strength anymore to handle bikes that weigh 230lbs plus. If they fall or get into trouble, they can't hold onto the bike and could get injured which is not what you want at that age. Lightweights like modernised Cubs and Bantams don't present that problem. They can continue riding when they may otherwise have had to give up. There is so much horse**** spooled out about pre65 eligibility generally it's a joke. Some people need to step back and ask themselves what exactly is it that they are trying to achieve with their rules? I wonder sometimes if anyone really knows...?? I've now removed the picture of the Bantam as I only put it up ti illustrate to Jack and Cubette that rule interpretation is hardly clear cut. I hope Jack, that now you have gone to the trouble of altering your Cub to suit the regs of one trial that you get through the ballot and get to ride it. Be a real pisser if you changed it to how they wanted and didn't get through - and I mean that sincerely, it's not sarcasm, as it's a very real scenario that some riders face each year.

Charlie, don't get too carried away. See my earlier post that I asked the club last year about the MK3, after seeing the bolt up reference in the regs, and they said it was ok. The bolt up clause is still in there this year and they say they're tightening up on eligibility so who knows. Best thing to do is email Bill Emmerson and ask him as it seems to be him that is responsible for the rule book and as he seems to do most of the machine checking, or at least he did when I got my ticket, he should be able to give you an answer about the MK3 It could be that it is ok because there was a 1964 frame that wasn't bolt up or swan neck? The MK1 and MK2 Fabers weren't allowed because of the lack of frame tubes under the engine.

ok, first thing is that I didn't try or mean to discredit what you said, I just thought you had mixed up the models. The bike that Oily has bought is a last model 'version 3' of the M49 from 1970 but you called it an early version so I thought you had made a mistake. The Kit Campeon was introduced for some factory riders in 1970 but not all. Martin Lampkin rode the British Experts on a normal M49 in November 1970. The kit only became available for customers to buy in 1971 about the same time, or maybe just before, the model 80 was introduced. It was never available in 1969, even to factory riders. There are many pictures of factory riders on the M49 in 1969 and none have the kit, even in 1970, most are on a normal M49. I think when the authors say 'at the end of the 60s', they are just referring to the end of that period, not specifically 1969. The bike in the brochure is the MK3 which wasn't sold until 1970

Still no opinion on the Bantam then Jack?

Very much personal choice to be honest but a good match to the original colour is the old Ford Sunset Red that they used on Escorts in the early 70s (I'm assuming you're in the UK...) Later reds such as Rosso or Radiant look better for me as they are deeper red with less of an orange tint.