woody

They aren't cheats and the bikes aren't unsporting, they are what Pre65 has developed into. As I've said numerous times I've no issue with them. The Pre65 Scottish keeps getting mentioned as it is the event that causes the most controversy. I've printed their rule for forks twice in this post and still no-one will give an opinion or explanation on how these modified forks and brand new billet yokes comply with that wording. I'm just curious that's all, interested in people's opnion as why they are acceptable as they are by no means a silhouette of the originals. Because for the life of me I can make no sense of it at all.

I don't have an issue with the Ariel at all. As it's impossible to get a sensible discussion on the folly of Pre65 eligibility criteria and their interpretation, or a direct answer to a specific question, I'm merely trying to demostrate it in a roundabout way. The rules are clear for the Scottish, I don't see how a set up like that (on any bike, not just that one) can be deemed within those rules. As for one club invoking rules at the round of the Northern PJ1 championship they host, how can they dictate which class a bike should go into when bikes will already have competed in a specific class in previous rounds? I have ridden a few PJ1 rounds, loads of Miller rounds and the Manx classic. There was no scrutineering at any of them. I've never heard anyone moan about someone else's bike. In my class on the BSA, I am up against some highly modified cubs which will run rings around my bike and give a rider a distinct advantage over my bike. I'm not stamping my feet and moaning they should be in the specials class. But if scrutineering was applied, it would be my cheapo shed built bike that was put into the specials, not a

ok, fair enough, just wondered why specials. But I'm at a loss to understand how the addition of gators make the forks acceptable. The Ariel is obviously accepted into Scotland, as are many other bikes with likewise modded forks and yokes. Whether it is eligible is another matter and one I couldn't care less about. I'll quote the regs again and you can make your own mind up. "Fork sliders and yokes to be Pre65 design only. No Bultaco Ossa Yamaha etc or BSA/Triumph 4 stud. Fork maximum length 32 inches" So, based on that regulation and what is seen in the picture, should that bike and many others with likewise modded forks and yokes compete in Scotland. Simple enough question.

Therefore, you wouldn't allow the Ariel in the Pre65 Scottish?

I don't know your location, but you mentioned aerosol paint. Don't use Halfords if your in the UK, the petrol which inevitably escapes from the filler cap during riding, or any you spill when filling up will ruin the paint. Petrol amd Halfords paint don't mix. It may be ok if you lacquer over it but I've never tried that. After my Bultaco tank was ruined I never used Halfords stuff again (for anything likely to come into contact with petrol) Shame really as the application from the can is the best I ever came across for aerosol paint. Can't help you with a paint code, but Ford Electric Monza blue is good for the later 199a model but a bit dark for the homerlite tank's original blue.

Neil Gaunt's probably at the burger van thinking about what burger to have. It's John Maxfield in the picture

And it is examples like this that highlight the sheer stupidity and inconsistency of eligibilty rules and their application. The forks have been extended to accomodate modern internals, in the same manner as many other bikes. They look nothing like Pre65 forks. The Pre65 Scottish, or SACU rules, have been mentioned as a potential template for unified rules as they are the most sensible. Well this is their criteria for front forks:- "Fork sliders and yokes to be Pre65 design only. No Bultaco Ossa Yamaha etc or BSA/Triumph 4 stud. Fork maximum length 32 inches" Now, someone explain to me how fork sliders like these are Pre65 design and when were there any yokes prior to 1965 that looked like that. Yet forks like this are allowed. But my standard framed C15 which had Montesa yokes (almost identical to those) and MK1 Ossa fork sliders (same as those but without the welding) were not allowed and I was pulled up for them. Even though bikes like that were 10 feet away during the scrutineering and were being allowed. It's a farce, I have nothing against bikes like this and the mods don't bother me personally. I don't care what the class is called but I think all is needed is a pragmatic approach to allow people to build a modified bike on a budget. Whereas the Miller series now has a new class to allow this, which is at least a start, I still find it ludicrous that full blown brand new Cubs and James with components like this can still go in the Pre70 class, whereas a standard framed BSA with a pair of Ossa foks is considered modified.... You'll never get unification. Ultimately I don't care on a personal level as I'll ride my bike wherever I can and if it's not acceptable somewhere I just don't go.

