OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => Twinshock Trials => Topic started by: DR on January 10, 2011, 04:07:54 pm
-
what do you think, any potential as a serious trials bike?
(http://boospq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1phG9xUOHFpV0-y0eITdxAZ21c9s13PdlcPojov5CIXkXyzDmekTAg2E3BXLNyGvUeie9sim9y19KQhg_87RtGv5qvFw4VVB9F/suz1.JPG?psid=1)
someone seemed to think it may work..I wonder who? ;)
-
At least it should be easy to start :D
-
:D too true Trailie!! I'll pay that one :D
there is a story behind this bike.......
-
from the otherside...
(http://boospq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pdz4tz7j2uBjBsPDDkn1rf7dJvk3yvYyo4Dw0CN6NFqF5b1iNyWJ0A5t7YFfXckLWNA8490z7I1u3FtybeJLFR4Xs-T9t_ELv/suzywaterfall.jpg?psid=1)
-
a different angle..
(http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pHdy1P-BCKIjbKojd-xaURdNFhdzbIMDb2RIr1KGcnk027cRfZEGJOdODwaMLEIJElIbCXLjCdt3NBEH35H3BHA/suz1%20001.JPG?psid=1)
-
another...
(http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pHdy1P-BCKIgYdkVNZP87qw4WjJmzMKHHTH4KFfuu04RrIKZCuiyOOq5QDxmM1PoK7NaSSk3BjSjYIRa9VrCzdg/suz1%20002.JPG?psid=1)
-
holding up a tree...
(http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p_Avy1btxL4WNAkQcMj2okHK2xsFYWmJ-5d8nefiCyU9KNPWc2Od9sI9lsBoG_CyQVuKOcq57KfFzGTbjznrXYQ/treestand.JPG?psid=1)
and lastly , with friends....
(http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pdbVBKGaRC6bZXT4-QdR6tLqMeaOzyvUzy8Z0eVqqD0H6HazgF_jMg5ODhLBLz0MdenpL5IHUw_3nWDazbUkQ6w/vintage.JPG?psid=1)
sorry for all the posts..cabin fever ;)
-
What was the drawback/limitation of the RL, the chassis or the engine?
I thought it was the engine that didn't have the necessary/desired characteristics for trials.
-
Wow Doc - what magic countryside. I thought you lived in downtown BrisVegas!
Cabin Fever? I suffer from Desk Fever - and this bloody Forum sucks me in .... distracts
me ...makes me look inside it ...over and over again.
Can't that godd*m moderator close it down, so we can all get some work done?!
-
depends who you talk to I suppose Graeme. A lot of people have said they were never any sort of worthwhile trials package but others say the opposite. I love plonking around on mine and as stock as it is it seems to do everything okay same as I'd expect from bikes of the era. I am no trials rider by any stretch but I have loads of fun on it regardless ;)
incidently the engine in this particular Suz/Bulty has the engine number TS-T-00001 to make things a little more interesting ;)
Digger, shhhh!..all done with mirrors ;)
-
Err, my dad did a test of the RL back in the day....I'll try to remember what I can about the RL.
The motor was very docile, very linear power but not much of it. That's ok considering it was aimed at the entry level rider. BUT it was the chassis that let it down (not my observations I can't remember much about the chassis). In the UK the junked the frame and put the motor in a Whitlock frame. This was the famous Beamish Suzuki and that was very popular.
-
What was the drawback/limitation of the RL, the chassis or the engine?
I thought it was the engine that didn't have the necessary/desired characteristics for trials.
I started riding trials at a modern level on a Rl in the early 90s & reckon the chassis was the big problem-no weight over the front & a super short swingarm.
Our top local guy built a complete frame for his in the 70s as well as fitting a smaller carb & possibly a reed valve(can't be sure of that but I know mine had a home built reedblock). From all accounts it was quite successful & a very similar to a beamish suzuki which he got to try when he spent time working & riding in the UK in the early 80s
I'm not sure if I've ridden a bully but I'd wager the suzuki motor as a improvement as far as pick up goes
-
If you type in RL Suzuki on UK eBay 9 times out of 10 the bike will have a Beamish frame. Apparently the RL engine was a great beginners unit that could be improved on with a bit of work but it was the frame that really let it down. The Beamish is a really nice bit of frame work, my mate imported one a few years ago with the idea of fitting a TY250 Yamaha motor but it proved to be a bit of an awkward swap (exhaust clearance problems). He's now looking for an RL engine for it. I kinda like the Bulzuki but wonder if anything was gained by the experience? (not that it matters of course)
-
No-one noticed or mentioned anything different about the chassis, a Sammy Miller item. Apparently this bike was built as a prototype but by whom is the real question ;) This we do not know. Looking at the combination I'd say build date is somewhere around 1972/3ish..years before the RL was released ;)
-
Tell you the truth Doc, if the frame had been nickel plated it would have been an easy one.
-
Hey Doc,
Thats neat. The engine sure fills the engine bay! The Bul tank (sitting so low) sorta makes the engine look huge.
Would have looked more appropriate tho in yellow or orange than blue IMO.
