woody

Your trial should get a good entry whatever classic label you run it under in my view. If it doesn't then I'm at a loss to understand what riders of classics and twinshocks want from a trial any more... The entry for the Mansfield Maun event would certainly have been affected by the clash with the PJ1 round for the Pre65 class. Twinshocks, no idea really, although the venue is one of the groups in their Normandale round and I'm not sure it is everyone's favourite as the sections are more manufactured than natural. It's also the first time that the two events would have run together and I'm not convinced it is a good idea. It meant 2 routes with the Pre65 class on the easy route and twinshocks on the hard. That to me, presents problems. Some of the Pre65 riders are very good and don't want the easy route. Some twinshock riders aren't so good and may not want the hard route. When the twinshock team trial ran in the Lakes, the sections were all natural and one route, some hard, some easy. Overall a good balance and although hard in places they weren't intimidating, so all could attempt them even if it meant a fail at times. When the Pre65 team trial has been run, the variety of machines and rider abilities is quite big and as far as I remember, it has always had 2 routes. Teams nominate who will run on the hard and easy routes which is dependant upon the ability of the bike and the rider, but I can't remember exactly what the criteria was and how the team scoring was worked out. Putting the two events together, I think it is hard to get the balance right due to the bigger variety of bikes and of rider ability. Besides, I'd like to ride in both (being selfish.... ) I think the format you had last year (and this) is the ideal for your trial to be honest, solo trial, 2 routes and riders choose themselves which route they want. However, it would still make a fabulous team trial in terms of the course, but it is just how to handle the format, if the twinshock and Pre65 events are combined. There is no reason you shouldn't get a good entry for it but I think a lot of the Pre65 boys would be disappointed if they were on the easier route.

Sandifords? They will date it for you as I remember seeing them advertise it on ebay, but I'm not sure if DVLA will still accept documentation from them for an age related plate as they are no longer a registered importer (I'm assuming) Presumably Sandifords would confirm that. Or, try the Vintage Motorcycle Club in Burton Upon Trent (google for website and contacts) DVLA will accept a certificate from them confirming the date of manufacture for an age related plate. If they haven't already got model year records for that bike, if you can show them proof of the age of manufacture they will then issue a certificate. Proof can be in the form of a chassis number/model chart (available from various Montesa websites) or a catologue sales brochure/picture showing the model when new with the date, or even the confirmation from Sandifords. They are very helpful

What's the definition of 'king'? Lampkin is the most successful. However, he is a way off being the 'best' rider now. That has been Bou for five years, indoor and outdoors. So, if 'king' means most successful, yes he is. If it means best at this time, no he isn't. All depends on what spin you want to put on it.

The primary reason was lack of entries, only 5 teams entered. Maybe there are too many events these days, this date clashed with a PJ1 British bike round, so that accounts for a lot of Pre65 riders. I'd guess many who may have ridden the team trial are following the PJ1 championship. I'm also a bit confused with this year's 'classic' team trial dates as the Lakes MTA cancelled a similar event a couple of weeks ago, although twinshock only, no Pre65. I first saw the Lakes event on the ACU calender at the start of the year but didn't realise it was still going ahead and assumed it had been replaced by the Mansfield Maun event. So not sure why they were both on the calender still with a couple of weeks between them. Historically the Pre65 and Twinshock team events have been run seperately and it would be nice if they could be kept seperate, but obviously it depends upon clubs/centres willing to run them. The twinshock team trial run by the Lakes MTA a couple of years ago was a superb event, as was Congleton's Pre65 event a year or so before and South Birmingham's before that.

It's up to you what you do obviously as it is your bike, but if you put a B25 motor in it there are two main consequences. First, the bike's value will probably go down the pan as if you ever wanted to sell it you have to hope there is someone who wants to buy a hybrid like that. Second is the performance. The Sherpa engine is much better than the B25 and although you have had problems with yours, it is much more reliable and requires much less maintenance. The crank shouldn't have failed because of a quality issue as I'd guess that all the dealers have probably sold the the same kit for years. Perhaps it wasn't assembled corrctly or the engine took in dirt or whatever, but they are reliable as a rule. Not sure what you mean when you say that you've had an exact replica machined (conrod kit?) so I can't imagine what if anything, that may have to do with the 4 stroking. The first thing to do is throw away the triangular silencer. They are fine for appearances on museum pieces but strangle the motor if you are using the bike. If you're not bothered about it looking original put it on ebay. Most people threw them away when the bikes were new. Then take it back on the road and find somewhere to run it near flat out for a while to see if it will burn of any gooey residue that may be in the silencer. That sometimes works wonders for a 2 stroke motor that has got choked up. There are other reasons why it may 4 stroke such as choked up main silencer, choked airfilter, worn carb components or incorrect size jets, points and/or condensor. Try it without the silencer first and take it from there, checking the carb jets/settings and replacing the points and condensor before looking at other possibilities. A long shot is that it may be burning clutch oil through the crank seal(you'll know from white smelly exhaust smoke depending on what oil is in there) which could also cause 4 stroking. Whatever it is, sorting it is going to be a whole lot easier than barstardising the poor thing with a B25 engine.

