woody

You could be right about Dave Clinkard ending up on the 320 thinking about it, it could have been the earlier model he rode as a 250, or his brother Andy (definitely one of them rode the earlier 250 bike) Saunders 320 was eventually a bigger capacity, something like 350cc. He wasn't keen on the 350 Jumbo rotax bike and preferred the Hiro. The front pipe on the 250 should just come out through the frame tubes, stay close to the frame, straight up and over the left side (nearside) of the head as standard.

You're on the path to wasting a lot of money for no real gain with some of those ideas. Clutch Mine is light enough to use with one finger and will take 3rd and 4th gear launches with no slipping. The actuator is standard, just a longer arm (about 20mm max I think in order to keep the cable line straight and not kinked) Position the arm so that it is pulling straight, don't have it positioned too rearwards so that it is pulling 'around' the pivot. Use a new low friction featherlight Venhill cable. I use Barnett kevlar friction plates. They are thicker than the original steel plates so to fit them in the basket you have to replace one with a steel friction plate (or at least I did in mine) If your clutch has the nuts to tension the springs you can back off the tension. The kevlar plates have more bite so less tension is needed. However, if you back of the tension by unscrewing the nuts they will foul the inside of the casing (and make a mess, believe me) The nuts are quite thick so if you turn them down to half their thickness you can then back off the tension without fouling the case. How much is trial and error. This does mean there are no longer holes to take the locking wire so you will have to redrill if you want to lock them. I don't and have never had a problem. If you have an earlier clutch with the pins there is little you can do with tension. It's possible to fit the other clutch by modifiying it I think, as they aren't a direct swap, but I've never tried it. Or you could try threading the pins. Or remove the pins and replace with threaded pins (I think they are welded in from the back of the hub) Finally, get the clutch set up by diconnetcting the cable, screw in the central adjuster until it meets the pushrod (you'll see the arm move) and back of a little so there is play in the arm. Refit the cable and then adjust the tension of each spring to ensure the plates seperate evenly. Make sure all the pins are straight and centred in the cups before fitting the springs - they'll bend with leverage from a screwdriver to centre them. That will ensure the springs run free and don't bind against the cups. Make sure you take out the actuator from the timing cover and clean it and its housing and grease it before replacing. Hydraulics really aren't necessary Brakes A lot of the classic boys use Saftek linigs. Send them your shoes, they will fit a softer compound lining, oversize. You then get them turned down to match your hub and presto, good brakes. If you can do the machining, or get it done, then it is worth skimming the inside of the hub to true it before turning down the shoes to match (assuming they aren't fitted with new liners) The Bultaco hubs with liners work fine with this arrangement. http://www.saftek.co.uk/index.htm Or fit a Grimeca front wheel. I have on in mine and it just needs the brake plate sleeved for the smaller spindle. I can't remember if I sleeved the bearings as well or found some that will fit the hub and the 12mm spindle (Grimeca takes a 14mm spindle) For the rear brake, if you don't mind the left hand brake pedal, a rod gives a better feel. If you use the right hand pedal you will need the cable and these will work perfectly well (as I've ridden a couple of Puma Bultacos with them) but I haven't worked out how yet. You can fit a TY or 247 Cota rear wheel as they have the brake and sprocket on opposite sides which will enable a rod operated rear right hand brake Exhaust Keep the standard item. (assuming it is the later clubfoot type) Repack the middle silencer. The rear, open up the rear box section, remove the baffle plates and replace with straight through perforated tube and packing. Also cut open and repack the lower section below the shock as that is also perforated tube and packing. It will rev more freely with the baffles out. Motor If you want it to pick up a little quicker, replace the 350 ignition flywheel with a 250 item which is nearly a kilo lighter. If you really want it quick, replace the double weighted clutch crank weight with a single weight from a 250 as well. It will pick up like hell but stall a lot easier too. Probably a little excessive doing both weights...

I had a MK2 250 and later a 320 and the tanks didn't leak. I think what could happen is that when you removed them from the bike, they were awkward to get off and the tap could get forced out by the frame as the tank came off if you weren't careful. It happened to my 250 and caused a small split which seeped. I have a 320 now to rebuild but the tank shows no signs of leaking, so not sure it was a common problem. I think they were Kevlar lined. Can't offer any advice on repairng the tank but these people will do it for you http://www.tankcareproducts.co.uk/index.htm The only top line rider I can think of that rode a 250 was David Clinkard, everyone else I can think of rode the 320.

rear view, personal opinion Iknow, but they look a bit neater than the loop to me, unless you want originality

Or you could just make it like the last Godden model which didn't have a rear loop, just the spars to mount the mudguard. I did this with mine as the loop was damaged and beyong me repairing it. It was easier to just modify it like the last model

On the frames I've had, the work at the toolbox area was never as neat as the other modified sections of the frame, so seems normal to me. Unless you know precisely what the rear subframe mods were there is no way of telling visually whether it is a genuine one or not and there is no list of frame numbers for the modified frames. Unlikely that it's not a genuine frame though, due to the work involved in the conversion and that no-one seems to know exactly how the rear subframe was altered.

