woody

Not sure what you mean by 'snaps', I'm assuming you mean the bike jumps when engaging as it doesn't go into gear cleanly, or without a bit of clutch drag. In reality, 1/8th or 1/16th - it isn't going to make any difference which measurement you use. Same with the lever, as long as there is some free play, the measurement isn't critical. It's always going to be harder to get it into gear with a high tickover, if there is drag on the clutch. You may find that the clutch springs are wound tight in making it difficult for the plates to completely release (and a heavy clutch pull) You can play with the spring tension, backing off the adjusting screws until their heads are level with the end of the thread they screw onto as a starting point - or to the point where the hole for the locking wire is just visible. You can adjust the springs through the inspection cover one at a time by rotating the engine. There's just enough room to get the screwdriver blade in. Play with the tension and keep trying the bike. Also use a low friction cable such as Venhill featherlite. You can also lengthen the clutch arm see link below to a bike on ebay. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/OSSA-250-MAR-TWIN-SHOCK-TRIALS-MOTORCYCLE-/200649136415?pt=UK_Motorcycles&hash=item2eb79ed91f You need an offset ring spanner and screwdriver to undo the clutch pushrod nut, or you can shock it free with a socket with a quick whack from a hammer. I've fitted Barnett plates to mine, lengthened the clutch arm, Venhill cable and backed off the springs. Works pretty well and you barely feel it go into gear with the Barnett plates.

The FIM must have cost the factories a stack of money with that ridiculous rule. The factories should have just told them to shove it, what could they have done. Buyers of new bikes, 2 or 4-stroke have been helping foot the costs ever since.

I don't know of anyone who has used them yet. One of our local riders has a pair on order for his SWM and should be getting them soon. There should be a report on his blog as soon as he's tried them http://www.classicrider444.com/ You're right, they aren't cheap, between

That's ok for the numbers, engines are prefixed M and frames B, but the important thing is the number. They matched from the factory so you can use your engine number against the chassis chart to date it. I don't think the MK1 MAR has the number stamped on the frame anyway, it used to be a stick on plate. Run it on 50:1 modern 2-stroke. I use Castrol TTS, it doesn't gum up rings or exhausts. It shouldn't smooke much at all on that. However, it could be smoking for a number of reasons - too much oil, gunged up middle silencer, burning gearbox oil leaking through the clutch side crank seal. If it has only been ridden on light throttle over the years the exhaust could have a bit of gunge in it. Sometimes a long run on an open throttle will be enough to burn out the residue and stop the smoking so it may be worth taking it out somewhere to try that. If the bike responds and runs ok but just smokes, it is unlikely you will need to worry about a compression test. Similarly if you can feel a lot of compression on the kickstart. If it doesn't run clean, also check the carb for over fuelling, stuck float etc.

