woody

The 349 has a 349cc engine. Excellent torquey motor it is too

BSA you have 2 choices really, 250cc C15 or 350cc B40. Basically the same engine as the B40 is an overbored 250. There are internal differences throughout the model years but the basic shell of the motors are the same so both use the same mounting points. Early are distributor ignition, later have no distributor points are in the side casing. Their production run spans either side of the 1965 cut off date, depends on your rules but both ages are used here. Or there is the later 250cc B25 engine which isn't supposed to be eligible over here for Pre65 (ho ho) Again, same basic construction as the previous two but smaller crank assembly, better head design so it is a bit more responsive in terms of power. Out of the B40 and C15, the C15 is generally preferred as it is consider to grip better (subjective really) The standard road C15 engine with the 7/8" inlet can be used by lowering the primary drive. Nothing else is needed really, cam, valves, compression, gear ratios all ok for trials. But you'd really want to pu a modern ignition on it. PVL works well. Any other BSA 4 strokes aren't worth bothering with really, these are the most common and parts are readily available.

Excellent event on one of the more capable twinshocks (personal opinion obviously as to what is capable....) I've ridden it for a few years on a TYZ but last year rode it on my 340 Sherpa. Thoroughly enjoyed it, the bike is more than capable of handling most sections, there were only about 5 or 6 sections each day that I found really difficult and could 3 at best or 5. One was a long hill climb (3rd or 4th on a modern bike, 3rd on the Bult) with a bumpy entrance and a bump half way up. The modern bikes never felt the bump but it threw the Bult about a bit resulting in being knocked off line and a 5. The ohers were where precise clutch/brake control was needed at the bottom of steepish descents in order to turn tight and line up for the next part of the section, usually another climb. On a modern bike no problem but the brakes on the Bult made this difficult. However, sections like this are very few, most are straightforward without tight turns. I'm riding the same bike again this year, the suspension clutch and brakes are all working better now so I hope I can do the bike justice this time. It deserved a better result last year. Can't remember my number but it's very low, somewhere around 10.

To be honest, if it was me I wouldn't be trying to find a used Amal as the chances of finding a good one are slim due to the age and use it will have had. You could spend

Bing won't be original. The 250 Hiro engines used Amal. I would guess, as I'm not positive, that the 240 Rotax engine used a Dellorto. I'm assuming yours is a Rotax as you're calling it a 240TL.

When talking about 'length' centimetres always sounds more impressive due to the bigger numbers

Overall length (ie; inner cable) is 106cm Inner cable is 8.5cm longer than outer.

I found an original Yam cable tonight as well as a Venhill cable (neither is in useable condition) The inner cable of the Venhill is a few millimetres longer than the standard cable and it still had the collar I made fitted to it. Then just to really confuse I found another pattern clutch cable and the overall length of this one was several inches longer than the original with the inner cable being about 10mm too long on this one. So neither pattern was the correct fit. The original Yam cable also has an adjuster on the outer cable at the clutch lever end which enables much more precise adjustment of the cable. Unfortunately Venhill do get the lengths wrong, my KT clutch cable is too long in total length although inner/outer ratio was correct. The clutch cable for the 330 Montesa was wrong, the f/brake cable for the 330 and 350 Montesa is way too short. (they've since corrected the 330 cables as I sent them originals as patterns) Throttle cables for the Ossa, Bultaco etc for Domino sidepull throttle to Mikuni carb can be a bit hit and miss in length, inner and outer.

If I remember rightly, the spindle on the 250 Godden frame was slightly shorter than the Yam framed Majesty (standard TY spindle) However, diameter was the same. If your 200 is a similar arrangement you should be able to use a standard 175 spindle and shorten it. This is just a theory, I'm not talking from first hand knowledge as I've never had a 175/200.

