Trials Australia Forums

JC1 wrote:You may like to consider Kaw F11 triples to get a little more trail on the modified KT frame Dave. If I recall correctly they have about 10mm less offset than the KT's which might just be about right for you, and they are both alloy. Don't know about the distance between the tubes but the steering stem should be about the right length for the KT frame. I considered such a swap for my KT when I noticed it occasionally doing that tucking under, as you describe. But I decided I can live with that as I otherwise like the KT's steering, apart from the bike being a bit too front-heavy which is why I'd like to rearset pegs too.

That's a tempting idea John. I was thinking of riding it for a while to get a better idea of what I might want to do next, and lengthening the swingarm is something that is already ruminating in my head, so if I went that way I could make allowance for the wheelbase shortening effect of the F11 triples at the same time. It's borderline short wheelbase already so I want lots of riding time on it to see if that is a problem or not.

There's a bloke in the UK called Gerry Minshall who is an avid Twin Shock enthusiast that makes high quality alloy triple clamps/yokes for just about anything whether they be standard replacement or custom offset/size. The CNC machining and polished final product is exceptional, not cheap at probably 200-220 UK pounds minimum but he offers an alternative when nothing else fits or works. PM me if you want his contact details.

Rod wrote:There's a bloke in the UK called Gerry Minshall who is an avid Twin Shock enthusiast that makes high quality alloy triple clamps/yokes for just about anything whether they be standard replacement or custom offset/size. The CNC machining and polished final product is exceptional, not cheap at probably 200-220 UK pounds minimum but he offers an alternative when nothing else fits or works. PM me if you want his contact details.

Yes that's an easy way to solve the issue Rod. In the case of the KT I've already done testing with about 25mm more trail (using in-line axle fork sliders with the KT triples) and that odd feeling in the steering goes away so I am confident about what would work. Minshall triples with KT sliders would retain more of the original look of the KT compared with the look of in-line axle fork sliders.

I had a bit of think while in the bath tonight and if the F11 triples give 10mm more trail, depending on if the difference in trail is from having less angular offset or from having less forward offset, the fork tubes may hit the fuel tank on full lock. It would be good to know how much angular offset the F11 triples have.

Dave, you shouldn't have any problems there. The F11 triples have no angular offset as the tubes are parallel to the stem. From memory I think the forward offset of the tubes is about 45mm.

JC1 wrote:Dave, you shouldn't have any problems there. The F11 triples have no angular offset as the tubes are parallel to the stem. From memory I think the forward offset of the tubes is about 45mm.

Cool thanks John

Greg Harding wrote:Hi Everyone,

JC1 wrote:
On another subject, I have had this project (below) in mind for some time. Found an Italjet frame in a small-town wreckers some time age. In my shed it was sitting next to RL and TS engines. Well the engine made its way into the frame and it's a good fit. (Though it's a TS engine in the pic, the RL engine is all-but the same.) The sprocket even lines up well with the swingarm pivot. Italzuki 250TRL??

Very interesting, the motor definitely fits in the frame but the exhaust port looks a little close to the downtube and there is not much room for the exhaust below the tank ? That must be as labeled a TS 250 A motor with the exhaust port on the other side.....

1620433331069.jpg

Here is a comparison photo.....

1620433188810.jpg

Would you be interested in a GENUINE RL 250 frame? As David says, I am always interested in trading / swapping parts.

Yes Greg it's the A model TS engine, which apart from having the better TM style clutch cover/actuator also has extra transfer ports too. There is clearance for exhaust port. It's an oval cross-section downtube, as you'd know.
Properly mounted, the tank would sit about half an inch higher probably giving just enough clearance for the header, bearing in mind that the RL head has more cutaway of the fins. Though I was considering the option of using a TS barrel then running the header around from the left then over the clutch cover instead of right over the cylinder and head.

Anyway, your offer to swap for RL parts is very tempting. I have an RL engine, forks and a Suz front wheel with a slightly larger dia conical brake that I think would suit, but I'd need everything else:
frame, triples, swingarm, rear wheel and brake, tank, seat (or seatbase), airbox, carb and a lot of the little parts.

Let me see what I've got to swap

I had a revelation today while working on my KT.
A few weeks ago I'd been servicing the front brakes and noticed that one edge of the brake cam was a different profile to the other edge. At the time I put this down to someone before my ownership reshaping the cam for some unknown reason. I went to my KT parts stash and pulled out another front brake plate and the cam in it, while a bit worn, also had a different profile on one side to the other. Bells did not ring but maybe they should have. I then put the bike back together with the better of the two cams and ordered a new front brake cam NOS from someone in the USA.
The new cam arrived last week and when I took it out of the packet I saw yes, it also had a different profile on one side to the other.
At this point I thought it could have been a manufacturing defect in all three of them, but on looking at one of them I noticed an arrow mark stamped into the cam and this definitely rang a bell telling me that there is a right way and a wrong way to fit these things.
Now I'm the sort of person who only consults the manual when I can't work something out myself, so today after doing endless mental visualisations of the geometry of the cam and the shoes and which shoe is leading and which is trailing, I actually got the manual out and had a look and in the text there is a one-liner saying to point the cam arrow at the axle and yes I had the thing fitted the wrong way around .
Mystery sort-of-solved . Knowing which way is correct does not tell me why they did this thing????? when I don't see it on other bikes. Why is it so????

Hi Everyone,

David Lahey wrote:I had a revelation today while working on my KT.
Mystery sort-of-solved Knowing which way is correct does not tell me why they did this thing????? when I don't see it on other bikes. Why is it so????

David, it is always interesting how we sometimes do things the oposite way but usually end up in the same place! Would it be that realized that the brake shoes both pivot at the same point, the fixed end. When you think about it this way when the cam spreads the shoes, the inner actuation side of the cam would push that side shoe out more than outer side of the cam? Therefore to make the movements equal the cams need different profiles.

Now does anyone feel like chocolate?

Greg Harding wrote:Hi Everyone,

David Lahey wrote:I had a revelation today while working on my KT.
Mystery sort-of-solved Knowing which way is correct does not tell me why they did this thing????? when I don't see it on other bikes. Why is it so????

David, it is always interesting how we sometimes do things the oposite way but usually end up in the same place! Would it be that realized that the brake shoes both pivot at the same point, the fixed end. When you think about it this way when the cam spreads the shoes, the inner actuation side of the cam would push that side shoe out more than outer side of the cam? Therefore to make the movements equal the cams need different profiles.

1621147069868.jpg

Now does anyone feel like chocolate?

Yes chocolate is always a good idea, but your answer doesn't fully answer my question.
Why would be the only manufacturer to bother doing such a thing when the same mismatch of shoe travel applies to every manufacturer who has made a single-leading-shoe brake?