It is best to split the engine to replace the crank seals. You can do it without but it is difficult to get the seals in without damaging or distorting them and another consideration is that you have no way of knowing whether the tensioning spring has popped out of the back of the seal during attempts at getting the seal in. Besides, if you have a leak it could be the centre gasket or a stipped or damaged sump plug, both which need a stip down. Other possible leaks - oil seal behind the gearbox sprocket, worn sleeve that sits in this oil seal, clutch pushrod seal in the end of the mainshaft, gear shaft O rings. Removing the clutch and cush drive is straightforward but the problems start with the sleeve that the cush drive sits on. This is a tapered fit on the crankshaft and it can come off easily or it can be a bitch if it's stuck on really hard. An ordinary puller is no use as there is nothing to attach the legs to, you can't get behind the collar of the sleeve as it is right up against the crankcase. There is a proper puller available which you can get from Keith Lynas. See his parts page. http://www.ossaplanet.com/partspage.html You can make something that will do the job in order to use a 2 or 3 legged puller but much better to buy the proper part. However, be prepared for a mighty struggle if that taper has bitten hard. Also, on the MK1 MAR (up to 1973) the ignition flywheel nut has a normal right hand thread, later bikes, MK2 onwards (1974 on) had a left hand thread (or it could be the other way around, long time since I did one) Make sure you know which engine you have as if you tighten it further thinking you're undoing it, you can shear the end of the crank off (yes I did, many years ago... when I didn't know there were left handed threads) Although you say your bike is a 1972, check the engine number with Keith or the frame number chart on the site below (engine/frame numbers always matched from the factory so your engine number can be used on a frame/chassis chart) Just hope your number is in the run as some of the numbers aren't. If you google Ossa Chassis number you will get links to other charts as well, so check a few if you don't find yours at first. Keith will be your best bet though. http://hem.passagen.se/ossa/ossaref.html The gearbox sprocket nut also has a left hand thread. As mentioned before in the previous post be very careful when splitting the cases as there are shims on all the shafts, both ends (usually) including the kickstart shaft and selector drum. Also the crankshaft. You're supposed to re-shim the engine everytime it is reassembled but you will probably be ok putting them back where they came from (don't mention that to Keith...) Shimming is an absolute bitch of a job. There is also a thick shim/washer that sits under the outside cog on the gearbox countershaft on the clutch side. Watch for it if that cog falls off the shaft. The gearbox needs it. Whilst it's apart renew the O rings for the gear change and kickstart shafts. The O ring on the right side crankcase for the gear change shaft can only be accessed with the engine apart. You don't want to miss that one and have it leak when reassembled. The other gear change O ring and kickstart are in the clutch cover. The manual you have is as good as any, unless Keith has others. A decompressor valve releases compression from the cylinder when opened and somehow this increases engine braking. If the rear wheel is on a grippy surface, if you apply the decompressor with the bike rolling along in gear it will slow the bike down reasonably effectively, making a hell of a noise of escaping air at the same time. In dry conditions it can be used as an effective brake on the rear wheel going down hill, as the wheel stuggles to turn against the increase engine braking. If the ground is slippery or muddy though, the rear wheel has nothing to turn against and the increased engine braking will just lock it up and stall the motor.

Yes it was a fantastic trial last year. Big sections. I've just started a new job so I can't go this year. Hopefully next year, Robregordo and Santigosa.

Thanks again John - that's good news You can give your fingers a rest now, no more questions from me.

Thanks John, that nicely summises a few of the reasons why there is a members register for trials riders. There are a couple of points that I wouldn't have thought of, not being on the 'inside', but it's clear now that including the registration fee within the entry fee wouldn't accommodate them. So my nest question is - is a process being looked at to enable riders to register on-line (existing members - new members have to send a photo, although even that can be done electronically) At the moment, the only issue preventing this, that I can see, is that riders have to join a club to register, this in turn has to be verified by the club secretary's signature. Is it essential to have to join a club to register?

ok, understand that, but that puts the SACU process out of the scope of this discussion. For ACU events, the club have to check that the rider has a valid registration card. That's fine, but if the entry fee to an event was inclusive of the registration, the need for the registration card, the need to check for one and the 'messy' process to acquire one would no longer be necessary. It would also help if new riders turn up at an event, or a rider brings along a friend who just wants to have a go at a trial to see what it's like - obviously, these people aren't going to have ACU trials registration. I have no idea what the process is to deal with this as technically they can't ride without it. There used to be a day license but that also used to entail more form filling. If the registration was per event and included in the entry fee, the process for accepting new riders is so much easier. I don't know if there is a specific reason that it isn't done this way, it was once for a short period, but then we reverted to the license again, then registration. If there is a legitimate reason then fair enough, but I have searched and cannot find what the purpose of the registration fee is. Does it matter how it is collected?

But it isn't referred to as a competition licence for trials - it's membership registration. Two different things or the same but in name? The application form has no provision for medical cover, unless the SACU form is different. The entire purpose as to why this registration is required is confusing. The form is entitled Trials Registration but there is reference within the form to both Trials Registration and Licence. The member's card states licence/registration I can't find anything on the ACU website tha explains its purpose.

I'm missing something here? The registration card is only checked to validate that the rider has one - ie: is registered with the ACU as that is a requirement to compete. If the entry fee is inclusive of the trials registration fee, why would an identity check be required. We pay: Registration fee At least one club membership fee Entry fee per event. Which one of those fees is attributed towards insurance? I'd suggest entry fee? I don't think the registration fee concerns insurance? Besides, I'm not suggesting we don't pay insurance, the fact that we need insurance is without question. I'm just questioning the registration fee as regards making it easier to collect by including it in the entry fee. That way it is impossible not to pay it (whatever its purpose is) Paying it isn't an issue, it's just that the current process for obtaining it is cumbersome.

