woody

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.

Best for grip...?? - come and ride it over the winter months in Midland Centre muddy trials. You may change your mind. Build quality. Generally good, but - My 2005 suffered a kickstart mechanism failure that smashed the crankcase. Yes it had the mod and no it wasn't through neglect. I did get a replacement engine for no charge which was excellent, but it should never have happened in the first place. - The clutch was awful, regardless of what oil. On or off, no progression/feel. No excuse for producing a trials clutch like that in this day and age. Wasn't much better than the old TLR250 clutch. Overall they are a reliable bike, but not easy to ride for the avaerage Joe, especially in this centre (where there aren't many being ridden now - few people bought a second one after the first) Front suspension I didn't find any better than anything else, but rear was the best at the time. High tickover was a pain which meant using the clutch a lot (not ideal, see above...) and the power delivery was too sharp which, along with constantly having to use the clutch, didn't help grip For outright build quality and reliability it has a long way to go before it will beat a Yam TYZ. Most reliable bike I've ever had and its ability to soak up abuse was amazing. And as a design, it was still winning nationals six years on. So the 4RT has a way to go yet.

These are the type I have in my 340 and so far they have been fine.

Marzocchi dust covers from late 80's bikes such as Beta, Fantic, JCM aircooled monos are all 35mm, but I don't know of a source for these. Or Honda 35mm from TLR, TLM etc. These are still available from Honda dealers as new stock. The problem you'll have is that with the two oil seals fitted per leg, the dust cover won't sit in deep enough to stay located and will ride up the stanchion on rebound. I have some Fantic type on my Ossa forks and this happens sometimes. If a seal retaining circlip is fitted they probably won't fit at all, although not all bikes have circlips as OEM, so they aren't necessary. Originally, the bikes were only fitted with one oil seal and they were 10mm thick (if memory serves correctly). With just one fitted, there may be enough room to locate the dust cover, or if not see if thinner seals are available, 8mm or 9mm. Only one is required in each leg if it is a good quality hydraulic seal (as opposed to rotary seal which is no good for forks). If you want to retain two seals, you could always machine the housing deeper, as you suggest.

Generally, you're only going to get replies from riders advising the tyre they prefer. Fact is both will do the job, so neither will be a wrong choice whichever you buy. Unless you're top expert level you wouldn't tell any difference between the two. I've no idea of the sort of terrain you ride on normally or whether you ride road trials. The IRC will perform better in mud, last longer, particularly with road use and continue to give grip in mud even when the edge is long gone. In my opinion there is as little as makes no difference between them on rocky going. I use an IRC purely because I believe, in my opinion/experience, that they are better in mud, equal on rocks, wear at a slower rate and continue to give grip when quite worn - so you can get longer use from them As said, it is only my opinion but both are excellent tyres so whichever you buy, it won't be a mistake.

If you buy them over the counter, you can tell if it has soft sidewalls or not. If you hold the tread of the tyre into your chest and pull the sidewalls apart, if they are soft you can peel them wide open. If they are ok you can only flex them a bit. At least, this is what I have found. I never mail order a tubed IRC as I want to know what I'm getting, so over the counter only. This is the reason I'm slowly changing all my bikes to tubeless rear rims. The only available tubed rear tyre is the IRC (the Michelin Radial is as good as a slick in mud) I got fed up of spending hundreds travelling to events only to have a ride compromised by a tyre that doesn't behave as it should. There are no such problems with tubeless.

No 3rd route. Classes B, C and D just rode the hard route on 5 sections instead of the easy route. The sections were the second section in Wrights, first two in Etching and the last two in Booths. The notices were on the start cards of each of these sections, not start area of the trial.

IRC don't have different models, they just do one tubeless and one tubed version. Assuming your bike still has the original tubeless rear wheel, you can only fit a tubeless, tubed type tyres won't fit properly to tubeless rims.

