woody

But is it? Yes Pete, this perfectly illustrates the point I was making about observing decisions being subjective. Standing there watching, or watching it on the video, yes, you can see the bike goes backwards relative to the section direction. Rider lost control twice and whilst trying to sort it out, went backwards both times. Definite 5 (under either set of rules as it happens) Under no-stop the rider could be under no illusion that they had done anything other than stopped forward motion (if they were honest or realistic about it) Under stop and hop rules, being stationary wth foot down whilst maneouvering the bike is allowed which is what the rider is doing. What may not be apparent to the rider is that during this maneouvering they have gone backwards and they will be mighty surprised to be told they have fived it (when a 5 is given that is). Which is the point I was making in response to Telecat's claim that this sort of confusion only happens under no-stop. Both sets of rules throw up these issues, not just one or the other. As far as what score was given, I'd guess a 1 or 3, doubt that a 5 was given. In situations like that, the observer generally doesn't see it as going backwards, same as when a rider is rocking back and forth when stuck on roots/log/rock. Very rarely a 5 for rocking backwards (which can happen under no-stop as well).

The particular section itself I'm not criticising and wouldn't say it was marked out badly as it depends upon what you want from a section. Not my idea of a section but it was ideal for riders who want the challenge of having to hop about to get the bike lined up for the next part of the section. A typical modern section if you like, which is what some are saying is needed to bring people on. Only point I'm making is that both sets of rules can be subject to 'subjective' interpretation of what a rider has done. In the modern way with all the hopping, it is often evident that riders move the bike backwards with all the hopping they do. Not specifically hopping directly backwards as used to be the way, but by repeatedly hopping both front and back wheels (or both sideways but against the run of the section) many, many times so that the context of what they are doing is clouded, they get the bike in a more favourable position and they have moved it backwards from the original starting point. That is a 5 - but when do you ever see it given and when would a rider ever expect to be given one? Same with no-stop - what's a stop, what isn't. Both styles open to subjective interpretation. But some will only have it that it's only no-stop that causes problems.

To me yes, but so is the philosophy of a practise lap at any trial... as well as minders, people giving instructions to riders on where to position their bike, intercoms, screams and shouts of 'work it', 'big effort' (never so more comical than at a club trial...) I'd loved to have seen papa Bulto yelling 'work it', 'half a tyre left, and 'big effort' to Lampkin, Vesty and co up pipeline

The first part of your comment can just as easily happen under either rule set, you can't single out no-stop for that. Riders still seem to think it acceptable for the bike to go backwards under the stop allowed rule and aren't happy when they find they have a 5. Secondly, that is never why the rules went from no-stop to trick riding. This happened back in twinshock days, not monos as a lot seem to think. World round riders began using the techniques on the later 80s twinshock models as a means of achieving cleans you couldn't on the older 70s models. Instead of outlawing it, it was allowed to continue and became the norm. The techniques evolved with the better bikes, just as they do now. There wasn't a conscious decision. The riders pushed the boundaries of the rules and got away with it. As for subjective, all observing is subjective. I was observing on Sunday on a section that had a tight 180 degree turn exiting over a log. Impossible to ride no-stop even with a deliberate dab due to how you had to have the bike positioned. The only way was to hop the bike 180 degrees using mainly the back wheel to get it as far away from the log as possible, hence no use going for a deliberate dab by spinning the bike round as the positioning would have been wrong to get over the log. Riders who coould hop proficiently - about 4 or 5 of the whole entry coped ok, (subjective) but only two cleaned every time. However, with all the bouncing on the spot and side to side, the bikes of the succesful riders are moving backwards relative to the section. I could have fived every one of them. Do you think that any of them would have thought they deserved a 5 after achieving what they thought was a clean? Then what about the riders who couldn't hop with the consistency required. They end up hopping the back maybe once, then their foot goes down. The bike is still pointing the wrong way. With their foot down (maybe the foot on the wrong side) they keep lifting the back wheel and dropping it sideways. If they have their 'wrong side' foot down, it starts to disappear under the sump as the back of the bike comes around. To avoid this they 'creep' their foot around with the bike without actually lifting it. What sort of score does that warrant? a dab? a two, a three? We know what they think they should have - a dab. Never mind the farce of being able to to be stationary with a foot down bouncing the back end around half a dosen times... It's always subjective, regardless of the rules, you can't attribute that to no-stop only. Don't say the section was too tight, as isn't it the kind of section the youngsters want and we are told they need to develop these hopping skills.

