woody

A few have surfaced recently - good bikes, the 320 Hiro is a very good motor. Don't know whether the TX300 came as just 280cc or 240cc as well

There were three at the trial, all 320 Hiros. Quite a rare bike as not many came into the UK. Even rarer, the TX300 Rotax powered last twinshock model, maybe only 2 or 3 of those here

Yes, the trial involves a lot of roadwork, same laws apply as a road trial here

They are rear shocks, various types - single spring, multiple springs, fixed or adjustable damping. The front fork kits consist of a new progressive spring, internal adjustable spacer and the Magical fork cap with adjustable preload. There is no valving kit for the damping.

No problem, just apply for the V5 using Form V62 I think (from memory as the DVLA website is down at the moment) It will cost

Don't follow you, if you have V5 it is road registered already

Just ran last year's quote again on Go Compare. Cheapest is E-Van but it has gone up from

I've been with them for a few years and last year's quote was ridiculous, increased by about

Hi Simon, I remember the bike well then, yes, as I had a ride on it in France and remember it being like no other 340 I had ridden. I remember the steering was done but the suspension worked well too, better than as is usual and the motor was very smooth carburation and torquey. I'm sure I tried to prise it off you at some stage. When I read your original post I did wonder if it was that bike. If I remember it well enough, it doesn't need much doing in terms of improvement.

I didn't mean there was no need to do what you have done. I hadn't actually seen your post when I wrote mine. It is just that I have read before that the Bultaco airbox is inefficient, whereas in actual use I have found them ok.

The standard clutch can work well by lengthening the arm a bit (don't have an exact measurment but say about 10 - 15mm as a starter) I use Barnett plates and have backed off the tension on the springs as the Barnett friction material has more bite (according to their website) To do this you have to reduce the length of the nuts that tension the springs because if you don't they will hit the inside of the casing if they are more than about 5 turns out from fully compressed. How many turns out you have them is trial and error to find the point where the clutch doesn't slip. Fit a low friction cable. With a bit of time it's possible to get a one finger clutch. This can also be achieved with the standard plates (which are used by Puma and Vasquez) They also drill the fingers on the basket to let oil flow from the plates easier (personally I have no idea if this is necessary or makes any improvment) I've no idea what the airbox improvments sre. There is nothing wrong with the standard 340 airbox. Mine has a ported barrel (Vasquez but I've no idea what's been done) and the bike will rev like hell using the standard airbox, there is no problem with air supply. Carb is a Dellorto, 28mm I think. Rear silencer can have the baffles removed and replaced by continuing the perforated tube at the inlet end of the silencer right through to the outlet and having a single pipe outlet, like the old banana silencer from around 1974 bikes. Repack both middle and rear silencers. Mine has the steering angle pulled in but standard swingarm. You can only pull the wheel in so far on the Sherpa as the front mudguard will hit the frame so the wheelbase isn't an issue or too short. Grip is not a problem with the standard swingarm and steeper steering. Best solution for grip is well set up rear shocks and a good tyre. I really wouldn't bother with the swingarm, unless you've found a way of really steepening the steering and ended up with a 50" wheelbase. I have Magical rear shocks, very pleased with them. Front susepnsion has the Magical spring kit with standard damping. It's transformed it. On the clutch you can fit the weight from the 250 and also the ignition flywheel from the 250 which will save some kg but the engine will stall very easy at low revs so you need to use the clutch more. The engine will also respond much quicker, maybe too quick. EDIT - 250 ignition flywheel if you have Femsa. I forgot some 340 Sherpas had Motoplat.

I always thought the Yam frame rode nicer than the Godden frame anyway. The Godden frame on its own was a heavy lump and the Godden bike was front heavy. The Yam frame was quite light and that bike felt more nimble and flickable. I'd prefer the Yam framed Majesty from the two.

Headstock looks all wrong for a later Bult frame (or any other) and swingarm looks early model. Could be a later Miller frame or Bult frame from around '76 looking at the frame around the swingarm pivot. Swingarm pivot is moved forward. Slide through lever to the kickstart as well instead of the swivel. They were trick in the day. I had one of those on my first Sherpa, a model 80, except the sliding bar was missing. I had to kick it on just the arm instead.

