lorenzo

Fling it at rocks, totalshell ? You're kidding.........don't think there's any chance of that !!

I found some n.o.s. Miller silencers when sorting through my spare parts some while ago and can confirm that these were supplied in at least two different inlet pipe sizes.

Not sure if this helps, but SPE was a Surrey series, and so it's possible it was registered to Comerfords, or at least someone else locally. However, one of my bikes which was registered to Comerfords for use by a supported rider bears a BGH (London) series mark, although this machine is somewhat more recent.

Unable to advise about the seal holder or "race", but the normal method of fitting crank bearings to either shaft or crankcases is with heat, not pressing..........

+ 1 for Woody's excellent summary of this model's features. The tank/seat unit is a Homelite item; these are prone to cracking between the "seat" part and the rear of the tank itself.

Paul - Well done - that's quite a transformation......... Was going to comment on the original pic. (until I noticed the date of your original post) that the fork sliders had been transposed - but I expect you worked that out anyway. Enjoy - and let's hope it doesn't live up (down?) to l.o.tu.s - i.e. "lots of trouble, usually serious"). Love the prop. stand, by the way.........

Bondy, f.u.f. - Many thanks for your quick responses.

I have a number of hubs in need of the "treatment", and an engineer acquaintance willing to tackle it. What's a reasonable price to pay ? I'd like to find a figure that's fair to both of us - any ideas, you guys ?

Looks like the universal "hack off the lower frame tubes and replace them with an allow bash plate" mindset may have been abandoned ?...............

I believe Mahle was considered the best available in the day; I'm not sufficiently familiar with what others use nowadays to say whether this still applies. This possibly raises two other questions, though : would a Mahle item be unobtainium?.......or simply unaffordium ? Suspension spring rates will have more influence on the tendency (or not) of a shock to "bottom out" than its length.........

Very interesting, Harry - would that be "inside information" ?.... And who holds Comerfords records currently ?

Simple answer : No. There is a flanged ("top hat") spacer inside the brake plate between it and the hub bearing, a spacer between the two bearings (inside the hub) and a further spacer on the left side between the bearing and l/h. fork slider; none between the brake plate and r/h fork slider. Tightening the wheel spindle nut on r/h. side pulls the whole wheel and brake assembly up to the r/h. fork slider. Hope this helps.

There are so many variables affecting the perceived age of a Bultaco (or any other bike, for that matter), not the least of these being its original export destination. Additionally, model nos. alone only go so far in detail identification - a glance at a mod. 199 parts book will reveal so many changes in the course of the production run as to make the latest bikes almost a different model (in Bultaco terms) from the early examples. This would be the reason your dealer may insist on the serial number as well when supplying parts, of course......... My own take on the dating issue is that with a trials bike the "year" is largely irrelevant, and I'm sure the only definitive way to find the year of actual manufacture of a Bultaco would be to access the original factory records - I couldn't say who holds these, or if they even exist.

It seems there may be a real basis for the idea that later bikes are more likely to have matching numbers than older ones; this is borne out with my own bikes. My oldest Bult is a '73 model 92 whose engine and frame serial nos. differ by 61. I believed in view of its relative newness when I bought it in '75 that the engine had likely been replaced at importer or dealer level as a result of a warranty issue. My other six bikes (including 2 199a's) all have matching numbers. It's a sad fact with many old bikes that no particular importance was attached to matching numbers when the bikes had little resale value........... With some old British bikes in particular, matching numbers can have a significant influence on their apparent desirabilty and worth. Stevem75 - my model 159 has a serial number in the 2000 series, and my '81 199B a number just 400-odd lower than the number you quoted. Sparks2 - my mod. 92 was registered on 5th. April, last day of the tax year - a coincidence, maybe........

Original decals for 199B would have read "350".

Sadlotus - That's clearly the wrong little end bearing........those needle rollers are doing nothing protruding outside the con.rod eye, are they ? Your "old" set-up of narrow bearing and distance pieces looks far more like the original, as I remember it.

Per the original layout, Mod. 92 big-end assembly does NOT have thrust washers. (There are of course, thrust washers/alloy distance pieces on the small end for con-rod location.) Also, the hollow crankpin was plugged each end with a taper pin. I understand this was later replaced with a solid pin, but have never had this confirmed.

paulmac - Sorry, can't post a picture of the bike as it's currently in bits. I suppose I could post a pic of the swinging arm, though ( if I could find it!) Woody - Bike is registered, and the V5 shows 2 former keepers: the first was Comerfords, to whom it was registered 1st. Aug. 1981 ; they sold it just 9 months later to its second owner - the guy who sold it to me several years later. I imagine Comerfords would have removed any special or one-off bits (if indeed it ever had any) before disposing of the bike back in '82.

Thanks, Woody - A guy at Comerfords told me shortly after I bought it that it was originally one of their own bikes so maybe the swing arm is a Reg May special ? Or not - doesn't seem to have anything else "different" about it..............

Woody - (Hope I'm not hijacking here) - but you always seem to offer excellent advice; does the 199b usually have holes in the swinging arm forward of the r. shock mounting, as in the the pic you posted and many others I've seen - were these for pillion footrests ? (Spanish requirement, maybe?) I'm curious as my bike has a square arm without holes - and they've not been filled in, either .........

Trials bike manufacturers just loved to play games with model numbers, and these are usually NOT the engine capacity. Bultaco 325 has an actual capacity of 326cc, but is called a 350. Bultaco 250 has an actual capacity of 244cc. Fantic 200 has an actual capacity of 156cc., etc. etc. Not sure what any of this achieved........................

WD40 was never designed as a penetrating oil and is virtually useless for this task; you need to arm yourself with a proper penetrating oil, such as Plus Gas formula A.

Isn't it true that Bultaco used solid copper cyl. head gaskets across the range for a short time? I can confirm that (at least) Pursang Mk. 9 250 & 370 and Sherpa models 198 & 199 had gaskets as standard, as I have some. They were not included in OE gasket sets for these bikes, either. However, as I am unable to access my parts info. at the moment I cannot say when they were phased out; my 199B has a spigoted head joint just like the Bulto engines of old. It's conceivable therefore that a model 198 had a gasket, "A" and/or "B" variants did not. To give you an idea, here are some Pursang gaskets (250 top, 370 below) :- (I'm unable to photo the Sherpa ones at the moment, but they are very similar.)

Thanks, Greeves. Very interesting..........

Referring to the 198 series numbers provided by Greeves - anyone have the equivalent numbers for the 199's ? Or know when 199B numbers started ?