I'm surprised the Beta forum is the most popular among brands and still i couldn't find a single message about the zero, or maybe since I am new I did not use the search option correctly.

I've only had a problem with a slipping clutch needing replacement, the front disk being a bit loose and not knowing how to set up the rear boge shock as it is acting like an enduro shock absorbing all action and slowing it down too much.

otherwise I love my bike, even though out of date, heavy and harsh by modern standards.

Koz

I had a 1992 Zero 260 which I sold in 1997. I've returned to trials now and have a Rev3 and I have to say, I don't think there's THAT much difference! I don't think things have moved on that much in that time; My zero was great on the clubbies route, so is my Rev3!

Graham

I suspect that if you could ride both bikes back to back, you would pick the substantial improvements in suspension, weight, steering and braking.

The other consideration is that the clubman route is probably so easy that you could comfortably ride it on a Twinshock. We had a series here last year that rode on clubman lines and the twinshock class was won by a rider on a legit pre-65 bike - and if he had entered the clubman class and ridden against modern bikes on his pre-65, he would have won clubman class. He's not a special rider - it's just that clubman is not usually difficult enough to give modern bikes any advantage.

Feetupfun, that's very true on both counts!

I have long pointed out to my mates that on the clubman route, bike isn't an issue. Clearly, bikes have moved on but I do still stand by my view that since watercooled monos reached us, it's been far more evolution than revolution.

Thing is, I could change bikes, but I'm stuck with the pillock behind the bars!