woody

I agree - just wondering if there is a train of thought to try and move the series back to more standard bikes. Not saying there is, just thinking out loud really Problem is - how do you define special? Yorkshire Classic don't even allow shock position to be moved - if you move them and don't change anything else, is it a special. ANother subjective topic altough obviously - there is no question to answer with some bikes

But what you also have to ask is how many people are there that want to ride a standard Pre65 bike - they're bloody awful generally. Are the numbers of those riders diminishing? - the riders who did use them in the day were teenagers or in their twenties generally and fit enough to handle them. All are getting older and less able to physically handle the cumbersome beasts. More are switching to lightweight Bantams that they can manage, manhandle if they get into trouble and therefore enjoy their day out rather than lying trapped and writhing under 300lbs of british iron with a broken pelvis. Pre65 bikes they are not but it keeps the riders in the game. The sections in the Miller rounds really don't need to be any easier, the easier of the two routes is generally suitable for any machine, although sometimes, one or two sections turn out harder than the plotters thought, but that can always happen. If there is a movement to gently 'oust' the twinshocks and specials, I seriously wonder if there would be a sustainable series left. To do that there would need to be a re-think on the Traditional series format which hosts very few twinshocks or pre65 in the main, or even create a new series just for twinshocks and British specials. Difficult one to judge really, both series are well supported but depending on your viewpoint, both by the wrong types of machine....

Haven't heard all of the changes (when I say all, I don't know how many there are) but what I have heard is that modified bikes in the pre-unit class will have to compete in class 8 which is British Specials and Twinshock. This would include Ariels of Gaunt, Willmore, Grant etc. and presumably the Matchless of Len Hutty who rode this past weekend. Doesn't affect me in any way but, IF IT IS CORRECT, not sure at all about this as a change. Those bikes, as good as they are, don't stand a chance against well ridden Fantics etc. unless the trial is very very easy (for riders of that standard I mean, as obviously, easy is a subjective term) So is the aim to rid the championship of them altogether in order that more standard spec machines re-emerge - based on an assumption that those bikes won't enter at the moment as they are out classed? The riders who use these modified Ariels etc are very competitive so will they bother entering if they are no longer competitive in their class? That is one school of thought but I don't necessarily subscribe to that as there is still the easier route option for less capable riders on fairly standard bigger bikes, so they aren't in direct competition with the modified bikes, therefore no reason not to enter. Machine eligibility in Pre65 is a nightmare, nearly all the bikes running in the Miller rounds are modified in some way, yet 2009 spec James, Cubs etc can run alongside virtually standard bikes in the same class - unless they are subject to rule changes too - if so, class 8 is going to be huge next year.... I don't know what the answer is and there is a danger of class overload trying to cater for everything. The Miller series was originally intended for Brit bikes of standard spec and whilst it always had modified machines amongst the entry, they weren't as far developed as today's. For whatever reasons, support slowly but surely dwindled and if memory serves, a trail bike class was introduced to boost numbers. Eventually, about 7/8 years ago twinshocks were included. The series already runs 2 routes, so no-one can say that the format doesn't cater for a wide variety of bikes and rider abilities. The trials are of a more gentle nature than the other national series, the Traditional, and although some riders cross over and compete in either, generally they attract two different sets. Better riders accept that they aren't going to be tested too hard in most events. So if the emphasis is more on catering for more standard bikes and older twinshocks, maybe a bit more class structuring could be done to accomodate and encourage riders on older twinshocks and standard bikes. Then you don't have someone on a KT competing directly against a Fantic. On the championship harder route, maybe think about Pre-77 and Post-77 classes for twinshocks, or even Pre-74, Pre-80 and Post-80 with a British Special class for the modified British bikes (up to and over 350cc?) The non-championship route could run the existing classes it has now. Food for thought and would need more reasoning but there could be quite an imbalance of abilities in class 8 next year - although riders in all classes do have the option of riding the easier non-championship route

Thanks Martin - I even took the engine back out last night, had it upside down on floor looking everywhere for a mounting. I checked the frame as well but didn't see it. Probably lost it in the red mist that had descended at that point.... I'll look again tonight after hiding all sharp objects

Not to mention that USD forks are downright pig friggin' ugly on a trials bike and ruin the looks. Be much better with conventional forks but not at all sure about that fuel tank. It makes the bike bulky at the front. Still not as pretty as the original MAR though....