I've never believed the theory that petrol vapours leaking through a petrol tank cause the discolouration. UV exposure is far more ikely. Look at any tank that has discoloured and then look at parts that aren't exposed - the underside, underneath badges and like your TY tank, underneath the decals. They still retain the original colour so there is no affect from fuel vapour there. Look at any plastic that is exposed year after year to UV such as kids garden toys. Colours like blue or red fade or go white in the extreme, whites and yellows darken. No petrol vapour at play here. It's UV causing a photochemical affect on polymers in the plastic. My SWM tank is the same, where it's exposed the yellow has darkened, underneath and under the badges it's the original yellow, does petrol vapour not leak through the underneath? Red Fantic tanks fade to pale red and even white in places. Same for painting plastic tanks. I'm convinced that the bubbling and paint lifting is due to poor preparation and incorrect paints and application. If you use spray cans it will bubble. A friend has a Fantic tank that was painted over 10 years ago and has no bubbles or lifting. I have a Sherpa tank that was painted about 4 years ago and has been used constantly. There have only recently been a couple of bubbles formed and I can't see that that has anything to do with vapour leakage. That can happen on metal tanks. Finally, I'm not a physicist or chemist so I have no technical knowledge to back this up, just my thoughts. I have no explanation why stickers lift but maybe it could be to do with the UV affect on the sticker itself or the glue used being dried up. Some stickers just don't stick well to any plastic. Motocross tank decals, such as those produced by MXM, have been developed for years and the material they are made from and the glue used is a lot better than your average decal.

I can't see what's changed other than the wording. The solution has always been there. It's always been, right from the first Sebac rounds, that the bikes were twinshock of original manufacture. The rules have always been clear, everyone knows what a twinshock is. It's riders entering on converted monos who miss the point, no-one else. As for Scottish Pre65 regs being used as a standard for the rest of the UK, you must be joking. All that would do is spread the controversy caused by one trial to every other trial in the UK. The application of those regs is totally inconsistent. They're supposed to invoke a 'silhouette' approach, components must resemble period components. Joke. How many bikes ridden in the Scottish resemble Pre65 bikes. Ariels with 7" of front suspension travel look nothing like Ariels, Cubs with modern alloy teardrop tanks and billet yokes and hubs look nothing like 60s Cubs. None of which bothers me but what is it supposed to achieve. Class 7 in the Miller championship is a far more pragmatic solution. It allows Joe Bloggs on a tight budget to have a British bike that is half reasonable to ride, by getting rid of the god-awful non-functional suspension and replacing it for little or no cost with a cheap set of Spanish or Jap forks that they may have lying in the garage, instead of having to fork out a few hundred quid on a set of fiddle forks. They can also replace the big heavy British wheels with a set of cheap Jap or European wheels instead of having to fork out on billet machined replica hubs and new rims. Now they have a bike that is at least pleasant to ride and has half a chance of getting over a housebrick without jarring the rider's back or pitching him off due to the 2" of useable fork travel with no rebound damping that the original equipment so tantalisingly offers. Why would anyone want to change it... I'm not against the modernised 'British Twinshocks', not at all, but at least now we have a class that allows people who can't afford the new billet parts to compete on a low budget home creation with bits from the shed.

It seems they've just changed the wording to match the wording used for the twinshock class of the Traditional series. It just means no converted monos, not that you can't move shock position. If that were the case there would be quite a number of twinshocks that were modified from new that couldn't be used.... Imagine Vesty not being able to ride his Commerfords bike. I think the renaming of Class 7 in the Miller series to British Twinshocks is a good idea, as last year's title of Replica and Pre-unit was very confusing.

