woody

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.

That would be my guess as a few of the models on crossover dates have the previous or next model parts - same with Ossas Anything over frame number 4902500 (approx as 2500 is easy to remember) is the last version or MK3. A slimline in different clothes....

Nicely side-stepped Jack but I thought the regs were clear...... So, just interested in what you think. It's not one of Jim's.

Jack - someone else started this topic with some fairly critical remarks of riders who were excluded. It's not my intention with what I've said to drag up old arguments or start some sort of boring witch hunt - all been done to death before. I'm just interested in the originator's opinion of the Bantam and yours as well. The regs aren't as straightforward as Cubette or yourself are implying are they? Look at the Bantam and tell me if you think that it meets the various criteria in terms of silhouette or frame design. Again, I'd like to make it absolutely clear that I don't have a problem with the bike and wouldn't refuse it an entry to any trial. Neither am I advocating that the bike shouldn't be allowed as I really don't care and it certainly isn't my intention to have someone kicked out of the trial, so if you know who the bike belongs to, or think you do as there are a few of these, please keep it to yourself. So, in your opinion, based upon your own reasoning, would you say the Bantam complies or not?

You're getting mixed up with your M49 models. This is the last version. They did three, the biggest differences were: The first had upright rear shocks, older style clutch and ignition cover and the frame was a single tube going under the front of the engine. The seat unit wasn't cut away for the top of the shocks as they were mounted further back The second version had the shocks angled forwards at the top and seat unit was cut away to clear them, like the one Oily has The third version had the new style clutch and ignition cover and the frame was widened underneath the engine. Oily has this one, the last version, although the top yoke is an earlier one. The Kit Campeon was offered as an upgrade when the model 80 came out, I don't think it was available before that. The last M49 were still produced with their original tank and seat units, I'm sure. They're a nice bike with a good engine, I had the version 2 model which I sold a couple of years ago. I always wanted the last version and I would have bid on this one if it had been closer to home.... I rode mine in a few Sammy Miller events and a good number of other trials The Kit Campeon basically turned it into the next model, the model 80 or 'slimline' as it's called because of its slim tank/seat unit. There were no real differences other than the styling, as below You should be able to get everything you need for yours by now, most stuff is reproduced. I'd keep it in its original spec as they are a nice looking bike. This was mine whilst it was having some work done. You can clearly see the difference from yours in the bottom frame tubes. Good luck with yours

Mucked up that post a bit - I meant to also say that I did ask the club last year about the Faber MK3 and they reckoned it would be ok but the bolt-up subframe clause is still in the regs for this year, so who knows. The goalposts seem to move annually now.

HaHa - like it Charlie To be honest I haven't a clue where you stand with those parts. Didn't realise that about the Ariels though - not that I know much about Ariels anyway My questions to Cubette were out of genuine interest as he started the post off and I'm genuinely interested on his view about the Bantam and whether he would ban someone from future events if they entered on a bike like that - or does he think it's acceptable Disclaimer No desire to harm, direspect, disrupt or undermine any particular individual, club, body, set of rules or anything else anyone can think of, was intended in the writing of these comments....

Cubette, I think you have a very simplistic view of machine 'eligibility'. Would you ban everyone who entered and rode on a Faber framed bike this year? Historically, Faber frames were never allowed because of their design, no frame tubes under the engine, but were accepted a couple of years ago with the MK3 version which did. This was the ruling for frames from 2011 Pre’65 design only. The rear subframe must resemble the original and be identifiable as such. The Faber met this criteria This an extract of frame eligibilty 2012 and 2013 Pre’65 design only. The rear subframe must resemble the original and be identifiable as such. Machines fitted with a bolt-on rear subframe must retain this feature. That second statement wasn't there in 2011. Does this mean that the Faber frames are now unacceptable again as the subframe is fixed not bolted? A bit unfair if so, when the MK3 was designed to be eligible with the club's agreement (I was told that by Howard as Jock wanted one for his C15 - he now has a Bantam) Anyone who built a bike using one will now find it not eligible, if the above is taken literally. So would you ban them for showing disrespect to the club? What about the picture of the Bantam below, now a very popular bike in Pre65? I'd be interested whether you think a bike like this should be ridden when considering the frame eligibility statement and its general appearance when compared to a 1964 design, particularly the engine - does it resemble the original? I've now removed the picture, see later post as to why What do you think, would you allow it in the trial? I would by the way, but I'm interested in your view.

I had replied to this, no idea what happened to it. 180cc in each leg, 10W works fine although oil grade is personal preference. Gearbox/clutch share the same oil - 800cc - 1000cc of light gear oil such as Silkolene Light etc. The clutch case has a small screw bottom left which is a level check plug. I think 1000cc might be the spec but I've always used 800cc with no problem. If ever you change your clutch plates, Barnett clutch plates from the US work very well, they don't stick, slip or drag, have more bite than standard spec plates, therefore you can back the tensioning springs off a little more and get a lighter pull on the clutch.

Trust me, no advantage whatsoever in that respect. Too much is made of the 'weight' issue. The bike could be 20kg lighter and you wouldn't ride it any better Your IRC tubeless is coming off the rim for the reason I gave before - tubeless don't work well on the Japanese rims. IRC do a tubed tyre. Michelin also do a tubed tyre but they are useless in mud so leave it alone. Same for Pirelli.

