grouchof Posted June 19, 2007 Report Share Posted June 19, 2007 Hi, Does any body knows how many Majesty first generation were made (the modified yamaha frame) ? I think they were quickly replace by the godden ones. Regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted June 19, 2007 Report Share Posted June 19, 2007 First Majesties appeared 78? probably 79 with the modified Yam frame and the Godden frames appeared 80/81 so they both ran for roughly the same period of time so maybe the numbers are fairly equal. Don't believe everything that is said about the Godden framed bikes being superior to the Yam frames. Are they? The best Majesty I've ridden to date is a Yam framed 320 and it rode and handled beautifully. Only mod was TY Mono forks but the chassis was unaltered. Down to personal taste I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted June 19, 2007 Report Share Posted June 19, 2007 yer right with that woody! i rode a godden 250 back to back with my yam framed bike i could'nt tell any difference? it may be a touch lighter and slimmer but so what? ive heard stories that the godden frames can crack! not so the yam ones! anyway whatever! the best thing anyone can do to a 250 majesty is replace the heavy flywheel with the standard ty one! as the godden 250's run flat as a fart with the heavy flyweel fitted! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majesty320 Posted June 19, 2007 Report Share Posted June 19, 2007 My Godden framed Majesty has a frame number that is marked 82. I presume this means it was manufactured in 1982. Scotty as you know Im in the process of rebuilding it as a 250, and I have just managed to get hold of the lighter flywheel off the standard TY, as I sold the heavy Majesty item to a guy in France along with the rest of the 320 parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 The Majesty doesn't have a different flywheel from the standard TY, they are the same item. The flywheel has a weight which is a steel ring bolted by 4 screws around the circumference of the flywheel. The weight can be seen in pictures and parts diagrams in the TY250B manual. Remove the weight and you have a lighter flywheel. Maybe some of the TY range came without the weight fitted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollygreen Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 (edited) The Majesty doesn't have a different flywheel from the standard TY, they are the same item. The flywheel has a weight which is a steel ring bolted by 4 screws around the circumference of the flywheel. The weight can be seen in pictures and parts diagrams in the TY250B manual. Remove the weight and you have a lighter flywheel. Maybe some of the TY range came without the weight fitted. Woody - I have a standard TY250 T/S (ie not Majesty) it is a 1977 - 1980 model D or E ( not sure) and has a standard flywheel; fitted to it (as far as I know) and it has the steel ring bolted round the outside of it, as you have described. My question is - is it better to remove this ring or leave it on? What will removing the ring from the flywheel do to the performance/ridability of the bike. What should I expect the differences to be like? What are the for's and against's? Edited June 20, 2007 by mollygreen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 Removing the weight will enable the motor to pick up revs quicker as there is less mass for the engine to move. The bike will therefore respond a bit quicker from low revs which may make it feel a bit torquier also. I rode a TY250 for the first time recently, same year as yours approx and this had the weight removed. I was surprised at how well the motor picked up as everything I've ever heard about these bikes is that they are a pile of crap. Not so at all, I was quite impressed with it to be honest, steered well, felt very much like an Ossa, as you'd expect... A couple of years ago I tried a 250 Majesty (most of these had standard 250 motors) and this had the weight still fitted. It was slow to pick up and felt lethargic, almost underpowered which it wasn't, I guess it was just the effect of the weight. With the weight off it would have been a very nice bike. The only negative aspect you may experience with it removed is that the bike may not 'plonk' as well at very low throttle when riding without the clutch. With the weight fitted, the extra inertia will keep the motor rolling over, without the weight you may find it stalls easier. Depends how you ride, if you use the clutch and brakes and ride with a tickover it won't really be a problem, if you ride on the throttle and no clutch with no tickover then that is when you may notice it stalls easier as there is less inertia to keep it turning with the throttle closed. At least removing the weight is not irreversible so the best thing to do is try it the next time you go out but take the weight with you so you can fit it back on if you don't like it. It's a quick job. Removing it may be another matter though if it has been on from new as it may be a bit stubborn... