Second Hand Majesty

[woody]

The other is that the main frame loop has had about 25mm added to the length of the top tube. This is where the modifications to the toolbox section come in. They are just a result of the work to add the extra bit of frame tube. This lifts the front of the bike (and steepens the steering angle) because it causes the front section of the frame to pivot forward around the front motor mount bolt. Maybe the top tube is lowered too. I don't know because I've not seen a detail photo of one with the fuel tank off.

David

Had another read of your post and can't follow what you're describing in terms of the mod of adding 25mm to the top tube or how it affects ground clearance etc..

However, the top tube and head angle are unaltered on the Yam framed Majesty. Top tubes certainly weren't lengthened. Having just looked at mine, I believe that what was done is this;

Front down tubes shortened about 1" and bent backwards slightly. This lifts the front of the engine as the mounts are now about 1" higher up the tube.

Both front/rear frame uprights from the the footrests have about 1" removed from the top which moves the entire rear engine cradle and mounts about 1" higher up. Therefore the engine is now sitting higher in the frame than standard TY and possibly further back a bit too, which may explain why the bike feels light on the front. The exhaust mounting bracket is repositioned lower, back to its original height (in relation to the ground say) and it is now almost level with the top engine mount, unlike the TY which has a height difference of about 1" between the two. The toolbox and surrounding frame are unaltered apart from the indent just rear of the toolbox to clear the sparkplug. Exhaust front pipe is shortened in height. Rubber boot from the airbox to carb rests on the top of the engine on a Majesty, as the engine is higher but the airbox retains its original mounts. On the TY there is clearance. On a Majesty, if you look at the bottom of the 'V' created by the frame tubes above the footrests, the gap between the bottom of the V and the plastic sidepanel is less than standard TY due to the shorter tubes.

Off the top of my head that's about it I think.

Edited April 4, 2007 by Woody

[andy m]

None sounds like a five minute job, no matter how good you are with a welder. One that looked like a home modded one sold recently on ebay. See other post re Majesty before this in Yamaha postings. The shocks were laid down but the bike did not look right somehow, and the seller said the toolbox mod had been carried out, but it looked wrong. Looks like some folk guessed in the past how the mods were done, also the swing arm looked short ???

[grouchof]

I'd like to explain my conspiracy theory about the early Majesty frames based on the TY250 frame.

I have studied photos of Majestys of the type that use the modified Yamaha TY250 frame till I'm blue in the face and am not convinced that the motor mounts were moved in the frame. Yes I know that is what is said in the famous magazine test "In The Rough" when these early Majestys were publicised but I reckon it is bunkum. Yes the motor is higher from the ground than in a TY250 fame but it is done with two simple modifications:

One is that the swingarm is set at a steeper angle down at full droop. This lifts the rear.

The other is that the main frame loop has had about 25mm added to the length of the top tube. This is where the modifications to the toolbox section come in. They are just a result of the work to add the extra bit of frame tube. This lifts the front of the bike (and steepens the steering angle) because it causes the front section of the frame to pivot forward around the front motor mount bolt. Maybe the top tube is lowered too. I don't know because I've not seen a detail photo of one with the fuel tank off.

The reason I started thinking about this was that I had a few spare TY250 frames and wanted to build a Majesty replica but if you have a close look at the TY250 frame, the technical difficulty of raising the motor even one inch is quite extreme while achieving the same result using the method I have described is quite simple.

If someone can debunk my conspiracy theory I would be very pleased. Good close up photos of the top frame tube modifications and of the rear engine mounts would be quite sufficient.

David

Hi,

I am shure that the mods are to put the engine up in the frame doing what had been describe by WOODY since I asked Mick of what had been done and then two of my friends had done this job. You cannot se the difference, just the french frame number on their frame.

Regards

[scottt]

Can anyone explain the mods for the 175 version, was that just a cut frame and new bash plate or did it go further like the 250.

Scott.

[grouchof]

Can anyone explain the mods for the 175 version, was that just a cut frame and new bash plate or did it go further like the 250.

Scott.

Hi,

The 125/175/200 version is a totely new frame, just like the godden later for the 250/320.

Regards

[feetupfun]

Thanks Woody. I'm happy that you have debunked my conspiracy theory. I'm now trying to work out if all that work on the frame would be worth it.

Edited April 5, 2007 by feetupfun

[majman]

I have a test report on 320/250 and 200 very early Majestys. It basically backs up Woody's comments. However it does say the 250 engine is raised by cutting 2" off the front down tubes and the rear tubes behind the engine. The 200 looks like a standard TY175 frame with just the shocks laid down.