woody

Your carb settings are the same as mine, I've pretty well cured the dreaded cough stall on mine by moving the carb further back using two tefnol spacers (20mm each I think). It won't stop it completely but I can open the throttle pretty quickly without problem and have to be pretty viscious on the throttle now to make it miss. Not saying it will work on yours but worked for me. Found out by accident as I was trying to make the power delivery off tickover as soft as possible by moving the carb back and this turned out to be a side affect if you like. Mine is standard road type engine (distributor model) with standard head/valves/cam, only mod is a 650 Triumph piston. You can get the spacers from here if required http://www.hitchcocksmotorcycles.com/amal-carburettors-miscellaneous Just had my carb apart to clean it for tomorrow's PJ1 round and noticed I'd forgotten to mention one other thing. My carb has a 35 pilot jet fitted. The airway behind the pilot/air screw has been drilled out in order to allow a bigger pilot. Not sure what is involved in doing this as I didn't do it so can't offer any advice on this.

Sadly, no Robregordo for me again this year as can't afford it. Hopefully things will pick up as I'd like to do Santigosa again in October

You could be right with the hubs, I've never seen later Alpina hubs Most of the Puma bikes run the original spec hubs, they are machined out to take a steel liner. The shoes would be fitted with oversize liners, probably of a material that gives a better feel for trials and skimmed to fit for a much bigger contact surface. I've tried 3 or 4 with Sherpa hubs and the brakes were perfect on all of them, including those operated by R/H pedal with the cable.

Yes, 20" and 17" I've no idea of the availability of tyres but isn't it possible to rebuild normal rims onto the hubs, or fit 175/250/350 Sherpa wheels (I'm assuming the rest of the bike, frame, forks, are full size, not scaled down)

Don't think it is a Pursang hub as there aren't enough sprocket bolts. You could try a TY175/250 twinshock rear wheel or a Montesa Cota 247, both have brake/sprocket on opposite sides. However, I have a Sherpa rear brake that works perfectly well with a cable from a R/H side pedal. The only mod I made was to make my own pedal as I wasn't keen on the feel of the alloy Sherpa one, and when I lowered the footrests I couldn't reach it properly anyway. It still uses the original pivot point, just reshaped for the new footrest position. I can lock the rear wheel without problem.

First issue is the condition of the springs, they could be ok or sagged out after 30 years. Difficult to tell but by increasing spacer length to counter the bottoming, what that can happen is the coils close up with the forks fully extended and there is the possiblity of them compressing completely before maximum travel is used if overly long spacers are used. Also you don't mention which Fantic it is. 35mm forks or 32mm. 190cc of oil is edging towards minimum for 35mm forks, usually the recommendation for them is 220cc. Best to start with 200cc (or 190cc in your case) and add 10cc at a time to obtain correct action. It's trial and error basis. 10W for oil should be fine in Marzocchis. However, you must be sure of the spring condition, otherwise attempts at set up could be pointless. The other unknown is whether they are the original springs. They could have been replaced with something else by a previous owner. If they are 35mm forks, WES did progressive springs for these which work very well, if you can find anyone who stocks them. Or you could get original spec springs from Bill Pye maybe. A third alternative is fit the Magical front fork spring kit which is available from Yamaha-Majesty.com. The problem won't be helped by air escaping because as you say, it lessens the spring affect. I've had the same problem on Ossas and Bultacos, getting a face full of oil when the forks compress. I just block off the hole. Never had a problem blowing seals. You can always fit a valve which will allow you to depressurise them if required. Front fork settings are a personal thing really, there is no hard and fast rule, some like harder action, some softer. As a starting point, once you are happy that you have correct spec springs, either original type or aftermarket, start with 200cc of 10W and adjust from there, but that volume and viscosity should be as near as you'll need for most conditions - for 35mm.

Shedworks also do TL250 sidepanels http://www.shedworks.net/id14.html

I've used a tubless tyre, can't see what difference it would make using a tube type though.

40lbs springs are too soft for your weight. I'm about 110kg and if I get on a bike with 40lbs springs there is no travel left. I use 60lbs springs on Falcons

Nope, newest Ossa I've ridden is a Gripper. I know a few who have ridden one and said they are very easy to ride. But what I meant was that the results achieved so far show the bike is capable as Guy Kendrew has had some good national positions.

Costume jewellery; surely Guy Kendrew's results show that it is a capable bike. It also won first time out with one of the Dixon brothers if I remember rightly.

Before we get carried away this is what happened. Rewinding the clock a bit, the Sammy Miller Greensmith trial was held in the same area last October. The police were about in an unmarked silver BMW and were pulling riders up for spot checks, usual warnings were given about number plate size, horns etc. There was at least one rider on an illegal machine (ie; not registered for road use) and he was let off with a warning. A bloody good result really given the summonses that could have been issued and loss of licence. So on to today, same unmarked BMW (presumably) pulling riders for spot checks. Some again received warnings for incorrect sized number plates. One rider whose bike wasn't road registered has had it impounded, plus a fine, plus points. It isn't being crushed. He took it home, he has to pay for them to come and collect it and take it to the pound, then has to pay to recover it. Presumably, if it happened again it would be in the crusher. A fine and points plus fees is still bonus as it could have been bye bye licence. Whilst it's easy to moan about police hassling, which would be understandable if it was just horns, speedos and number plates, I guess they thought that in the last event there were unregistered bikes being used on the road so they would see if anyone heeded the warnings given back then. They found they hadn't, so second time, riders weren't going to be so lucky. As for moving away from road trials, why? It costs less to make a bike road legal than it does to buy all the fancy bling gear for a bike or all the fancy riding gear, airbrushed helmet paintjobs etc. It's about priorities.

