woody

Building a Pre65 Bultaco, based on a Sherpa N, has been done and the bike was ridden in the Pre65 Scottish a few years ago (last time I rode it which was 2006 I think) As usual, later componenets were used and the engine was a 5 speed which didn't arrive until '68. So it wasn't a Sherpa N. Same as the Montesa Impala in the same event - it looked like an Impala model (I think, bit sketchy on these) but had a later Cota engine, again '68 at the earliest. Neither bike was what it was supposed to be.

Personal opinion obviously, I've had a go on a standard 250 and didn't like it. Couldn't get it through some nadgery and very slimy sections that I was cleaning on my KT250. Throttle response was too sharp and it was impossible to ride it through the sections on a whiff of throttle, it just span everywhere, so because of the sharp power I had to use the clutch when turns were tight. The clutch was on/off and bit far too fiercely which also span the rear wheel or pushed the front out. I was however, able to get it to burn and find grip from a standing start on the one section I tried it. I also watched a rider capable of a few tricks trying to ride a 300 up a wet grassy slope a couple of weeks ago. He was cleaning it easily on his old 315 but couldn't touch it on the Beta, just span to a stop every time (brand new IRC fitted) As I said, personal opinion only but they don't interest me. A fully stickered/painted Repsol 4RT however I could easily have just to look at if money wasn't an issue

The definitive answer from the man himself. Asked Sam at today's trial and he confirmed that he began developing the Sherpa T in November 1964 and that it did not go into production until 1965. So there you have it, the Sherpa T was not available in 1964, there was just Sam's factory bike. I told him why I was asking and he was not at all impressed that a Sherpa T had been allowed to compete in a Pre65 class....

I don't usually get involved in the 'what's best' discussions but the 4RT has a long way to go yet before it can come close to a TYZ Yam for reliability and a genuinely bullet proof build. As for grip in mud, there are some conditions where the 4RT just will not go. I know, I had one and I can ride pretty well in mud. I've seen better riders than me, very good riders in fact who are at the sharp end of Novogar rounds, give up with the 4RT. A trial at Kinlet, a simple section, standing start in mud with a bikes length before a small bank to shoot up followed by a gradual incline twisting through some trees. My 4RT wouldn't touch it. It needed 4th gear flat out just to get up the first bank and only then with leg work to help it. After the trial, tried again with same result, 1st, 2nd and 3rd were useless, 4th needed legwork. Not just me, others tried it too. On my mate's old '97 315 we were p***ing through it for cleans in 1st. Nothing wrong with tyres, set up etc. Just couldn't get grip at the start of the sub because it was thick gloopy mud with a soft base underneath and it just wouldn't dig in. Fine on some other muddy sections but not sections like that one. I wouldn't have another. I've nothing against them, a variety of bikes on the market is good, but I don't think they are a good novice bike, you need to be a skilled rider to stand a chance of riding them well in mud as they don't forgive mistakes. On rocks they aren't so bad, suspension at the rear is the best I've tried, front was no better than anything else. The high tickover I hated as it meant having to constantly use the clutch in nadgery as it couldn't be ridden on just the throttle with the high revs and the clutch (05 bike) was typically Honda trials - crap, just like the 315 I had and just like TLR twinshocks. Proper Repsol replica in full works colours has to be the best looking trials bike for a long time though. Just a shame the colours/graphics of the Repsol replica that Honda offered was nothing like that... If they'd offered the proper colours for a reasonable price I believe they'd have sold loads of them.

Yes, it's the proper tank for the bike.

About the seals, something I didn't know which was pointed out to me by the local bearing/seal stockist a while ago, is that there are two types of seals, rotary and hydraulic. I was buying various seals, giving him the sizes I wanted, and just happened to mention that one of the seals were for the forks. He said we don't do fork seals. I was a bit confused as he had just confirmed that he had the size I needed. He then explained that yes he had that size but they were rotary seals, they wouldn't work in forks, they would leak. Something about the construction of them - fork seals, ie; hydraulic, are different from rotary, as in a crank or gearbox seal. This may explain why a lot of the seals I have fitted in forks over the years don't seem to last as long as I thought they should, as I've unknowingly been fitting rotary seals. Apologies if you know this already but it's something I was never aware of, I now buy specific fork seals from Pyramid Parts. As regards the tank, I thought it was the normal tank sprayed in slimline style when I first looked, but it looks to be a slimline with the seat unit cut off. Works though.

