jc2

Thanks. Who sells them? (google didn't help much)

What do you call these things (above)?

Can anybody tell me if this is one of the original Gaunt Suzukis? Or somebody's replica? If so, who built it? (I found it on the web somewhere, but I can't find it again) Nice little bike! Edit: I found the website it came from

Well done Shane. Nice to see a Greeves active in Oz. Any chanc eof coming up to Conondale this year?

If you look thro the specs in the articles here http://motosclasicas.org/montesa/pagines/revistas_trial.htm you'll see it listed as a massive 1350mm. (The 248 of the same year was the same!) Little wonder they were said to turn like a supertanker. I'm lead to believe the extra length over the 348 & later 349s was (mostly) in the swingarm

Looks very much like the M27 frame in my shed, except with cradle cut out.

Taffy, it's not entirely clear from your post exactly what the the front end is doing - "driving on" or "tucking under" could be two different things ie have diff causes, or one could be causing the other. "Driving on" can be caused by wrong weight distribution (eg incorrect footpeg location) or poor front tyre. I've never ridden an SM framed Bul but the early one's were said to have been improved by relocating the footpegs. "Tucking under" is usually associated with steering geometry, rake & trail etc which you are onto. Most Bultaco pursang/frontera/matador/alpina triples have about 20mm less total offset* than Sherpa T ones since they don't have the angular offset built in. But as Woody says, you'd likely need a new header pipe fabricated to give clearance, & they will also reduce your wheelbase nearly 20mm too. Thats a big difference in both trail & wheelbase. Sometimes tucking under can be 'cured' or at least reduced by fitting shorter shocks or lowering the ride height at the rear (less preload or softer springs). That's perhaps what I'd be trying first. Conversely if your bike has been fitted with longer shocks that often worsens tucking under. Or if your front end is sagging that can worsen it too. * Edit: total offset is offset at the axle, taking into account the extra angle built into the Sherpa T triples/yokes

Try again Jim. I emptied it some

I have been trying a DT175 cyl & head on my TY175. I have several to choose from, some with Exhaust 1.5-2mm higher than TY but others very close to same on Exh & Transfers. All stamped #443 & all with wider reedvalve. One head is stamped #559 & is off a C model which has higher C.R. & less squish clearance. I tried a barrell with the porting closest to a TY, except that the rear boost port had been raised 1mm & re-angled with a fair bit of meat removed from the roof & angled towards the top of the reedvalve stops (if that makes sense). All in all it opens up the boost port quite a bit. I chose the higher C.R. #559 head, raised the needle 1 notch & pilot jet one size (to 27.5 as John Cane had suggested in one of the mags) using the 22mm TY carb but with wider DT reedvalve and std Yam steel petals. Ign is std Yam points & timing was fairly advanced. Flywheel weight standard.The piston wasn't exactly fresh, but serviceable. I ride old style without the clutch & apart from a slight 'fluffiness' & hesitation just off a very low idle, it was rather aggressive with noticeably more power almost everywhere it seemed & it revved to the moon & kept pulling strongly. I then tried it with a #443 head with C.R. closer to the TY & the fluffiness & slight hesitation seems to have gone. I've not ridden it yet in any sections so I can't draw too many conclusions but it does seem rather promising. It feels considerably more responsive than a std TY. So far I love it with these mods tho it may not be so good in mud, but we have very little of that here.

A spacer under the barrell works on some 2 strokes, at least for certain applications. It's not such a bad idea on such engines. Raising the barrell 1mm typically increases total exhaust duration by about 4deg, and increases total transfer duration by 5 to 6deg but reduces inlet duration by about 4deg. (It affects transfer duration more because the crank is closer to BDC when they open/close compared to inlet & exhaust.) It will also reduce secondary compression noticeably but has little effect on primary (ie crankcase) compression. And it reduces squish clearance which affects combustion efficiency, alongside the change in C.R. If you can adjust the secondary compression appropriately (eg thinner head gasket, higher Comp Ratio head) it works on engines that are a bit short on exhaust & transfer timing but a bit long on inlet timing, or if you adjust/extend inlet timing as well. It's often done by just using an extra base gasket (rather than a spacer) together with a thinner head gasket, or at least trying that first. Whether or not it works on a Bantam engine I do not know, but you can get some idea by looking at specs. I'm not 100% sure of the following specs but I'm lead to believe many Bantams have: 140deg Exh duration, 120deg Trans, and 120deg inlet (130deg for D14) If you raise the barrell 1mm that will become approx: 144deg Exh, 125-126deg Tr, & 116deg In (126deg on D14) Compare that for Villiers 9E engine: 152deg Ex, 126deg Tr, & 134deg In Or Bul 250 (early SherpaT): 156deg Ex, 128deg Tr, & 122deg In That looks to me like it may work for trials on a D14 cylinder. Otherwise it would be rather deficient on inlet timing. If using a D14 head (C.R. 10:1) it would drop CR back to about 8.5:1 (similar to D10) which I would have tho't aint too bad for trials, depending on rider skill. The beauty of it is that it's not hard or expensive to try it & see, & if it doesn't work to your liking it can all be put back how it was.

