Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Trials Central

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

199A Front End Issues.

Featured Replies

Just the stem? Can't see how this helps as the yokes have the rake built in, or do you mean the entire yoke assembly from the Alpina / Pursang (only certain years work)

They are parrallel as opposed to the anngled Sherpa yokes but the spacing of the forks is wider which means new spacers have to be made for the front wheel and I'm not sure how the Sherpa mudguard brace will cope with the extra width. I think the lock stops may present an issue too.

I was going to try it not too long ago but didn't bother in the end as the hassle wasn't worth what would have probably been a minor and barely noticeable improvement

Ok, so i think i am starting to understand????? if the stem is parallel to the stanchions it steepens the fork angle, i think sherpas are normally leaning in about 1.5° at top, i would have though putting the stem in parallel would have increased the rake and made the steering shallower. so if i machine up a new pair of billet yokes with a stem running parallel to the stanchions it will make the bike react slower because the trail is increased, i assumed it would steer quicker. or am i completely missing the point and when people talk about parallel yokes the are referring to the stanchions being in line almost with the stem if looked at from the side on view instead of sitting in front of the stem by 'X' distance.

i don't really have a problem with my sherpa steering, i am not competent enough a rider to be able to worry, however as i like making nice parts for my bike, which is where the pleasure comes in if i can improve it, it would be nice??

can somebody please explain in an easy to understand way

  • Replies 39
  • Views 13.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • 200cc is a lot of oil for Sherpa forks, and with 20 weight it could make them very hard with limited travel, which may be the reason you're having trouble. I'm using 180cc absolute max, generally 7.5

  • Not sure whether you are talking about the steering or the fork action itself. For me personally getting off my 300 gasser onto one of my Bultacos, the steering and fork action are the least of the di

  • +1

Yes parallel yokes have the fork tubes parallel with the steering stem.

You can change the trail by changing either the angular offset of the fork tubes, the linear offset of the fork tubes (your X distance), the amount of axle offset or even the steering rake angle or any combination of them.

The geometry of the fork tube holes in the standard Bultaco Sherpa T yokes is very good for trials. If you fit late model Alpina yokes, the trail dimension will be increased (heavier steering at standstill).

The most common thing people do to modify Bultaco steering geometry is to steepen the rake angle. This can be done on a Sherpa T by lowering the front of the bike, raising the rear of the bike, or doing a frame chop. Making the rake steeper has the effect of making the steering lighter when the bike is stationary, but loading the steering up more in riding situations when the trail goes negative.

Works racing (MX and Road Racing) bikes have adjustable steering rake angle using eccentric sleeves inside the steering stem. That would be a pretty cool modification that would allow you to experiment with rake angle to see what suited you best

Just the stem? Can't see how this helps as the yokes have the rake built in, or do you mean the entire yoke assembly from the Alpina / Pursang (only certain years work)

They are parrallel as opposed to the anngled Sherpa yokes but the spacing of the forks is wider which means new spacers have to be made for the front wheel and I'm not sure how the Sherpa mudguard brace will cope with the extra width. I think the lock stops may present an issue too.

I was going to try it not too long ago but didn't bother in the end as the hassle wasn't worth what would have probably been a minor and barely noticeable improvement

Just the stem? Can't see how this helps as the yokes have the rake built in, or do you mean the entire yoke assembly from the Alpina / Pursang (only certain years work)

They are parrallel as opposed to the anngled Sherpa yokes but the spacing of the forks is wider which means new spacers have to be made for the front wheel and I'm not sure how the Sherpa mudguard brace will cope with the extra width. I think the lock stops may present an issue too.

I was going to try it not too long ago but didn't bother in the end as the hassle wasn't worth what would have probably been a minor and barely noticeable improvement

Yes, the whole yoke, axle and spacers. Quite a common mod in the western U.S. I`ve never done one myself, but I`ll try to find some pics.

Yes, the whole yoke, axle and spacers. Quite a common mod in the western U.S. I`ve never done one myself, but I`ll try to find some pics.

Yes, I understand that, I've seen it done and was going to do one myself, just wasn't sure if you meant the stem only.

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Author
200cc is too much for the Bultaco forks, you'll lose travel through hydraulic affect, but it's up to you if you want to continue with it. Fantic forks only use that and they are over 2" longer, plus, look how short the Bultaco legs are. They are basically the same fork as the Ossa but the Ossa had longer legs and the most they take is 180cc. I mentioned why they may be topping in my previous post, and the affect of fitting different forks, all of which are longer.

Dont think I'm losing any travel ;-)

Bulto03_zpsad4c33f9.jpg

Edited by taff_d

  • Author

Done 2 more trials on it and had all sorts of trouble with the front end bottoming out (see picture in post above), so I have stripped the forks completely and for a 37 year old bike they are not bad at all internally the left leg is better than the right. I checked on the price of HFS expert suspension and it was £205 much more than I wanted to spend on a bike I will only ride occasionally, they never got back in touch with a price for the clubman setup ??? Magical seem to have disappeared up their own a%*e so thats a no go, so I had a long chat with Inmotion and I've ended up buying new Pursang springs with adjustable preload spacers, they reckon to start at minimum preload and 180cc of 20w oil and work up from there to a max of 200cc oil and play with the preload.

If this fails I have a mate who has a set of 38mm Betor forks and yokes I'll try to fit and see how they go.

hi have used both magicals and persang springs and both are good am 16.5 st so not the lightest rider but there ok for me. with 180ml off 15W

  • Author

springs arrived this morning, so the set up is new Pursang springs, 180cc of 20w oil and 10mm of preload and it feels a different bike :D have only ridden it up and down the lane tried to do a few stoppies :rotfl: but could not get it to bottom out, does not dive anymore on the brakes and seems to turn better will go for a practice Saturday.

good news mate :thumbup: am also putting persang springs in mine.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.