Tubeless IRC has better/stiffer sidewalls than the tubed version, some of which are ok and some of which have sidewalls like toffee. So the tubeless IRC can run as low as 2-3psi if you're light enough. I can run one at 3-4psi with no problems at over 17 stone. Tubed version depends on whether it has the floppy sidewalls or not. If it does, 5-7psi will probably be needed otherwise it will roll around like a drunk on a Friday night when on cambers or rocks. Obviously grip in mud suffers when running at these pressures. If the sidewalls are ok you should be able to go down to 4psi. They will soften with use though, particularly with a lot of roadwork. Still the best all round rear tyre in my opinion. Pretty unbeatable in mud, even when seriously worn they still grip. On a par with the others on rocks. Michelin probably best for the front.

There were half a dozen sections where Normandale riders in Classes B, C and D should have ridden the hard route. There was a note/instruction on the start cards of each of those sections. Bemrose riders were not affected by this. As I understand it, this was a last minute decision, so not in the regs. If riders didn't see the note they didn't know and therefore rode the easy route and got an easy clean. Riders that correctly rode the hard route were much more likely to lose marks. I saw B and C class riders ride the wrong route on some of those sections (I'm not accusing anyone of cheating as I have no idea whether they knew what they had done was wrong) I understand why the change was made and it gave us a bit more to have a go at so there is no criticism for that. Regular Normandale riders understand the class structure so there should have been no confusion over which route to ride. However, what couldn't have been anticipated was that it may be easy to miss seeing the instruction, particularly in windy conditions when the paper was bent over. Also, riders do not necessarily have to look directly at start cards on every section as a section start gate can sometimes be seen without having to do that. Riders wouldn't have been looking there specifically for the instruction of which route to ride as it wasn't in the regs. Unfortunately, the observers had no idea of which class (or trial) a competitor was entered in, so would not know if a rider was on the wrong route. So there will be some wrong scores recorded in the results. What I can't understand though, is the exclusion of riders for missed sections. A missed section is a 10 mark penalty not exclusion. There are a lot of riders shown as having missed a section (not all the same one) who are still shown as excluded on the final (pending any protests) results.

Yes, I used to enjoy his 'commentary' on the girls. Sad state of today's PC B*****ks has obviously gagged him from continuing with that aspect.

It's personal opnion obviously, so not something I'd bother arguing over I think they used to do a good job a few years ago, I still like Moody's genuine excitement over the racing, but I just think informed opnion has evolved into an I know everything about everything attitude, particularly from Ryder. I'm fed up having chapter and verse on every aspect of Rossi's bloody shoulder for one. I used to like Keith Heuwen on WSB. I like Burnicle and Whitham on WSB. Moody and Ryder I could like again if they'd just tone down the know it all attitude. Why does Ryder sound like he has a mouthful of sandwich when he's speaking..?? Jack's still the man for WTC.

It's personal opinion so there is no definitive answer. In my opinion, the riding position can be improved by lowering the rests and using 6" bars (depending on the height of the rider - the taller you are, the more the benefit) You'll never get a riding position on the Bulto to be like the Beta as the footrests will only go a bit lower than standard (due to the massive ground clearance of the later bikes) and the fact that the headstock isn't very high. The Beta has less ground clearance so the footrests are lower and a higher headstock, so the bars are higher.

Burnicle is indeed a great comentator, genuine enthusiasm, light hearted and amusing with a great appreciation of the skill shown by the riders. He also has a good depth of knowledge of all off-road disciplines with which he can fill in the gaps in the action. He brings a sense of humour which helps liven up what is essentially a pretty boring sport. More importantly, unlike the MotoGP commentators on both BBC and Eurospport, he isn't stuffed so far up his own backside that he has to repeatedly let everyone know what each rider is thinking, is capable of, what is 'typical' of them (as per Ryder) or what they had for breakfast dinner and tea. They've really lost the art of commentating, all they want to do is let everyone know that they know the reasons for every move or mistake a rider makes, how everything works (including a rider's mind) and why they're winning or losing. It certainly is endless drivel from a know it all brigade. Burnicle was right about Bou. He rolled backwards with his foot down in both events which is a 5 and it is difficult to understand why it wasn't given. It wasn't exactly hard to see.