The trial that he first competed on using the Bultaco was the Kings Norton trial in 1964 (Severn Valley trial has always been a Bewdley trial as far back as I can remember, but I was only 5 in '64 and only knew about scrambling on Grandstand back then....) Obviously, my info is only based on what I've read over the years. His contract with Ariel finished with the British Experts in 1964, he'd signed with Bultaco to begin riding immediately afterwards and had been developing the Sherpa T from the Sherpa N beforehand (in 12 days it's reckined) Hence the next trial he rode was the day after the Experts, the Kings Norton event. It's reckoned that the people didn't really take notice of the Bulto until he won the SSDT in 1965, then everyone wanted one. This coming weekend, we have the first of the Miller sponsored classic championship rounds andthe man himself is usually there. If he is I'll see if I can get a definitive answer from him. However, as mentioned before, the whole point of the pre65 class over here was to exclude the Bultaco.

I can't either, it's a period bike with a period engine fitted so I can't see anyone would have any grounds to complain about it. Very nice job and be nice to see it at some Miller rounds.

Yokes are from a late Ossa from what I can see of them, one of the green models. If the forks are original, then probably REH as mentioned in previous post. Eligibility all depends on where you ride but I doubt anyone is going to complain about REH forks down your way as although they aren't genuine Pre65, along with the bike, they are generally accepted, as are MP and Ceriani in most pre65 events, as are Sprites themselves in fact. The only clubs who may frown are the Yorkshire Classic or Red Rose classic but they have a specials class anyway so you could always ride the Sprite in that - if you ever ride up that way that is. As for Scotland, they won't like the bike, the Ossa yokes or even the REH forks if the examiner is feeling particularly panickity, so I'd forget about that event and just enjoy riding your bike elsewhere. A lot of clubs actually run the pre65 class as pre70 British now so the Sprite has no problems there and I doubt anyone would even notice the Ossa yokes, or realise what they are.

The bikes run absolutely fine on the Amal (obviously, as long as it is in good condition) but those triangular back boxes were always removed when the bikes were current for the very reason you've experienced. They choked the engine. If you want to use the bike and want it rideable/competitive, then originality often has to be sacrificed as OEM parts were sometimes a compromise. I'm assuming the triangular box was a spark arrestor for the US market to enable them to sell the bikes there. It's probably full of baffles. They probably knew that most owners would remove them to ride in competition so the choked performance wasn't an issue. I agree that the bikes sound a bit noisy with just the single silencer, not offensively so but they don't have a nice muted exhaust note. The options I'd consider are; - Cut the triangular box open and see if it will take a perforated tube with packing with the baffles removed (deep breath required to cut up something that expensive....). The tube can either be straight between inlet and outlet or it could have a slight S bend in it. This secondary silencer should quieten it down but shouldn't restrict performance at all. I'd match the inlet and outlet to the middle box at 22mm. This is something I will try on my M80 when I finally get around to rebuilding it, so I've no idea of the results if it is tried, just a theory at the moment. - Fit a 'boomerang' type rear silencer. Not original on the M80 but it will quieten it down effectively and no performance issues. - Fit the triangular box for any noise tests and them remove it for the event. I doubt it would fail a noise test anyway, as mentioned before, they aren't obtrusive - a TY Yam has a far more 'clacky' note and they have no problem.

So, so true... Yes, it was definitely a 1964 bike as he rode it in a Midland centre trial the day after the British Experts on the Ariel. The 'Experts' trial is long gone but our centre trial is still going. Never have understood that 'available to the public' thing. If they had wanted to exclude the Bultaco all they had to do was call it Pre65 British Bike class, or Pre70 or whatever.

Miller rode the M10 for the first time in a UK trial the day after the British Experts in November 1964. The bike was his own development bike and wasn't available to the retail market until after January 1965, but I don't know where you could get what would be considered as conclusive proof of that. However, the whole point of the cut-off date of 31st December 1964 for Pre65 trials was to exclude the Sherpa. When Pre65 started here in the UK, over 3 decades ago now, there were no 'modernised' bikes, so the Sherpa would have been just as far ahead of the British bikes in Classic trials as it was back in its own era. That date was chosen as a Sherpa wasn't available to buy before then so it didn't qualify and the idea was to have a British bike only series. Ironic really, as now, a modernised Cub, James etc will run rings around a 60s or early 70s Sherpa