Ok Charlie, understand now. But I guess this is why the MK1 and MK2 aren't eligible as they don't bear a resemblance to a Pre65 frame, whereas the MK3 is a very close copy of a 1963 S frame. Out of curiosity I asked Bill about the MK1 and 2 frames, so waiting to see what he says. So, although the MK3 frame is ok, I'm not sure mine will be as I've modified the big and ugly rear mudguard loop (ie; cut the monstrosity off as I prefer two single spars to hold the mudguard) It was that wide you could drop a housebrick between the mudguard and the loop. I've just completed a lashed up build of my bike, so if I can find the camera I'll send you some photos for your site. Hoping to give it a shakedown try this weekend at the BMCA new year trial. Once everything is sorted and it rides ok I can strip and get it all painted, then send you photos of it finished

I'm no expert on BSA history Charlie, but I thought the bike that Scott built and rode in 1965 (the BOK bike) had frame tubes under the engine, at least for the first couple of years. So I can understand why the Otter MK1 and 2 frames aren't considered eligible, or a reasonable copy, due to the tubes under the engine being replaced by a bashplate and therefore not a Pre65 design. Although people did possess hacksaws and welding equipment in 1964 so it isn't something that an individual couldn't have done to their own bike - but that's a whole different issue. The MK3 frame appears to be more like Scott's bike, the frame of which appears to be very similar to a 1963/4 C15S frame (of which Bill Emmerson has sent me a BSA brochure picture) Hence it's eligibility.

You should have a PM now - let me know if not

If you want to retain the RTL clutch cover and kickstart, as was mentioned above trim back the frame around the swingarm pivot and also take a little off the kickstart itself. It will then clear the frame. You don't even notice that the frame is trimmed back unless you look for it. If you fit the TLR cover you will have to fit the TLR kicksart mechanism and kickstart also (as the TLR and RTL kickstarts have different splines - the RTL is unique as far as I know) The reason for this is that the TLR case is wider and the shaft is longer, therefore the kickstart sits outside of the frame and doesn't rub against it.

Of interest to anyone with a MK3 Faber frame. As regards the Faber (Otter) frame eligibility, I found an email contact for the Pre65 committee on the ssdt website, so sent an email asking about the Faber MK3 frame acceptability in view of the new 'bolt up subframe' rule. The frame is still acceptable, this is the reply I got from Bill Emmerson The Otter frame was used by Scott Ellis on his works BSA to win the British Experts trial in 1965 and the present Faber copy of this frame is eligible as it is a reasonable "of a design" copy, however, modification in manufacture or private ownership may alter the design to be unacceptable. In simple terms the frame must be identifiable and look like an Otter. So there you have it. Please note though that my question was asked specifically in relation to the MK3 frame being acceptable and his reply states the present Faber frame, so I'm assuming the MK1 and MK2 frames are not.

I know someone down here in Birmingham who may be selling his Sprite. I can PM you his phone number if you're interested.

Rockshocks, as far as I know are about

You're right to an extent, it is personal preference and if you have a pair of shocks that you're happy with, whatever the make, then that is all that matters. As to why I think the Falcons are better, I think they have a better valving arrangement which works better across the whole stroke and the springs are better. I don't know whether Falcon springs have been made to his spec over the years or whether they are off the shelf items from another application, but they seem to always work well for as long as I've been using Falcons (20 odd years) The valving has been improved over the years as well, with different piston designs. The Rockshocks have the same valving as the original 80s versions and I've found that the springs, whatever the rate, aren't up to the job, at least not for my weight anyway, they seem too weak (although I haven't tried the latest springs) I don't think they are custome made, more likely off the shelf items but just because they have a rate/poundage in the trials range, that doesn't necessarily mean they will work well. Springs are a science (that I don't understand) and gap between the coils, wire thickness, metal grade etc. all make a difference to how they work. If the wire is poor quality or whatever, they won't keep their rate and will sag. The construction of the Rockshocks is not the issue, they're very good, it is just the set up and the springing that I find not quite there. I bought a pair from Eddy when he first started doing them again but couldn't get them working anywhere near as well as the Falcons on the same bike. Recently I dug them out and had some springs made and played with different valving and I've got them working almost how I want, just need to get out and try them now. Ultimately, it's what you want and how much feedback your looking for from the shocks as well as how you ride. The Magical shocks on my Bultaco work really well for me on slow speed and high speed but others have tried it and find them too soft or too quick. I guess it's all about perceptions.

Good timing - just logged on and there is your question... I just welded a piece of 4 or 5mm thick plate to the back of the frame tube, shaped to take the new bracket. Then welded a strengthening gusset behind to stop it bending in or snapping off. The pegs were lowered rather than set back any significant amount, maybe just a few mm but that's all. The bike is already light on the front due to the torquey motor. And it grips plenty good enough without needing the pegs further back. I never quite got to finishing that bike off, too much other stuff, so sold it along with most of the other bikes earlier this year. I had one when they new though, so know how under-rated they are as a twinshock these days. This picture should show the footrest arrangement better

You'll ruin it if you change the head angle, they are already a quick steering bike and don't need it, they have a good chassis and handle very well. Nothing like the earlier white model. Footrest position is like any bike, depends on what suits you. I lowered them on the one I had but did nothing else to it apart from a modified 348 rear silencer with a straight trhough tube and repacked, but that was because the original box was smashed in. Only other component that could do with improving is the clutch action but the engine is that tractable it is barely ever needed in sections.

