woody

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.

Nothing wrong with the sentiment. We're both thinking along the same lines, I think the only difference is I'd let the bikes with the 'modern components in British skin' and the bikes with spanish/Jap forks and wheels ride in the same class under Pre65, or Pre70 as is more common. In the end, they are all modified with no resemblance to their 60s origins. Good luck with the new class, I'll no doubt see you at one or two events this year.

This is exactly it and echos what I was saying in a previous post. There doesn't seem to be a problem amongst competitors themselves. I've not come across it in any of the events I've been to and that covers a wide range over many years. Border and Acqueduct are two good examples. No regs (that I know of) no scrutineering, no-one has a bike with components that upset anyone else, Spanish or Jap wheels and forks aren't a problem, huge array of machines from standard to fully modernised and everyone goes home happy. The problem all stems from the Scottish where 'specials' aren't allowed and you have to have a compliant bike. Everywhere else caters for them in one way or another. Even agreeing nationally, on a British Twinshock spec/class, won't affect that trial.

The term special is an anomaly really. It conjures up images of a highly devloped machine that sits outside of the established or accepted modifications prescribed for Pre65 machines. It suggest it is superior and has performance advantages over an original or 'correctly modified' bike. In reality, you could have a completely standard/original, say 1963 James, but if just one component is changed and falls outside of the class criteria, then it goes in the specials class. But it isn't really a special, it may just have been fitted with a modern carburettor, as in the case mentioned by Jack the Lad. It still has big hubs, chrome rims, original electrics and exhaust and origianl suspension. A special it is not, it's no lightweight and doesn't come anywhere close to the eligible bike in terms of performance. Yet, there in the Pre65 2-stroke class, is a brand new 2011 modern spec James at around

I lengthened the inlet of my BSA C15 by about the same distance in an attempt to slow throttle response off idle and soften the power coming in off idle, mainly so I could shut it down to nothing (I don't run a tickover) and bring it back in again smoothly and with no jerkiness. The theory is also that it would give a bit more torque so if it did, that would be a bonus. It was smooth enough, not sure I could tell any difference in torque but the real surprise and bonus was that it virtually cured the spit stall when opening the throttle too quickly. I have to be pretty savage to make it cough now. In my case no jet changes were needed, carb is MK1 Amal.

60mm stroke, same as the 250 MAR, but with only a 70mm bore which gave about 230cc. You can use a MAR piston to bring them up to MAR capacity of 244cc. You just have to cut a slot in the back to match the Gripper piston.

It's going to be personal choice. You know the affect of the mod from the other bike. The SM series has no rules to stop you doing it so there is no concern there. Is it necessary for the sections in that series? Different issue and to which the answer is definitely no, there is absolutely nothing that a 240 Fantic is going to struggle with in the SM. There's nothing it will struggle with in the Normandale series either as neither of them offer sections as hard as what the Fantic would have been doing in its era. So you don't need to do it no from a performace perspective, it's down to what you prefer for your bike.

Their length is ok but as mentioned above the gas isn't intended to provide adjustment, it's pre-set. On Falcons it is 90psi but you have no hope of setting it unless you have the ccorrect type of valve attachment. Put a normal tyre inflator or gauge on it and you will lose all pressure immediately, then when you re-inflate it and remove the inflator it will lose all its pressure before you can fully remove it. They have 90psi in about 1 square inch of volume, you only have to touch the valve stem and it's gone. Try knocking off the spring preload and get some sag in them which will lower it a little at the rear - without going too extreme which will cause it to sit low at the back and kick out the front wheel and steering angle.

On the home page there is a menu option for Site Information and under that is an option for TC Supporter. It seems to be geared for a new user registering for the site and becoming a TC supporter right away. When you enter your user name it will say it already exists but give you a link to a 'your membership' page. Select this link which opens a new window and from there you should be able to submit a Supporter subscription. That's how I managed to blunder through it in the end but you may have to contact the site administrators for more specific instructions if you get stuck. Managed to get one of the legs apart this morning. The other one seems siezed though, so fun and games will ensue...

People have just got along with the rules the way they are, at most events there is no component scrutineering, so generally there isn't a problem amongst riders. I've no idea why there have been some rule changes for this year, but the one that interests me is the 35mm fork rule. There are quite a few bikes out there with 36mm and over forks and they can't be told apart from 35mm, unless you can see coloured coating on the stanchions. They have been accepted (ie; the riders haven't been notified that they aren't acceptable) for a number of years now. A lot of money and time has been spent making these forks. Now, these riders must scrap them and build some new forks in order to comply. And for why, will their new eligible forks work any worse or look any different? Not really. What will be interesting is to see whether this happens (on a personal note, I don't care if it doesn't) I can't see someone going around bikes at the start of trials with a vernier to determine the size of forks. If someone can spot 36mm from 35mm by naked eye I'd be amazed, or even 38mm come to that.

