Facts & observations surrounding the production M10 Sherpa

Need help finding information or parts for that old machine in your shed? Someone in here will know!

Moderator: Moderators

JC1
Expert participant
Expert participant
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Bike: Bul, KT, TY
Club: wdtc
Location: Toowoomba, Qld

Facts & observations surrounding the production M10 Sherpa

Postby JC1 » Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:07 pm

I couldn’t help notice the results in Classic Trial #6 from the 1968 Brit Experts trial: there was only 1 Bultaco in the top ten (Miller’s factory bike) & the next Bultaco (Benny Crawford,15th) was beaten by 5 Greeves, 3 Sprites, 2 Montesas & 1 each Ossa, Cotton & BSA.

Ten different makes were entered: 7 Greeves, 7 Bultacos, 5 Sprite (Sachs), 2 Montesas & 1 each AJS, BSA, Cotton, Ossa, Puch & Suzuki.

ie 26% Bultacos, 26% Greeves, 19% Sprite. And that was after the second model Sherpa T (the 5-speed M27) had been available for more than a year.

So much for Bultacos over-running the competition once the M10 was released!

OK, where n = 1 you can prove anything (ie from one event), so I did more research - & found plenty of interesting, relevant info.

I have long wondered just how all-conquering the production 4speed M10 Sherpa really was in its time (’65-67) - with good reason it seems!

Not trying to re-write history. Just re-telling it (in several installments).


"Men are never more likely to settle a matter rightly than when they can discuss it freely"

JC1
Expert participant
Expert participant
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Bike: Bul, KT, TY
Club: wdtc
Location: Toowoomba, Qld

Re: Facts & observations surrounding the production M10 Sherpa T

Postby JC1 » Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:08 pm

There was already a major trend towards “lightweights” & two strokes:

Bill Lomas (James) scored the 1st 2-stroke/lightweight national win way back in 1951. Francis Barnett followed that with national wins in the 1953 Kickham Trial & 1953 Scott Trial – “the toughest trial of all”. Furthermore they narrowly missed winning the SSDT in ’54 & 55, missing by just 1 point in ’54.

Don Morley (Classic Two Stroke British Trials Bikes) claims Lomas’s feat “change(d) overall thinking”, and “the floodgates were opened”. Slight exaggeration perhaps, but you get the drift. He says elsewhere (Classic British Trials Bikes): "Following Bill Lomas' first national trial win on a lightweight machine in 1952, the number of heavyweight trials bike purchasers had steadily dwindled. At the 1959 Scottish Six Day Trial only 72 machines of over 250cc were entered."

In Jan ’54, after a serious car accident in which he sustained "horrendous"leg injuries, Jim Alves was all-but forced to turn to lightweights. He developed & rode the first Triumph 150 Terrier in a national trial (St Davids) "with far reaching but not always popular results" (Morley) & “from then on more & more small Triumphs began to appear in trials at all levels” (Roy Bacon, Triumph Singles). It proved to be a move that gave massive impetus to lightweights. In ’57 Roy Peplow, Johnny Giles & Artie Ratcliffe rode 200cc Cubs & Ratcliffe won “the tough Scott Trial”. And of course Peplow won the Scottish on the Cub in '59.

Tommy Sandham in his book, The Castrol Book of the Scottish Six Days Trial, notes that already by 1957, "Half the entry were mounted on 'little' under-200cc machines" - 8 long years before the M10 Sherpa.

Deryk Wylde says (in The Pre-65 Yearbook): “Regarded by many as the machine which ultimately resulted in the disappearance of such models as the Ariel HT, AJS 16C & Enfiled Bullet is the Triumph Tiger Cub”. Mike Estall (in Tiger Cub Bible) agrees: "In the UK the Cub's real forte was in trials event... In trials it was a water-shed model, seeing the demise of the big four stroke single and setting a trend towards the lightweight four stroke machine, only pushed out of prominence by later foreign two-strokes." Morley agrees too(in Classic British Trials Bikes). He notes that after Jim Alves success on a Cub it was was soon "to become the people's trials bike", & that by 1955 "all and sundry were now following Alves example and building their own four stroke lightweights".

More impetus for lightweights came from elsewhere, ie petrol rationing associated with the Suez crisis (circa 1956/57). Many clubs were forced to drop the road-based trials that suited the heavyweights, in favour of 'pocket handerchief' courses, & they never went back.