Synthetic 2 stroke won't hurt your KT. I run mine on Castrol TTS at 50:1. Whilst I don't know what's wrong as it could be anything, one possibility could be that it is using whatever fuel is in the carb and then dying as the float bowl isn't refilling quick enough. You don't say whether it will start up again afterwards (before dying again) Could be the length of time it takes you start it again is due to the time it takes for enough fuel to trickle into the float bowl to start it. You could try switching the fuel tap off as soon as the engine dies and then checking how much fuel you have in the float bowl. If fuel flow is ok it shoulod be full. If it is a fuel problem it will be low/empty. Fuel tap obstruction? Tank vent partially blocked? Float needle sticking and not opening up properly? Doesn't seem like electrics as it doesn't sound as though it is running long enough for one of the electrical components to fail when getting hot. If it isn't fuel I'd try a new plug and cap as a start anyway, even though you seem to have a good spark.

Let's hope they have - when I put my Venhill cable and the original cable next to each other the problem in length was obvious. Happened to me twice and my mate had the same problem. This was a couple of years ago.

If you have bought a Venhill cable (I assume so as Yamaha originals are no longer available) then the chances are the inner cable is too long as that's the way they are. I've been through it myself. Even if you have original Yam type levers. The eccentric clutch arm adjuster won't get rid of the play. I had to make a collar that sat in the outer cable locater under the engine which moved the outer cable further away from the clutch arm which in effect shortened the outer cable.

Extend the arm as far as it will go (1.5 inches maybe, can't remember) but you'll also need to relocate the lug where the outer cable locates to keep the cable straight. This is easy enough by using the existing locater lug to bolt a bracket to with a new locater to line up with the end of the arm. Lighter springs are available her in the UK but I found that under a severe caning in 2nd or 3rd gear on steep muddy climbs they could slip, even with the adjusting screws bottomed out, so I reverted to the original springs. Depends how hard you ride your bike. With less 'severe' usage they would be ok. My '75 350 MAR has the arm lengthened, Barnett plates, standard springs, adjusting screws are set so there are a few threads showing, they aren't bottomed out. I use a Venhill superlight cable. With this set up I get one finger clutch pull and the Barnett plates ensure it disengages every time. Engagement with the extended arm is fine, no problems. Basket is in good order, no rough edges etc. which helps smooth operation as well.

Mate of mine has an Electrex fitted to his Sprite. Very happy with it, bike performs very well, ignition has been faultless and they were very helpful with fitting/set-up.

I cut up a Sammy Miller brake pedal to get it to fit. There isn't much room on the left side of the bike due to the bulbous clutch casing and it's difficult to get the pedal tucked in out of the way on the standard C15 frame because of that. I very rarely use the back brake though so most of the time the pedal isn't fitted

IRC tube type are inconsistent, some have stiffer sidewalls than others and will run ok at 3 or 4psi. If you get one with a soft sidewall they are next to useless if you weigh a fair bit as they roll all over the place with the weak sidewalls, compounded by a heavier riders weight (although I've had this with a tubeless one on one occassion) They need almost 6psi to stop the rolling but then won't grip in mud. In really hot weather they can still roll at this psi. No idea why some are ok and some aren't - made in different factories? inconsistent manufacturing? Who knows but I only buy an IRC from the local dealer now so I can check the sidewall before I buy it. I've had a Dunlop tubeless fitted to my Bultaco for 12 months or so (on a tubeless rim) and it has performed well. Recently the rim decided it wasn't going to hold air any more for some reason and I had to put a tube in as a temporary measure. The difference was incredible. Next trial the bike would not grip at all in the mud, it didn't like the tube in it at all. It was back to tubeless for the next event. I think with the tubeless tyres it depends on the type of tubed rim as to whether the tyre will hold or not. I can get tubeless tyres to stay on the rim of Bultaco or Ossa rims no problem whether they are IRC, Dunlop or Michelin. I can't get a tubless tyre (specifically IRC, not tried the other two) to stay on the rim of a TY or KT. They pop out onto the rim ok when initially fitting but when you start deflating down to trials pressure a section of the tyre on one side of the rim, for a length of about 12", always drops into the rim. I've never successfully run a tubless tyre on a TY or KT rim.