That surely can't be a picture of the 5 in question. Unless it occured right on the ends cards, whereabouts unknown in the picture, no-one could question that as a 5 as the rider is off the bike. That is from practise, surely?

Don't think there is a full manual for them, but regards the engine, it is essentially the same as the MAR for which there is a Clymer manual. there is little difference in the bottom end of both engines, they share the same design. The Gripper has no cush drive on clutch but has a counter weight which the MAR doesn't and needle rollers on layshaft (as per later MAR) but the rebuild principles and considerations are the same. Hardest thing is the gearbox shimming and removing the taper fit sleeve that the clutch side crank sprocket sits on. It needs a tool or you have to improvise and make one. The Clymer covers models up to about 1979 and details the shimming process (if you can make any sense of it) Todotrial.com Classic has a parts manual/diagram for the Gripper. Section 10 on the index on the left side of the home page.

BSB has but not WSB

But even with the new perimeter chassis he still complains of the same problem, nothing has changed from using the CF chassis to the new alloy one. Ducati are now stating that the frame is not the problem (they never actually said it was and I'll bet Preziosi is spewing about his CF frame being dumped) They're now saying that the grip at the rear is pushing the front and this is due to the power delivery of the engine being too aggressive and they need to control it more with electronics (this is for the rider who labelled the current riders pussies and a bunch of 'playstation' riders that relied on electronic aids...) I think that once the Panigale hits the race tracks more, any doubts about buying it because of handling issues will disappear, although anyone who thinks they are going to push one of those to the limits that cause the problems the Motogp bike has is most likely dreaming, it shouldn't be an issue. Bayliss went seriosuly quick on it in testing and I watched a superstock race (support race in WSB) a couple of weeks ago with a Panigale out front having no handling issues at all.

Guessed it was that bike. I got in touch with him as soon as it came on as I was coming up for the Normandale on Easter Monday and would have bought it - I got beaten to it by someone.... Try John Collins for a back wheel as he has loads of used Bultaco parts - JC Motorcycles, Port Talbot. I'm assuming you've tried Dave Renham. It's the same wheel for 1976 onwards models so you shouldn't have a problem finding one. You may have to take pot luck with the condition of the chrome liner though... Unfortunately, there seems to be loads of advice about what you have to do to a 240 Fantic to make it competitive for 'today's modern classic sections'. The standard bike is perfectly good enough in reality and ian't tested anything like it was back in '82 - '84. The early models were buzzy and sharper off the throttle than the later ones. The standard 240 will pull 4th from nothing so there must be something wrong with your 245 motor if it is struggling as you say. Raising the gearing shouldn't make any difference to 2nd when it should pull 4th. Good luck with the Bulto project, another one saved from the barn.

Give Dave Renham a call with the frame number and he should be able to tell you if it was a Commerfords bike Reg did a few over the years and they weren't all the same

Thanks Lorenzo - I try to help but will gladly accept if I'm wrong, which also means I'll learn something. As far as I know, the swingarm is unique to the B models, it's not from a trail model. I think the holes were for footrests but can't remember the reason why it was done, but again, as far as I know, they all had them. Sounds as though yours may have a custom built swingarm.