Several European countries hiked registration for larger capacity bikes so even the manufacturers of ‘heavyweights’, under commercial pressure from export markets, were persuing the sale of lightweights.

Under BSA management, Ariel ceased production of their HT3 & HT5 heavyweights in 1958/59 - no doubt in favour of the C15T lightweight released in ’59 - & disbanded their works team. Miller said recently, "The might of BSA was behind the C15" (Classic Bike, Nov '13). He opted to ride-on as a privateer - buying his legendary works bike, GOV132, for one GBP - tho’ still employed in Ariel's Development Dep’t! (Go figure!) "Beating BSA... was always special."

Under AMC management, production of the Norton 500T ended in 1954, to make way for their own AJS/Matchless heavyweight swingarm models. By 1964, they alone offered a big single & “they didn’t sell” (D Wylde, Pre65 Yearbook 1990-91). Morley notes (in Classic British Trials Bikes), "It is doubtful if more than seventy-five were produced from its introduction in Septemeber 1963 until the demise of AMC trials bikes in 1964". So they “axed their entire four-stroke trials & scrambles efforts” (Morley), & offered them 2-stroke ‘lightweights’ instead (ie James). Mick Andrews immediately took to it like a duck to water, winning six nationals in a row & finishing 3rd in 1965 SSDT.

Royal Enfield had axed their 350/500 Bullet Trials models in favour of their 250 lightweight so by ‘59/60 the C15, Cub & Crusader Trials models joined a host of Villiers powered two strokes, making a plethora of lightweight trials models available to the public.

According to Sandham, by 1962 out of 210 entries in the SSDT only 32 were 350s & 15 were 500s.

So the big singles were all but finished before the M10 Sherpa T came on the scene.

(more to come)


"Men are never more likely to settle a matter rightly than when they can discuss it freely"

Jon V8
Expert participant
Expert participant
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:44 pm
Bike: Ty250,Ht5.
Club: Bath Classic
Location: Near Bath,SW UK.

Re: Facts & observations surrounding the production M10 Sher

Postby Jon V8 » Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:07 am

I've often wondered how good the early Bultaco's were. I had a conversation at a trial recently with a well known rider out on his John Bull built Dot,I was teasing him - saying he was cheating as he normally rides a "proper" bike,(HT5 Ariel) we both agreed that the Dot was probably much better than many early 70's offerings from Bultaco,Montesa or Ossa etc.(In its current form) We both wondered why few or no early Bultaco's are now in use.(In standard or modified form) I think the success was due to Sammy Miller being on absolute top form,he could have done the same with any of the two stroke bikes around then.Especially if he was given free hand to do as he pleased in terms of development.
All the big pre unit stuff was dying anyway,the industry could only hold on so long with Japanese road bikes making a mockery of them in terms of weight and performance per pound/dollar spent.There were plenty of people around the world at that time with good ideas about what would make a decent trials bike,but not many companies that would stump up the cash to do it.The small UK based concerns like Dot,Cotton,Sprite and Greeves etc,who all had people close to them who knew what they wanted to do, and had the skills to do it.All were held up to a greater or lesser extent when the supply of Villiers engines dried up.The bikes that used the 120cc Suzuki engines or the 90cc Jawa engines were successful,but even if they had been available in large numbers were too big a downsize in capacity to sell in large numbers.
If the Villiers engines had been further developed,(And available) I think the late 60's and early 70's trials history would have been quite different.
Anyone interested in trials history might like to look at some of Deryk Wyldes recent posts over on Trials Central,there are some excellent pictures and stories to read.



JC1
Expert participant
Expert participant
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Bike: Bul, KT, TY
Club: wdtc
Location: Toowoomba, Qld

Re: Facts & observations surrounding the production M10 Sher

Postby JC1 » Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:21 am

Sounds like we're on the same page Jon.

Here's more of the 'story':


That first lightweight SSDT win in ’59 by Roy Peplow on his Cub was followed in ’63 by Arthur Lampkin (250 BSA), with BSA winning the manufacturer's award on their C15 'lightweights' in 61,62 & 63. Even by 1962 there were only three heavyweights in the SSDT top ten, & three in '63. They made a ‘comeback’ of sorts in ’64 with five in the top ten (perhaps finding better grip than the 2-strokes in the atrocious weather that year) & AJS taking the manufacturers award with three of those five (on ‘small’ heavyweights: 350/400cc) including Mick Andrews' 2nd place. In '65 only one made it - just (10th) - & the works Triumph team on Cubs (R Peplow, R Sayer, G Farley) won the manufacturers award.

