greeves Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 100% agree with Woody. Just have a look to the above 250 Vazquez, in the outside the only 2 differences with a 1978 original bike are the footrests and the front mudguard stand. Even the carburettors used in the Vazquez bikes (Dell Orto PHBH) were available in 1978 as Spanish regulations do not admit older carbs in the bike for classic competitions. The Vazquez bike don´t even come with tubeless rims; they have the originals as you can see !!!! Different thing is if you use a Gas gas fork; an aluminium swingarm; hidraulic clutch; modern carburettors, altered or very light frames, fat bars... etc etc etc that in my opinion should NOT be admitted in the classic trials. By the way I enjoy having a seat. All my bikes do have one. Lets play a game: How many differences can we find between the original 199 bike (pic from an old brochure) and my Vazquez Racing 198?? Also between this 1959 James and this 2011 James?? Note: The airbox in my 198 comes from an older model, something habitually done in the 199 models on the time. I agree changes in the classic bikes should be limited or evolution in bikes will take to big differences, tougher sections and a loss of entries as it is happening in modern trials. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b40rt Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 So, do we approve of Vesty' s xlite ?????? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trialsrfun Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 So, do we approve of Vesty' s xlite ?????? I probably view it as one man's quest to build his perfect bike but entirely share the view held by Greeves regarding modifications to existing twinshock bikes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breagh Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) Can't say I'm an expert on TS trials but I do come from the late 70s 80s era. I suggest that the average modern TS trial will have nothing like the sections that were ridden "back in the day". This being so any average standard TS bike will be well capable of clearing up in the right hands. I believe a few mods will make the bikes easier and more pleasant to ride but not give a significant advantage. Anyway,wouldn't a Majesty or a Fantic 240 not be a match for any Bultaco??? Edited March 26, 2014 by breagh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neils on wheels Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 Lets play a game: How many differences can we find between the original 199 bike (pic from an old brochure) and my Vazquez Racing 198?? Also between this 1959 James and this 2011 James?? An interesting game indeed but somewhat undermined by the fact that the two James pictures are of different models. The 1959 picture is of an AMC engined bike (I think it was designated L25T), the 2011 picture is of a Villers engine bike, the M25T made originally from 1963-66. Nonetheless, I take your point which is well made. Having said that, the cost of a 'newly built' pre-65 two stroke or a modified 70s/80s Bultaco is not so far apart, I see the Vazquez bike for sale at Telford had a €5-6000 price tag on it. As a final point, does anyone have any information on Motak; who they are and where they are? I have come across Vazquez & Puma Racing but never previously heard of Motak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel dabster Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 I probably view it as one man's quest to build his perfect bike but entirely share the view held by Greeves regarding modifications to existing twinshock bikes. For a bike to be perfect it must have few if any faults, I think the x lite is in need of several modifications and a way off perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel dabster Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 Does the 280 above have a standard rear sprocket and is the swinging arm standard length? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 Gearing is 46:11, standard is 39:1, same as the 199a and 199b I run my 340 on 43:1 as I find 39:1 too high Bottom gear on the Motak bike (same ratio as the 340) didn't feel too low with the extra 3 teeth on the rear Frame and swingarm all standard, no mods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrb505 Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 What's been done apart from the 74mm gasgas piston to make it a 280 has the crank been altered ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triple_x Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 (edited) Hi I agree with Woody. I have been riding a 1969 Sherpa for the past 4 seasons along with a 69 Montesa 247. The substance of bikes is original apart from Magical suspension reworked original yokes, relocated footrests and electronic ignition. Apart from the ignition I was doing the same structural mods in the late sixties and early seventies. It challenges me to see what are so called pre 65 bikes that are ground up modern clones treated as though they well cared for historical relics. But I take the view we all get our kicks in different ways so live and let live, we need the sport to flourish. Where i do get confused is when a so called twinshock appears in a national series when plainly none of the parts were made or available back then. Hey Ho. Regards Martin Edited April 19, 2014 by triple_x 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triple_x Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 (edited) Hi Tell me what is structurally not orginal!, apart from the consumable items like replacement shocks and white paint (I never did like the overall blue look). Certainly more original than a lot of the pre 65's. Martin Edited April 19, 2014 by triple_x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guys Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 Mud guards, snail cams, foot rests and the positioning on the lawn, i've seen something similar before... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrb505 Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 Banana, fork caps, wipers, carby, levers, ......... Nice bike but how about a photo of your 69 one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b40rt Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 Exhaust front pipe ? So front geometry pulled in ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triple_x Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 (edited) Hi Well spotted! Exactly my point. Consumables. Tyres Shocks Fork springs Rims and spokes All replaced. But original are the Frame swinging arm All castings, motor gearbox, clutch internals, hubs, brakes, spindles, airfilter Forks apart from springs (not hiding Bultaco internals in AJS forks) and re machined yokes Tank in is original (not in this image) see my original post in Non standard looking sherpa. Upgrades Mikuni, well, this was a known upgrade in the 60's Electronic ignition So what I am saying is that this bike is more (has more original parts) than a lot of pre 65's and the only mods are to make it cope with modern sections. It is just a coincidence that I managed to resurect it at Easter. Kind regards Martin Edited April 19, 2014 by triple_x 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.