I hope you're not in for a shock as the 240 Fantic will do everything and more a 199b will do... Was that the one off ebay last weekend that was up your way? WIith the disc back wheel fitted? Can't help with measurements as I won't get to my bike until the weekend now but if you look at the picture below you can work out the position of the rear brake cable mount. The one on the swingarm for the other end sits just inside the frame tubes alongside the chain swingarm protector. I'd put the shocks back to standard as with a decent set fitted the back end works very well, no real need for that kimd of mod. For the chain tensioner, just put the bike in gear and sit it upright with the bars resting against the wall to expose the underside - makes it easy to position a chain tensioner bracket. Make the bracket, fit it to the tensioner, position the tensioner into the chain and offer it up to the swingarm and tack weld in place to try it. The spring locates up the front of the swingarm so that will govern the front/rear positioning of the bracket.

Isn't that where trials is going wrong (or went wrong) As Chewy said, it is a participant's sport, not public entertainment. It was never intended as a commercial proposition for promotoers to make money out of. No-one ever used to pay to watch a trial. If people want spectacular demonstrations of modern rider and bike capability, there should (would) be a niche for that sort of event, or demonstration. But I'd wager it would not break even and die a death. From what I've seen of the last few indoors on the box there are many empty seats and you have to wonder how many times people will continue to turn out to watch the same thing over and over. Give the new (old) format a chance. It's only one event into the season... It would be interesting to hear riders' views too and not just the top 3 either.

I'm sure I have a knackered old model 159 engine with a weight similar to that as well. I'll have a look at the weekend if I can get at it.

The problem with getting a dating certificate from Majesty.co.uk or Shirt is that they probably won't be on the list of approved bodies that DVLA will accept certificates from for an age related plate. When the Majesties were being made originally they were made with approval from Yamaha, so Yamaha probably provided the certificate of newness to get them registered. (the Godden framed ones I mean, obviously the Yam framed bikes wouldn't have been a problem as they had Yamaha frames) Yamaha UK would never have had any record of Godden frame numbers so nowadays they won't (can't) help. You could try the Vintage Motorcycle club. They are very pro-active and keen to help. If you can convince them of the age of the bike and they are satisfied, they will issue you with a dating certificate that DVLA will accept and you can get your age related plate. If it is a bike they don't already have a record of they are keen to add new models to their portfolio for reference. They may already have done a Majesty for someone. Remember, from new they were registered as Yamaha TY models, not Majesties. With the 250 frames, the number began with the year of manufacture, not sure if the smaller frames are the same. If you can find another Majesty that has a registration, show them pictures of the bike/registration and pictures of your bike so that they can see that a similar model has a period registration, which tallies with the chassis prefix, it may be enough. Maybe someone on here could help with that. The bike doesn't need SVA or anything but DVLA will probably want to inspect it should you get as far as applying for a registration. That entails very little other than checking that you are trying to register what you say you are and making sure the frame number on the bike matches the frame number you have put on the form. Any number alterations therefore, if you acquire another frame, must not look obvious, or questions are going to be asked...

Yes, Pete Kirby's clutch is superb. Belt drive, no oil, can be as light or heavy as you like on the lever as it is a diaphragm type and can be set up accordingly. And will take the abuse if you ride it in that fashion.

I've not seem many Pursang weights, so don't know how many variants of those there are. Possibly one from a Pursang? As the 198b was thrown together by the workers at the factory in its last days, it's possible that they just used up any bits lying around to finish the bikes. Maybe it came from the factory like that? However, skimming the weights on most older bikes was common(ish) back in the day if the rider wanted quicker pick-up, so this is the more likely option. I know a good few people who've done it with older twinshocks over the last few years - I had an Ossa flywheel in the lathe last week experimenting (frightening for a non-engineer...)

Which flyweel - the ignition or the clutch side crank weight? 198b is a standard 198a engine as far as I've seen. The ignition flywheels didn't really change throughout the years but the 250 models are lighter than the 350 models. Same for the clutch weights, the 350 has a double weight and the 250 a single weight but again, the actual weight of them wasn't radically altered. The shape changed sightly around the circumference to suit the inside moulding of the different clutch covers, so they aren't necessarily interchangeable as the clutch cover can foul the wrong one. Is it a standard bike or one of the Vasquez or Puma modified Spanish bikes? On those, they lighten the flywheels to quicken up the engine response. This can cost the engine's ability to lug right down low and stall easier, but they ride them on the clutch so it isn't critical.