So Bultaco can hardly be remotely blamed for that 'demise' of the heavyweights: there was only one Bul in the top 20 placings in '65. The next one was in 24th. Even in '66 & 67 when there were quite a few more Bultacos entered, BSA won the manufacturers award again in '66 with their C15s & Greeves won in '67.

Internationally, in the 1964 FIM Groutars Trophy (forerunner to the European Championship, hereafter called the Euro) almost the entire field were lightweights, & 7 of the top 10, including all the top 5, were 2 strokes. See trialonline.org Click on “world” then “1964” then “championship”.

Bear in mind that Lightweight-class trials bikes weren’t exactly light in the early 60’s, but the weights listed were trending downwards remarkably quickly (see below).

Miller almost single-handedly extended the reign of the heavyweights by turning his Ariel into a ‘light' 234lb. The last heavyweight win in the SSDT apart from him was Gordon Jackson in ’61, on another light heavyweight: his works 350 AJS reportedly weighed 220lb (See Classic Bike, Jan ’83; Morley says "less than 225lb", but Sandham says 265lbs).

Those two bikes were considerably lighter than many so-called lightweights of the early 60s:

James L25T - to ’62 - 300Lb (AMC-engined)
FrancisB 85 - to ’62 - 273Lb (AMC-engined),
DMW Mk12 - to ’61 - 268Lb
BSA C15T - ’59-62 - 265Lb
James L25T - ’63 - 265 Lb (AMC engine)
DMW Mk17 - ’63-65 - 256Lb
Cotton Trials - to ’63 - 250Lb
James M25T - ’63-66 - 248Lb (Villiers-engined)
Francis B 92 - ’63-66 - 246Lb (Villiers-engined)
Greeves 24T - to ’61 - 240Lb (TC?)
DOT trials - c’60 - 234Lb
Cotton Special - c’63 - 230Lb
DOT Works Rep - c’63 - 225Lb
Greeves 24TFS - ’64 - 222Lb

By ’63-64, those heavyweight specials had lost their light-weight advantage, with many lightweights then hovering around 200 pounds:

Sprite trials - ’64 - 210Lb
Butler trials - ’63 - 210Lbs
Triumph TR20 - ‘63 - 208Lb
Butler trials - ’64 - 200Lb
Scorpion trials - ’63 - 198Lb

Don Morley notes (Classic British 2-Stroke Trials Bikes): “By then, even the trials Ariels that Sam had breathed upon were throwbacks to a bygone age, the last of the dinosaurs in an era of the gazelle.

“Furthermore, no one knew better than he that it was only his genius & super-human efforts which had given that bike so much of its success. Miller… had long known that there was little to be gained by continuing to ride an already obsolete model… Yet his list of British alternatives for 1965 was anything but vast. Sam had already tried most & had not been favourably impressed, not that this would have stopped him joining a British company if they had welcomed him as a development man rather than just a rider. Sadly, in those days, most remaining British manufacturers still believed that they knew best…

“Instead, just one week after that last memorable Ariel ride, Miller won for Bultaco, not that the Spanish product, which had already been around for several years, was a better bike, or even a particularly good bike, for it was not. What appealed to Sam, even more than the money, was its maker Senor Bulto’s far-sighted offer. Unlike Britain’s bosses, Bulto knew that his bikes could be(come) much better” - with appropriate development.

Miller himself said of the Ariel recently, "Even tho' I eventually got the weight down to 234Lb, it was still a big beast to heave thro' sections. I couldn't go any further with it. I knew lightweights were the way forward." (Classic Bike, Nov 2013)

According to Jeff Clew (in Sammy Miller Story) Miller had forsaken his Ariel three times to ride a lightweight before he went to Bultaco - once each on a Greeves, a James & a Butler - trouncing the opposition each time, and was tempted by an offer by Alan Kimber to join James. "He got as far as packing up his tools, but when he arrived at the Greet factory, it looked so grim and dismal that he took one look, turned around & returned to his existing employer."