If you have a pillar drill use that. Bring it down onto the clutch assembly and use the chuck against the 'mushroom' that the clutch arm acts on in order to compress it. I used it for a 330 clutch so not sure if it is the same as a 200. Compressing the clutch enabled me to remove the large circlip that holds the plates and hub in the basket. The springs and pins remain in situ and don't need to be removed to allow removal of the plates and get to the bearing. The 200 clutch may be assembled differently but the pillar drill should enable you to compress the assembly however it is designed.

Yes, that's what is done - usually into Norton Roadholder legs, but original BSA or Triumph steel legs are used too. Can't tell you how it's done, I'm not an engineer. I've heard it's a very fine tolerance between success and a balls-up when machining the parts though

From your pictures your airbox looks exactly the same as the one fitted to my MH349, which is what your bike is. There are 3 versions of the last 349 Cota - the Cota 349/4, the Cota 350 and the MH349 - they are all the same bike, just different colours. The obvious identifiers of these models are the kicked up swingarm at the spindle end, the welded in frame tubes from the footrest to the front of the seat (bolt on for earlier models) and the exhaust that comes outside the frame before passing over the cylinder head. The front panel looks a bit fiddly to remove but it does look as though it will come out with the airbox in situ. I haven't tried as I bought the bike as a rebuild job and it's only just going back together. I'm assuming mine is standard fitment, it only had two bolts holding it on at the top, the airbox itself has three mounting points on the top but one is hidden beneath a frame tube so can't be used. Mine also has the two brackets on the rear frame tubes behind the airbox. I'd assumed they may be for a splash guard or possibly lower mounting points for an original shape rear mudguard, but they are not for the airbox. As mentioned in a previous post, the 330 has a completely different airbox from the 349. I've never had earlier models of the 349, the original red one or the next model white wonder, so don't know if they all share the same airbox. They seem to from the pictures and comments already posted.

No problem, glad they were able to sort it for you.

You can get decals from here for either model. http://kawasakikt.tripod.com/FREDKT.html He can also send you a colour card for the lime green. The metallic green is a bit more tricky to match though.

They use the clamps and bracket from a late 90s Gas Gas. (Montesa and Beta used the same type of set up, same type of clamps but their brackets were different from the Gas Gas - the Spanish bikes look like they use the Gas Gas bracket) The cost of these used to be reasonable but they are a crazy price now, over

You could buy aftermarket pegs, cut the pivot off them, cut the pivots off your Bultaco pegs and weld them onto the new pegs (as long as you haven't bought alloy of course) - then the new pegs will bolt onto the original brackets on your bike. Still involves welding but at least you don't have to modify the frame.

Maybe your letter hasn't got to where it needs to. I've spoken to Yamaha UK customer services a few times in the past and the lady there, Moira I think, was always helpful. If it is a TY frame you're ok as Yamaha can date it, if it is a Godden frame you may have trouble as no-one except Shirt has the records for those and I couldn't get a letter from him for mine. The Godden frame number, or the name Majesty, won't mean a thing to Yamaha. In your position I'd phone Yamaha UK, make sure you get their customer services number. You may as well ask for Moira as she may still be there. I wouldn't mention Majesty, just refer to it as a Yamaha TY. They'll only provide a dating certificate from a written request but at least if you speak to them first you can be sure of where to send your request, or maybe they'll accept it by fax. Be prepared though, they always put on the certificate wording to the effect that it is an offroad bike and as such may not meet the traffic act regulations, lighting etc. DVLA usually understand it's a trials bike and aren't bothered about this.

The Vintage Motorcycle Club in Burton on Trent should be able to provide you with a dating certificate for the Ossa. I think they now have the frame reference ID chart, your frame number will denote which model/year it is. DVLA will accept proof of age from VMCC. They're very helpful, you can find their website via google. Can't remember what the fee is for this service but not too much. After you have proof of age, the procedure is the same as stated in a previous post.