Looks like an Ulf Karlson 247 Cota, circa 75, but diff seat, headlight, shocks, stand & pillion pegs added. It may have been the "T" (trail) version. Eng # will be on top of the front engine mount. Frame # should be on stearing head somewhere. Be careful that the kickstarter isn't rotated too far forward (it looks like it is in 1 pic) as the stop will puncture the ign cover at the bottom of the stroke (if it hasn't already). Looks complete. Good find. Great to see another one about to get some TLC

Looks to me like a Pursang swingarm. And something diff about the pivot point in frame. Is it moved forward slightly?? Swingarm looks too long for trials, giving loong wheelbase.& diff weight distribution. Have you measured its wheelbase? About 54" ?? Perhaps built more as an Alpina-type bike. On second look, is the engine moved back in the frame? (rather than swingarm pivot moved forward?) Engine appears a long way back from front downtube & swingarm pivot looks hard up against rear of engine case. Rear wheel also looks a long way back from SherpaT position.

Bult360 is correct. Some Alpina's came with just a press-in 'bung' - like a plug attached to the cap with an O'ring on the plug. No thread. Wasn't a very satisfactory set-up if I recall correctly.

Is anyone using the DEP rear muffler for the TY175? If so 2 questions: 1) Is it fairly quiet? 2) Does it have a recess for an O-ring where the pipe pushes into the standard TY mid-box to ensure a good seal? (like the standard TY175 rear muffler has) cheers

With a DT A/B/C cylinder you need to alter the bottom fins & attach the TY175 clutch cable holder (or similar) to make the clutch operable. (On the DT175s, the cable holder was on top of the crankcase & part of it.)

From Fred & Deb in NZ, who can supply a lot of KT parts.

I got them from Fred & Deb in NZ, who supplies a lot of parts for KTs. Good to deal with.

Doesn't look so bad to me. Grab it, revive it, enjoy it! Otherwise you'll wish you did.

From memory, I put a new needle & seat (under the float) & new bowl gasket, just as a precaution.

I'm lead to believe the KT carb is unique to the KT & different to all other 26mm Mikunis, but I don't know in what way(s). They don't seem to wear out (all the KTs I know are still using the original carb & running crisply, including mine), so you may not need to replace it but if you do want to you might like to try Mid-Atalantic Trials. They seem to be having good succes with OKO D-slide carbs, tho they don't have one listed for the KT.

Joe, you did the right thing raising this issue. It seems to me there are numerous things about this saga that leave a bit to be desired, not the least being the 'ending' above (if that is the ending & there is no further action taken to rectify things). It reads like a bit of a pattern emerging that is less than satisfactory. Mistakes will be made till the end of time, but to claim the omission of credits or acknowledgements was a "trivial oversight" (if those were his words or inference, not yours) sounds like the significance still hasn't been grasped. It's the difference between courtesy, honesty & integrity versus plagiarism. And that is huge as every writer from high school age should know. It's perceived as being just about the unforgivable sin of the 'writers guild'. Amazing how many who get caught out claim they forgot, & no doubt sometimes it's true, but it doesn't excuse it. Where a genuine oversight has been made, the only satisfactory ending is not to trivialize it but to rectify it. eg with a follow-up public acknowledgement and apology published in the appropriate place. You'd like to think that might yet be forthcoming.

JJ, it depends what you want to achieve. (Bear in mind that if you change one parameter in the steering geometry you almost inevitably changes others with it) If you want more weight on the front wheel (eg for more grip), reducing the offset and/or angle in the yokes will achieve that, as will cutting the frame to steepen the steering head. Both of those options will also give shorter wheelbase allowing a tighter turning circle. If you want quicker steering - sometimes called sharper steering - you will have to steepen the steering axis. ie the steering head angle, not just the forkleg angle. If you cut the frame to achieve that you will also get a shorter wheelbase (as mentioned). But if your rear spring is sagged or preload too low, a new spring, more preload or longer shock will all steepen the steering axis for quicker steering (without changing the wheelbase to any significant degree). As a rule of thumb, for every 25mm you raise the rear rideheight you steepen the steering axis (ie rake) by 1 degree which is noticeable to most people. Still another option is if you slide the forktubes up thro the yokes you get steeper rake (quicker steering) & shorter wheelbase (more weight/grip on front & tighter turning). As a rule of thumb, for every 25mm you drop the front end you also steepen the steering axis by 1 degree and reduce the wheelbase by 10-12mm. Obviously if you raise the rear or lower the front you also change centre of gravity & ground clearnce a little too. If you want to read up on steering I found Tony Foale's books the best. See http://www.tonyfoale.com/book/ I have absolutley no experience with RTLs, but going by what others have said above I would think the logical & cheapest way to proceed would be to try the following in order: upping the rear shock preload slide the forktubes up thro the yokes 20-25mm(if you can) new rear spring (perhaps stronger one)

Wonderful job John. Love the 247s & you've done 'em proud. Just a comment on the angle of the kickstart lever if I may. If you have them rotated too far forward on the spline they often puncture the casing web (around the mag flywheel) at the bottom of the stroke. Many Monties are damaged in that area. The lever should be at 1 o'clock. (according to Jared Bates, if I recall correctly)

Sounds to me like an offer too good to refuse. It'd be great to see what an updated/upgraded Dalesman (from the man himself) would look like.

Dave, I think your memory ain't what it used to be (neither is mine) - the model 85 was the very 1st Alpina from '71, a 250, which was largely a Sherpa T but with larger tank & seat & wider ratio (matador) gearbox. The 1st model 350 Alpina like you had was the M99.