Obviously Miller’s switch to Bultaco & the arrival of the production M10 Sherpa did not cause the lightweight revolution. It was a consequence of it - perhaps the final nail in the heavyweight’s coffin! Trials bike development gained impetus from there on, as Bulto & Miller foresaw, but that first Sherpa T was little more than a modified road bike. (as we will see)

to be continued


"Men are never more likely to settle a matter rightly than when they can discuss it freely"

Jon V8
Expert participant
Expert participant
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:44 pm
Bike: Ty250,Ht5.
Club: Bath Classic
Location: Near Bath,SW UK.

Re: Facts & observations surrounding the production M10 Sher

Postby Jon V8 » Sun Jan 19, 2014 12:36 am

Over the years I've always wondered why so many clever designers and engineers have not had the support or money, or both to push things forward.And its not only with bikes,if you look at tractors for instance,why did it take decades for the manufacturers to make decent use of hydraulics as Harry Ferguson did back in the 1930's ?
It would be VERY interesting to be able to go back in time and interview key people in industry and ask them why they didn't push things forward before,esp when there were clear advantages to be had.
If you look at how well people are getting the Villiers,Bantam and Cub engines going now, with a bit of clever thought, (And maybe electronic ignition...) they were not far off from being decent units that would have done several more basic years of production with further ongoing development.Even the electronic ignition needn't have been a handicap,it was only how it was made/designed.There are plenty of TY Yams,(Just as a single example) still running beautifully with points ignition.
Interesting topic,I sometimes think it would have been good to have lived my life 30 years earlier,then I could have grown up and ridden through rigid,springer and lightweights when they were all new !



JC1
Expert participant
Expert participant
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Bike: Bul, KT, TY
Club: wdtc
Location: Toowoomba, Qld

Re: Facts & observations surrounding the production M10 Sher

Postby JC1 » Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:02 pm

Yes Jon, I think the difference was in the attitude. Back in the day the Brit trials manufacturers didn't seem to see the need to improve the product. (Symptomatic of the whole industry)

Perhaps the most telling statement in this whole story is that quoted from Morley above:
"Sadly, in those days, most remaining British manufacturers still believed that they knew best… Unlike Britain’s bosses, Bulto knew that his bikes could become much better”.


The story continues:

The M10 was developed from an existing road model, like many other trials models of the day (but not all, as we shall see in due course). The first known Bultaco in trials - at least in public - was probably that of Dan Shorey (Reg'n # UBW 677), which was modified in late ’61 at Bert Shorey's North Bar Garage in Banbury. (A well-connected Triumph shop that also sold Bultacos). Shorey, a Bultaco factory road-racer, had wanted to ride trials in the off season to keep fit & keep his reflexes sharp but the only trials models available to compete on were British. He mentioned his predicament to Snr Bulto & the advantage to Bultaco of Shorey riding a Bultaco was not lost on Bulto.

Bulto, who was a keen off-road rider himself - a hobby shared by all his family - had already developed the Sherpa N off-road model from the Tralla road bike. The Sherpa N was available from 1960 so he suggested to Shorey that he use/modify one & apparently gave him one to ride/modify as he saw fit.

Consequently that's what they did at Banbury beginning with a 1961 M4 Sherpa-N 155, which itself was a 1960 Tralla 155 roadie with wider ratios & high pipe for rural use that still came with 19” wheels & a road-pattern front tire!

Production Tralla 155, 1960-61:
Bul Tralla 155,  '60-61.jpg
Bul Tralla 155, '60-61.jpg (151.37 KiB) Viewed 30030 times



Production Sherpa N 155, 1960-61:
Bul Sherpa N, '60-61.jpg
Note the road-pattern front tire
Bul Sherpa N, '60-61.jpg (82.64 KiB) Viewed 30030 times


Charlie Prescott's recollection is that their modified M4 wasn't very good at the time; "it was a gutless wonder, heavy & didn't steer". Tom Ollerton’s ’62 SSDT bike (Reg # PBV 700) was thought to be much the same as Shorey’s, tho it looks to me like it used a Sherpa S frame. Oriel Bulto’s ’64 bike was a 200 version, tho' further refined.

