woody

JR bike

The middle box mod, at most, would be fitting a slightly bigger diameter core. It is straight through already, one perforated tube about 35mm diameter (from memory) The later clubfoot back box, as shown in the pictures, are half perforated tube/packing, half baffled. The bottom half is perforated tube with packing up to the shock. After the shock it is baffled. They are modified by removing all the baffles and making them straight through also - like the older 'boomerang' silencer fitted to the '73, '74 era bikes. The clubfoot is essentially one of those anyway but with the baffled box added as a spark arrestor for USA market. The twin outlets are also replaced with a single outlet of around 25 - 30mm diameter. I'd assume this is the diameter of the new perforated tube inside. With the swingarm mod, it was essentially moved as close as possible to the engine. It is self governing really as you casn only go so far before th spindle is up against the back of the engine. Unless you copy JR's bike where they did away with the swingarm spindle and just bolted the swingarm either side to extended frame plates. You had to take the engine out to tak the clutch cover off.... It's debatable these days how much benfit it would give as with modern shocks, the standard set up probably works just as well. I have Magicals on mine and it is very good with loads of feel and normally, the Sherpas feel 'dead' at the back, even when they are working. You will definitely need a longer swingarm if you move the spindle forward. They also tipped the engine up at the rear (or lowered the front) A lot of work for maybe little or no perceptible gain. Early version of Vesty's bike top photo, his last bike bottom photo

The Ossa and Bulto rods are pretty well identical, both being Betor, the only difference being the 'piston' part of the shuttle valve that sits just below the rebound spring. They seem to be the same on all Ossas, a round disc with slots in for oil flow but they can differ on Bultos. On the 199b it is a solid square shape where oil flows past the 4 sides, on earlier Bultos it is like the Ossa but with holes instead of slots. I tried Ossa rods in the Bulto forks and it actually mmade no difference in the end (no mods required as they are identical fitment, both being Betor) I also took the Ossa forks, removed the sliders and replaced them with the Bultaco sliders and fitted those to the 199b. The Ossa stanchions are about 1" shorter than the Bulto ones (early MAR, later MAR and Gripper will be about 2" longer) so I was also interested to see if it made any difference to the steering, being a bit lower on the front. Answer was no, and the damping was still no improvement and the forks still topped out... No idea why as the forks work well in the Ossa, so must be to do with geometry or whatever. The best improvement I have made to the Bulto is Magical fork springs. Much better and although they are stronger, the forks no longer top out.... Work that one out... Oil is the usual 180 - 200cc 10W The stuff about tiller steering - well, my opinion it's all B*****ks and I think people are being brainwashed by others. My Sherpa top yoke was modified to take conventional clamps. Having tried it, I've fitted a standard yoke again - couldn't tell any difference. The only reason I let it be done was so I could fit bar risers under them as I'm tall, but that actually messed up the steering by unweighting the front as I was too rearwards. Standard yoke back on. I think with old British yokes where the clamps are about 4" behind the stem and the forks are 4" in front of it, there is a case of 'delayed action' to answer, but Hondas, Fantic 240, Sherpa - not really. As OTF has said, they weren't a problem back in the day - why now? With the Bulto, much improvement can be made by getting the suspension to work right. It is probably the most overlooked aspect of set up next to budget tyres in preference to proper tyres. If the suspension is working correctly at both ends, noticeable differences will be felt with the steering. If the rear shocks are clapped out and /or too soft, they will sit the rear of the bike low, making an already long fork rake longer. If the front is too soft, it will tuck on turns, if too hard or full of oil to compensate for the soft springing/damping and it will push out, especially with the back sitting low. Fitting shocks about 1" max longer helps keep the stance of the bike neutral when the rider is on it and decent fork springs will keep the front sitting up but be compliant enough to let it compress the right amount on turns and help prevent tucking or pushing. Obviously, a bit of rider input is required as well... But the front and back has to work equally well and together to get any benefit. Springs and damping in rear shocks need to be right. Solid shocks, ATF oil, dodgy seals, fork springs from a road bike from the breakers yard - all 'cos they were cheap' ultimately mean your bike will handle like a sack of ***** or plank when the reality is, most of us need it to work as well as it can as we need all the help we can get... All very well polishing this or that, painting this or that or buying all the latest riding kit - false economy, bike set up comes first. The steering - unless you're doing really tight up your own backside sections, the like of which I haven't come across in any classic events, the standard Bulto steering should be fine. They still turn tight, but you have to be aware of where the front wheel is/will be in a turn, so plan for it when walking the section - almost a lost art... My 199b has been pulled in and I'm yet to be convinced it is a big improvement in muddy conditions where it doesn't feel so planted. Rocks and 'clutch in' tight turns probably, but very rarely do those. Up rock streams, it is maybe a bit more nervous, although I've yet to try it properly with the standard yoke back on as I'd only done a few sections with it when I broke my shoulder, so no decision yet. Classic Experts hopefully. Or you could try Alpina or Pursang yokes from around a 1975 bike which are parallel - I'm trying these on my stndard 199b when it's back together. Or if you're clever, modify the Sherpa yokes to parallel. Better than cutting a frame to alter the angle. The yokes are 'undo-able' mods - cutting the frame isn't so easy to reverse... If you fit later MAR or Gripper forks, you will have to modify the top yoke and dremel out the collars that the stanchions sit up against as they will be too long otherwise. They will need to sit at least 1" above the top yoke. If you fit them normally, up against the collar in the top yoke, it will be like a chopper. Earlier MK1 or 2 MAR forks will fit fine but a bit shorter than standard Sherpa. The front mudguard may be very close to the exhaust on turns with the forks comressed. Test it first by removing the springs and pulling the forks right up and turning from lock to lock to see if it hits exhaust or frame. I can't help with any thoughts on how it will steer with Ossa forks as I've never tried it. All the trail will be altered so it may not even feel right - steering geometry is a complicated business that is over my head.

