Basket Cases

[David Lahey]

Chippy I reckon Greg should ride the one with the left handed throttle because he will have had time to get used to riding it

[Mark K]

Mark you have an amazing memory

David, the only thing amazing about my memory is just how much stuff I forget.
But back to the original question: Way back then you compared what looked like the same TY frame with a similar looking Spanish frame, but from a trail bike version? It had more bracing, and probably a few more lugs to bolt stuff onto, so I'd guess that this time the difference might be more in the vicinity of probably well over half a Kg.

In your original question you'd also mentioned two legends. I can't speak about Bultacos, but I can say this with great certainty: Lifting my 1972 OSSA MAR 250 onto or off of my trailer doesn't feel any heavier or lighter than my TY175. The big difference isn't in how much they actually weigh, but in how they feel to ride. The TY "feels" really light and nimble and easy to turn and control. The OSSA "feels" more stable and controlled, but less nimble. The OSSA's front suspension gives me more confidence on anything downhill, but its brakes give me less confidence than the TY's. In my humble opinion it all comes down to the individual rider's personal preferences and riding style and actual skill, rather than which bike, or part thereof, is a bit heavier or lighter.

[JC1]

Thanks John I think that will help me identify which bike some triple clamps are from. If the Alpina M99 and M85 and the early Sherpa Ts are the only bikes with top triple clamps that suit taper top tubes and that have the rear-set bar clamps, then I might be able to work out which top triple clamp goes with which lower triple clamp
More looking at frames to come

Dave, other bikes had that top triple also - Mk4 SD matador, Mk5 Lobito (later Lobitos went back to the smaller dia forks), & Mk2 Sherpa S are ones I know of.

[David Lahey]

Mark you have an amazing memory

David, the only thing amazing about my memory is just how much stuff I forget.
But back to the original question: Way back then you compared what looked like the same TY frame with a similar looking Spanish frame, but from a trail bike version? It had more bracing, and probably a few more lugs to bolt stuff onto, so I'd guess that this time the difference might be more in the vicinity of probably well over half a Kg.

In your original question you'd also mentioned two legends. I can't speak about Bultacos, but I can say this with great certainty: Lifting my 1972 OSSA MAR 250 onto or off of my trailer doesn't feel any heavier or lighter than my TY175. The big difference isn't in how much they actually weigh, but in how they feel to ride. The TY "feels" really light and nimble and easy to turn and control. The OSSA "feels" more stable and controlled, but less nimble. The OSSA's front suspension gives me more confidence on anything downhill, but its brakes give me less confidence than the TY's. In my humble opinion it all comes down to the individual rider's personal preferences and riding style and actual skill, rather than which bike, or part thereof, is a bit heavier or lighter.

Aha Mark, I like the way you think, but think again because the Bultaco trail bike frame you were referring to with the extra bracing was one of those new-fangled (1975) ones made from fancy thin-walled tubing, guaranteed to crack almost everywhere when subjected to spirited riding. The recently-posted frame photos show a Bultaco frame from a few years before the fancy tubing was used.

[David Lahey]

Thanks John I think that will help me identify which bike some triple clamps are from. If the Alpina M99 and M85 and the early Sherpa Ts are the only bikes with top triple clamps that suit taper top tubes and that have the rear-set bar clamps, then I might be able to work out which top triple clamp goes with which lower triple clamp
More looking at frames to come

Dave, other bikes had that top triple also - Mk4 SD matador, Mk5 Lobito (later Lobitos went back to the smaller dia forks), & Mk2 Sherpa S are ones I know of.

Thanks John, back to square one. There are some of those Bultaco triples for skinny forks too, but no forks to go with them

While we are on the subject of triple clamps, are the first arched lower aluminium Sherpa T triples with the single clamping bolt any good? I suspect there might have been a problem with then because (1) they knurled the fork tubes (2) the next design (with double clamping bolts) came out pretty soon afterwards

[brownie]

The triples were changed and the tubes knurled for the 2nd 91/92 series frames probably when they were thinking about doing away with the tapered fork tubes.The tubes weren't going anywhere with the taper but the thin bit of aluminium that the tubes seat on in the later models needed better clamping. Well that's what I think anyway
By the way I had a look in some parts books and the lower triples are the same for models 80,85,97,98,99 all 85.01-001 seems strange it isn't a 80 prefix
Top triple the same for 80,85,91,92,97,98,99 all 80.01-058

[David Lahey]

The triples were changed and the tubes knurled for the 2nd 91/92 series frames probably when they were thinking about doing away with the tapered fork tubes.The tubes weren't going anywhere with the taper but the thin bit of aluminium that the tubes seat on in the later models needed better clamping. Well that's what I think anyway
By the way I had a look in some parts books and the lower triples are the same for models 80,85,97,98,99 all 85.01-001 seems strange it isn't a 80 prefix
Top triple the same for 80,85,91,92,97,98,99 all 80.01-058

Thanks Brownie should the bottom clamp on my M49 be the same as M80? It looks a lot like it. I know my M49 has a later model top clamp than what should be on an early M49 and was wondering if whoever did that had changed the bottom one for something later as well
About the part number for the M80 lower clamp, maybe the M85 was designed before the M80

[brownie]

Thanks Brownie should the bottom clamp on my M49 be the same as M80? It looks a lot like it. I know my M49 has a later model top clamp than what should be on an early M49 and was wondering if whoever did that had changed the bottom one for something later as well
About the part number for the M80 lower clamp, maybe the M85 was designed before the M80

The 49 bottom clamp is the same as a M10/27 part no. 10.01-001-1
I've fitted both the original style u bolt m49 top clamp and the newer style to the same bottom clamp on my late 49 and it all lines up. some early M80/85's had the old u bolt handlebar clamp top clamp so I'm guessing the bottom clamp for the 80 is much the same as the 49. Does the 80 bottom clamp have the hole for the brake cable ? Any old photos I have seen shows the front brake cable routed differently on the 80 compared to the 49 but would Bultaco have changed a part no. because they took a hole away ??
I agree that maybe the 85 was designed before the 80. But was the 80 designed at all it's a late 49 with the optional kit campeon and later on a new top clamp and maybe a missing hole

[JC1]

Thanks for that very useful info Brownie.

If you have the parts manuals to check, did the series2 M91/92 use the same triples top & bottom as the M124/125 & M150/151?

[brownie]

If you have the parts manuals to check, did the series2 M91/92 use the same triples top & bottom as the M124/125 & M150/151?

All the series 2 M91/92 I have seen still have the tapered fork tubes but looking at the 124/125/150/151 parts book the top clamp part no. Is 91.01-058 so Bultaco must have changed to the clamp topped style forks late in the production of the 91/92
The bottom clamp for 91/92/124/125/150/151 are the same 91.01-001(2) except for the series one 91/92 single bolt clamp which would have been 91.01-001 I think but it's not listed in my parts book, the (2) as I read it would stand for modification / improvement