trialsrfun Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 The Sherpa had a few frames during its lifetime but I have often wondered if there was a single model that handled best of all or was every model change better than that previous? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lbhbul Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 Interesting, my own observations from M 49, 92, Miller, 159, 199, 199a, if the front & rears, along with good tires, were all equal, the frame really was never a factor to me, they seemed to go where pointed & not do anything silly other than rider input. Given the earlier frame was heavier,& we all thought the Miller was best @ the time (30 inch bars & all) but the 199's with the nicer gearing stand out for me, yes all had what seems like today a lot of rake, but in the proper hands (not mine) are up to turning tight (especially w/no clutch) as any. My own 199 has saved my bacon on many occasions in my old age. Larry 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dadof2 Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) Don't know the model number but my blue 1979 with plastic tank handled brilliantly, I would happily ride it today. I had a 69 250 which was very good in rivers, seemed much more stable than the early 70s Ossas. Edit. The 250 might have been a 1970 as it was J reg but it was one of the earlier 5 speeds. I also had a couple of red 325s, probably a 1975 and early 1977 model. The 77 felt more "planted" and steered better than the 75 and was very good on hillclimbs. The Blue 79 seemed good all-round, especially pivot turning on a bank and getting up big steps. Edited February 10, 2015 by dadof2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feetupfun Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 I've ridden models M10, M49, M92, M124, M158, M198 and M198A. Yes I would say the handling improved with each frame type, and from other things that were improved within a frame era. Improved mass centralisation (relocated exhaust and reduction in height of frame), longer swingarm (relocated pivot point), reduced component masses (frames, airboxes, rims, hubs), increased front end rigidity (triple clamps) and increased rear wheel suspension travel. In the late 60s, the M10 was considered better handling by some than the M27 because the M10 was a bit shorter in the wheelbase. The final model (M198/199B) has a steeper steering angle than previous models which is seen as a plus for that model 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel dabster Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 Don't know the model number but my blue 1979 with plastic tank handled brilliantly, I would happily ride it today. I had a 69 250 which was very good in rivers, seemed much more stable than the early 70s Ossas. I bought a new 250 from Windsor comp shop in 79, then had a 325 81/82 then a 340, then had that modified by Reg May at comerfords with the pivot points etc moved. each consequent model was better, and im confident the Comerfords bike handles better than my Italjet which is 84 I think. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trialsrfun Posted February 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 feetupfun, on 08 Feb 2015 - 02:28 AM, said:The final model (M198/199B) has a steeper steering angle than previous models which is seen as a plus for that model I had no idea that the steering angle differed on the b models. I have a 124 & 199a the engine does seem to sit lower on the 124 yet this seems to make no difference to the handling that I have noticed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bezaboy Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 Ask Vesty, it is a non standard Bultaco frame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa325 Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) OK here we go, rode all these in competition and these are my recollections, M92 series1 - nice and stable, longish wheelbase, slow steering, motor very torquey [fantastic bike for its time] M92 series 2- same as above, but diagonal tubes running from swinging arm pivot rubbed on ankles, preferred series 1 M125 Great bike - lighter, more power[27mm carbie] shorter wheelbase, steeper steering head- brought it into line with the miller frames M159 Great bike - better everywhere, motor had wider range of power [28mm carbie] longer travel rear suspension, loved it M183 same as above but a slightly longer swinging arm is fitted to increase stability and control on larger steps never owned a M183 but fitted the longer swinging arm to my 159 M191 Great bike , just happy to get on a new bike as my 159 was well and truly worn out, same as 183 M190 250, shorter frame-wheelbase, lower headstock/handlebar, more ground clearance- tried and tried to like this frame, even fitted my 325 engine, but never really liked the handling, always preferred the stability, steering and riding position of the 325 frame. M199 Really liked the handling of this bike but struggled to get it to run as good as the earlier 325's, later found out the small airbox was the problem. Also the bike didn't look a patch on the earlier bikes, I can remember getting it out of the crate and being so disappointed to see all the alloy painted black and three different shades of red- guards, airbox and tank all different! Ended up on a 348 cota for a year as a result. M199A Certainly better than the 199 as an overall package but the fact that the motor was lifted up in the frame reducing stability makes the 199 the better handler in my opinion- I just find the 199A a little more nervous than the 199, but would have a 199A every day of the week over the 199 M199B Only ridden a borrowed one of these in competition,basically the same as the 199A with a slightly less aggressive engine, very similar though, maybe just personal tuning setup. I do have a 199 frame in the shed, so one day the plan is to put the running gear off one of my 199A's into the 199 frame, modified to Comerford specs Cheers Greg Edited February 8, 2015 by sherpa325 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa325 Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 I forgot to mention I also rode montesa's as well, 348, nice bike - shorter than the equivalent bultaco, less bottom end power, felt lighter, not quite as stable as a Bully but a good bike, couldn't pull second gear as easily as it was a 305 349 too long, too tall[red first series] plenty of power- full 349, not as predictable as the bully off the bottom,steered slower than the bully 349 'white wonder' montesa got it right here, wheelbase fixed up, just a real nice bike. Italjet, tested the 'all green' ones, found them to be just OK, felt heavy. nothing special- never competed on one. Italjet, competed on a 350 Piuma in 1983/84- Great bike totally different to the green ones, much lighter, more power, better everywhere. Good clutch, lighter flywheel, alloy axles, completely different. lighter frame, marzocchi forks and triple clamps, fantasic handling. Just felt like the old bully with some improvements. The only problem was the mono yamaha had just turned up. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trialsrfun Posted February 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 The higher c of g on the 199a is most noticeable when lifting the bike onto a stand or when loading, I am quite tall so fit the 124 a bit better than the 199a with its higher footrests which is why I bought the 124 plus I had always wanted one anyway. The Bultaco bikes that I have never ridden are the ones that appear to have the long tank/short seat presumably the 159 or 183 mentioned by Sherpa 325??? The later bikes had the swing arm pivot bolt through frame, s/arm & engine mount, the 124 and earlier did not go through the engine mount so probably less rigid but did the through bolt design come in with the 325 engine too handle the extra power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lbhbul Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 To my memory, the swing arm pivot thru the engine mount (alum casting 159 thru early 199) came along w/head steady and new center cases, thick liners (easy bore to 85mm+) , longer swing arm (about 1 inch) still@ 52 + inch wheelbase. The heavy duty cast motor mount could be difficult to maintain a good grip on engine, later fabbed steel much better. You will have to excuse no mention of the later 250's as I have not been exposed to them, same for 199 B,just were not any around here. Larry 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulto58 Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 If I ride my M91 ( I do love that bike ) then get on my 198À, the handling is so much better, but others might say different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorenzo Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) ](sherpa 325)/Greg -Note your coments about M199 - I have 2 of these, (both needing work).Here is the earlier one, as purchased :- Edited February 9, 2015 by lorenzo 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa325 Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 Ossa Gripper maybe??????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel dabster Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 reckon thats just to give more rear wheel movement, but probably steepens head angle too? 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.