Exactly - I keep reading how you have to do this, that and the other to a twinshock to make it competitive for today's classic trials which have 'modern' style sections. Where do you find a classic trial with sections like that? Come to think of it, I can't think of any 'B' routes in modern events with sections like that.

They are, one of our local riders bought one a couple of weeks ago and I saw it at a trial on Sunday - thought it was a Beta when he pulled up at a section... I was about to say I thought you'd bought a Jotogas.. Can't tell you anything about it other than he likes it.

The travel is 6" - 7" Overall fork length would be about 30"

I have a Delorto on my 340 with the following jets etc. Pilot 40 Main 98 Needled tube AV264 Needle X2 Slide 4.5 The transfer ports in the crankcase have been smoothed out and matched to the barrel (barrel not modified) and the rear sliencer has been altered to straight through pipe/packing, no baffles. Motoplat electronic ignition. Not sure how much these affect the jetting from if it was still standard (probably not at all as the chages are minor) but the bike runs very smoothly and revs high and clean.

There were last time I was there, a few people had bikes for sale.

Possibly the seller hasn't a clue about trials and may have no idea the front end is wrong. It probably does feel as though it rides ok round the yard. As for what it's worth, the bike itself looks in reasonably good condition but the only way you're going to know is by going to see it. If it is ok you still have to find a suitable front end, as mentioned, so that cost has to be factored in. Best look at what other TY250 trials have made in the completed ads and assess what you think it's worth from them. I wouldn't want to give more than £500 even if it was mechanically sound, purely because of the hassle of sorting it. The buy it now price is ridiculous and bidding is already past £700. Very good standard examples don't fetch much over £1000.

No - way too long. 360mm is all you need. You don't need to alter the shock position, just put decent shocks on it. I jave a pair of Magicals and Falcons for mine. Damping is the same but the Magicals spring rates are better due to multiple springs. You can steepen the head angle without it hitting the frame or exhaust, just depends how it's done. My 199b has been done but I think I prefer it how it was. It's now very skittish and hard to control in a straight line in rock streams especially. A s soon as my standard one is rebuilt I'm going to try them back to back for comparison. I'd leave it as it is. There is nothing in a classic trial that needs the Sherpa head angle altered. You need to plan your lines better. They may have a lot of rake but they still turn tight. It's perception. My old M92 turns just as tight as my modified 340. The head angle on them all is the same as far as I know. If it is any different it's not noticeable riding. There could be a few different reasons why your dad's 325 ploughs the front, it's nothing to do with Bultaco steering. The forks are probably set up incorrectly. You're probably perched a bit higher on the later bikes as well due to increased ground clearance which adds to the feeling of instability when trying to balance (Bultacos were never really designed for stop / start riding and there should be no need for it in classic events) Anoother way of reducing the 'rake' of the front forks is to fit parallel yokes from a Pursang or Alpina from about 1975 as they are parallel, they have no 'rake' like the trials yokes. This will pull the front wheel in but it will also affect the trail and I don't know how this would affect the steering/stability (maybe not at all - don't know) For now, I'd get decent 360mm shocks and magical fork springs (set up with 180cc of 10W oil to start) spend some time on set up and reasses it. If I had to recommend shocks I'd say Falcon as they are (to me) best value for money in terms of performance/cost (ie: they are cheaper but perform better than any of the others costing up to a £200 ceiling. Magicals are very good but I'd say the damping action is equal with Falcons, it's the springs that make the bigger difference. A lot more expensive though and subjective as to whether they're worth the extra cost if your not hammering the bike up big stuff (ie: Lakes 2 day type sections, not classic club trials)