I don't think you will find any production numbers for the Majesty unless you can persuade Shirty to help which is doubtful, assuming he kept records. First bikes were 1977 maybe. As far as I recall, all bikes had yellow frames including the first Godden bikes. Then they were chromed, then I think Yamaha insisted they be done in corporate Yam colour of red/white, so last Godden bikes with the rear mudguard loop removed had red frames. Yours was probably stripped and done black by an owner at some time. They were never white. One chance you may have is that Sam Brownlee (who is registered on here) and ued to work for Shirty, particularly on the Majesty frame conversions, has started to ride again. OTF may be able to ask him for you as he will probably be riding in his events and others in that area.

As you can see from that clip, the sort of sections your bike would have had to deal with in national and international events are way harder than anything it will come up against in todays classic events or the easy route in a modern bike event. And the shocks and tyres weren't as good then either. It's all about being comfortable on the bike. The bike itself is fine in standard trim for what you are going to be doing on it. See if you can get hold of some 7 - 8" bars first in terms of the riding position as it's the easiest change. Great clip isn't it. Always makes me smile when I read or hear that the sections in some classic events today are put on for the modern bikes. People forget what these bikes had to do back in 'their day'. That was a hard trial. If the then world champ lost 70 odd marks to win it, your average clubman on a modern bike today wouldn't have finished the first lap.

Ah - a real trials bike... It may have a bit of porting done which is why it feels like that at the bottom end. As a rule, the Ossa is probably the smoothest bike you can get off the pilot jet - especially when Mick's jetted them. Can't believe how much that 250 Bulto went for. There was a very nice blue 198a on ebay a couple of weeks ago with a polished engine, really nice rebuild and it only made

These bikes (most 70s bikes) used to come with bars that were around 7 or 8" high, which is why the riding position didn't feel wrong. Plus we were a lot younger then and young bones and joints wouldn't have noticed if it did. The pegs were always set high as that is what was thought right back then to keep them clear of obstacles. Also, riding styles back then were different and with the higher pegs the bike was easier easier to move around on in the no-stop style. A good illustration of that is to watch Dave Thorpe in the video clip of the 1976 Superstars trial on the front page. Now, the style is to stand in the bike and remain upright rather than move around, as the bikes are more point and squirt and hop the wheels to turn. If you can find some higher bars you will restore the riding position to how it was. Or you can keep lower bars but fit rising blocks under the clamps, although if you go too high with them the steering can lose some feel. That may be an illusion but it is definitely an impression you can get. Or, lower the pegs. This definitely makes the bike feel more stable as your weight is lower and the bike is balanced better, but you are still able to move around on the bike 'old style' if needs be. All three methods can give you the same dimension between hands and feet, but lowering the pegs gives the greater stability when riding. In the end though, it's personal preference. MAR frames come up on ebay quite often, or in bike breakers. Why not get a second frame and alter the footrest position on that.

