TY250 clutch actuator location

[JC]

Have seen some 250 Majestys in CDB mag that have clutch actuator on top of cases instead of underneath like mine (not sure off top of my head if mine is A or B model).

Can anybody (David??) tell me what model the change came w, or are they special cases?

Could never figure out why any manufacturer would put the actuator under the cases in the 1st place, esp on a trials bike & even more so when there were no bottom frame rails!

[David Lahey]

I haven't seen any 250/320 motors with top clutch arm. Maybe some of the works Yamahas but not any 250/320 Majestys.
I hope you aren't looking at the Majesty on p38 of issue 2? Thats a 175/200 and they all have the clutch arm on top.

[JC]

No David, p40 Issue 5 in article on revival of Majestys. Pic on bot p42 shows RHS w diff clutch cover too.

After checking parts of twinshock TY250s on websites I came to conclusion it must be a works bottom end on that Majesty, not std TY.

[David Lahey]

Yes I missed that photo and yes it looks like a works bottom end. The clutch cover shown on the same bike on page 42 also looks very much non-TY. I think it is the same cover as on the 1973 OW10.
For a while Craig was selling a hydraulic clutch kit with the slave cylinder mounted to one of the front downtubes and a short bowden cable to the arm underneath. It looked like a lot of things to go wrong to me for the benefit gained. I haven't seen him advertise it for a while now.
Another unusual item Craig used to advertise for the TY250/320 was a complete lightweight exhaust that incorporated an expansion chamber with very long taper on the motor side of the chamber, a stinger and a carbon fibre cased end muffler. It was a work of art in polished stainless steel and very expensive. It also looked like it stuck out a bit near your calf.
The WES exhausts he sells now as pictured in CDB are probably a more practical alternative. After years of indecision and wanting to make the bike as quiet as possible, I finally bought a WES end muffler for my Majesty. Yes it is quieter than the TY muffler and the raspy TY yamaha sound is replaced with a more poppy and throaty sound - and the bike seems to run better too but I don't know why it should.

[JC]

Nice looking bike that OW - as all OWs are.

Yellow TY on bot of p41 (I think) of that article mentioned above shows the haudralic clutch cyl you mention on the front downtube.

So you've got a Majesty as well as all the other trials bike David. 175/200 or 250? Is it as much better than std TY as they claim?

Are you running std TY header/exh w WES end muffler or WES all thro?

[David Lahey]

Ahhh Yamaha Majestys - my favourite subject. Mine is a 1981 Godden Majesty using a close-to-standard 250cc TY250D motor.

For Clubman level competition, I would expect to get the same score whether I rode my well set-up TY250B or the Majesty. When competing in sections with a higher standard of difficulty, the Majesty is quite a bit easier to ride by comparison. They are both exactly the same weight.

The differences explain why the Majesty is easier to ride. The steering geometry is retained unchanged with the Majesty and just as well because TY250 steering is fabulous. The distance from the front axle to the swingarm pivot is identical on both, but the Majesty swingarm is 25mm longer, making the wheelbase 25mm longer on the Majesty. The motor is about 35mm higher from the ground in the Majesty while the footpegs on the Majesty are as low as they can go without being below the bashplate. The top of the bike (at the seat and bars) is the same height on both bikes when unladen. The shockie mounts are located to provide just over 6" rear travel on the Majesty while the TY250 is about 4" with both fitted with 340mm Falcon shockies.
The differences mean that the Majesty retains the razor sharp steering of the TY250, while being noticably more stable on rocks and going up, down and over obstacles (longer wheelbase). The increased ground clearance is a boon when riding amongst rocks because you can take lines in rocky turns that lower bikes can't. The increased rear wheel travel makes for better traction for the rear tyre on sharp slippery edges and rough slippery surfaces. The longer rear end travel also allows you to jump the bike up higher to keep the bashplate clear on big obstacles.
The header on mine is home-made from bends bought from the local exhaust shop. I have retained the standard Yamaha main chamber but would like to use a WES main chamber or similar when someone works out how to fit them with an effective heat shield. I am using a WES end muffler which was fitted after the photo. The tank is a modern aluminium replica of a Majesty tank. The only motor mods are moderate lightening of the flywheel, boyesen reeds and a new 28mm VM Mikuni - also not in the photo.
Shockies are Falcon Trial Classic with 70 lb springs and standard damping. Forks are standard TY250D running a relatively high oil level to increase the overall spring rate.
Yes it is fabulous to ride and feels much more modern than my other trials bikes which were all made in the time span 1968 to 1977 - and so it should - being made in 1981. In comparison with the twinshock trials bikes from the 1980s, it probably doesn't stand out much except in the eyes of Mick Andrews fans. I would rate the 250/320 Godden Majesty on par with the other good 1980s trials bikes (Fantic 240, SWM any model, Cota 242 and Cota 330) and easier to ride than the Honda TLR200/250, OSSA Gripper, Bultaco 198/199B, any Italjet and Cota 248/349.

