Author Topic: bultaco mk 1 metisse  (Read 32401 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline firko

  • Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 6578
    • View Profile
Re: bultaco mk 1 metisse
« Reply #45 on: November 29, 2012, 09:46:26 pm »
Quote
Are rickman Bultaco metisse frames kits, are they still replicating them, are they available to buy.
No Dave, I don't think they're being replicated. Mines a Derek and Don made original from the sixties. It's a wonder "Anything for a quid" Jerry Lisi or Adrian Moss haven't jigged up for them, there'd be a market for them I reckon.
'68 Yamaha DT1 enduro, '69 Yamaha 'DT1 from Hell' '69 DT1'Dunger from Hell, '69 Cheney Yamaha 360, 70 Maico 350 (2 off), '68 Hindall Ducati 250, Hindall RT2MX, Hindall YZ250a , Cycle Factory RT2MX flat tracker, Yamaha 1T250J, Maico 250 trials, '71, Boyd and Stellings TM400, Shell OW72,750 Yamaha

Offline ola_martin

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
    • View Profile
Re: bultaco mk 1 metisse
« Reply #46 on: November 29, 2012, 09:51:53 pm »

albrid-3

  • Guest
Re: bultaco mk 1 metisse
« Reply #47 on: December 13, 2012, 07:52:26 am »
I may be opening up a can of worms here but poeple who own these bikes should be clear and the 3 man commsion  should step in and make it clear, as we have been  discussing this issue with a fellow member from the commsion and we both agree on this.

As the rules states about frames.
Rickman metisse Frames and Bultaco metisse frames are both different frames, they appear to look the same but they are not. so going by the rules.
The Bultaco Metisse M11 would not be eligible for pre 65.
The Rickman Metisse Frames is eligible.
Are both makes in or one make is out these clarify this issue.
Question For Dave Tanner, if two fellows rolled up at a Australian Vintage title, one owned a Rickman/Bultaco Metisse 250 and the other fellow had a Bultaco Metisse M11 250 which bike would be passed. or which bike would be question.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2012, 08:36:21 am by Dave #6 »

Offline firko

  • Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 6578
    • View Profile
Re: bultaco mk 1 metisse
« Reply #48 on: December 13, 2012, 12:25:42 pm »
Dave, you're like a Bull Terrier with a Chiness Crested foo foo in its mouth....you just won't let go of this. For months you've been crying out in anguish for us 'fellows' to bring our pre 65/250 class bikes out in a bid to save the class from extinction, a worthy call. Now you're calling for one of those bikes that have previously been accepted to be excluded, the exact opposite of your original call. The Bultaco M11 has, for as long as I can recall, been 100% legal for the pre 65 class. Precedence has been already set with Don Newell, Brad Fisher, John Matthews and Mark Austin (among others) to be allowed to compete on their Bultaco M11's at National Championship level. Calling for their banning now would be totally detrimental to the future of the pre 65/250 class.

The M11 Bultaco was released in 1965 and is Bultaco's take on the Rickman Petite Metisse....essentially a ripoff of the Rickman design with enough changes to make it "their own". As the photos below show there are significant differences in frame design in the steering head and top rail area but in my opinion those differences do not offer any advantage over the 1964 Rickman design, in fact the Bultaco frame is inferior by way of the cheap mild steel tubing used and the tendency for frame cracks on the steering head and swingarm pivot areas. The geometry is identical, the running gear identical and the bikes are as close as buggery to identical with the bodywork fitted. The M11 is 12kg heavier than the Rickman Petite Bultaco so if there's any unfair advantage the M11 has over the Metisse, I sure as hell can't see it.
 Below: Top The Bultaco M11 frame..Below, my rough original Rickman Bultaco Metisse frame. Not different steering head and top rails.
                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                     
As you can see below, when dressed in their bodywork they're as sure as damn identical. So why do you feel there is such a need to rid this bike from pre 65 Dave. At this time in our sports history we need to be encouraging as many bikes as possible into a class that is teetering on extinction. I just don't understand why you speak with such a forked tongue Dave....calling for more of us 'fellows' to bring our bikes out to save the class and then calling to ban one of the more popular bikes in that class. It's a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. ::) ::)
                                                       
                                                                                    
                                                                                     
To complicate matters even further it appears that there may have been two distinct twin downtube Rickman Petite Metisse Bultaco frames. The below photo is of an American release genuine Rickman and it can be seen to have the same steering head design as the Bultaco produced version in the top photo. Whatever the difference, I think that they should all be allowed in pre 65.
                                                                                     
« Last Edit: December 13, 2012, 01:06:33 pm by firko »
'68 Yamaha DT1 enduro, '69 Yamaha 'DT1 from Hell' '69 DT1'Dunger from Hell, '69 Cheney Yamaha 360, 70 Maico 350 (2 off), '68 Hindall Ducati 250, Hindall RT2MX, Hindall YZ250a , Cycle Factory RT2MX flat tracker, Yamaha 1T250J, Maico 250 trials, '71, Boyd and Stellings TM400, Shell OW72,750 Yamaha

Offline paul

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4957
    • View Profile
Re: bultaco mk 1 metisse
« Reply #49 on: December 13, 2012, 12:59:30 pm »
whatch it  with the foo foo hounds ;)

Offline firko

  • Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 6578
    • View Profile
Re: bultaco mk 1 metisse
« Reply #50 on: December 13, 2012, 01:11:58 pm »
Quote
whatch it  with the foo foo hounds
Reggie is getting desexed as we speak :'(.