I had a ride on that Ossa last year, unfortunately, only in the carpark, not in sections. Not massively altered but it was impressive. Standard MAR frame. Headstock altered, lowered footrests, longer Montesa 242 swingarm to retain wheelbase. Engine, 250cc, felt like it had a bit of work done to it but not much, no reed valve. Ran very cleanly and pulled better than standard but not a massive difference. Flywheel lightened a bit maybe. Can't remember if the exhaust or airbox were modified, don't think they were. Dellorto carb if I remember rightly. Clutch worked perfectly, light and precise Front suspension improved. The Ossa (in my opinion) has one of the best front fork actions of it's era, smooth, doesn't top or bottom and the damping is consistent through the entire stroke. This one had much lighter damping and felt more modern with a quicker action and stronger springing - very very good, just like the Puma Bult and Montesas I tried. Rear schocks felt excellent. The brakes were very precise. These changes which are not huge but make all the difference in the feel of the bike. It felt light and flickable and I could ride it in a way that I can't ride my own 1975 310 MAR. Using the clutch and brakes is easy, don't even have to think about it, just one finger. That, coupled with the reworked suspension allows the bike to be ridden clutch/brake style if required as it takes no effort. I could actually hop the front and back and hopped it round in a full circle, impossible on my own bike (for me) as it takes far too much effort. Very impressive bike, still looks like a MAR except for the swingarm (but still a twinshock item) and the cosmetics. Nothing that looks out of place. I'd love to have tried it in the sections. There are one or two people in Spain at the moment who really know how to set these bikes up nicely.

They probably are pretty close, the clutch brakes and suspension on that bike look as though they may work as well as a Puma, but the Puma engines still sound a lot crisper and cleaner. Like to try them both - but it just makes you want one more....

So you think that Bultaco is good - take a look at this then and don't ever moan that your Bultos won't do this or can't do that. I still think the Puma is the ultimate so far.

Definitely not Norton Roadholders MP, Ceriani and REH all look very similar and it is hard to tell them apart. Greeves (not you Javier, the company...) used to fit Cerianis to their bikes so they could be Ceriani. PS - MP, REH and Ceriani aren't supposed to be eligible for the Pre65 Scottish, just in case you do think about having them modified and putting modern forks inside them.

They did - excellent trial and thanks to all concerned

Here are 2 adverts for twinshocks from one of the web sites - the Cota is a new ad, the Fantic has been sold. Both are under

Just had the entry list for Saturday's Normandale round and Peter isn't on it surprisingly so I guessed incorrectly on that one.

He has a look on this forum occasionally so I'll get him to answer you.

Don't know whether to find it sad or funny really that a genuine 1965 bike with REH forks (which are 1966 maybe? but totally inefficient against modern cartridge type) isn't elligible, but a 2010 spec James/Franny B/Cub/Ariel is perfectly acceptable. In all honesty I think you have little chance of an entry on the Sprite as they don't seem to want them there.

It will more likely be at the Normandale rounds this weekend

That's one of the most frequently quoted inaccuracies on this forum Take two riders, capable of performing a few tricks, one on a 1968 Sherpa, the other on a Yam mono converted to twinshock Now take one of our national championship twinshock rounds which have some quite difficult sections. In some of those sections a clean can be achieved by using clutch/brake technique and flicking the front and rear wheels to get a better line (including stopping and flicking which is against the rules but usually goes unpenalised ) Without the flicking to get the better line, a ride through the section is going to need a dab or two to pull the bike straight as it is impossible to steer round the muddy turns without the front wheel washing or the rear sliding away. So out of the two riders, who is going to fair better in that section, the rider on the Yam or the rider on the old Bulto which doesn't have the clutch/suspension/brakes/geometry to perform the tricks. If both riders were on the Bulto the better rider would do it for a dab instead of a 2 or a 3. If both were on the Yam, they'd both clean it with the stop/hop style. Add in a big muddy climb after one of the turns and the Yam can do the section in 3rd or 4th gear and burn up the climb as you can still perform the stop/hop in those gears. The Sherpa could use 2nd at most which wouldn't be enough to get you up the climb as it wouldn't fire off the clutch in any higher gears. So after three-ing your way around the turns on the Sherpa you then 5 the climb whilst the Yam goes clean. Still think the bike offers no advantage? I think there is nothing wrong with people modifying bikes how they want including adding 2 shocks to a mono if that's what they want to do - but to then ride it as a twinshock is absurd and missing the point of why people ride older bikes. I've never understood the thinking behind 'I want to do twinshock trials' or 'I want to ride aircooled mono class'. Surely it is 'I like Bultacos (or Ossas, or Stripey Betas for argument's sake) so I want to own and ride one'. You then ride the bike in any event that has a course/route/sections that you think you can compete on with that bike. They may be twinshock speciific trials or modern events with a route that suits the bike - whichever, you get to ride the bike of your choice. It is about wanting to ride a bike you enjoy riding, in the case of twinshocks or aircooled monos, usually the make of bike that you rode when they were new because you really liked it. People are too hung up on this 'there is no class for my bike so I can't ride it' attitude. Rubbish - you just go and ride it and enjoy it. Doesn't bother me if I am the only twinshock out of 80 riders at one of our modern events.

Too easy? Too hard? set out for sidecars, not solos? - what was the problem?