It's nice to have the odd weekend away with some mates at 2 day events now and again. It can still be cheaper than 2 seperate days of travel if your mileage is high and the events are on seperate weekends. If the events give the riders what they want then they'll go. Lancs and Bootle had about 170 and 140? riders at their events, so that effectively answers any questions. If it came to it I'd miss other events to make sure I could do those two and the same for a few others. On the flip side I've been to some where I haven't had to get off my bike to look at some sections as they are so easy and cleaned them no problem, and I am not the best rider out there. Up a bank, round a tree and back down again isn't what you expect in a national championship. It makes you think about that round for the next year - is it worth the expense, especially when there is a local trial that will offer more of a challenge. I hate to sound critical as I know what goes into organising single lap 40 section trials and they are without question my favourite format. If it comes across as criticism isn't meant to be destructive or cynical, but the fact is, the event will influence the entry.

Swingarm came with rubber/steel insert bushes but they won't be going in. I have to work something else out and also get rid of the HUGE nuts either end of the spindle. I need the bike outside to take pictures as there is no room in the shed to get the bike into a shot. I need daylight for pictures so as soon as I work on it again, I'll get some to you.

Hi Charlie - I've only just started to pick up on it again this last week as since I broke my collarbone a couple of months ago I haven't even been able to twirl spanners or anything as although the breaks are healing, the muscle damage is taking longer. At 52 you don't heal like you did at 18 that's for sure... I was going to have a good go at it today and have been laid out with a bad migraine, so another false start... Yes, I am still using seperate oil tank and air box. This is all done, I have a seperate cannister type oil filter as well from D&C Classics I think it was, whoever it is that builds the expensive Triumph twin trials bikes One thing I noticed with the frame compared to my old bike which had the rear subframe slimmed down, is how wide it is from the footrests back. The mudguard looks lost in the rear frame loop and I hated it - so I cut the loop off.... They could have made it a lot slimmer. With the gearbox ratios used (no idea) and the gearbox sprocket that is fitted I have been told by the engine builder it will need a 42 tooth rear sprocket on a 520 chain. I'm using a Sherpa rear wheel and it just happens to have a 41 tooth sprocket at the moment. This may be a problem as the chain run from front to back is low in height due to the small rear sprocket, so the chain touches the frame cross member behind the engine above the swingarm (why do they make it like that...?) Someone else who has the same gearbox ratios as mine has already said his gearing feels low and the sprocket needs to be smaller. There is no chance of that as it will make the problem worse so it may need a bigger gearbox sprocket and bigger rear sprocket to lift the chain. I'm getting close to the point that I will be able to start it up and have a ride around the garden but lots of small things to be sorted first like cables, chain tensioner, oil pipe runs, wheels I can ride it on as opposed to push it around on. All takes time and I only have weekends to work on it at the moment. That will be interupted again next weekend as I'm on a speed awareness course next Saturday (better than 3 points but only just...) and observing at the Greensmith on Sunday. I'll see if I can get some pictures and send them to you.

Is that the only footage we're ever likely to see of a 330 works Kawasaki? Couple of really good rides by Thorpey in there as well. Although he struggles a bit to move around on the bike now, you can still see the same riding style that we've seen for so many years on the Cub in the classic events. He had his own definition of hanging on feet up...

Incredible how many spectators were there really in what must be some pretty inacessible places and in horrible weather. Would as many people turn out these days for something like that? Maybe today's WTC could still be held over sections of that nature, a bit stiffer and under no-stop rules. No promoters required, no fee for spectating, no minders, no team transporters, no entourage - oh what am I thinking - no chance. I'd guess it probably was the big Bulto which must have used a Pursang crank with longer stroke to get 370cc? Otherwise it would have needed a piston like a bucket on standard stroke.

Definitely the cost of travel, and also accomodation if a stop over is required, is a factor at the moment, but I think more relevant is weighing up that cost against the event itself. Going to events like Lancs County, Bootle, Hillsborough is worth the cost as the standard of the trial is right, therefore riders will be prepared to meet that cost. A 4-500 mile mile round trip to an event where you can clean some sections without having to get off your bike to look at them, then maybe you will think twice when money is tight. Persoanlly I think there are too many classes now for one route, too much variance between rider ability and age. Some have dropped into the O50/60 class on modern bikes as it allows them to ride the easier sections as they no longer feel up to the challenge of the harder sections on a PRE65 or T/S. Still believe 2 routes is the way to go. Unless events are like Bootle and the terrain allows one route.