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grouchof Posted June 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 Hi, I rode my Majesty 250 with the big flyweel : the motor is very to slow to take RMP but you can't stop it. I think the explanation about using the clutch or not , is linked with the big weight or not. But I think that a normal weight is better for a 250. About the 250 mono fork that was fitted on my bike : it works perfect, more efficient than the 250 t/s one. Regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin j Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 how was the mono fork fitted to the twin shock? complete with triple trees, bolt in, or tubes only? machining required? is the rake and trail ok? I have a TY175 that I was going to fit a 250 twin shock front end because Ihave heard of that modification. the 175 forks are a bit flexible. However, I also have extra mono parts that I just as easily do. Just never thought of it. I know the jump from twin shock 250 to 350 mono was huge step up for me, not because of motor but because of suspensions. I still ride the 350 occasionally, much different than the modern stuff. So putting 350 forks on the 175 might be the ticket, assuming they fit into the 250 triple trees. Also better brakes.... sounds interesting. kcj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 TY Mono forks won't fit into TY175/250 yokes, yo have to bore out the 250 yokes to take the mono forks. 175 forks are smaller again so I don't know whether there is enough metal in them to bore out for the mono forks, however, 175 and 250 yokes are interchangeable as far as I know, so fitting a pair of 250 yokes and boring them would be the answer if 175 too thin. You can't fit the mono yokes to the twinshock as the stem bearing sizes differ - unless you can overcome that of course. However, the mono yokes have more trail than the twinshock so you really need the twinshock yokes to keep trail to a minimum in view of the mono forks being leading axle. As for steering, as mentioned in previous post I tried a Yam framed Majesty with mono forks in it's own yokes and it steered fine, no problems at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchie Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 This is an interesting topic as I have en route a pair of mono forks and yokes to go on the front of my Majesty. My trials guru who is undertaking the job wanted to pair the mono forks with the mono yokes as he was worried if he bored out the original twinshock yokes this would potentialy weaken them. He felt with some modifications the mono yokes would fit, so in fact you would have a complete mono front end. Now after reading the last post if we go ahead and change the yokes will this have a detremental effect vis a vis the steering and handling. Any input would be greatly apprciated as it makes no difference to me whether we have mono yokes or twinshock. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 Easiest way is to bore out the existing yokes, that is how everyone I know has done it. I have mono yokes on mine but the steering angle has been altered and it has a replacement headstock to take the mono yokes/bearings. If I was to do it again I'd use the existing yokes. The statement about the trail being less on the twinshock yokes is based on what all of these others have told me, I've never checked it myself. If you want to use the mono yokes I guess you could press out the stems from each set and fit the twinshock stem into the mono yokes by modifying them to suit - maybe the trail could be altered at the same time, but boring out the existing yokes is the easier way to go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grouchof Posted June 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2007 Hi, My bike was fitted with a modified headstock. At the begining the fork was a 348 montesa and I modifed it for the mono front end. Now this bike belong to a friend of mine and he has decided to go back with an original headstock and fork. I think you can use the monofork front end direct in a TY headstock, if you find the good timken stuff. Regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majesty320 Posted June 25, 2007 Report Share Posted June 25, 2007 The 320 I had had a massive weight o the flywheel. The flywheel I have now has a small weight fitted. John Cain at Trail and Trials has at least 3 ty250 flywheels with different weights. So as you say the ty 250 flywheel may be standard, but the weight that people have fitted to them have varied quite a lot. hopefully we can post pictures of these so people can see that there is no such thing as a standard weight for a majesty fly wheel. PS no of the weights have been added by us they have all come off bikes that have been broken- all TY250/majesty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feetupfun Posted June 26, 2007 Report Share Posted June 26, 2007 1. If you use TY mono yokes in a twinshock TY/Majesty frame, the standard mono yoke steering stops reduce the steering (side to side) angle severely compared with the twinshock yokes. 2. Yes the steering stems can be swapped to fit the mono yokes to a twinshock TY/Majesty frame. 3. TY175 yokes are made from the same basic forging as TY250 twinshock yokes so it makes no difference what you start with if you are going to bore them out to suit 35mm or 36mm tubes. 4. For people thinking about fitting Montesa, Bultaco or other Betor type forks to their TY/Majesty, carefully check the overall length to make sure the front of the bike ends up high enough because many of them are quite a bit shorter than the TY250 forks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.