Oh Christ, that's one of the funniest replies I've seen to any post for a long time

Madness - I think..?? As I said in another topic, twinshock prices are crazy and bear no logic. They're worth what someone will pay I guess but that will need another

I have Magical fork spring kit in my 340 and it works very well with 10W oil about 180cc The Bultaco will cope with the Sammy Miller sections no problem, there is no need to modify the head angle. Agreed it improves steering but for that series it isn't necessary, there is nothing it won't steer around. You could always fit 360mm shocks which is what I did on an M49 I rode in the series a few years ago.If yours is the series 2 M91 they steer pretty well anyway. I haven't a clue about Mikuni jetting so can't help with that. I did fit an OKO to an M92 and it only needed minor change to main and pilot jets, it ran well straight out of the box. Skimming the flywheel is personal choice but again, there is nothing that a standard 250 motor can't cope with in the Miller series, it's a good strong torquey motor. My M49 had no problems. With taking weight off the flywheel I'd be more worried about losing low end plonk than anything else as the engine will stall easier meaning you'll be relying on the clutch more at slow speeds. The Bultos will lug right down to nothing with the standard weights. As a purely personal opinion, the best prep you could give the bike for that series is to ensure that the motor is set up right, carburation is correct and exhaust functioning properly. Good tyres. Get the front and rear suspension working correctly and get the riding position comfortable with bars and footrest position. If all that is correct it will make a marked difference on how the bike performs. Ride a few events with it and if you still feel it is necessary move onto the steering and flywheel mods, but I'm confident you'll find it isn't worth it. I've ridden both the M49 and KT250 in the Miller rounds hard route, they are similar handling bikes and both cope no problem.

Good fun but it proves nothing as there is actually no point to prove. A trials bike will always be quicker around those micky-mouse indoor enduro circuits. As Tim says, on a proper WEC enduro special stage the trials bike would be nowhere, the same as the enduro bike would barely get through the start gate of a WTC section (unless it was Grimbo on the Husaberg....) Have a look at this and imagine how far behind Knighter the trials bike would be at the end of the stage. http://www.youtube.com/user/renderwtal

Ossas (including the motocross Phantom)and some Sherpas had stainless spokes from the factory. I've absolutely no technical knowledge to speak from as to whether stainless is suitable, but from experience, I have never had any problems at all using stainless spokes. My MAR had the wheels rebuilt by Central Wheel 20 years ago and in that time it has taken one hell of a battering over all sorts of terrain. I've never had to so much as tighten a spoke, let alone break one. All other wheels I've had rebuilt with stainless are problem free as well. The only spokes I've ever broken were galvanized as it happens, in s Sherpa rear wheel. If a bike has had a thorough cosmetic and mechanical rebuild, the appearance can be ruined by galvanized spokes which really bring the bike down and make the wheels look shabby. Only a personal view but one that crosses my mind if I was to buy a rebuilt bike.

It's really hard to put a price on a decent twinshock these days, unless it's a Honda TLR250 or Majesty. If that SWM has really done as little as it says and it needs next to nothing spending on it, then it should provide someone trouble free trials riding for years to come with minimum outlay, especially as it is unlikely to be used week in week out. Tatty Hondas fetch that much and people pay it without blinking. The SWM is a better bike. New Majesties were on sale at the classic show this weekend for

Interesting to know that, thanks for the info. I know the 2 people who have bought the iginition, but I can't give any specifics as to what the cause of the problem was as I don't know and neither have Electrex offered a solution as yet. Neither of them has mentioned anything about the backplate fouling the seal carrier though, so I'm not sure that it was an issue (both bikes are MH349) However, if that is an issue Electrex know about and was a possible cause I'd have thought they could have rectified the problem by now. Both were at the show this weekend so I'm guessing that they have both been to speak to Electrex to find out what is going on, as it has been dragging on for months. If it was me, my frustration with the suppliers at their apprarent inability to resolve this would have gone past boiling point long ago.

Tighten the nuts until they bottom and then back out 4 complete turns. You can't go much further than that otherwise the nuts, which are quite thick, will catch the inside of the clutch case. Fit the clutch cover case, remove the round adjustment screw and check the clearance of the nuts to the inside of the casing. Leave say a couple of millimetres as it is the thread of the adjustment screw that gets caught first as it sits proud of the inside edge of the casing. You can mill (or grind or hacksaw, whatever) the nuts down to half their thickness. This will enable you to wind them out a bit more without them touching the casing in order to ease off more on the spring tension which will give a lighter clutch pull. How much more is trial and error. I have Barnett plates in mine so can afford to back them off a fair bit due to the extra bite of the Barnett plate material. Can't remember how far though. If you do turn down the nuts and still want to use lock wire you will have to drill new holes as reducing the thickness of the nut loses the original holes. Don't back them off too much as although the bike will still start and pull in 1st or 2nd without any noticeable slip, if you have to really wail it in 3rd, it will slip. As to whether you can use fuse wire, I don't know. I'd just buy a roll of locking wire and use the correct stuff.

I don't know the cause of the problem, only that the bikes just wouldn't run properly at all. Whatever the cause, it's not sorted yet.

Even when the clutch is adjusted perfectly and working perfectly during riding, you can still get clutch slip on the kickstart. It's normal on a Bultaco, nothing to worry about.

I know two people who have tried the Electrex ignition on a 349 and it doesn't work. It's not properly sorted yet so I'd wait a bit if I were you.