Just out of interest, can you have an educated guess at what those scores would have been like if they had been able to stop and hop on the same sections.

The Betors aren't alloy bodied, it is only the bush mountings that are alloy, the actual body is steel. If you're thinking of Betors you may as well save money and buy the older style black steel bodied version. No different in performance. Whichever you buy, 'alloy' or steel, the chances of getting a good set are the same with either. Some work very well, some don't. There is no consistency. For the money you won't beat steel bodied Falcons, a fair bit cheaper than the 'alloy' Betors and a lot cheaper than the Rockshocks - work better than either.

No-one out there got any info on this new frame regulation, per my previous post? Must be someone entered on a bike that falls into that category?

I can't understand German so unfortunately don't understand your last comment. I think maybe something is getting confused in translation. If you begin with the timing so that the spark is at the top of the stroke. To advance the ignition to spark 1mm before top (early) you turn the stator clockwise. For 2mm, clockwise, for 3mm, clockwise etc. If the ignition is now set to spark at 3mm before top and you want it to spark at 1mm before top (later) you turn the stator anti-clockwise

He just seems to get better and better, poetry to watch. Incredible balance and throttle control to get the grip and drive on those rocks with an enduro tyre. And the bounce back was something else. Not sure what he could go round the SSDT on for the week but I reckon it would embarass a good few... If he doesn't win virtually everything he enters next year I'll be genuinely surprised. Probably the most talented rider on an enduro bike I've seen.

I had a 28mm OKO fitted to an M92. I think the jets were very similar to those you have in your M49. It worked well but I was able to use the original air hose from the airbox. To mount the carb, I used an inlet manifold from a later 250 model which uses the rubber mounting, not bolt on. I also have one fitted to my 199b which works well too.

It's the other way around, if you set the ignition 'early' you are advancing the spark, setting it 'late', you are retarding the spark. To retard the ignition and make the plug spark later, you turn the stator anti-clockwise To advance the ignition and make the plug spark earlier, you turn the stator clockwise

Agreed, and this is where riders like Dan Thorpe excel. All the tricks in the bag to play with but he rides so smoothly and keeps moving where possible. If the bike needs one hop or two hops, that's what it gets, just the minimum that is needed. No excess. No flash. No 'look at me' posing and bouncing backwards and forwards unecessarily. It seems to have worked pretty well for him over the years with over 100 national wins. He rode a couple of Normandale rounds (no-stop rules) this year on the TY Mono and it was great to watch how someone can be so precise and line perfect through a section. The bike just flowed through them.

There is also the misconception in these 'stop / no stop' discussions that over 40 riders are the one's calling for the change as it is they who can't perform the tricks (or in the case of some pillocks' opinions 'refuse' to learn the tricks or 'progress with the sport') Fact to note here - a lot of riders, old and young, CAN'T and NEVER WILL be able to do it. You cannot learn balance, you either have it or you don't. From my perspective, as someone who gets around the country a bit, I haven't yet met anyone who is pursuing the cause of getting the rules changed universally back to no-stop. Riders like me, whether they are over 40 or not, who ride the B route in their club or centre trials or ride the clubman route at nationals, don't really have to worry about the rules. The sections in those events don't require trick riding and can be managed in a non-stop fashion (some events are non-stop, some aren't but these riders ride the same whichever) Granted, the ability to bounce it around a bit would enable the loss of fewer marks and there are one or two around that can do it, but the point is, it isn't absolutely necessary to be able to do it in order to get through the section. Planning for a dab can get you through for a 1 or maybe 2. So for these riders and these events, a rule change would matter little. The object is, in case we've forgotten, to drop fewer marks than anyone else, not CLEAN the trial. Planning a dab is better than crashing for a 5. So, I don't know where this perception that 'over 40 riders' are tying to change the sport is coming from. Frequent any of these events and you will see that the B route or clubman does not consist solely of over 40 riders. There are plenty of younger one's too at some of them and there are plenty of them who cannot trick ride either. Some can but can't do it as well as some of the handier older riders. So again, the perception by some is wrong. Over on the expert, or A route, we have our few riders. Out of those, there are a very small amount who can perform the tricks consistently well enough, to the standard required and on any surface or angle, to tackle the 'tight and big stuff'. Then there are those who can hop and bounce all over the car park but fall apart in the sections, in the way I mentioned in the previous post. So, assuming we have some spectators turn up at a trial, they watch maybe one or two experts very skillfully use their trick riding to get through the section for a clean. They then watch the other half dozen flounder like seal pups on the beach whist recording what should be a 5 probably 2 or 3 times during their stop/start feet down maul through the section. Not very encouraging for them to want to take the sport up.