OK, thanks for the info. It doesn't matter if bushes and whatever get damaged as I only want the bottoms. I'm going to have to ruin a pair of AJS forks and a pair of Marzocchi forks to become Pre65 eligible. I hate doing that but that's why I'm trying to get the sliders off, so the bushes don't matter. Easiest way to post pictures is become a TC Supporter, then you can upload pictures direct from your PC. Otherwise you have to load pictures from your PC onto another website or blog and then upload onto the forum from there.

It isn't as bad as this topic makes out, out there in the actual events. I get around the country quite a bit and haven't been aware of sniping between competitors about the spec of bikes, maybe there is some but I've not come across it. Best example, as I've said before, is the Manx Classic, where there is no component scrutineering, but there are no complaints from riders about he's got this or that on his bike. Everyone just rides and enjoys the event. If that bike has a pair of modified Norton Roadholder forks with modern internals and new billet yokes, and that bike has a pair of Ossa forks nicked from another bike in the owner's shed, no-one cares. All the bikes are acceptable to the riders as no-one complains. No-one takes the p*** and turns up with a GasGas front end. This is how it should be. This discussion will go nowhere as it's impossible to have a pragmatic discussion on this forum. Look at previous topics on stop/no-stop rules. Bottom line is, don't be put off. You can get a bike that doesn't jar your spine and rattle your teeth and at least rides competitively, on a budget. Most clubs will have a specials class if your bike doesn't conform to the Pre65 ideal. The local BMCA have such a class but you'd be unlikely to have to go into that unless your bike is modded unreasonably. The one trial that causes most of the controversy is the Scottish as it doesn't cater for 'specials', whatever that ridiculous term means. If you're coming back to the Midlands, go have a look at some of the BMCA events, they run up to Easter, see what they're riding.

I've no idea where you're coming from with this - with your Plan B, with the exception of the shocks, you've accurrately described what's been going on for years. These are the bikes that are accepted as Pre65 eligible.

Yes it is your bike John, a picture from the Pre65 Scottish a few years ago. Thanks for the info chaps, I thought it was probably a shock it free method, but not having done any before I wasn't sure. Had a few goes but it just aggravated my tendonitis.... I ended up sprawled across the floor last time I split some Fantic 303 forks using this method. I'll have another go tomorrow, after I've cleared a landing patch...

Yes, I like the look of the modernised bikes, or most of them, much better than the generally ugly and clumsy original 60s look. I think the machining and engineering ability of the people making the stuff is top notch. However, I don't understand why you're making this point ...?? I never said I didn't and I didn't dream up the silhouette rule, nor is it me advocating they should 'look period' or 'British' (which they all do of course...) Yes, the new billet yokes are by far the most attractive of the three and I like them and would like them on my bike. How you can say they are a facsimile of the god-awful BSA yoke is beyond me as they look nothing like them. The billet yokes will cost between

We're trying to strip a pair of Matchless forks, similar to those in the picture. Top nuts are off, springs and spring covers are off. The bolt at the bottom of the slider is out. How does the stanchion come out of the slider? It won't just slide out, it is as though something is still holding it. There is a damper rod (or whatever) only a few millimetres in diameter, sticking out of the top of the stanchion, this also seems held in by something. It will turn but doesn't unscrew. I've tried sharply pulling the stanchion out of the leg but it hits what feels like a rebound cushioning spring and won't come out. I'm now stumped. Can anyone tell me how to remove the stanchion from the leg please? Any assistance appreciated.

I said 230cc because that's what he said it was. I've no idea what point you're making here in relation to what components are acceptable and what aren't. What's this got to do with it? Still no comments on why people think components from other bikes can't be used if they comply with the silhouette or period appearance philosophy, other than 'because they can't'. Not much logical thinking there.

Have to agree, tig welding is the better option. For a competent welder that is a piece of cake to fix. I've had far worse than that repaired. I tried aluminium solder (lumiweld in my case) I successfully soldered two pieces together quite neatly, the solder ran into the joint beautifully. Let it cool and when I applied the slightest pressure the joint broke. This happened over and over and I gave up. Maybe I wasn't doing it correctly but I can't see any other way of doing it other than heating the workpiece until it is hot enough to melt the solder and then run it into the joint. Unlike weld it doesn't fuse the two pieces together, so I've no idea how it can be stronger than welding, as is claimed. But I'm not a welder or metallurgist so I'm not speaking from authority on the subject. From what I can see in the pictures, what you've done isn't serious and should easily be repairable without splitting the engine