[David Lahey]

I forgot the photo

[JC]

Thanks D - very informative.

I figured some of the main diffs were more g/clearance & LTR suspension from an article in CDB, but didn't know what other diffs there were (like longer w/base). The std TY, like the MAR are rather short w'base.

Does it feel any more top heavy w the motor raised 35mm?

Do you have any TLR200/250s. I rode a mates 250 many years ago & absolutely loved it, but it wasn't in competition. Also rode his SherpaT the same day & TLR made T look rather ordinary by comparison, as one might expect from a much later model.

[David Lahey]

Thanks D - very informative.

I figured some of the main diffs were more g/clearance & LTR suspension from an article in CDB, but didn't know what other diffs there were (like longer w/base). The std TY, like the MAR are rather short w'base.

Does it feel any more top heavy w the motor raised 35mm?

Do you have any TLR200/250s. I rode a mates 250 many years ago & absolutely loved it, but it wasn't in competition. Also rode his SherpaT the same day & TLR made T look rather ordinary by comparison, as one might expect from a much later model.

Both the TY250B and Majesty feel the same to me regarding stationary balance and top-heaviness and both have very flickable front ends (for a twinshock anyway). I suspect that while both bikes are the same top height unladen, the top of the Majesty is a bit lower than the TY250B with rider aboard - due to both having 50% sag and the Majesty having longer travel rear, the mass centralisation negating the effect of having a higher motor. You can compare them back to back for yourself when you come for a visit - I have some great training sections here at home.

The first 250 Majestys (1979 to 1981) were built using modified TY250 frames with the motor raised. They too are terrific to ride (so I'm told). I am itching to build a replica of one of them in my quest to be able to compare the interesting bikes from the era back to back.

TLR200 and TLR250 are both popular twinshock competition bikes in Queensland, and being made in 1983-1985, they have some more modern design features than earlier twinshocks. I much prefer riding two-strokes in competition but the TLRs seem to go well once the rider gets accustomed to using the four-stroke motor. There are some wonderful aftermarket parts available for the TLRs to create the appearance of works replicas and to reduce weight. They are probably about as popular as Bultacos in the competitions I ride in.

Yes the TLR has the advantage of a few years of development over the Bultaco. Another reason the TLR probably felt better is that the type of riding you did probably suited the TLR. If you had ridden along a wet, slimy, rocky creek bed without tight turns, or if you went up big obstacles, the outcome may have been different. It is the same with the TY250 - wonderful in extreme turns, cambers and trick riding, but can be harder to ride than the Bultaco in other conditions. Bultaco didn't win so many trials titles on the world stage by making a bike that was hard to ride, it's just that most of us here is OZ don't ride the sort of sections that the Bultaco was designed to excel in. Back in the 1970s, many top Australian riders were either Montesa riders or Bultaco riders, a sort of us and them. They had such different handling that people were polarised about what was good handling in a trials bike. Nothing much has changed since then. People still have their favourites. I have a well-sorted (1976) 348 Cota and am rebuilding a 1977 Bultaco Sherpa T M198 with the intention of being able to compare them back to back.

[JC]

So do you live on acreage D?  If so which side of G'stone?