Before I go completely mental can anybody tell me how the clutch end of the outer cable locates on a '74 Cota, the one with the clutch arm underneath the casing. I can see nothing that will locate it anywhere. The parts book is typically useless for anything you ever want to look up, so is the Clymer manual. Where does it go? The parts book shows the inner cable nipple going into the swivel on the lever but no location point for the outer. It's that long since I dismantled the bike to rebuild it I cannot remember anything peculiar when I removed the old cable. Any ideas anyone?

Thanks for the replies, still haven't decided how to tackle it - may just paint the other plastics to match the tank..... Hi Tony, had a look at your blog and I'll follow the rebuild with interest. Your tank looks the same as mine. Painting was an option I considered too. Not sure about the theory of fuel vapours seeping through plastic and causing discolouration and paint to lift. I always thought the discolouration was down to UV in sunlight. As for painting, a mate of mine has a 240 Fantic on which the tank has been painted for many years and it hasn't bubbled or lifted. I have a Sherpa tank that was painted probably a couple of years ago and no sign of bubbling yet. Maybe the problem has always been incorrect paint and preparation. Modern plastic etch primers and flexi additive may be the cure. Time will tell on my Sherpa tank. With the Jumbo tank, I was going to see if I could get another to try it on just in case it goes wrong.... Used Sherpa plastic tanks are not a problem to find so I'd nothing to lose. I stripped the bike last night - looked as though it was going to be a nightmare but it came apart quite easily. I have to split the motor to replace the kickstart shaft but that's all, nothing actually wrong with it. I'll replace the Betor Bultaco copy forks with Marzocchis as they are much better and fit a tubeless rear rim but that's it. Just repaint the frame, repack exhaust and refurbish other bits and pieces and back together. I like the blue frame so it will stay blue and yellow. Have you a picture of your painted tank?

Yes, that is me but the spokes are for the drum brake wheel - I've never had a pinky with disc but didn't think they had Z spokes, thought they used conventional type.

I wouldn't do that if I were you as you have no way of knowing whether that engine is the original one for your frame. A frame with that number could be out there somewhere and if it is registered to someone else you will run into all sorts of problems when you apply for a registration number for yours. Alarm bells will go off in DVLA when it flags up that a bike already exists with that frame number. It's nearly 40 years old now and in that time you have no way of knowing what previous owners have done. Engines could have been swapped, the original chassis could have been sold as a rolling chassis and someone has it with another engine fitted now - permutations are endless. It isn't uncommon for engine and frame numbers not to match from the factory though. I have a model 80 on which the numbers differ and it was registered that way back in 1972. Also have a model 49 and two model 92 with non-matching numbers, all registered that way. You can check whether there is a bike already registered with that frame number by applying for an HPI check on that frame number. It will tell you if it is exists as a registered vehicle and if so, whether there is anything flagged against it, stolen, write-off etc. Or it will tell you if there is no trace - ie; there is not a vehicle registered with that frame number - even then I'd be wary about stamping it as the frame could still exist and if someone else then tries to register it in the future you could still have trouble from DVLA. If there is definitely no number on your frame, might be worth hunting around for another one and use that as you know that the number will be correct, it may even be registered already (use HPI check if thre is no V5) - doesn't matter whether the engine/frame matches or not. John Collins or Bultaco UK have loads of used parts and you may get one from either. If you get one that is damaged beyond repair, use the number from it on yours but make sure the donor frame never leaves your posession - better still, chop it up and take it out of circulation. Whatever you do, be very careful when stamping numbers on frames, especially if you're going to aply for a V5, if you do not know for certain the legitimacy of the number you're using.

Has anyone successfully managed to clean up a plastic tank to its original yellow. The tank has gone a darker yellow over the years, usually due to UV from sunlight, and the replacement new plastics are significantly lighter. Just wondered if there is a tried and proven method for restoring the original colour without making a mess of it. The plastic is baby bum smooth at the moment and I don't want to try any method that will rough it up.