Whereas I haven't compared them side by side, the 158 is a 250 so it's unlikely the 325 cylinder liner would fit into the crankcase mouth. Also I don't think, but not 100% certain, that the 159 onwards cylinder will fit in earlier 325 engines as they were basically an overbored 250 and have thinner liners than the later bikes. Whereas all of the crankcase halves from different 5 speed models will probably bolt together, they aren't all interchangeable. The gearbox bearings, gearbox shafts and clutch hubs changed dimensions somewhere around 1973 (ish) So you have to match the gearbox to the casings and you also need the correct clutch hub to go with the output shaft from the gearbox. You're better off looking for another set of 159 cases or another complete bottom end from the model 159 onwards. Any ignition cover will fit from 1969 models onwards.

Yes, Karl was a dealer so probably had a new bike each year. Rode mainly the 325 I think after they came out in '73. I think he rode every year in the 70s and had some good results as well.

I did the same with mine to secure the kickstart arm to the knuckle. Made a cup to fit over the the knuckle shaft in place of the circlip, drilled and tapped the shaft, fit the arm, fit the cup and secure with an M8 bolt. The circlip can't take the load and I had quite a few fail, even using the decompressor when starting, which can easily result in a lost kickstart arm, probably at the bottom of a ravine. This shouldn't happen now as it is a much more secure means of securing the arm.

Thanks Anthony, good idea, neat too. I've found the case saver now and I can see that it extends back far enough to stop the kickstart as well as protect the casing against knocks, although it's different from the one pictured in a previous post. Wish I'd realised it doubled as a kickstart stop before I holed the casing...

Short answer - no. I had them on my bike thinking they would be fine as they are the same style and appearance as the billet yokes but I was pulled up for them.

Hi Rob, yes I've seen your 320 rebuild - nice job. Thanks for the info, the picture clears up the sidestand bracket issue, that's as I thought it should be. The bracket on mine has been welded back on but it is at the wrong angle so needs doing again. Now I know what it looks like. Mine has the lightner, the pull is ok, it's just the action of the clutch itself, it's ok in most situations but when you want it in a higher gear it isn't really good enough and is going to cause problems in harder events. I've another couple of things to try before real desperation sets in. I know Martin and will see him at Telford in a few weeks.

It depends where you ride, so there is no definitive answer. Different clubs have their own ideas of what are acceptable, some don't have guidelines and are pragmatic about it, as long as no-one turns up with a GasGas front end. I think you are pretty safe anywhere with the billet yokes that various people supply as the pinch bolts are inside the stanchions and can't be seen anyway as they fit from the back. These seem to be acceptable for the clubs that have the most stringent rules, Red Rose, Yorkshire Classic and Pre65 Scottish. If your yokes don't meet the criteria you just go in the specials class (not the Scottish obviously)

Thanks Rob. I definitely don't have one of those. Whatever was fitted to mine, some kind of case saver, I haven't found yet as not had time to look. Next question now... Your sidestand. Is that the usual way they are fitted? Mine came with some sort of U shaped steel bracket attached to the kickstart when I bought the bike, although neither was attached to the bike. I assumed it was some kind of 'fix' and that the correct bracket had broken off the swingarm. Is that one on yours the correct bracket or is that something you've fashioned. It's neat, whichever. Mine has no holes in the swingarm where your 2 screws are. And finally... have you done anything with your clutch or is it standard. Maybe you're one of the lucky few who has a decent Rotax clutch operation. Mine is junk. I really like the bike, the engine torque is phenomenal with the reed fitted, but the clutch ruins it. I've just fitted Barnett plates (they work really well on my Ossa and Bultaco) but they've made no real difference. It still graunches and judders if trying to slip it in 3rd or above and it's almost impossible to get it light enough for one finger without it slipping on initial take up. Back it off to cure the slipping and it won't fully disengage and creeps. I'm going to start from scratch and set it up again before the weekend to try again, but just wondered if you had done anything specific to yours to make it work, or do you just put up with it. I'm getting to the point where I'm thinking about getting someone clever to fit me a different clutch in it.