Hey Paul, I was trying to keep it cheap for you.... I can give you lots of 'budget-busting' ideas... The M150 like Javier's is quite a bit different from the M80 and they are a tighter, more nimble feeling bike. The engine case, forks, swingarm are all standard for that model. Exhuast middle box is not standard - looks like a Miller ? Back box is standard for that model. It is a pity we don't have the Pre72, Pre77 etc classes in the UK but I can just imagine the can of worms if we tried. The M80 is good for Midland Classic events though as they are only supposed to run Pre72 I think.

Can't help with identifying them but is it worth the effort and cost to rebuild them? By the time you have had the springs stripped and repainted, bought new mounting bushes, bought rod seals and bushes, stripped and repainted the bodies, bought the oil, you may have exceeded the cost of a pair of lower priced trials shocks (especially if the rods are rusty? In which case new rods needed or having them reground and hard chromed - more cost) On top of that, they may not be trials shocks and have the wrong spring rate and damping. And you have to get them apart in the first place which could prove a challenge... If you're not riding the bike in serious competition you can buy a pair of NJB Clubman shocks for about £70 or a pair of steel bodied Betors for not much more. Worth thinking about.

Just curious as to why you want to fit working lights - MOT? If so, you don't need them for an MOT, regardless of what a tester tells you. If you're planning on riding the bike in the dark, say plenty of prayers beforehand and keep your fingers crossed when riding, as they are about as effective as a candle and things always get exciting when you throttle off for bends on unlit roads - the drop in revs dims the lights, just when you need them most...

I don't know about their bars but Renthal do a 6" rise trials bar

Yes it should have a slimline tank/seat unit, picture below of my old M80 that I never got time to rebuild (wonder where it is now) As far as mods, there isn't much you can do to it really unless you want to start altering it. They are what they are, never going to be a Fantic beater. Motors are good, torquey and pull well with plenty of revs. Chassis is typical old Bultaco, back end feels dead (but works) even with good shocks. Front end a bit soft, steering is a bit slow, they feel long but will turn tight, but if you get off line with them they aren't like an Ossa which you can just get straight back on line with a flick of the bars, they need a bit more room. Clutch is not as easy to adjust finitely as the springs are held by pins, unlike the later bikes which have nuts which allow the tension to be altered. However, they'll ride down to nothing (with no tickover) without the clutch having to be used. Best you can do is just get everything working as it should, motor, brakes, clutch, suspension. There's not much point getting into heavy mods like steering, shock position, as you may as well just ride a later model. Just enjoy it for what it is - but it will be a bit of a culture shock after the Ossa...

Depends on which model you have as to what you want as there are two differen types of front wheel fitted to Sherpas. 1972/3 bikes onwards had the smaller conical front hub. These have a top hat spacer inside the brake plate, between the plate and the bearing. On the left side as you sit on the bike there is a normal tubular spacer that locates in the oil seal and goes between the fork and the bearing (not a top hat) On these bikes the spindle is recessed into the fork leg on both sides, it isn't exposed. Earlier bikes with the full width hub have a different arrangement but it's been too long since I worked on one so can't remember exactly what the spacers are. On these bikes, the spindle isn't recessed into the fork leg, it is exposed on either side. Obviously, the model you have doesn't necessarily identify which front end you have fitted as these can easily have been changed over the years, but those are the two types fitted to Sherpas. Bultaco UK will have the spacers you need if you can tell them which wheel you have. As far as I remember there are only two spindles, the recessed type for the conical hub and the exposed type for the earlier full width hub (which may be a bigger diameter, can't remember. The later one is 12mm diameter) Edit: ooops, post crossed with one above. If you look on ebay, this is the later spindle, the left hand side has a slot cut across the diameter. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bultaco-Sherpa-250-trials-1976-front-wheel-spindle-/230650797069?pt=UK_Motorcycle_Parts&hash=item35b3dbdc0d