Wonder if the TS -T-**** engine # indicates a factory prototype trials engine. It'd hafta be wouldn't it!
Maybe it was built by/for Gordon Farley. I have always tho't the RL frame layout is very similar to Sherpa T of the era, allbeit considerably longer w'base in the Suz by the time it got to production.
-
funny you should say that JC..the frame similarities are what I noticed straight off. I love the way the bash plate is the frame cradle in one, tucks it way up out of the way. I would also assume the TS-T=00001 would have been a prototype supplied to someone. No-one in there right mind back then would have bolted a stock TS250 into a sammy miller frame and then restamp the numbers just for the heck of it.. :-\ this bike is in Canada and it is a rider to this day, some of the photo's are current. I shall try and find out a little more but the owner is unsure of who built it also. Pretty sure he can drop some names that may give up a clue though. Will get onto those measurements for the RL as soon as the mud dries under the house ;)
-
Thanks Doc,
I've actually had a Suz engine sitting in an early Alpina frame on the bench for the last few weeks. It is a very neat fit.
Sorry to hear about the mud. Did the flood get to the bikes? Or house?
-
John, a few bikes went under in the first flood but have since been repaired and all good again. I now have a clear escape route to higher ground for the bikes if ever needed which was always a worry as they were basically trapped before with only one way out, down hill..not good when down is water. I hope not to need it but a relief to now have a plan A regardless ;)
The mud is just from water running through front to rear under the house. It's that real fine sticky shit that has you wearing something that looks like moon boots after 2 steps :D I must get under and dig some drainage to channel it away ;) A TS motor in the Alpina frame per chance? Give me yell if you need anything. I have lots of TS and some RL engine parts and 'I think' I may even have an RL gear cluster and cylinder if you need it. Will measure up swingarms and things this arvo ;)
-
Doc are you thinking the motor in the "prototype" is based on a TS250 motor? (I'm not familiar with the external differences between Suzuki TS/TM/RL motors)
-
I was sort of lending myself to the idea that this may have been a partly factory backed effort from back in the day. The RL's didn't exist until '74/'75 hence the TS desigation fits. This is an extract from an email which doesn't help a great deal unless I can find out which dealer if that dealer is infact still around ;) I just found it a little out of the ordinary but well thought out by the looks.
I've had SherpaTs and Alpinas for years, I think they're some of the most beautiful of dirtbikes. I love 'em but they can be cantankerous. I've consider myself a Suzuki guy and the 1975 TS185 is one of my favorites. It's also one of the the most reliable in the fleet. So when I saw this bike sitting at a friends house I thought- best of both worlds! A RL250 motor in a Sherpa frame. Eventually he sold it to me with the understanding that he would get it back if I wanted to sell it.
So it joined the farm fleet and I rode it around as my usual dirtbike. Eventually I realised that the serial number TS-T 00001 did not fit the usual Suzuki pattern and the frame number SM273 also didn't fit the bultaco numbering scheme. At some point later I realised it was a Miller frame with the Sammy Miller aftermarket tank-seat unit. I asked the guy I bought it from about its history, he said it came from a local dealer who had probably built it back in the day as part of their competition effort. Talking to various Canadian trials people from that period I have established that it is a known bike but no one really knew its history.
But Sammy Miller Highboy frames are not uncommon and anyone can stamp numbers in an engine so life continues, the bike is used regularily because its fun. Incidently I sent some pics to Sammy Miller himself who wasn't much interested it as it seems to be just somebodies homebuilt.
The miller-aa jpeg is the way it looked when I got it in the early nineties, the rest of the pix are more recent. The front wheel is different than when I bought it, i think it was a TM wheel, not sure what's on it now. Rear wheel is Rickman. The motor appears to be mostly TS250 spec, exhaust port on the left, I've never had it apart.
I have pics of the serial numbers and also the bike without the body on it SOMEWHERE! but I cannot seem to find them at the moment. I will take more pics next weekend for you
-
Dave, RL engine is very similar to TS engine. Diff gear ratios & primary drive ratio, more flywheel weight for RL of course, diff CDI box, exh port on diff side, RL inlet port angled to the left to clear rear downtube. Diff head & C.R.
Both run 28mm carbs (but diff jetting) & interestingly, according to some measurements Doc checked for me recently, both RL & TS ports are the same heights for Exh, Trans & Inlet!
-
Dave, RL engine is very similar to TS engine. Diff gear ratios & primary drive ratio, more flywheel weight for RL of course, diff CDI box, exh port on diff side, RL inlet port angled to the left to clear rear downtube. Diff head & C.R.
Both run 28mm carbs (but diff jetting) & interestingly, according to some measurements Doc checked for me recently, both RL & TS ports are the same heights for Exh, Trans & Inlet!
JC - similar story to TY175/DT175 - same port timing but lower compression for the trials motor.
Has anyone got a theory for why they changed sides for the exhaust port on the RL250?
What about the magneto cover on the RL? Is it the same as the TS250?
-
Dave,
Yes, very similar to TY/DT175 changes
My conclusion about the change in RL exhaust side is they didn't want it to look exactly like the TS motor!