Just bought it from one of the ebay sellers, can't remember which one as I've bought a few over the last couple of years, some based in UK, some Taiwan. Never had a problem with delivery from either.

They all use the same size (well, from model 49 definitely, I've never had a model 10 or 27) The Pyramid bearings are a straight fit as they are the correct size. You only have to machine the alloy head top nut if you use the Sammy Miller kit as the bearings are thicker than 12mm.

Problem with a minimum age limit Mike - I know two young lads who have only ever ridden Pre65, they've never had a modern bike. Their fathers ride Pre65 and when they took up the sport they did too in order to ride with dad. One rides regularly and has done for a few years. It would be tough to say to him you can't have a ride you're too young when he's ridden in more Pre65 events than the total of some of the other entrants put together.

The early bikes used gaskets on the seal holders, up to around 1973/4, from then on they had O rings, no gaskets. The gasket set usually has the gaskets and O rings to cover either as I doubt there was a definitive change over date/model from gasket to O ring, but it's easy enough to tell, the seal holder will have the groove machined for the O ring or it won't. Can't understand the overfuelling theory to be honest, it would still run, just rich. However, if your bike ran ok before you put it away the needle and jet aren't going to have worn when not in use, so it's difficult to see how that could be the cause. I'd be thinking along the lines that whilst laid up some stale petrol has solidified somewhere in the pilot circuit and is preventing it from starting and running once the initial carb flooding with the tickler has subsided. A blocked or partially blocked pilot circuit can virtually stop a bike from running altogether (don't ask me how, this is just from personal experience) May be worth getting the carb cleaned anyway in a good sonic cleaner for peace of mind which should break up and remove any blockage. For what it's worth I had a clapped out carb on a model 92 I rebuilt last year and I fitted an OKO as it was a lot cheaper than an Amal (just needed the inlet manifold of a later 250 as the OKO is push on not bolt on) With just a slight pilot and main jet change it ran very well. Can't remember the actual jets unfortunately but it ran quite well straight from the box.

From memory... At least loosen the allen bolt at the bottom of leg beform starting to dismantle as the spring tension should enable you to undo it without holding tools, especially if you have an air/electric ratchet. REMEMBER, the damping adjuster is inside the head of the allen bolt so screw it right in before inserting the allen key, otherwise you may damage the adjuster, it's only brass (bitter experience) Undo the fork caps from the stanchions. The fork caps are screwed onto the internal damper rod and secured with a locknut underneath them. To remove the cap from the damper rod you need to hold the locknut with a spanner and undo the cap. Bit fiddly as the spring/preload spacer is in the way. You can then remove the spring and spacer etc. making a note of their fitted order. Turn fork upside down and pump out oil, also pump the damper rod as this holds oil too. Then remove the allen bolt from the bottom of the fork leg, hold the fork leg in one hand (or vice) and pull the stanchion sharply out. You probably need 2 or 3 goes to shock it free of the bushes. Watch that the damper rod doesn't disappear as it is now free, no longer held in place by the allen bolt. May be better to remove it before trying to shock the stanchion free. Once the stanchion is out you can replace the seals and bushes, just note their order before sliding them off. Reassembly is the reverse. To fill with oil you need the leg upright with stanchion fully extended but no spring. Fill to the top with oil, then pump the damper rod 7 or 8 times through its full stroke to distribute the oil internally. Refill to the top and then pump the stanchion itself 7 or 8 times but not quite right through its full stroke to completely distribute all the oil. The oil level will fall again. You are looking for an air gap of 95mm (Birkett's recommendation to me) Add or remove oil as needed. Refit spring/spacer and cap and screw cap back into stanchion. Think that's it, been a long time so I may have overlooked something but I don't think so. Reset your damping adjuster back to original position.