Yes, not sure which specialist did Mick's but it is modified. I've not ridden his but I've ridden another one which has similar mods and it was very goodThey only use parts from the correct period. Mick's is a 310 (or at least it was originally, I think it still is rather than a 250) Head angle is steepened but I think it is just so they can use leading axle forks. Ossa steering is pretty good as standard but if you fit leading axle forks it spoils it. Hence I guess the angle change. Marzocchi forks and Grimeca front wheel. Rear swingarm from an MH349 Montesa which is longer and I guess to get back the wheelbase from steepening the head angle. Frame looks standard with even the older shock positioning rather han the later angled position. Different rear silencer which is probably straight through packed type rather than the original baffled type. Not sure if anything is done to the middle silencer but there isn't much room on an Ossa to alter it much. Longer front pipe like the later MK3 onwards bikes but a different shape. Rear wheel is Grimeca allowing for a rod operated back brake. The original MAR set up is a tortuous cross over spindle and cable affair. Probably, the engine is ported to make it smoother and rev more freely. I don't think it has a reed valve. I remember Mick saying when he first got it that it may have a bit too much go and he thought they had removed weight from the flywheel but when he looked they hadn't. It's probably got a modern electronic ignition on it. Suspension is Magical shocks and front spring set up which work really well. I'd love to have a try on it as I bet it is very nice to ride. The modified 250 I tried when I was in Spain was very good and would be very similar to Mick's other than it retained Ossa forks and used a Montesa 242 swingarm. It is owned by the man who makes the Magical suspension kits and shocks. That's about all I can remember

That's a poor entry no doubt but I haven't got any answers other than what I put previously. I disagree with you thoughts about the clubs, but I'm cautions of being critical as I know the hard work that goes into an event. But, if a trial is too easy it is the club's decision to run it that way - unless weather plays a part of course. Two or three of the rounds are too easy for a national championship and have been on a regular basis, particularly where we have had to ride sidecar sections. I know for a fact that whilst no-one wants bike or bone breaking trials, neither do they want to drive a 4-500 mile round trip to lose just 2 or 3 marks and still finish about 10th on that low a score. Riders will accept that situation in a local club trial but not a national championship which should provide a stiffer challenge. They can do that without being over the top. There is nothing wrong with a winner being on 15 or so marks. I've ridden this particular trial a couple of times and it was too easy on both occassions. If others feel the same they will stop going and ride locally. Look at the Lancs County and Bootle rounds - huge entries as most agree the section severity is about right. I do have one strong opinion on the series and that is that it should be run over two routes, as it was in its early days when it was just classic bikes, unless the nature of the terrain means the trial can cater for all over one route - Bootle manage this. Where it isn't possible, two routes should be used. At the moment, only a small percentage of the sections can contain an easier route for Pre65 and O50/60 on modern bikes. But the Pre65 riders that take part in this championship are of a good standard on well prepared bikes and don't want the easier route. Two routes woould allow the championship on one route and non-championship on an easier route, although it may be better to run the O50/60 championship on the easier route. I have friends who would ride on twinshocks if there was an easier route but they won't ride whilst it is one route. It would also solve the problem of the Pre65 riders who don't want the easier route. I think given the hard times we are in, a trial has got to offer riders what they want before they will foot the expense of travelling long distances to events.

That was wonderful to watch, thanks for posting it. The start looks like the showground at Pately Bridge which is where one of the Miller rounds starts from - why can't we use those sections.... Does anyone know if any of them are still in use and if so in what trial. I'd love to ride some of them - or try... That looked a tough trial. Had to laugh when he announced that Lampkin had won on only 70 whatever marks... Now, after watching that, who will still think that today's Normandale or other classic trials are set out for modern bikes.

Hograt - you've sent me some sort of message to my profile but I can't work out where its gone or how to reply so I'll put it on here. Ossa had electronic ignition back then but I don't know whether it was fitted to the first Stilettos as I've never had one. If you have points on it, which is easy enough to check, and there is only one wire running up to the HT coil, then all you do is connect one wire from the kill button to the coil's spade terminal and the other kill button wire to earth.

Pulling the plug cap off an Ossa is a big no no as it can wreck the electronic ignition. I'm assuming the early Stilletos were fitted with electronic. If so, you got away with it, unless you haven't tried to start it since... If you have the Motoplat electronic, there will be two wires up to the coil, one black to the smaller terminal on the HT coil, one blue to the larger spade terminal. Buy a Yamaha pattern type kill switch from any offroad dealer - J K Hirst, Bultaco UK etc. They have two wires, one goes to earth, the other needs to go to the blue wire terminal on your coil.

