Trials Australia Forums

JC1 wrote:Thanks for posting that extra pic of the LHS of the TY. Wouldn't you love to see it with the 'skin' removed to see what he's done with the frame & exhaust.

The builder of the bike also custom-made that tank-seat unit so I would think that the frame mods and exhaust system would be very neatly done. I would like to have seen underneath, but the trial was just about to start.

Hi Everyone,
Here is a couple of examples of TLM 50s:

Barry Pugh wrote:Then Tuesday afternoon I Pick up my Fantic 200 that is being delivered to Georges house for me (thanks mate). Unfortunately, I have work in between the two pickups.
I have also bought an Italjet 250 to go with the 350 but unfortunately will have to wait till a trial down south before I pick her up.

Nice one Barry, look forward to seeing photos of your new and ?

JC1 wrote:John, I'll respond in RED
John, I will reply in BLUE
Greg, I'll respond in green

JC1 wrote:Greg, I got them from Honda manuals uploaded to the web somewhere. Can't remember what site now. Thought it might have been the Honda only trial site but a quick check now didn't show them. So do you think it might be a typo or they couldn't find the specs for a TLR 200 and they threw in TL 250 specs? I have found it's not uncommon for manufacturers to quote some wrong specs in their own literature
Ah, yes I have found the same thing, that is what I meant by HYPE! Sometimes it is on purpose to make the old models outdated!

I'v always assumed wheelbase to be as delivered from the factory, ie with standard gearing and chain tension adjusted to factory specs. Which means of course; change sprockets, change wheelbase specs and I'd guess they're different for the 200 & 250. If that was true then I think the wheelbase would be different because of different sprockets?
What I was getting at here is that if the offset and hence trail is different between the 200 & 250 (even if the rake is the same), with different sprockets it could bring the wheelbase back to the same spec
Ah, now I know what you mean, I have been having quite a few "Ah" moments lately! Sometimes I have to exhaust every conceivable possibly to eventually find the answer. For example: If my TLR has a 200 fork leg on one side and a 250 one on the other side and it all bolts up OK including the forkbrace, then they must be the same. Having linished the Chrome in my lathe with them spining true and the forks don't bind, we are fast running out of possibilities for the Rake and Trail to be different! So I am now pretty sure the Rake and Trail are the same for 200 and 250, I came to this conclusion by simply measuring the wheelbase. The specs that you gave measure wheelbase with the axle ALL of the way FORWARD in the axle slots! Not sure about other manufacturers but it is true in this case.

JC1 wrote:

David Lahey wrote:Does anyone have an understanding for why "Basket Cases" has had nearly 12,000 views since the start of June but only four people have posted anything.

You're very observant David.
My only thought is that most guys who are into bikes aren't into writing, but are interested in what others write/post.

Bully fanatic wrote:To answer your question David. Is it because Trials riders leave their entries until the last possible moment so they also don`t post anything unless they absolutely have too!

Just my thoughts, there is a bit to look at here and we are obviously not all on the same page, do you remember this?
Some people must be stuck on this page?

Inside the packaging is a fuel tank from a twinshock era trials bike. What is it?

I`m going to say Kawasaki. It looks to be very wide at the front of the tank. Probably a Deltec Grasshooper!

Bully fanatic wrote:I`m going to say Kawasaki. It looks to be very wide at the front of the tank. Probably a Deltec Grasshooper!

The winner! well done Graham. I'll unwrap it tomorrow and have a decent squizz at it

The highest 7/8" trials bars we can buy now (braced Renthal 6) are a fair bit lower rise than the trials bars we could buy in the 1970s. Because I wanted bars that look and feel like what we had in the 1970s, I had a few sets of bars custom made to replicate the old bars.
The 1970s (unbraced) Renthals and other similar bars were known to have a fairly short service life due to breakage so when my custom bars were made, the person making them sourced structural 7/8" OD aluminium alloy tubing that has a substantially thicker wall. The same extrusion is used for suspension and steering components in motor racing. This is what it looks like in cross-section beside a piece of 1970s Renthal handlebar.

A few bully basket cases and a couple of pristine ones I have in the States I’ll bring back at some stage.

This one was built by Kojiro Mori a few years ago. I had the pleasure of meeting him when came down from Japan and rode Col Phillipson's MAR at a Denman MCC 2 day trial at Sandy Hollow. He is very skilled in metalwork, rides very well, has a passion for old motorbikes and cars and has a great workshop high in the mountains. This particular bike is intended to pay homage to the Kato Yamahas and has some great mods done very well.
Does anyone want to have a go at pointing out the non-standard aspects of this bike?

David,
I think you asked the wrong question. I think you would get a very long reply. The better question would have been " What can you see that is standard on this bike?" The answer would be much shorter.
TerrY

I'll probably make a fool of myself for trying to answer this so I'll start off with this disclaimer. My bike is locked in a shed 20 minutes drive from here, so I can't just look at it, and I'm not going to cheat by looking up images or specifications on the internet. I'm also very aware that not every model or variant of TY ever made came to Australia, and so there may easily have been features that were standard on some bikes that I've never seen. So here goes:

The front forks look wrong. All the ones that I know have the axle in line with the center of the forks, not offset forwards.
The front hub looks wrong, and the front brake mechanism, and the lack of a speedo cable drive point, Presumably with the different hub, the spokes in that wheel would be different too.
The front mudguard mounting brackets, and also the metal front mudguard.
The fuel tank looks wrong: wrong shape and too small.
The front of the exhaust looks wrong. I can't say for sure what it is that's wrong about it. Is it routed differently? I may just be thrown off by the different look because of the smaller fuel tank leaving it more exposed.
The bracing on the downward frame tubes immediately below the fuel tank doesn't look right to me. Is it because of the absence of the built in tool box?
The bash plate doesn't appear to be wide enough, and the hole in it at the front right corner immediately below the down tube doesn't look original.

The removal of the oil pump is evidenced by the missing oil tank (Left hand side behind / below the side cover), the missing control cable to the pump and the missing oil in and oil out tubes to the pump. The picture is a bit too dark and indistinct for me to be sure what I'm seeing. Is that a different side cover from an engine without an oil pump?
The part of the engine housing, (and I use that term loosely) which normally partly covers and protects the drive sprocket appears to be missing.
The seat appears non-standard. (this comment coming from someone whose seat is made of duct tape. )
The loop of frame which normally extends rearwards and supports the plastic rear mudguard is removed. I know this was done on the Majestys, but I'm not aware of it coming out of Yamaha like that. The mounting bracket for the rear muffler is modified, as is obviously the mounting bracket for the non standard metal rear mudguard.

What was originally there would have been removed to facilitate the welding in of the large non-standard webbing / bracing to also facilitate the mounting of the differently positioned non-standard footpegs.
There is no folded sheet metal chain guard. These regularly vanished, but I suspect they all came out of the factory with them.
I can't work out from the picture if the rear shockies have two separate differently rated springs each, or whether they are somehow strangely wound dual rated springs, but either way I suspect they are non-standard. They also appear to be standing a touch too vertically.
There appears to be too great a distance between the lower shock absorber mounting points and the rear axle. There also appears to be too much space in front of the rear tyre. It may be an optical effect which wouldn't be noticed if the empty space was filled with the bottom half of the normally visible oil tank, the original white plastic mudguard extending much further down towards the swing arm, and the original chain guard, but I suspect that we are looking at a non-original extended swingarm.

I also agree with TerrY. I think you asked the wrong question.