There are different length pushrods for Sherpas, 3 possibly but definitely 2 different lengths. Could be the wrong one is with the box of bits for the 159. I had the same problem with a 92, clutch wouldn't disengage because of the wrong rod. Just bought the correct one from Bultaco UK to sort it. Or, another possibility, the wrong clutch could be fitted as you never know what you get with a box of bits. If people have bought items from breakers to replace worn or broken components they could buy the wrong type if they don't know there are differences from model to model. The baskets or hubs (or possibly both, can't remember) differ with different length bosses. If the basket is sitting too far out, the rod won't be long enough. I can't remember what's in the Haynes manual but I've never seen any rod extension in any Bultaco

They just don't grip very well in mud at all. I had one fitted on my Majesty and it was useless. Never tried it on rocks as it didn't stay on the bike long enough. A friend had the same experience on his TLR Honda with one. It lasted one trial before he went back to an IRC.

8 riders for the indoor? - as there are barely 3 who can manage the sections at the moment, doesn't seem a great deal of purpose in that. Ease the sections to encourage more participants and those 3 will clean everything. Outdoors, what will be achieved by stopping section inspection once the event has started. Can't see the top riders having a problem with this when they can break sections up by a stop, line up and have a minder screaming at them where to place their wheels. I could see it being a problem if it has lashed down with rain all night and changed the context of the section though. As for the crisis in WTC what exactly is it - have the FIM ever declared that WTC is in crisis, let alone what the cause is. Whereas I take little interest in WTC, modern bikes and modern riding techniques excelled at by a few, mean that there will forever be a huge gulf between those few and the rest, no matter how brilliant the rest are - they'll never be able to compete with what is always the top 3 or 4. Even though I much prefer no-stop rules, I just can't see that a change to those rules will make any significant difference to the numbers able to participate. Sure the sections won't be so extreme but your top class modern rider/bike combination are still so good that the sections will still be beyond most. Numbers at a WTC event across all classes are reasonably healthy with around 50 riders in total, so is that a problem. Cost issues, if cost is an issue - have the FIM stated it is as one? - could be addressed in several areas. Why are promoters needed these days to run an event. As soon as promoters get involved, costs increase. Take Formula 1 where that weasel Ecclestone squeezes every last penny he can from organisations to run a race. Years ago, you paid the track to stage an event at their venue - now the tracks have to pay Ecclestone to run a race with the result that few traditional venues can afford the costs and they are being lost from the calendar, replaced by featureless tracks with no history or character but whose owners have plenty of money to line the weasel's pockets. In trials, there are now what seem like ridiculous demands upon organisers to meet certain criteria before they can stage an event. Huge areas of hardstanding for factory transporters, press tents, internet connection, phone lines, have they got hospitality suites yet for hangers on? Trials is the cheapest form of motorcycle sport by far, why whould the WTC be any different, it hadn't used to be. Why not take the promoters out, give the events back to clubs, get back to more natural venues, no more factory entourage which never used to be needed so why are they now. So what if the results aren't available on-line within minutes of the last man finishing. No minders with sections to suit - stop or no stop, whichever, but more natural terrain including mud and slop would mean less severe 'big' sections - or has trials gone the way of the old RAC rally now where the FIA say they can't hold it in November because the weather is not good enough.... I can't see that it will ever revert to the days of 100 riders competing in a WTC, rider/bike abilities have progressed too far, whatever the rules, those few that excel are too far ahead for the rest. The current format seems to provide enough riders over all classes. If it is just a cost issue, then there are things that can be addressed. I do feel strongly though that whatever happens at WTC (and therefore BTC) should not influence the rules and regulations of our club and national events at home. The abilities and ages of riders competing these days are more diverse than they have ever been. There are rules (stop allowed, no-stop) routes, types of event, that suit all of these abilities and as a result, many trials are very healthily supported. As much as I like no-stop, imposing that rule (either rule) nationwide to follow WTC just to 'bring on' someone in the hope that they will one day be world champion would not achieve anything positive. It matters not one bit whether we have a world champion, it would be nice but of no actual benefit to week in-week out trials ridden by all our club and national riders. Leave things as they are, there are events to suit all. If a club wishes to run under either set of rules let them - they know what is best for the land/venue they're running at (take the Lakes this year, great success reverting back to no-stop) In my opinion, its B*****ks to say it's confusing having two sets of rules. Read the regs, it's not difficult to understand whether you can stop or have to keep moving.

