woody

Yes Jim, it could certainly be the CDI as Colin has had one or two TLR Hondas, both 200 and 250 with with failed CDI. Might be worth giving him a call to see if he has a resolution for the problem. I think the chances of getting a new replacement are zero.

On the clutch side, the pivot mount sits right up against the clutch case, just above the selector shaft. I'd assume from the way it is done that the engine has to go in after the swingarm is fitted and the engine has to come out to remove the swingarm.

On the Reynolds bike (I'm assuming the last one before they stopped modifying) the swingarm mount, as mentioned before, is right behind the gearbox sprocket, or, in a vertical line, directly under the carb with no through spindle, just located either side to the frame plates. The front frame tube from swingarm up to seat was bent forward as it descends to move the pivot forwards. The rear engine mount has some large bracket work to hold it but can't see exactly how it's done in the photo I have (can't post photos) It must be fixed to the frame somewhere. I see what you mean about the Vesty bike having scalloped rear crankcases now - I thought you meant the crankcases themselves which isn't possible due to the internals, hence my earlier comment, but it is the engine mounting boss that is scalloped away, it doesn't go into the actual crankcase which is what I thought was meant originally.

From my own experience, I've never had a problem with stainless spokes. All wheels I've ever had rebuilt with new spokes have been stainless. The oldest set were done in about 1993 by Central Wheel on an Ossa and that bike has taken a real beating over the years but I've never had to even retension one spoke. I've definitely never broken one (we all know what's going to happen now though, don't we....) Aren't Ossa and some Bultaco spokes stainless as standard fitment?

Have you considered Electrex for the ignition. They come with weights, a friend of mine has one on his MK2 Sprite and it runs perfectly. The advance curve lets it plonk to virtually nothing, pick up softly and then rev out cleanly as the curve advances. Works well. As regards Scotland, you have two problems, one being the Sprite, second being REH forks as I don't think either is considered Pre65. Who you contact about it on the committee though, I have no idea. As has been said elsewhere though, you can try and make a bike eligible for that trial which can cost time and money, just for one event which you may not even get in to. There are plenty more trials throughout the year to enjoy where you don't have to be so finicky with the bike's spec and making it how you want it can be achieved a whole lot easier and cheaper. Forgot to mention - the Vintage Motorcycle club in Burton on Trent can provide dating certificates that are acceptable to DVLA. Give them a try, they have a website.

It's done to enable quick/easy draining of the float bowl, particularly on events like SSDT where time is short. Much quicker to take the bung out of the hose and empty the float bowl than to try and wrestle the carb off, which isn't a quick job on the TYZ. You can't get to the float bowl drain plug with the carb in situ. If the bike has done the SSDT the paint will have the rider number scratched into it. The throttle cable goes under the brake master cylinder, not over the top.

Being realistic, no-one is going to be able to answer that question apart from the comittee themselves although I've no idea which one in particular. You never know, the frame may be acceptable, it has bottom frame tubes and oil in frame for a C15/B40 now seems ok whereas before it wasn't.

Ah, ok - I missed that when I was crawling all over the bike a few years ago, looked like they were untouched - Apologies Tim, you were correct.

There was a later bike done for John Reynolds which had the pivot moved even further up. On this bike it looked as though the pivot went through the rear of the cases but the swingarm was actually bolted to the side plates either side so there was no spindle. Don't think there is any room in the cases to allow a pivot to pass through, without reworking the internals that is.

Stop hop and reverse was in full use where necessary at this time. Today's twinshock trials are run no-stop but back then, anything went, no-stop had gone by about 1981/2. I agree though, I prefer to see the no-stop style on the twinshocks. Interesting to see how easy the sections look but as with any top rider, they make it look easy and the camera flattens the perspective. Lejeune was the Toni Bou of that time and we all know how easy Bou makes the impossible look today.

Cases aren't modified, the swingarm pivot is just moved up right behind them

No website - Mick Mills had stopped making the frames a long while ago due to his ill health. Those made are available through Bonkey Bowers, I think they are genuine, not the copies. Cost is around

Absolutely no reason why it should, it's not a new frame or components, it's still a 26 year old 320 Armstrong under the new 'skin'. It was actually done about 15 years ago by another of our mates, but never finished. Colin bought it of him recently and they finished it off. Hopefully be making its debut at the first Miller round.

320 Armstrong with altered frame, fabricated exhaust, airbox, tank, seat unit, swingarm. Garelli top end.

The original cantilever conversions were modified Ossa frames if I remember correctly so not chromed, later frames were purpose built and chromed There is no reason really why it can't compete in twinshock class as it was a twinshock at original manufacture and it competed against twinshocks in it's era, so it wouldn't be unfair to compete against the same bikes in twinshock classes today. It's still 1975 technology and probably wasn't much of an improvement over standard, even Yamaha went back to twinshocks. It's still no match for more modern twinshocks. There is no way it could compete against modern aircooled monos as it would be absolutely and comprehensively outclassed and slaughtered - it's from a different era. One for the collecter really, or just to ride and enjoy in club trials without worrying about classes.

