woody

Yes indeed, the Pre65 title was purely to prevent the Bultaco and then the Ossa and Montesa that followed, from competing in classic events. A far better definition is British Bikes Pre70 which has long been adopted by some clubs and national series.

That seems fairly conclusive then, they were available before 1965, which contradicts everything I have been told about when they were manufactured.

Thanks Tony, mine did have some sort of case saver but I think it was more from rock damage than the kickstart. I can't remember exactly what it looks like, from memory it was different from yours, maybe the same as the one on the ignition side, but I can't find it at the moment, it's 'safe' in a box somewhere with some other parts. Maybe it will do the job. I'll have a hunt for it tomorrow

No, it's intact but that seems to be the return stop, not s stop to prevent the full rotation of the kickstart?

Does anyone know whether the Rotax motor has a 'stop' on the kickstart mechanism? Mine is the Jumbo but I believe it's the same as the 240/280 motors. Problem has occured in that the kickstart travel/rotation is long and on full swing the knuckle of the kickestart has gone round and punched a hole in the casing. I can't see how to stop this happening. It's never happened before but it's happening now. I've looked at the parts diagram and had the kickstart ratchet and spring out but can't see that there is anything to stop the kickstart shaft continuing to rotate until the kickstart hits the casing. There is no way I can kick it gently enough to shorten the swing to prevent this happening, not even using the decompressor, the kickstart travels full swing. I repaired the casing yesterday and it's holed it again today. Am I missing something?

They were defintely manufactured after 1965 so they aren't genuine Pre65 class eligible, definitely not Scotland. However, most clubs now run as Pre70 so it doesn't cause a problem. If a club is running a Pre65 class, a 2011 spec James/FB/Cub is ok, a genuine 1966 Sprite isn't. Oh the irony of Pre65 eh.....

If you're not using it on the road you have nothing to worry about with a plastic or fibreglass tank. The law that was passed around 1973 prohibiting the use of fibreglass (not plastic) tanks on the road was UK law, not an ACU ruling banning them from trials use. Presumably this law is still in force but there are plenty of bikes in use in road trials using fibreglass tanks.

I'm going from a none too clever memory here, but if the '74 swingarm is from a TY250A then I think they were frame mounted, not on the swingarm which would be why the mount is not there. Can't help you with the chain lube mechanism as I've never used one, I always blocked them off and manually lubed the chain.

I was working on my 340 last night so whilst the tank was off I took a couple of pictures of the alloy head steady. I can't post photos on here so if someone who can will PM me their email address I'll email them to you and you can post them.

Just another topic being subjected to the usual forum-itis. Lots of people 'in the know' who know the reason why the bike isn't really going to Sheffield. I've no idea what the reason is but in this day and age when professional sport has been controlled and ultimately ruined by big money sponsorship, it's the sponsors who rule and call the shots. To me, however ludicrous it sounds, it's perfectly feasible that the clothing issue could be the cause. Look at formula 1, the drivers aren't allowed in front of a camera without someone from PR shoving the appropriately logo'd baseball cap on their head. Lewis Hamilton has to mention Vodafone in every sentence To come up with a reason like this if they were covering something else up, Ossa would presumably need the agrement of the sponsor, I doubt they could just make it up. Would you take the blame if you were the main sponsor and not the cause of the problem.

Ossas and some Bultacos had stainless steel spokes as standard fitment, so they must be strong enough for competition use. I had my Ossa MAR wheels rebuilt nearly 20 years ago with new stainless steel spokes and that bike has been seriously used over the years and taken a good hammering. I've never even had to adjust a spoke in that bike, certainly never broken one.

Yes, they are a standard fitment to Betor forks fitted to Bultacos and Ossas They aren't thick enough to have any affect on spring tension. I can only guess that they prevent the oil squirting geyser-like, straight up the forks tube, from the top of the damper rod when the forks are compressed. For what purpose I don't know, maybe to help slow the oil flow and help compression damping? So yes, they do belong in there, but in my experience, there is no difference to the damping or fork action on either a Bultaco or Ossa if they are fitted or not.