There is no such rule and I can think of no logical reason why one should ever be introduced (too late anyway as a lot of bikes have them fitted) I've changed some of my bikes to tubeless over the last few years, mainly because of the eratic quality of the tube type IRC rear tyre. Some have very soft sidewalls which can make the bike very difficult to control on rocks or cambers due to tyre roll. Others seem to be fine but can (not always) soften eventually, particularly with spirited road use... Also, the softer the sidewall the more chance of compression punctures. The only other tube type tyre is the Michelin radial which is different from an X11 and is utter rubbish in mud. May as well use a Michelin Pilot. Probably ok on rocks but mine wasn't on long enough to find out. Tubeless tyres will sit ok on Akront tube type rims with a tube fitted, but not always Takasago or DID. They pop out ok when first inflated but as soon as they are let down to about 10psi part of the sidewall drops into the rim and nothing seems to stop it, even leaving it for a couple of weeks with 90psi in it. So it's possible to use a tubless tyre on a normal tubed rim in some cases. An alternative is the Tubliss system, see link below. This effectively converts a tube type rim into a tubeless arrangement. My KT250 rim won't hold a tubeless tyre, it drops into the rim, as above. With the tubliss system fitted it will hold an IRC tubeless tyre no problem. I've done about 6 events with it fitted no problem, running as low as 3psi. No tube type tyre roll and no compression punctures. Not too fiddly to fit and a good alternative until I can get another wheel to convert to a tubeless rim as ultimately, although the tubliss system works well, that's my preference. http://www.tubliss.co.uk/ As to whether it is worth the cost of converting to a tubless rim, there is no real benefit in terms of grip, an IRC tube type will grip just as well as the tubeless version (assuming it isn't the roly poly type in which case higher pressure is needed to stop the roll which reduces grip) Tubeless also reduces the possibility of punctures as you can't get a compression puncture to a tube. So in my opinion, for that reason alone, the tubeless is a better option ultimately, but it is just my opinion.

What is a genuine Pre65 classic? Riders were modifying their bikes back then so bikes being ridden were not as they left the factory. Sammy Miller modified his Ariel beyond all recognition from the bike sold over the counter. You couldn't buy it. The point is that riders modify their bikes as they don't like the original design and have always looked to either improve the performance or alter it to suit their own preference or riding style. The issue of section severity isn't an issue. There are trials all over the country for Pre65 with 2 or 3 routes so standard and modified bikes are catered for. If all clubs ran single route dead easy Pre65 trials, the bikes would still be modified because that is what people do. The events are competitions, it may be amateur level, but they are still competitions and although people ride for fun, the fun is in the competition, either trying to win it outright or beating your mates. Sunday league football is anmateur and played for enjoyment, but it is still a competition and you don't see opposing players pulling out of tackles or scoring goals for each other. They want to win. The Hoo-Ha over modifications is ridiculous. The eligibility criteria in many clubs' rules are misguided, some are plain daft, inconsistent and full of holes. The 'silhouette' philosophy is a total joke because some (a lot in fact) mods that are allowed look far less silhouette than componnents that are banned. For goodness sake, what is wrong with a MK1.5 Amal or Mikuni. It's not going to leap someone from 123rd place to winner is it... Right, the rain has stopped so I can get back to the gardening.

Definitely. The choke is no use for starting anyway, all it does is partially block the venturi off when the throttle is opened, it doesn't richen the mixture on a closed throttle. So it just helps with cold running once the motor is running, but the same can be achieved by a couple of tickler depressions when it's warming up. The extra cable and lever is just a nuisance.

Agreed, the regs state maximum fork length at 32" but spindle to top yoke isn't fork length. This is what happens when you have too many rules, more holes appear.

MK1 has a tickler but can also have a choke slide housed in the throttle slide, operated by its own cable. MK1.5 has a choke lever like the MK2 so presumably the cold starting inards of the MK1.5 are the same as the MK2. Maybe it gives an unfair advantage over cold starting which is against the spirit of Pre65... The MK1.5 is no longer available, been out of production for quite some time I think.

sense... That's a word that doesn't belong in the same sentence as Pre65 and eligibility (not just the Scottish event before anyone accuses me of it. In general) As regards the Scottish, it's interesting to think how they are going to police their above statement about forks and carbs. Tape measures to check the length of forks, verniers to check the diameter and every MK1 Amal inspected to make sure it isn't a 1.5. There's an awful lot to check on each bike, plus comparing them to the photographs provided with the entry form Scrutineering to start at 3am both days...??

The Fantic 303 didn't have a 'visible' conventional looking tailpipe at the rear, it is hidden behind the rear subframe tube, so your bike probably has got one. If so you will see two small outlets near the top of the frame tube where it meets the mudguard. This is a 303 Fantic, earlier model was red instead of yellow.

You don't ride Pre65 so why are you worrying about it

32" from spindle to top of top yoke

I don't know the price of the Magicals from the UK distributor. Mine were bought in Spain and cost about

I have a set of Magicals (from Spain, didn't buy them here) on my Bultaco and they are better, no doubt. The problem with the Rockshocks in my experience is the set up. The quality of the shock is very good, no question. The valving can be adjusted any way you like and is easy to do if it isn't as required when you get them, but the biggest problem is the springs, again in my experience, which aren't the correct rate. They aren't progressive and they aren't strong enough for serious abuse. A good twinshock spring needs to be able to cope with slow and high speed compression, hence dual/multi rate springs of the correct rates are the ideal (Magicals). This is where the Rockshocks lose out to the others. Get the set up and springing rates correct and they will work as good as anything else, but the others are like that when you get them.