Here's a question, just out of curiosity. In the 325 Sherpa barrel there are two slots at the rear, either side of the inlet port, that run vertically. There are two corresponding holes in the top of the piston. I've also seen these on 349 Montesa barrels and on the Aprilia Hiro barrel, although the Armstrong Hiro barrel doesn't have them. As they aren't higher than the top of the piston, any fuel mixture that gets pushed up inside the piston on its downward stroke and goes through the holes in the top of the piston and into the slots, doesn't actually have anywhere else to go. The slots remain covered by the piston. So, anyone know what purpopse they serve? Just curious as I can't work it out. I can't see how they can be performance related and can't see that they help with lubricating or cooling the piston.

OKO or Dellorto? To be honest, if you rode two identical bikes, one with OKO, the other with Dellorto, both adjusted and jetted correctly, I bet you wouldn't be able to tell any difference. I have two 340 Sherpas, one with a Dellorto and one with an OKO. Both run very well although it is difficult to make a direct comparison as one has a modified exhaust. The point is, either of these, being new carburettors, will be an improvement over an original Amal or Bing if that carb is worn out.

Trying to be realistic, if clubs are happy to put on events for that many riders on the championship route (it only seems to average around 9ish anywway) is there a problem. The overall number of entrants wasn't too bad, there were 2 non-starters on the championship route as well. The problems will arise when clubs don't think it is worth putting the effort in and stop applying for the rounds. As regards putting it back on the road, which trials would you use to support it. The traditional nationals are well supported these days, as are the S3 rounds. How will some of them be affected by turning them into BTC rounds. The sections would get harder to cater for a few. They'd be too hard for the majority who would drop down to the B (whatever) route. That route would then be too easy for them so that would have to be stiffened up and most of the clubmen entry would disappear because it would be too hard. Modern trials is a conundrum at BTC and WTC level. It's a seperate sport. There are few riders good enough to ride at that level. But if organisisng clubs are happy with the format and number of riders is there a problem? The worst thing that could happen is for the traditional nationals to be hijacked for the BTC putting them out of reach of the clubmen that ride them now.

Does it matter that there were only 6 on the championship route? There are usually only around 8 or 9 at most events. Today there were 2 non-starters so it should have been 8, which is about normal. The trial overall still had 50+ so not a bad entry in total. If riders want a seriously hard championship route as training for the WTC and organisers are happy with catering for only 10 or thereabouts riders on that route, is there a problem? You'd assume the organisers are happy to do so as it has been like this for a few years now. As a seperate issue, my own opinion on trials at championship level is that the sport is screwed. The bikes are too good, way more than your average club rider needs and only a handful of riders really have the skill to ride these bikes to the maximum, creating the huge gap between them and the rest. The sections they ride are impossible for 98% of riders, so they are in a sport of their own. Put them on an old style national course with trick riding allowed and most of them will go clean. Make the sections harder and most other riders will drop out. As with most motor sport, progress and machine development isn't always for the better and can have an adverse affect. A not too bad solution, although this is firmly tongue in cheek, would be to bin every monoshock ever made and go back to twin shocks and air-cooled motors which just wouldn't be capable of modern 'big' sections, which could then revert to the right side of sensible for more riders. Now, I have some more Castrol R to sniff before bedtime.

Hi Charlie, the engine is BSA all through apart from an alloy barrel and the piston maybe, not sure what that is, but I think the reason is more about the height of it than it being anything exotic. Normal C15 head, valves, cam etc with the usual PVL ignition. It's just that most of it is NOS so it should be nice and reliable. Gagging to get it up and running but I've another couple of bikes to get out of the way first, then I'm down to a sensible number that I can manage and get on with the BSA.

Yes Charlie, MK3 Faber but I don't really trust oil in frame and would rather have an oil tank for peace of mind. I'm not too good at capturing rebuilds on camera but if I remember I'll send you any photos. Definitely get one when it is finished. Wonder what sort of cameras we'll be using by then...

Not really as they differ from fork to fork. They are either a screw that you undo to bleed pressure build up in the forks. Or, they are a valve which is supposed to do that for you and let air, but not oil, out through a pin hole in the fork cap - in my experience this latter type, usually on Betor forks (Ossa, Bultaco) either block up or let oil out as well giving you an oil jet wash in the face every time the forks compress until finally they are empty. I always block the hole off and can't say that I've ever had a problem with forks pressurising.