As regards the trials registration. It would seem a lot less work for all concerned if the fee went back onto a trials entry. The process for applying for trials registration is still too 'messy' - can't be done online as you need a form signed by a club secretary and to get that you need to join a club. If you don't have a local club it is a pain to get that done. Much easier to remove the paper form, register online and nominate a club you would like to join. AU process the application and inform the club of the new member's registration number along with whatever payment is due for club membership (standardised fee?) Or, remove the need to join a club and just register online. Or, remove the need for the registration membership and add it onto the trials entry fee (as was done before) Some will pay more than others due to the amount of events ridden but if it was

Hopefully, whoever that person is, I hope the clubs see to it he/she never has an entry accepted again for one of their trials.

Difficult to say as middle routes vary so much. I would say generally it's going to be a lot harder than an average middle route. I rode the Pre65 Scottish in 2006 and 2007 on a relatively uncompetitive C15 which I was still sorting out. I lost 20 or 21 marks total both times. That included a number of fives due to the bike stopping in sections with crap electrics plus other problems, otherwise a more realistic score would have been 8 - 10 total each time. In the Lakes I lose about 50 each day on average on my Bultaco. So based upon how you go in Scotland, that may give you an idea of what to expect.

It's much harder than the Scottish Pre65

Leave it as it is - what difference does it make to us? (geniune opnion - not facetious)

Send them over here....

Depends what you're used to riding - bike and event type. The bike would need to be a good one with good suspension and working brakes, much in the mode of a modernised Cub or James. Naturally, the more capable the rider, the 'worse' a bike they can manage around the event but ideally, you'd want to be on a well sorted one. In terms of events, if you have ridden any Normandale Traditional rounds and found them too hard, then the Lakes will be too much without question.

If you can travel to another licencing centre try them instead. What yours is saying is garbage but as they can make their own rules up it is hard to fight against it. When the bikes are over a certain age I don't think the VAT issue applies anyway, but regardless of that, the fact that Honda say it was a genuine UK bike means VAT would have been paid.

Yep, that's how it goes

The parts look the same but there are differences and they don't swap straight over Early 325 up to model 151 are basically overbored 250 barrels with different fins. Later 325 M159 on has a thicker liner and the exhaust studs are further apart because the port is bigger, so exhausts aren't interchangeable. You can use an M158 or later 250 exhaust on the early 325. 92 has bolt on carb inlet. You'd have to swap it for a push on carb inlet from a later 250 if you want to retain the bing as the later 325 inlet is bigger and won't fit the early 325 Clutch basket and hub have different fittings, look the same but aren't Clutch crank weight shaped differently to allow for the different shape clutch case. Later weight will foul the inside of early cover. Gear shafts are different, mainshaft has different bearings clutch side and shafts are different diameter. Clutch springs held with pins on early bikes, nuts on later - hub not interchangeable, different shape at the rear. Forks have a tapered top yoke on early (or all) 92 so you'd have to swap the entire front end, not just the forks. All have the same bearings/steering stem fitting so not a problem. Maybe more I've forgotten about...

Yes, it's possible. I'll check when I get home tonight

When you screw the selector plate back on with the 3 screws, the rotating peg will engage the pawls that sit behind it into the selector drum. The peg should be pointing upwards at around 12 o'clock position and will move side to side from about 10 - 2 o'clock. When you then push the selector shaft assembly on, the spring should sit either side of the rotating peg which then sits in the slot in the selector. When the selector moves left or right the spring tensions against the peg and returns it in either direction after a gear is selected. There is only one way it will fit really. When fitting the selector, just move the rotating peg with your hand to position it so that the peg engages in the slot. Check that the shaft isn't bent. Although it is only short, the gear lever is quite vulnerable and can get caught and bend the shaft - which could also cause it to stick as the spring would not be strong enough to return it if it is bent where it comes through the casing. Your gear lever needs to be set at 2 o'clock, it's at about 5 at the moment which is the number of minutes it will last if you ride it like that... Very nice bike. Definitely an M92 which is 325cc yes. I never knew the earlier 325 had a 25mm fitted. I thought they were all 27mm, as per the 250.

They all float a bit so don't worry about it. You'll certainly worry about the cost of replacing that bearing....