I remember riding the 1st 325 T back in about 72/73 - & felt like Sammy M straight away. Felt marvellous, but the later model I rode the same day as the TLR didn't feel nearly as good, esp steering. Could have just been poorly set up I guess. Ah yes, even as I type, I seem to recall it had a diff swingarm off another model.

Which do you reckon suited Oz conditions better - Mon or Bul?

Also, whats the green Italjet 350 like?

[David Lahey]

So do you live on acreage D?  If so which side of G'stone?

I remember riding the 1st 325 T back in about 72/73 - & felt like Sammy M straight away. Felt marvellous, but the later model I rode the same day as the TLR didn't feel nearly as good, esp steering. Could have just been poorly set up I guess. Ah yes, even as I type, I seem to recall it had a diff swingarm off another model.

Which do you reckon suited Oz conditions better - Mon or Bul?

Also, whats the green Italjet 350 like?

I haven't ridden an Italjet and what I have heard is that they are similar to and no better than the late Bultacos to ride - I'm not really much into 1980s trials bikes.
Again I'm really only very familiar with 1970s bikes. For our Aussie sections, I think the 247 and 348 are very good. They both have refined steering and the suspension is as good as the other Spanish bikes. The 247 is very relaxing to ride mainly because of its slow motor while the 348 is very powerful and responsive. Both have clutches that are not as suitable for modern riding techniques as the Jap bikes. Some trials we ride use no-stop rules so the clutch is not always an issue. Bultacos have absolutely amazing handling and steering except for when you get amongst the extreme tight stuff. I like both but would choose which trial I rode the Bultaco at if I wanted to do well. For most of my riding life I was Yamaha nut so I never really fell into the Bultaco or Montesa camp, but there are still plenty around who do closely align with one or the other brand.

We live at Cowdung Heights (Wurdong Heights - south side of Gladstone near Benaraby) on 3 acres. The house is on top of a high gravelly ridge and luckily?? the property also has a decent sized steep-sided gully with rock outcrops. I've also moved fallen trees into strategic positions on the gully slopes. There is another family of twinshock trials riders with similar terrain at the other end of our street with a similar practice area set up so we are basically in pig heaven - so to speak.

[JC]

D,

Yes I remember Wurdong Hts.

OK what about the KT? I seem to recall you saying you had one. (You must have some collection!)

[David Lahey]

The KT is another nice bike to ride and they seem to be increasing in popularity over the past few years. They are a good alternative if you must have a Jap two stroke but feel Yamahas are too commonplace.
Mark Beechy from Victoria and I had a great time last year testing out mods on our KTs in tandem to get the steering as nice as a Yamaha and eventually succeeded but the cost was that it had Yamaha forks and front wheel!!!! (to get the trail and rake just right). I like standard-looking bikes so mine went back to KT forks and wheel and Mark bought a Majesty replica frame kit, built up a stunning Majesty and fell in love with riding it. So much for our KTs. There are so many working KTs around SE Qld now that we could have had 6 of them at Conondale 2 months ago but not everyone is so crazy as me to want to go for a world record for KTs together and we only ended up with 3, same as at Brooweena. Ben Reed is building what will be a stunning KT at present and he rides at quite a high level so we may see a KT doing well in the results in 2009. They are probably the best all-round of the Jap trials bikes and most have been trail-ridden to death while only a few were ever used in competition in their day. They are a bit of a bridesmaid compared with the TY250 in competition sections so everyone wanted a Yamaha at the time. To describe it, imagine you took a Yamaha TY250 and reduced the bottom-end grunt by 10%, slowed the steering till it reminded you of riding a Bultaco and moved the footpegs and motor about 50mm forward of where they are on the other brands of 250 trials bikes. The details on them are very good though - clutch, kickstarting, brakes and overall reliability are all fantastic and to put the steering and handling into perpective KTs are still a couple of steps ahead of the Suzuki RL250 and Honda TL250 in competition.

[David Lahey]

I just remembered this photo of my Majesty in action at a trials club demo day

[David Lahey]

JC this is what that hub looks like that I think is from a VA/VB 125 monty