Hi Andy Slowly is the answer to that one. I have too much getting in the way which is why a few bikes have been sold and some are in the process. The Jumbo is next. Then I can concentrate on the BSA. Although the Bultaco is getting in the way at the moment. What started out as replacing swingarm bushes yesterday has escalated. They were seized solid, so engine had to come out to get at the swing arm properly to cut through the spindle. As the bike was 70% apart, I finished the job as the frame needed painting... etc etc. BSA has oil tank and airbox made, wheels and forks are done, so now it is just a case of fitting it all together for a dry build and then just giving it a test run, but there are loads of little jobs like making cables, oil pipes etc. Originally I wanted it for the Isle of Man but as I didn't get in this year there is no rush now. But at least with other bikes being moved on I can concentrate on it 100% when the Bulto is back together (won't take long as need it for next Miller round) BSA won't be done for your trial, I'll be on the Bultaco for that one and looking forward to it immensely. One of the best trials last year.

I have no idea whether ATF is suitable for forks or not but I would only use proper fork oil in them. 220 is probably the maximum you'd want, I usually start with 200cc of 10w and take it from there, adding another 10 if they feel like they are close to bottoming or topping but 200 usually is enough for me - but obviously all forks differ in their behaviour, even when they are identical in terms of components. You could try WES progressive springs which you can get through BVM. At least you will know they are new and have not sagged, then it is just a case of playing with preload. A friend has some in his 240 Fantic and the forks are very good. Or you could fit Magical front fork springs. No need to buy the caps with adjustable preload or the internal spacers as well, they are nice to have, not essential. You can make your own spacers. With the WES or Magicals you would have new springs which would eliminate the springs from any performance issues.

If it runs like that then the instructions are wrong or the ignition is not working correctly. Out of the few people I know that have bought Electrex kits( not just Bultaco, Sprite and Montesa) none of them have been able to just bolt it on and ride the bike, there have been problems of some sort or another involving phone calls and discussions to try and resolve them - Timing marks in the wrong place, reversed polarity, bike won't run, it runs but pops and bags. The Montesa saga went on for months with two solutions that didn't resolve it but as the bike has since been stripped for a rebuild we still don't know if the last 'fix' works or not, but the owner will never buy an Electrex kit again. If I was in your position and still wanted electronic I'd return it and demand a refund, then buy a Rex Caunt or Bultaco UK ignition.

Now I know this isn't really going to be of any help to you but I really don't understand Electrex. They make the ignition, they presumably know exactly the position that the stator fits onto the crankcase - why don't they just put a bloody mark on the stator that sits at 12 o'clock with the piston at TDC. That's it, no need for degrees, no need for timing guns, no need for constant confusion to the people who buy them and then can't fit them. Just buy it, screw it on, fire up the bike and ride it. Or is that too simple. Bit of a rant I know (I'm peed at having just wasted 2 hours watching the film After Life on Sky) but I just don't see why they can't do that. Every person I know has had bother fitting an Electrex, regardless of the make of bike. Add that to the number of people on here questioning the fitting instructions. Customers shouldn't have to be p****** about with dial guages, degree dials, algorithms and slide rules. How can they make something so simple so complicated? Maybe I'm missing something fundamental in my state of angst...

Well, the BSA has now gone to a new home and I feel quite sad about it really as I've had some decent rides on it over the years. One or two nightmare in the early years as well mind. However, I have another to get ready which will take a few months and I need to finance it. Bob - the engine was a pretty standard distributor type, standard road cam, head, no big valves or porting. Triumph 650 (I think) piston, low compression, which put it somewhere around 280cc max I think. Amal 22mm carb and PVL ignition. Swingarm was converted to needle rollers, shocks were angled and worked very well, IRC rear tyre and it found grip very well in mud. The motor was quite soft. I generally rode it with no tickover, no clutch and it had plenty of feel at the back wheel, probably the suspension set up and definitely the IRC helped with that. Many years ago, I borrowed a B40 from Norman Blakemore (NJB Shocks) and the engine on that bike was very good. It was a WD motor with a low compression piston and would have had electronic ignition of some sort (this was about mid 1990s) Amal carb. It was very smooth, revved freely and it actually found grip in mud quite well.

Get a sharp stanley knife or small file and put a leading edge on the seal housing in the case. Heat the casing, smear the seal in grease and it should push in easily

Handlebar height is down to personal preference but 5.5" is a good compromise for most riders' heights. If you're over 6' maybe 6" would be better. Don't cut any off the end, there is no need and it will make the steering a bit more twitchy/nervous.