That is a 'Spanish' Ossa though with just a few mods. A little different from standard...

It's hard to tell from the picture but it looks like a MK2 (74/75) that has had the shock position altered to copy the MK3. The bottom shock mount is typically where the MK2 would be but the top mount for a MK2 is at the top of the frame tube where it meets the frame loop, right under the rear of the seat. The MK3 top mount is roughly where yours is. The MK3 swingarm shock mount is over the rear wheel spindle - so you have a cross between the two. The MK3 has longer forks than the MK2 - yours are MK2. So, either someone has modded a MK2 to almost MK3 positioning or it is a MK3 frame - identical to MK2 apart from shock mount position. Shocks on both MK2 and 3 are the same length - 13.5" or 250mm, give or take a little. This is a MK2 This is a MK3

Bemrose is probably not a good comparison as it is a trial in its own right which attracted 100 entries in previous years. This year they applied for it to be a Normandale round and still included the normal Bemrose classes. Two trials in one. Normandales were averaging around 90 so put the two together and they ended up with over 200. I know some feel that some of the rounds are too easy (so do I) for the usual Normandale standard. The Miller series caters for the next rung down from Normandale allowing the Normandale sections to offer more of a challenge. Travel to the events is very expensive now from any distance and if some riders feel that they aren't going to get a good challenge, then they may feel the expense isn't worth it. Nothing worse than a 4 or 500 mile round trip to lose a couple of marks and finish 10th. I haven't ridden this particular trial for a while now but when I did I felt it could have been more challenging, along with the Bemrose, Doncaster Cup and Presidents. If you have a five from misfortune (chain off for example) your day is over and that isn't how it should be in a national championship. The clash with the Lakes certainly won't have helped as a good number of riders that compete in the Normandale ride the Lakes too. First time to my knowledge that there has been such a clash and something to bear in mind next year when setting the fixture list.

Well, imagine how many cars there are with reconditioned engines fitted where the engine number doesn't match the logbook. DVLA staff are so vague on their own procedures that you would get 3 different answers from 3 different staff if you asked what you should do. As usual, red tape makes it vitually impossible for us to simply update a vehicle record honestly. I'd leave things as they are, the important one is the chassis number and that matches the V5 and registration. If you do decide to update the V5, you need to provide DVLA with a receipt for the replacement engine from a trader, if bought from one, as proof that it is legitimately bought and not stolen. If you do not have this, or the engine was bought from a private seller, then you would need a letter from the manufacturer (no idea of the poinbt of this...) or an inspection by DVLA to ensure the engine isn't on their stolen list. There are no implications in terms of getting it back on the road. The MOT certificate only requires the chassis number which they usually take from the logbook if you take it with you, there is no requirement for the engine number at MOT. Insurance only want the registration number and although the engine is a replacement it is of the same type so the bike isn't modified. Road licence application has no requirement for engine number.

Don't have any photos and can't get any as the bike is at the back of the garage at the moment where it's been for 12 months with a broken gearbox. All you have to do is get a piece of alloy that is thick enough not to bend under the strain (say 4mm thick?) Cut a rectangular piece (you can 'shape' it if you like) twice as long and the same height as the existing cable housing on the timing cover. Drill a hole in one end and use this to bolt the alloy to the existing cable housing. Dill another hole at the other end and cut a slot down into it to make a new housing/retainer for the outer cable. Cut the clutch arm in half and weld in a piece to make it long enough to reach the new cable position. How long the clutch arm and alloy plate need to actually be, you can work out from looking at the bike. The length is restricted by the fact that too long and it will foul the frame tube. I'm guessing at the length when I say cut a piece of alloy plate to twice the length of the existing housing.

Never knew that. I think Nigel Birkett may have standard size 325 pistons as generally it is the oversizes that have disappeared over the years.

All of the black engines were made as 325cc, it was cast into the bottom of the barrel on the ignition side but ground off on the 250 as yes, the 250 was a sleeved down version. I doubt it was done that way though. I think it was a new liner. There was also something different about the exhaust port between the two but I can't remember what it was now. The 250 had a bigger weight on the clutch OR it was a mod to lighten the weight to get the 250 to pick up quicker - probably the latter. The combustion chamber was different in the 250 head as well I think. All these are outline points, the actual details I've forgotten. The 325 is a very torquey motor, I had one and loved it. Best way to make the 250 perform better, if that is what you are after, is to lighten the weight of the clutch flywheel and maybe ignition side too? A lot cheaper than converting back to 325.