Cota 172 Restoration

[TerrY]

There is a company in Brisbane ( Yeerongpilly) called RAD Shock Absorber Repairs that repairs shock absorbers. Contact them and maybe send the photos. Rod there would advise on possibility of repair and costs. Hope this helps.

[Phil 850]

Got my front fork legs back from Alderton Motorcycle Repairs.
Now there as "straight as a die". Very pleased.

The next step is that the top bush (assuming there is a bush) is worn and the sliders wobble back and forth.
Does anyone know if the is a seperate bush and how to replace it.

[David Lahey]

There is no separate bush. What you have is 1970s technology.
Options are:
To have the top end of the sliders machined and sleeves fitted to take it back to suit the standard tubes.
To have the tubes re-chromed oversize and the sliders machined to suit.
To find a set of tubes that are a bit bigger diameter and have the sliders (and maybe the triple clamps too depending on how much bigger the tubes are) machined to suit.

[David Lahey]

I looked back to 18 months ago in this topic and see that your tubes are 31.75mm diameter. Your sliders may be able to be machined out suit 34 mm tubes (2.25mm oversize) which are a very common size fork tube. This is TY250 tube diameter.
I haven't looked but maybe 32 or 33 mm tubes are also easily available.

[Phil 850]

I finally got the swing arm back together. If you have the rubber pivot type like mine, do not pull it apart unless it is totally stuffed.
It was a nightmare to reassemble.
But now it is back in the frame

IMG_3660.JPG (109.18 KiB) Viewed 14829 times

[Phil 850]

Today I fitted the new rear guard. Problem is, it prevents the tank/seat base from sitting down on the frame.

IMG_3664.JPG (99.82 KiB) Viewed 14657 times

Looks like it fits OK here

IMG_3665.JPG (72.53 KiB) Viewed 14657 times

With the seat in place

IMG_3666.JPG (74.56 KiB) Viewed 14657 times

This is how night the seat is held up by the mud guard.

Does the mud guard need to be reshaped to allow the seat to fit correctly.

[Phil 850]

On further investigation my frame measures up the same as in the photo below.
There are two dimensions for the position of the rear mudguard support hoop in brackets.
My frame measures the same as the 161 horizontal dimension but measures almost the same as the vertical dimension in brackets (439).
Does this mean that the mudguard support hoop is bent up and needs to be bent down.
I positioned the mudguard as if the hoop was bent down as per the 406 dimension and the rear wheel on full suspension compression just fits inside the mudguard, so I think this would be OK.
What do you all think ?

IMG_3657.JPG (90.56 KiB) Viewed 14628 times

[Phil 850]

Well I have done some research, and while I had asked Vallmoto to quote parts for a Montessa Cota 172, it looks like I was quoted mudguards for a Cota 123.
Am I correct in assuming that because the 123 has smaller wheels than a Cota 172, the mudguards are smaller as well

[David Lahey]

In the photos it looks to me like the rear loop is bent upwards just behind the upper shock mounts

[Phil 850]

That's what I was starting to think as well David, but then I held the front mudguard onto the front tyre and the mudguard is a smaller radius than the tyre .
I have had a close look at some photos of 123's compared to 172's, and the 172 mudguards certainly look to be larger radius.
https://nacho247.blogspot.com.au/2016/1 ... rigen.html
Scroll to the bottom of the link and you can see the difference between the 123 & the 172, or is it my imagination