Upon closer inspection thanks to Google Image it'd seem that my Petite frame is the odd man out and that the majority of genuine Rickman Petites share the same steering head and top rail as the M11, making it a genuine replica. You haven't got a leg to stand on Dave.
'68 Yamaha DT1 enduro, '69 Yamaha 'DT1 from Hell' '69 DT1'Dunger from Hell, '69 Cheney Yamaha 360, 70 Maico 350 (2 off), '68 Hindall Ducati 250, Hindall RT2MX, Hindall YZ250a , Cycle Factory RT2MX flat tracker, Yamaha 1T250J, Maico 250 trials, '71, Boyd and Stellings TM400, Shell OW72,750 Yamaha

Offline farmer58za

  • B-Grade
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
    • View Profile
Re: bultaco mk 1 metisse
« Reply #51 on: December 13, 2012, 03:14:16 pm »
Agree with Firko 100%.

If you can't guarantee decent start gates for a vintage class, why exclude the bikes at the fringes? Anyway, if you apply the "like design rule" a la AHRMA, the Bultaco would be eligible.

BTW, I have some leads on a motor for my Metisse.....Let's see if I can snag one!

Regards
David
Dave's not here man

albrid-3

  • Guest
Re: bultaco mk 1 metisse
« Reply #52 on: December 13, 2012, 04:02:40 pm »
Well you can see the big difference between those two frames Mark, and that is my point, AND WHEN THE BIKE IS DRESS, THEY DO LOOK THE SAME, l AM NOT TRYING TO KNOCK THEM OUT, l WANT THEM IN THEIR RACING THE PRE 65 CLASSES. I personally would like to see the pre 65 classes grow to a point that will give everybody a WOW Factor, because its the true era of our sport.
The question about the two bikes keeps coming up, now, the  metisse m11 that was sold a couple of weeks back was knock out of pre 65, he was told not to ride it, it wasn`t eligible, so the owner was sick of it and sold it, thats is why l would like to get to the bottom of it and put it to rest. cheers
« Last Edit: December 13, 2012, 06:05:29 pm by Dave #6 »

Offline firko

  • Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 6578
    • View Profile
Re: bultaco mk 1 metisse
« Reply #53 on: December 13, 2012, 08:02:07 pm »
Quote
The question about the two bikes keeps coming up, now, the  metisse m11 that was sold a couple of weeks back was knock out of pre 65, he was told not to ride it, it wasn`t eligible, so the owner was sick of it and sold it, thats is why l would like to get to the bottom of it and put it to rest. cheers
Dave...You're the only one that keeps bringing it up, it hasn't been a problem anywhere except in Alsopville, Victoria. If last weeks bike was getting knocked back because of its frame, somebody got it very wrong. It's no point arguing the toss with you Dave because the M11 is allowed to race even if you don't like it. Do your research and don't rely on someone elses experience. If you looked closely at the Rickman and Bultaco frames you'll see that they're pretty much identical bar the material they're made from. My frame shown above is different so my mistake was to use it as am example. Check out the other photos I posted and Google Image " Bultaco Metisse" and carefully look at the photos of both bikes.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2012, 08:25:21 pm by firko »
'68 Yamaha DT1 enduro, '69 Yamaha 'DT1 from Hell' '69 DT1'Dunger from Hell, '69 Cheney Yamaha 360, 70 Maico 350 (2 off), '68 Hindall Ducati 250, Hindall RT2MX, Hindall YZ250a , Cycle Factory RT2MX flat tracker, Yamaha 1T250J, Maico 250 trials, '71, Boyd and Stellings TM400, Shell OW72,750 Yamaha

albrid-3

  • Guest
Re: bultaco mk 1 metisse
« Reply #54 on: December 13, 2012, 09:00:48 pm »
I am happy with all that, cheers mark.

38sloper

  • Guest
Re: bultaco mk 1 metisse
« Reply #55 on: July 04, 2013, 01:41:41 pm »
Hello all

The Bully in mention has ended up north and has almost been restored. I have gone to a lot of trouble to validate all concerns on this gem of a bike but still cannot understand all the confusion.
It varies in number range by only 4 from Don Newell bully Metisse.
Also now has a new paint job and fully restored engine and chrome work.
In saying that it should make its first appearance at our local venue soon and then on to Temora.

Offline Huskyviking

  • Novice
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: bultaco mk 1 metisse
« Reply #56 on: February 23, 2014, 05:17:45 am »
Husqvarna 1964, 250cc, 4 speed in Rickman frame


Offline firko

  • Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 6578
    • View Profile
Re: bultaco mk 1 metisse
« Reply #57 on: February 23, 2014, 09:58:52 am »
Cool bike. I can see Husky Pete with one of these.
'68 Yamaha DT1 enduro, '69 Yamaha 'DT1 from Hell' '69 DT1'Dunger from Hell, '69 Cheney Yamaha 360, 70 Maico 350 (2 off), '68 Hindall Ducati 250, Hindall RT2MX, Hindall YZ250a , Cycle Factory RT2MX flat tracker, Yamaha 1T250J, Maico 250 trials, '71, Boyd and Stellings TM400, Shell OW72,750 Yamaha

Offline supersenior 50

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
    • View Profile
Re: bultaco mk 1 metisse
« Reply #58 on: February 23, 2014, 10:12:20 pm »
Read the current frame rules for Pre 65 and this whole argument is aboit nothing.

Offline PEZBerq

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 1094
  • Brisbane
    • View Profile
Re: bultaco mk 1 metisse
« Reply #59 on: February 23, 2014, 10:54:02 pm »
16.15.8.2.  Frames of any manufacture are acceptable within the suspension criteria and considerate of the era.
Husqvarnas: 78 390AMX, 82 430XC, 84 240WR, 84 500AE, 84 510TE, 87 510TE