Tom Ollerton & his modified Sherpa S at 1962 SSDT weigh-in (D Wylde pic, Offroadarchives, used with permission)):
SherpaN mod'd, T Ollerton, 1962, D Wylde pic SSDT weigh-in.jpg
SherpaN mod'd, T Ollerton, 1962, D Wylde pic SSDT weigh-in.jpg (105.43 KiB) Viewed 29861 times

http://www.trialscentral.com/forums/top ... -bultacos/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(Scroll down the page)

In early ’64, after the US Bultaco importer John Taylor had urged Bultaco in 1963 to produce an “enduro” model, the Sherpa N & Sherpa S ‘morphed’ into the production 200 Matador (after being tested in the ISDT) – with M4-1 designation.

Sherpa S-come-Matador 200 1963 prototype, tested in ISDT:
Sherpa-Matador 200 prototype ' 63, ISDT bike.jpg
Sherpa-Matador 200 prototype ' 63, ISDT bike.jpg (59.22 KiB) Viewed 29985 times

Sherpa-Matador 200 1963 prototype, ISDT  bike.jpg
Sherpa-Matador 200 1963 prototype, ISDT bike.jpg (164.49 KiB) Viewed 29985 times


Sales brochure for production Matador 200, 1964:
Bultaco Matador 200P.jpg
Bultaco Matador 200P.jpg (189.48 KiB) Viewed 30030 times


The bikes of the spanish riders start to take on parts from that Matador

Grenoble_Oct 1964 OriolBulto Sherpa N.jpg
Grenoble_Oct 1964 OriolBulto Sherpa N.jpg (115.1 KiB) Viewed 30030 times

Sherpa N mod'd, J Soler Bulto, Grenoble trial, Oct 1964.jpg
Sherpa N mod'd, J Soler Bulto, Grenoble trial, Oct 1964.jpg (141.74 KiB) Viewed 29985 times


Miller’s own bike & the subsequent M10 model look like they may have begun as the later M4-1 model Matador 200 - they’re noticeably diff in rear sub-frame, forks & exhaust to the earlier M4 Sherpa Ns – but upgraded to a 250 engine with its distinctive head. The picture in Historie de la Sherpa T of Miller testing the prototype at San Antonio is clearly a 200 Matador based bike.

Sherpa M10.jpg
Sherpa M10.jpg (252.23 KiB) Viewed 30030 times


Miller did not compete on a production M10 Sherpa T in Dec 1964. His prototype (669 NHO) reportedly had M4/B4 engine/frame number prefixes but I have not been able to confirm or refute that.

There is no evidence that there was a production M10 Sherpa available to the public before 31 Dec 1964 (eg dated magazine adverts or sales dockets). Best evidence strongly indicates early ’65 - most likely mid-Jan.

Altho it has been claimed that manufacturing may have begun sometime in Dec '64, it is a moot point. If none were available to the general public before '65 they can't have been used in competiton before then.

to be continued...


"Men are never more likely to settle a matter rightly than when they can discuss it freely"

JC1
Expert participant
Expert participant
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Bike: Bul, KT, TY
Club: wdtc
Location: Toowoomba, Qld

Re: Facts & observations surrounding the production M10 Sher

Postby JC1 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:18 pm

Trials competitions existed in other countries apart from UK before 1965, apparently spreading first to Belgium via Henry Groutars (then president of the Belgian Motorcycle Fedration), circa '59/60, then across Europe. By 1964, nine countries were represented among the 70 entrants in the Euro Championship. See trialonline.org Click on “1964” then “participation”.

Apart from UK-manufactured models, there is ample evidence bikes manufactured in Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, Spain & Sweden were used in International trials competition by 1964 (eg SSDT & Euro).

We heard little or nothing about that in the english speaking press of the day - keen as they were to extoll the glories of the empire - although Sandham's book does mention Bultaco, CZ, DKW, FN, Harley, Jawa, Lambretta, Montesa, Suzuki, WSK & Zundapp machines entered in the Scottish by '64.

Bultacos (modified M3s or M4s) were used in the SSDT in ‘62, 63 & 64 (Tom Ollerton & Oriel Bulto), in the Euro in ‘64 (O Bulto) & in the ’62, 63 & 64 ISDT (there were several 175s entered in '64 including US importer John Taylor).