As above Paul - the 240 Fantic is more than enough in standard trim. They were good enough to win British Championship events back in their day and those trials were way harder than anything you'll ride it in today. If it's in good order it has more than enough power as a 240 and the chassis is fine as it is. A lot is said of today's 'tight' classic sections - this is B*****ks as they are nowhere near as tight as the sections of the early 80s when you had to hop round them. All these mods that are being done to the 240 aren't necessary, they are a personal preference by the owners. You don't need a 240 with a 300 engine to compete with, but if you just want one, that's a different issue. As regards getting one, Twinshock shop had some for sale I think, you could ask Lee Harris and try and persuade him to sell one of his, wait for one to be advertised or throw loads of money at Classictrial and have one built. A lot of work for little gain over the standard bike though.

Have you tried Wakefield Offroad, they have broken lots of bikes over the years. There are some for a 348 on ebay, no idea if they'll do the job but you could get the seller to measure them up for you.

Contact Jim who runs the Beamish Owners Club. http://www.beamishownersclub.com/_sgg/f10000.htm He also posts on here so he may see your question anyway The silver engine was based on a TS engine so I'd guess the rods are the same. There are some on ebay USA.

This whole topic is based on rumour, assumptions, guesses and opinions of soothsayers who are 'in the know'. eg: Recent post said it has nothing to do with Honda UK, but it is now 5 day old news that Honda UK have appointed Pidcock's sole Montesa dealer and that bikes are expected into the UK in early March

Hi Clive, your question is a bit open as eligibility regarding these carbs differs for Pre65 / twinshock and region to region. Can't give you an exact date of introduction for the MK1 Concentric but it was late 60s, definitely not before 1965. However, it is ok for Pre65 events even though original fitment for pre65 bikes would have been the monobloc. I don't know of anywhere that won't allow it. I don't think the MK1 1/2 is eligible in any of the main Pre65 events. The MK2 was mid to late 70s introduction and definitely not Pre65 eligible. There are no rules on twinshock carbs so a MK2 could be fitted to any twinshock. Hope this helps although you could probably find definitive dates from the Amal website.

Only had a quick glance as I walked past it as I'm not really interested in the modern stuff any more - not even the Ossa.... It looked neater round the headstock than the previous model and the plastics/colours seemed to have been tidied. Quick impression was that it looked smaller and neater than last year but I didn't have a good look so can't give an objective view really. I saw enough people around it as it was close to my mate's stand, so someone on here must have looked at it closely.

He didn't say Pre65 events in Scotland, he just said entrants should list which Pre65 events they have ridden over the last 12 months and to name them. Quite a few entrants would have only one trial on their list - the Pre65 Scottish.

There is nothing wrong with the cold starting of an original Amal as fitted to the bikes back in the 70s. They started 1st kick no problem after flooding with the tickler. They still will if the carb is in good order. These new Amals however..... General opnion is that they aren't as good as the originals, airways aren't cast properly, may be blocked with swarf. I have a new one for my '72 Bultaco and I can barely start it from cold. I have to blow down the tank breather, hold the tickler down and kick it all at the same time to get it started. Once it is it won't pull properly. Something is wrong somewhere but I gave up and fitted an OKO. Amal are still a going concern, although no longer located at the original premises down the road from me in Birmingham, they relocated somewhere else and are owned by Burlen Fuel Systems. I recently read an article they put in Old Bike Mart to protect their name as it appears that there has been misuse and copying of the Amal trademark and products. I took this to mean that someone else has been manufacturing carb parts and actual carburettors and selling them as genuine Amal products. Consequently, some of the Amal products we buy may not be genuine Amal which may explain why there are problems with these carbs. If it is genuine Amal, it will come with a guarnatee label inside the lid of the box signed by the supplier confirming the part is genuine Amal. If it doesn't have the label, it isn't genuine. It may be worth contacting Amal, telling them where you got the carb and they can confirm whether it is a genuine article or not.

Generally, the 1975 model relates to a model 124/125, these had the one piece slimline fibreglass tank/seat unit, or in the UK, the alloy Homerlite unit. So no, completely different from a 159. If it is a late 1975 model, then it could be a model 158 in which case the tanks would be the same. You just need to establish exactly which model the 1975 250 is.

From what I remember, Yamaha don't do a service kit and as the bush/seal sizes are odd, there are no off the shelf replacements available, so some machining is reguired to alter 'something' to take a different seal. Can't remember who told me this as it was a long time ago, so can't tell you who can do it unfortunately. However, Nigel Brkett used to be able to supply a Boge rear shock for the TYZ at a reasonable price, so may be worth ringing him if no-one can advise where to get yours repaired.