Falcon are still completing a premises move so there is likely to be some delay on some orders. I'm waiting for a pair myself.

Trying to work out whether you're serious or not........ The Yam rims won't always keep a tubeless tyre on the rim, they drop in. I couldn't get one to seat at all on my Majecty when I had it. Blow it up and pop it out onto the rim, then let it down and as soon as it got to about 10psi a section of the tyre just dropped in. A yam mono wheel I had did the same thing, and a KT wheel. The old Montesa/Ossa/Bultaco Akront rims are fine with tubelesss, but the Jap rims don't seem to seat the tubeless tyres well. An IRC is a much better bet for muddy conditions, cheaper, will last longer and they still grip well when the edge has gone.

Still a couple of things you haven't replaced - HT coil and the LT coil HT coils are pretty cheap so worth trying one of those, if it still doesn't cure it the LT coil may be at fault. Not sure where you'd get an LT coil from for a Montesa but there are places that could check it and rewind if necessary, West Country Windings being the one people tend to use. Not sure about the 123 Mont but the bigger engines from the 70s on (ie: 247 through to 330) all use the same ignition system, stator, flywheel and HT coil. If the 123 uses the same set up, there is a stator from an MH200 on ebay. As for electronic, the only company that does, or did, an ignition for the Montesa is Electrex. It was listed as for the 348/349 but if the 123 shares the same igjnition as the bigger engines then it would fit the 123 as well, but, I know two people who have tried it on their 349 engines and it isn't right, despite several attempts at rectifying it. I'd try a new HT coil before anything else

I'm still confused by this as I've never heard of Pirelli bringing out a tubeless version of the MT43 - their original MT73 tubeless was discontinued years ago as far as I know. I had a look on their website out of curiosity and the product info for the MT43 doesn't mention whether the tyre is designed for tubed or tubeless, nor does it say that there are two versions, tubed and tubeless. There are dealers advertising them as tubeless but one tyre can't suit both surely, due to the bead design, unless Pirelli have found a way around it (I had heard talk that Michelin were going to bring out one tyre that would fit both tubed and tubeless rims - be good if they did as their tubed tyre is worse than a Pirelli in mud...) Getting back to the original question, the fact that it seats onto the bead at only 40/50 psi suggests that it isn't tubeless as they normally take much more psi than that to seat. And the fact that it is being knocked off at 7psi simply from landing sideways suggests the same - look at the forces trials tyres face in WTC from some of their landings. If you want to continue with the Pirelli, I think I'd phone Pilrreli themselves and get clarification on it due to the lack of product info on their website, because if it is a tubed tyre in construction, you aren't going to overcome the problem. As reagrds a Pirelli for trials use, as said before, they are way off the effectiveness of a 'proper' trials tyre in terms of grip and performance, so it depends on what you're using the bike for as to whether a Pirelli is the correct choice of tyre. Trail riding yes, messing about playing on a trials bike yes, but trials competition no, unless you're not bothered about handicapping yourself compared to the rest of the field - they'll work, but nowhere near as good as the Michelin/IRC/Dunlop. As Timp said, I'm not about to tell you your business, but with due respect, if you're running a tyre, especially a Pirelli at 7psi, grip is going to be non-existant. A Michelin X-lite at 7psi with one of the top lads isn't going to find that much grip. If you feel that the Pirelli is providing grip at 7psi, you're in for an eye opener if you run a Michelin/IRC/Dunlop at 2 or 3psi......

Yes, torquey little motor, more than enough for modern easy route or any classic event. Nimble chassis.

How do you know it was overheating? Symptoms? If the timing side seal was sucking air it would affect the way the bike ran, weak throttle response and over-run on shut off. The clutch side would draw and burn oil. If it was overheating significantly it would start to knock badly, something you'd wouldn't fail to notice

The quality of the cable can make a difference I think, yes. I have a Venhill cable on my 340 and I just can't get any feel to the brake at all and it is almost impossible to get it to bite hard and lock. The same wheel in my BSA with a left foot pedal and rod works perfectly. I have a cable off a 198a which has a metal bend where it joins the swingarm and the cable itself seems sturdier, but I don't know if it is the original or a pattern. I'm sure it has less flex than the Venhill as it the brake works better with this cable, even though it is quite worn and stiff in operation. I'm fairly sure there is too much flex in the Venhill. I've ridden a couple of Puma bikes in Spain with cable rear brake and they worked perfectly, but I've no idea what cable they were using.

Pictures of Vesty's and JR's bikes but the method is the same for all models, standard set up, you just need to add the pedal mount and cable stops to the frame and swingarm

It's not unusual to see Sherpas with all sorts of early or late parts fitted. There was a 199a on ebay recently with a slimline tank/seat unit. The Homerlite tank didn't appear until 1974 so there is no way it was original equipment on that bike. Again, it's not unusual to see earlier Bultacos with slimline or Homerlite tank/seat units. The slimline tank and downward facing silencer was an option to update M49 to M80 spec. It's most likely your bike is what Miller said, M49 with later parts - they're not uncommon. Here's another http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C326470