woody

The 23 prefix is generally a MAR from 1974 - 76, in other words the MK2 MAR. They would have matched from the factory, I'd say you've mis-read one of them in view of the fact that they both end 300, but obviously, a 35 year old bike could have had an engine swap and as a coincidence, they could be similar. Look here - http://www.ataq.qc.ca/galerie/index.php?fo...=/Mus%E9e/Ossa/ Yours would be the 1974 model as produced by the factory - for the UK the fibreglass tank was changed to an alloy one by the UK importers as fibreglass was outlawed by then. One of the nicest looking trials bikes ever made. Lots of info on this site too http://hem.passagen.se/ossa/

He moved to the 360 in 1980, using both that and the 200/250 and became a full Honda works rider in 1981, winning the championship in 82, 83 and 84 on the 360. In 1985 he had the monstrous looking 360 mono RTL but changed to the 250 (or 270) in 1986. 1987 was his last year on the Honda. I'd guess as he was a Honda factory rider that his bikes weren't UK registered. Rob Shepherd and Nick Jefferies' twinshock 360s were as they rode for Honda UK. It was one of the UK bikes that was tested in TMX. Maybe someone has some pictures from UK world rounds or SSDT showing the registration number. May be some in the Four Stroke Finale book.

That GOV 132 is a replica anyway built when Sam was riding Pre65 events The real GOV 132 had two incarnations according to peeps in the know with set ups for radically different conditions. As good as it was in its day, today's replica Ariels would destroy it in competition. A mate of mine has a nice HT5 with lightweight frame and all the other usual goodies. He tried Martyn Willmore's bike and was ready to throw his in the bin afterwards as it is light years away, it really was that much better - Martin's bike is Mick Grant's old bike, so imagine what Mick's new bike is like...

Definitely, and that's the difference between the British stuff and the twinshocks - the Brit stuff reliability is plain awful and there is every reason to update components to make them work as they should in order that you finish an event rather than push the bike back to the van. Twinshocks, right from the first Bults are reliable right out of the box, although modern electronic ignition is favourable on anything over points......

I agree with you in principal about the engines BUT, what do you do if someone fits a reed valve to their 240 motor. There is nothing wrong with that. Reeds have been around a long time, TY Yams had them in the 70s as standard fitment, UK specialists were fitting reeds to Ossas, Monts, Bultacos in early 70s onwards. To police it is next to impossible as unnless you know your stuff the engines all look the same. Same thing applies to having diiferent classes for Pre72, Pre80 and Post80. Who has the knowledge to scrutineer and date and place a bike in its right class and which clubs have the manpower to do it anyway. Does that 72 Bulto have a 340 6-speed ftted, has that MAR got a 350 Gripper motor with the fins shaved? We're reliant on riders being honest and in the main, most people I know who ride in the Miller, Traditional and other main classic events, don't want to modernise their bikes beyond 'acceptable' - subjective I know but most are in favour of not modernising them out of context. A 200/240/300 Fantic is the benchmark for twinshocks, in my opnion that is. Unfortunately there are some advocating that standard twinshocks aren't good enough for current twinshock events which is convincing some that they need to modify their bikes or they are uncompetitive - this is of course complete B*****ks as the sections aren't anywhere near as hard as a British national of their day. Saunders could lose around 20 odd marks on his Armstrong to win an event back then. I'd be over 100. If I'm losing about 20 marks in a national twinshock round now on the same kind of bike, he'd clean it with his eyes shut - the bikes are more than capable of handling the sections. Sure the older twinshocks have a harder time of it against the modern twinshocks - clutches are nowhere near as good, brakes aren't (apart from KT250) they are unstable under clutch./brake riding but - that's what they are and we either enjoy riding them for what they are or buy a GasGas

They aren't that modified really Kev Nolan's Jumbo is standard apart from a set of Paioli forks as the original forks were scrap. They obviously aren't period and whilst I'd prefer a ruling that specifies period parts, it's debatable whether they offer any real advantage over a set of period Marzocchis Phil's Fantic has head angle and footrest position altered, neither are necessary, it's just personal preference really. OKO carb fitted - can't say that these offer any benefit over a correctly functioning original carb. I've tried a 240 Fantic with OKO set up and it was no different or better than my mate's standard bike with an unworn dellorto. He still has the 300 motor as far as I know and and also as far as I know there are no other mods. David Pye's Fantic I don't know much about but I'd guess it has same type of frame mods as Phil's but it may have a later engine - can't say that this would give much of an advantage as very very few sections are about power. Ian Baker's Honda is Classictrial prepared so the mods are documented on their website. Whilst I'd agree that some of these mods improve the bikes, the improvements are minor as opposed to what you see in Pre65 where the improvements are a quantam leap to the point where they are no longer recognisable as the original marque (I'm not saying this is wrong) The twinshock mods are generally in keeping with what could be done in their day if a rider wanted to and are more down to personal preference rather than radical improvements. None of them offer any significant advantage over a standard Fantic 200/240/300, Armstrong, Aprilia, Garelli etc. but obviously they are all far ahead of a 70s bike, even a modified one - why I think there is potential for year breaks for twinshock class. I'm in no way against mods like these obviously, it's part and parcel of machine ownership, but I really wouldn't want to see the day when we have modern T45 replacement frames, lightweight billett hubs and yokes, frame kits for later engines etc. To me, riding a twinshock is about riding a particular bike you enjoy riding, not turning it into something it never was or could be 25 years ago. What I meant before when I said they are perfectly rideable was that they don't ride like a pig as does your typical standard Pre65 bike, they are capable machines, but that's not to say owners shouldn't personalise them to their own riding styles. Disc brakes thankfully are outlawed and hopefully will remain so. I can think of a few sections in recent trials where a disc would have been a huge advantage - unlike the mods above.

No they wouldn't - why do you think they modify them - have you ever ridden a standard HT5 Ariel All those twinshock variations you mention are prohibited by the national championship rules. Unlike pre65 bikes, twinshocks are perfectly useable in their standard form

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