Then there is really only one answer if you're exempting criteria like cost, originalty etc. - a new James

Yes, Traditional series sponsored by Normandale

Why? - They aren't the best of the bunch but they aren't as bad as painted. If it is in good original condition or has been rebuilt they are very reliable and have some good points. For drums, the brakes are superb, as good as 80s Grimeca brakes, engine is strong and torquey with a wide power band, much stronger than a TY250 which is virtually a bottom gear only bike. KT engine is strong enough to pull 3rd off the clutch up climbs. It is very stable under clutch and brake maneouvering. You can actually hold the KT on clutch and brakes on descents, much better than a Bultaco or Ossa in that respect which squirm all over the place if you try and clutch and brake them. Back suspension works very well with a good paor of shocks, plenty of feel and they grip pretty well in mud too. Air box seems too restrictive when you look at it and you would think it would stifle the engine. However, it must do a good job as the engine will rev its nuts off but you will very rarely find any muck in it. Bad points are the front forks aren't the best, typical Jap crap forks of the 70s, under damped and under sprung. They have a nice smooth, even plush action, but they are just too soft. At speed up rock streams they make it difficult to hold on line as the front gets a bit lively. The steering is very slow, like an early Bultaco so once you're off line, they are difficult to get back quickly and it takes more effort to flick the front around when changing line. They are heavier than the Yam as the frame is massively over engineered, as is the rear hub.... Spares are difficult to find but not impossible, there is always something on ebay USA. They aren't good enough to win a Traditional round on but you can coax one around most of the rounds. Absolutely ideal for the Miller rounds though and they are quite quick on the road. Out of the KT and Yam, the Yam is the easier bike to ride, the frame is lighter than the KT frame but the engine is heavier so there isn't that much in it overall. Yam steers quicker and better, very similar to an Ossa, naturally, making it quite nimble. Front forks are crap on the TY too, back end probably not quite so good as the KT but not much in it. Brakes on the Yam not as good as the KT. Probably not much in it for grip in the mud, KT may edge it. Spares for the Yam easier to get. Engine on the Yam is fairly flat and you need to run them with no flywheel weight, otherwise they won't have much pull in anything other than bottom gear. KT is a stronger, torquier engine. Neither of these bikes will put themselves at the sharp end of the results in more difficult events against other twinshocks with riders of equal ability. For B route on most club trials, most classic events outside of the national champioship, the Miller series, either one will do the job, as said before, both have their good and bad points but overall the Yam just shades it as the easier to ride out of the two. However, if you're looking for something that bit different, how many KTs do you see at events as opposed to Yams

There was also a prototype 400 Pursang, around 1972 I think, that had a forward kicking kickstart fitted directly to the crank - can't get more primary than that...

a frog with dangling participles at that

Split infinitive..?? where?

What's interesting is that odd number size Amals (ie; 27mm) aren't available from Surrey Cycles as a remanufactured item. On the Amal site however, they list odd sizes and 27mm is the original size for Montesa/Ossa/Bultaco. I'm now wondering if they are remanufactured carbs or old stock. If they are old stock, I'd probably buy one at that price based on the fact that the bikes I had back then ran fine on those carbs.

Out of interest, where have you seen them for that price - the Amal (Surrey Cycles) website has them for the prices I mentioned. My MK1 cost just short of

A new MK2 Amal is about

I haven't tried the 26mm and 28mm carbs on the same bike so can't make any comment on a direct comparison. I used a 28mm on the 340 Bult as 28mm is the standard size, so just went with that. However, a 26mm Amal works fine on an early 325 Bult so 26mm should be okay on the 330 Mont. Majesty 320 also uses a 26mm carb. When I get around to finishing my Cota 330, if the Amal is worn I will probably go with a 26mm as it should quicken up the bottom end a bit. From trying it before I stripped it, it was a bit lazy, but it was also a bit worn so difficult to asses at the time how it really should have gone. However, if the OKO are still as cheap I may get a 26mm and a 28mm and try both.