Try Colin at TY Offroad http://www.tyoffroad.webeden.co.uk/

Front forks on the MAR work very well and were quite a soft action when new, although they never bottomed or topped out. Their action is actually very good for a fork of that age. The springs should have spacers fitted at the top. Usually one per leg and about 20mm long (guessing). You can try using longer but if you need to go longer than say a couple of inches, chances are the springs have sagged with age. Remember though, they are a softly sprung fork, not like a modern Beta or GasGas in their action (ie: very bouncy) Oil quantity between 180cc and 200cc per leg. Start at 180 and 200 is definitely the maximum for those forks. SAE 10 is probably best, but ultimately, quantity and thickness is personal preference. Footrests can be lowered by adding plates extending rearwards from the frame tube below the original footrest position. These will take new hangers for modern rests positioned just level/above the bashplate line. No lower (see photo) The added plates will need gusseting behind to stop them bending. That with 6" bars should give a comfortable riding position as well as positioning you lower in the bike. It's easier to start by using bar risers under the clamps to achieve the effect of having old style 9" high bars, which is roughly what we used back then, but you are still perched high on the rests in their original position, highering your centre of gravity compared to lowered rests. If you can lower the rests, it is a better solution. You'll get used to the kickstart. If you shorten it you may find that the kicksart gearing and high engine comnpression make it really difficult to start. Also, the Ossa has a habit of occassionally slipping on the kickstart ratchet resulting in all your leg energy kicking against no resistance when it slips. If you have a shorter kickstart, when this happens you will know about it as the results can be quite painful to calf and foot with the standard kicker when it lets go and you'll be kicking harder with a shorter lever. If your cylinder head has a secong plug hole, fit a decompressor. You can use this to help starting and also save the 'ratchet slip'. Pull the decompressor when you kick it and let it out after you hear the first couple of engine rotations and continue the kick through it's full swing. The lack of compression with the decompressor pulled in makes the swing of the kicker easy by removing the resistance of the engine compression. Then, as you let it out compression is restored and the engine should fire. Easier on the leg and easier on the ratchet gear. It's also a good idea to first spin the engine over twice using the decompressor and the throttle wide open when cold. This helps prime the engine and it will usually fire first kick. The MAR from that period is a good bike and very forgiving to ride, so hopefully you should enjoy trialing it.

I've always used Shell Optimax, previously V-max, for a long time now in my trials bikes and can't recall any problems with it. The bikes run fine. I use any petrol in my TL1000S road bike and it never seems to run any different.

The first 175/200 Majesty used a Yam frame, like the 250/320. Unlike the bigger bike though, the 175 didn't have as much work to the frame, so it is difficult to tell if a bike is an original Majesty or modified by someone other than Shirt. This bike is a Yam frame and could be an original Majesty but hard to tell really, either from pictures or the bike itself. The frame has had some brackets and plates added though, which aren't a fature of standard TY or Majesty. Definitely not a mini-Majesty as they weren't Yam frames and the frame appearance and design is completely different.

The backplate is a fixed position with screw holes instead of slots to fix it to the crankcase. Another plate with the source coil attached is screwed to the backplate. The positioning of this plate onto the backplate is set by the manufacturer to the recommended setting. However, it is adjustable as the fixing screws sit in slots which have 3 notches so the plate can be rotated left or right of the centre notch to fine tune the timing to individual preference. If it is the same as the Rex Caunt one, you have a choice of locating holes in the backplate (3 I think) So by using the far left holes the ignition can be further retarded, by using the far right holes it can be further advanced. So basically, you fit it, fire it up and try it. If it is ok you leave it, if you want it sharper you can advance it, softer you can retard it by rotating the second plate on its fixing screws. Hope this makes sense, maybe the attached picture explains it better