As far as I can tell, the ign & clutch covers (& centre cases) are the same. Apparently TM covers also go straight on the RL
-
Here's the problems with the original RL250:
"Having observed the world-wide failure of the standard RL250 'Exacta' model, Beamish Motors made Suzuki an offer for all unsold machines, which the factory was only too pleased to accept. Even so, Beamish knew only too well that his development work would need to continue. The ease with which the first 50 machines had sold could not be allowed to sway his judgement. A new frame was needed too, since the original had a wheelbase that was too long and forks with too much trail. There was a marked tendancy for the machine to "crab" when negotiating tight turns, quite apart from the fact that the machine had an uncomfortably high centre of gravity."
From: http://www.beamishownersclub.com/_sgg/m1_1.htm (http://www.beamishownersclub.com/_sgg/m1_1.htm)
-
Tim, that's what the testers said in the day alright ;)
Only thing is there seems to be a new found fondness of the RL in vintage trials scene (maybe it's just me :P). Bit like the TM400, rated as a killer but also now quite desirable for some regardless of stigma ;)
In the tight stuff the RL does suffer badly and wants to plow straight if you use any power and aren't totally over the front. I know trials is supposed to be slow but I've found if you attack things at speeds on something more like a trail bike then it'll do near everything as expected and some things better. Slimey rocky creeks with muddy rutted uphill peg dragging furrows on the exit it'll power up with little or no seeming effort. It is more of a super light weight trail bike than a trials bike, wide TS upper ratio's means it gets along with surprising swiftness and pinpoint accuracy without the twitchyness. Ride it like a trail bike and it's great.
Here's some more pictures courtesy of the SM Suzuki owner Gerard, and Buzzy who kindly forwards these interesting things to me. I know this sounds a bit stupid and naive but that frame excepting the lower cradle area looks so similar to RL it's not funny :-\ am I imagining things? ???
would fly in the face of general consensus that's for sure :D
note the brake and gear lever both on left.
(http://boospq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pZ9nJCQvOj0ZQGyTjs6HxBQKji3v9ZKL9xwO-lLFj545zro_6gPHkuP9yk-tYC1lFd4Wbr5PViqmegtCePioOwvHvF_ZlMcz1/066.JPG?psid=1)
an RL250 frame for comparison...incidently, RL swingarms also have the built in chain oiler just the same as the SM...hmmmm again I thought...a single gusset in the area where the RL's break is 1 piece instead of 2 piece...makes much better sense..
(http://boolxg.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pqtFi_JMbkdI_3iBntEWDIp5KrdBS9ZSGKbqoK9Vkbw4qFGxK3NYFC94NFB9AcLgskDB_-lfizW8j2wallaaCL-g26MEeKgCn/rl18.jpg?psid=1)
(http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pzx6OlX1GuHsaVrlL2d8FQ2TkFJLXwbzgsyiX13Ip2v9PKjXEMYLqf-p8shUOtRtiyG7syTOzOqMtavj2mblsLQ/069.JPG?psid=1)
(http://boospq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p_qhil69Knaif2kAyvNe8LkMrm6uyo5nZfGpTFbcnCXVRHkttTu6J0E1f8vxMbAgxWv0cuGmEA3qxOhy93pT0TqcQHylURAkz/070.JPG?psid=1)
(http://boospq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1ps-1qOxwJLJ_CJRFdlCeLq9vhrdvQgmwSWqLfqxaD2gQ4Ilelqi5r685OZ_obAf43FVavdRcXuBtIlgBYg5Du14FHDoTNhRQZ/071.JPG?psid=1)
not sure what the kick start lever is from or if it's a modified something or other, genuine zooki item but it sure doesn't look RL :-\
I reckon it looks pretty shit hot and quite purposeful in this pic. Though the Alpina blue partially disguises it at first glance there maybe some method to that ;) fairly raked appearance and the short swingarm is very...short! Again, very similar to something else...
(http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pHdy1P-BCKIgYdkVNZP87qw4WjJmzMKHHTH4KFfuu04RrIKZCuiyOOq5QDxmM1PoK7NaSSk3BjSjYIRa9VrCzdg/suz1%20002.JPG?psid=1)
-
Just imagine how the history of trials might have been if Suzuki had done a better job of copying the Bultaco Sherpa T
Have you noticed that the first RL steering heads had no direct connection between the frame tubes and the steering head tube? The frame tubes were welded to the lightweight gussets and the gussets were welded to the steering head tube. Soon after releasing the first batch, an extra (5mm thick) gusset was added to both sides at the bottom of the steering head tube to connect the frame tube to the head tube better. They should have also added something where the frame uprights crack above the footpegs. As I said a more direct copy of the Bultaco or SM frame (including Bultaco geometry) would have been just the thing because the rest of the Suzuki RL is very good indeed.
The Suzuki RL frame was not the only 1970s trials frame to have breakage problems. I've seen a few TY175 frames crack above the footpegs too, and the first Montesa Cota 348 frames cracked up near the steering head and had a recall to add extra gussetting. 1970s trials frames that are very good for resisting overload abuse are the KT250 and the OSSA MAR.