From memory so a little sketchy now. If you haven't got the tool to hold the damper rods and stop them spinning, first thing to do is loosen the allen bolts at the bottom of the fork legs with the forks still in one piece and hope that the spring tension holds the rods. Best done with an air ratchet if you have one. BE CAREFUL as the damping adjustment screws are located in the head of the allen bolts. Screw these right in before you shove an allen key in them as if you don't you will damamge the adjusters which are brass and fragile. If you're lucky they won't be seized. If you can't stop the rods turning they will just spin around with the allen bolt. Assuming you can undo them, one way or another, just loosen them a turn or so for now, don't take them right out or you'll have oil all over you. If you have got the tool, ignore this bit and move onto the next bit first. Undo the fork caps all the way - they won't come away as they are screwed onto the top of the damper rod. The spring length will keep the spring tensioned against the bottom of the cap even when removed. You'll then need to pull the spring down slightly so you can get a spanner on the nut under the fork cap. Hold this nut steady and you can undo the fork cap from the damper rod. You can then remove he spring, the spacer tube and a shim. Make a note of how it all fits before removing. I think you can now also remove the cartridge tube as well. You'll now need ot get all the oil out and you can only do this by holding the fork upside down and pumping it out using the fork tube. As they are cartridge forks it won't all just pour out, it needs pumping. Once the oil is out remove the allen bolt from the bottom of the leg. To then remove the tube from the slider, first remove the dust cover and look to see if there is a circlip in there holding the seal in place. I don't think there is but can't remember, so check just in case. Hold the fork leg in one hand and the slider in the other and pull the slider as hard as you can to jolt it free of the fork leg. The only thing holding it now is the tight fit of the bushes. If you yank it hard enough you can pull it free. Once out you can see the seal, thick shim/washer and bush. Make a note of what order they are in. You can now remove the seal and replace with a new one. Once done and all of the old oils is removed you can start reassembly. With the seal, bush and shim all in place on the tube slide it back into the fork leg. To get the bush past the top of the leg you will need to tap it through. There is a tool for this but if you don't have it you will have to improvise with something. I use an piece of tube that will slide over the fork tube which can then be used to tap the bush, seal and shim down into the fork leg. You can't push them in with fingers. Once you have driven them home the cartridge can go back in and the allen bolt refitted to hold the leg onto the tube. Same principle applies for tightening this as undoing. You now need to fill with oil before refitting the spring. You can't just fill the forks, you need to bleed them to distribute the oil throughout the internals, as they're cartridge type. The oil level should be 95mm from the top of the tube with the tube fully extended. To do this is a bit fiddly as first you have to fill the forks to the top, ensuring that the cartridge/rod is covered. When full, get hold of the top of the rod - not easy with fingers, you may need pliers or such like. Pump the damper rod up and down SLOWLY about 6 - 7 times to evenly distribute the oil. You'll notice the oil level go down whilst you do this as the oil is working through the internals. Once you've done this, refill the forks again to the top. This time pump the outer tube SLOWLY up and down but for a MAXIMUM STROKE of 6 inches. The oil level probably won't drop much at all when you do this stage. When done you need to set the level. You can either syringe the excess out or carefully tip it out, syringe with tube is better. Oil weight is personal preference but you should be fine with 10W. Once you have the oil level set, replace the spring, spacer, shim and nut , refit the caps by holding the nut and screwing the cap back onto the top of the damper rod. Then, unscrew the damping adjusters in the bottom of the forks to their original setting. Screwing them out softens the damping. That's about it. If anything above is wrong or in the wrong order it should be apparent as you work through. Pretty sure that's about it though.

That UK round must be the least publicised trial on the UK fixture list - no-one I know ever knows anything about it.