They've already won two trials in the UK. If production bikes are seen to be winning or thereabouts in club and centre trials, then it is proving itself in the real environment of outdoor trials in the hands of club and centre standard riders. This has to be more relevant to potential buyers than what happens at the X-circus on a factory indoor special

Yes, I'd say the same, stick with the Dellorto. An OKO is a decent option if the original carb is no longer available, or was not particularly good, but a Dellorto is a good carb and available new. An OKO is minimum

It's the same flag, whether called the Union or Union Jack. The 'Jack' reference is because it was the part of the ship it was originally flown from (I've no idea what that part was) As far as I know, Union was added to the name some time later. I hope those lads never turn out in a Pre65 competition on those bikes - they look a bit handy...

SAE refers to the grade / thickness of the oil so SAE5 is thinner than SAE30. The thinner the oil the faster the damping piston will move through it, like trying to move your hand through a bath full of water as opposed to treacle. The forks will compress and rebound quicker with SAE5 than with a higher SAE. The SAE has no direct bearing on the quantity of oil used, or not that you need to worry about. The recommended quantity for the Bultaco is 160cc. They have a shorter fork leg than most other bikes. However, it's only a recommendation and there is tolerance to use more than that. Use your SAE10, start with 160cc, take it from there and add 10cc at a time if required, but 200cc is the absolute maximum

106cc is not enough, did you mean 160? The Bultaco forks take a bit less than other bikes with Betor forks so between 160 and 180cc is a benchmark for starting with. SAE depends on personal preference. Bulto forks aren't exactly the best in the world and even with 180cc (and more...) of SAE30 they can still top out. As you've got SAE10 already, use that and try 160cc to start with and add 10cc at a time if you think they need it. Once you get towards 200cc though they will start locking through too much oil

Is that with the rider..... Weight is around 95kg

Juan Knight - it's a fantastic section, a lot harder than it looks from the camera view.

The Cota 349/4, Cota 350 and MH349 are the last model in the 349 range and are essentially the same bike in different colour schemes, I think the only difference is that the MH349 may have different forks (same make, different spec) but I'm not 100% certain of that. The front exhaust on all three comes sideways out of the front frame tubes and up and over the right of the head (right as in when you sit on the bike) On the original 349 it goes straight up and over the head between the two frame tubes. The swingarm on all three is kicked up at the rear spindle whereas on the original it is straight. The frames on the original red and the white models differs from the later three. Look here for pictures of the original red 349 along with the white model and the later Cota 350 http://www.ataq.qc.ca/galerie/index.php?folder=/Mus%E9e/Montesa/&page=1

The rules do affect the severity of a section. In WTC they have a time limit. The time limit has a massive impact on how they can ride the section. They no longer have unlimited time to line themselves up for each obstacle they face, therefore they rush and make mistakes. Take away the time limit and the marks lost would fall. Obviously time limits are totally unworkable at club and centre level and god forbid we ever have to have them anyway, it's too far from the original concept. The time limit is just a rule, the same as stop or no-stop. These two rules also affect the severity of the same section. Plot a difficult section which has a couple of tricky bits that could possibly be cleaned no-stop with a very good, line perfect ride. The same section ridden stop and hop becomes easy for riders that can do that. They can place the bike into a better position that would be impossible under no-stop which then takes away the challenge that is faced under no-stop. To take marks under stop and hop means the section has to be more difficult with the result that it becomes impossible for non trick riders. The marks lost in SSDT by the top riders are also an illustration of how rules affect section severity. If they could stop and hop their way out of trouble when they know they've lost it and are heading for a dab under no-stop, the marks would tumble and I'd wager you'd have more than a few clean rides each day. Look what Cabestany can do in the indoor and outdoor WTC, if he could use those skills to ride his way out of trouble in the SSDT he would save a stack of marks. So what would happen then, sections tightened up to take marks to allow for the stop and hop - just like back in the early 90s when it almost killed the trial off. I've never ridden Reeth bit I imagine the sections are straightforward natural type like Scotland. If you ran the same sections with stop allowed then the better riders are going to lower their scores. If it is a low scoring event for the top riders then will you have a few of them clean under stop and hop? That's the dilema. I'm not arguing for a full change back to no-stop, as I said before I think things are ok as they are and people have the choice. I firmly believe though that rules do affect the severity of a section and to take marks in a stop and hop trial, the sections have to be harder than a no-stop trial. In no-stop you get very little chance to correct a mistake which is the whole point, you pay in marks for mistakes. Under stop and hop you can save a situation that is lost under no-stop. The rules dictate the kind of sections you put on, the COC can only plot sections to suit the rules.

