charliechitlins Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 What's the deal on '70's Montesas? Some have big, ugly seats... I hear some are long and turn like a bus. Which are the good ones? Call me shallow, but I grew up lusting after red ones...the white ones just don't do it for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vintagecota Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 The best one is a Cota 200 but it's white The next best is a 172, looks just like my 123 in the avatar but with 156cc and 18/21 wheels. Same light frame, 170 odd pounds all told and turns so good it makes me look good! The ones with the big ugly seats are the "T" or "trail" models of the 123 and 247. 8 litres of fuel instead of 4, and 2up riding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charliechitlins Posted October 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 I worked on a Cota 200 for a guy, but there was so much snow on the ground, I never got to ride it. It's a 175, right? Will it haul my 200lb butt around? Even Lane Leavitt (can I mention him on this list? ) admitted the 200 is a good bike, and he doesn't give many compliments to Montesas of that era. Maybe I could paint one red and put some aluminum fenders on Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feetupfun Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 The long wheelbase Montesa you were warned about is the red tanked model Cota 349. It was from around 1980 and has a longer swingarm than the later white tanked 349. If you don't ride in competition (need to turn tight) the longer swingarm of the red tank 349 makes for better steep terrain riding. The 348 series (76 to 79) handle and turn well, have good power and are all red. However the only light weight red Montesas of the 1970s are the ones with the small motors ie 123 and 172. The 247s are the same weight as the 348s. Depending on how tall you are, you may find the 123 and 172 a bit small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vintagecota Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 Some impressions of riding vintage Cotas: I'm 6'3"/240lb and my little 123 has almost enough power for anything I care to try (believe it or not). It runs down on very long, very steep hills. I'd like to be able to use 2nd gear for the momentum but always end up in 1st and eventually spinning out or powering out if I get my weight right. I think a 156cc kit would help quite a bit and make the bike nearly perfect. I can still get the bike, or should I say it can get me, up a 5ft step. It really performs if I'm not shy with the throttle. It's totally adequate for trail riding but is a little aenemic for (vintage) competition with my considerable heft aboard. With the 18/21 wheels, the 123 feels as big or bigger than a modern bike, so it doesn't feel too small to me. Yes, the 200 is 175cc, and I think it would provide more power than necessary (for me). Of course it's just fine to have a little more than you need. I've ridden a 348 and getting back on the 123 after that made it feel like the throttle wasn't connected to anything. Way more power than I could use. I never got it over 1/2 throttle, even up very steep hills. I found the bike to be rather top-heavy and I fell off many more times than I do from the small-frame bike, and couldn't really go anywhere that the 123 wouldn't go with less struggle. The 348 tired me out picking it up AND (very importantly) the same as 247s, you can't start the bike with the clutch pulled in, you need to find neutral first. I've got an old red-tank 349 as well, but it's sitting in a museum with 3.4mi. on it, so I may never know what it rides like, but it felt like a locomotive when I took it for a spin in my driveway and cracked the throttle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vintagecota Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 As far as I know, they only used that ugly tank with the imitation parting lines for one year only, 1978. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charliechitlins Posted October 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Thanks for all the help! Got my eye on a '76 Rathmell Replica. I must be really shallow, but....dang, I hate that seat. Same style as the 200 I worked on. It caught my eye every time I walked into the shop. I might just have to hold out for a Sherpa T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 charlie, Stick with the sherpa. Ive had ossa's and montesa's in my shop (some have never left) they're all nice. But you can't beat the parts availability of the Bul's. I have a 123 cota that I've been scrounging parts for, for a very long time. Its just not worth it. maybe its different where you live now, if so, let me know, maybe I can still make that 123 go. In any case, I prefer to ride my bikes. The Bul's are great, and all you gotta do is stop by Hugh's and you can have your pick of any year sherpa ever made, already restored, or do it yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vintagecota Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 What do you need for the 123, Sherpa? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charliechitlins Posted November 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 OK...I'm really thinking about a pre-76 Cota. I like the '74 and '75 models, and I like shifting with my left foot. How far back can I go before the less-advanced technology really gets obvious? Is, say, a '71 essentially the same as a '74? My guy tells me that technology may have bumped up a notch around the (relative) trials boom of '74. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vintagecota Posted November 20, 2004 Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 Late (December) '72 was when the 247 changed to left side shift, at serial #21M 8100. 123s all had left side shift and started in '72 as well. in '74 the frames went to black from grey. I'd be on the lookout for a clean 19M (172) if I could only have one. It was told to me by a very experienced local trialer, of the big three Spanish bikes of the time, all have very nice engines, Monts turn the best but may be unstable at times, like up a running creek, Buls are very stable but are a challenge to turn and Ossas are in the middle. He was riding a MAR. One thing is for sure (to me). Montesas are by FAR the best looking! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charliechitlins Posted November 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 One thing is for sure (to me). Montesas are by FAR the best looking! Me too. And, as a dear friend once said, "Hey...it's a cool bike, and I look cool on it; and that's all that counts!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feetupfun Posted November 20, 2004 Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 One thing is for sure (to me). Montesas are by FAR the best looking! Good to hear. I totally agree. I love riding my Cota 348 and OSSA MAR because in my eyes they are the coolest looking bikes I have ever seen. I suspect that the bike that someone likes the look of most has something to do with their association with that bike when they were at a certain age. I've found that unless a bike was made between 1972 and 1976, it really doesn't rate in the looks dept for me. That means that I was 13 to 17 years old when the strong impressions were made. How old were you guys when the bikes you love were made? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charliechitlins Posted November 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 Yeah...in '74 I turned 13, so that's the era that's burned in my memory. I got a TY175 around '77, but I still have unresolved Montesa issues from looking at those pictures of Ulf Karlson and Marland Whaley in the dirt bike mags that I studied like the Bible! The problem was, I wasted my knee in an accident around '78 and I gave up pretty much all strenuous physical activity until around 4 years ago. Now I have some catching up to do! 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.