By granfather rules I'm guessing you mean no-stop As Dan points out in his letter and as I mentioned in my post, in the UK, where national events have gone back to using no-stop rules the entries have picked up. To the point where some are oversubscribed for entries. SSDT, Lakes 2 day, IOM 2 day, Novogar series to name a few - all modern trials. Then there is the Scottish Pre65 and the IOM Classic. Other nationals with stop and hop allowed, like the BTC can't get enough riders to fill the point scoring places. Same with other trials where you have hard/easy route. The entry is split almost 20/80 hard/easy and the ratio is increasing as few riders have the skill to fart about and do the tricks to the required level. Not much to figure really. Simple fact is, if you allow riders to stop to compose themselves they have a much greater chance of cleaning a section than if they can't stop. So to negate that and stop any number of clean sheets the sections get harder to take account of the fact riders can stop and reposition, which leads to where we are now. Stupid sections that only a few can ride in the top events. Whilst I share the same preference of rules as Dan, I think we are ok at the moment in having a choice. The number of riders entered into the differing events will show what people prefer

No, not total BS, it's the original concept of trials - get from A to B without stopping by inspecting the section, finding a line that you think will achieve it and making an attempt. If you get in a mess you use a foot, once or more than once to get out of it, not be allowed to stop and correct the mistake penalty free. The whole point is you pay for getting off line by losing marks. If you don't think you can clean a section you pick a point for a deliberate dab to get you over the hazard instead of going for a clean you know you can't achieve and ending in a heap. Trials was the thinking man's game and all about plotting your lines to achieve a no-stop ride. The rule is when the front spindle ceases forward motion, not when the spokes stop turning, that has never been a rule Couldn't be more simple really. This isn't the first time Dan has written to the ACU, I remember a similar letter a few years ago. I also favour the no-stop rules but don't think we will see it happen again with the FIM, therefore there is no reason for the ACU to make a ruling which is why I guess they'll continue to give a choice - not a bad solution to my mind at the moment as it seems to work well. Favour for one set or the other varies from region to region in the UK but on a national level it's not hard to see which are the better supported events, those with no-stop rules. The skills required to compete on BTC and WTC are way beyond the vast majority of riders. You only have to look at those events to see that the sport isn't really attracting new riders at those levels, the names of the top WTC 6 has barely changed in 10 years and few show any signs of breaking into it. The BTC has changed a bit but there are still only about 4 riders in with a chance of a win and not enough to fill all the point scoring positions. The national events with no-stop rules are well supported and some exceed the maximum entry and have to decline entries so it's not hard to see what the majority prefer. At the moment I think we have the right compromise by allowing the choice but it will be interesting to see how things progress over the next few years.

In Motion / Bultaco UK have Montesa swingarm bushes. Worth a try to see if they have the size you need

You don't say what you have checked - so have you checked the selector pawls. Assuming it is the same design as other Monts, I've never had a 172, there are two, one for selecting upwards, one for downwards. If the edge is chipped off the pawl that selects upwards it won't engage with the selector drum and you won't be able to change up. It's a fairly normal Montesa problem, usually happens by clattering the gear lever on something like a rock or tree stump, forcing it upwards which breaks the end off the pawl. You can still change down as the other pawl is unaffected. It's easy enough to check and just involves removing the clutch cover. This gives access to the selector mechanism and from memory (I think this is right, as it's been a long time since I used to do this regularly on a MH349...) removing the 4 screws and the cover accesses the pawls. It will be fairly obvious if the end is chipped as it should have a sharp edge shaped like a chisel. Worth a look if you haven't already.