In national trials, Dan Shorey first rode the original modified Bultaco (UBW 677) in the UK's Banbury Nobac Time & Observation Trial in their winter of '61-62. Morley wrote of that very first outing; "Shorey not only rode his little Bultaco into the awards circle first time out, but did so against an all-star entry who were competing in that ultra-tough event because it had been chosen as a pre-selection round by Britain's ISDT team selectors... As a result of Shorey's efforts, both Annerleys of Blackburn [the well known sporting dealers in Lancashire - Bultaco importers] & Bulto himself became interested, resulting in Tom Ollerton being mounted on a similar conversion & entered by the British importers in the Scottish Six Days Trial for both '62 & '63."

In Spain Snr Bulto & his nephews Juan Soler Bulto & Oriol Puig Bulto were some of the main proponents of trials in the early 60s. Bulto began the annual San Antonio trial on his own estate in 1960, initially for family & business contacts.

In 1962, perhaps inspired by Shorey's success, he sent his nephews on modified Sherpa Ns to the St Cucufa trial in Paris organized by the FIM, where they saw Miller victorious on his Ariel. They noticed how good the British trials bikes in general were, and Miller in particular was, but were also convinced that their own Bultacos, with their light weight & maneuverability, had considerable potential for the sport. So their development continued in Spain.

The official 1964 Bultaco calendar, presumably produced the year before like any other annual calendar, shows a trials Bultaco entering a section in an observed trial. It looks like a modified M4, already considerably more refined than the Shorey/Ollerton bikes. (From the year 'dot' Bultaco published annual calendars to publicize their bikes.)

Bul trials from 1964 calendar.jpg
Bul trials from 1964 calendar.jpg (75.33 KiB) Viewed 29965 times

In October 1964 the FIM solicited European countries to compete in another international trial in France (at Grenoble - not far across the border from Barcelona) run by Charles Coutard (senior). The Catalonian Federation sent a team, with at least 7 Bultacos (M Marques, O Puig Bulto, J Soler Bulto, J Marques, I Bulto, M Giro, I Marques) & 1 Montesa (P Pi) competing. (See "Bultaco: A Passion for the Sport", Francisco Herreros)

This pic was taken at that trial. Apart from the Bultacos at each end, if you know Montesas from the era, you can identify the Montesa's front end 5th from the right:
Grenoble1964 FIM trial.jpg
Grenoble1964 FIM trial.jpg (140.76 KiB) Viewed 29965 times

They did quite well: 1. W Steiner (Sui, Tri) 2. R Stadler (Sui, Gre) 3. M Marques (Esp, Bul), 4, O Bulto (Esp, Bul), 5. J Bulto (Esp, Bul)… 12. Pedro Pi (Esp, Mon)

In November ’64, the Real Moto Club of Catalonia ran a trial in Tibidabo (Spain) with Juan Soler Bulto winning, and Montesa & Derbi bikes participating as well. Later in Nov ’64 the Real Moto Club of Spain ran another trial, won by Manuel Marques (later to became Bultaco’s Competition Manager) on another Bultaco.

Also in 1964, in response to the growing interest in trials in Europe, Montesa built seven 175 Impala trials prototypes (not to be confused with the later 4-speed "250 Trial" production model - the 11M of '67) which were reportedly distributed to Spain, France, Belgium & England.
Mon Impala trial, 7 prototypes for spain france belgium england.jpg
Mon Impala trial, 7 prototypes for spain france belgium england.jpg (32.05 KiB) Viewed 26908 times

Meanwhile, having been convinced by the progress in the devlopment of his Bultacos, and of the potential of trials as a commercial venture, Snr Bulto secretly met with Miller at the '63 ISDT in Czechoslovakia, to see if he would join Bultaco to continue the development leading to a production trials model. Miller then visited Banbury to test Shorey's bike and, perhaps in late '63 (Oct/Nov), he visited San Antonio to try the 200 Bultaco. He wanted a 250 & Albert Numen was already developing one at the factory.

Then in May '64, after the Welsh Three Day Trial, Miller reportedly travelled secretly to Spain with his Ariel to test & further develop the 250 prototype in just twelve days - more than likely indicating that the factory bikes were already reasonably well developed before Miller came on board.

The production M10s came after that in mid-Jan '65. The first ones had 32mm forks (apparently Telesco's), steel rims & a very short bash-plate protecting only the front of the crankcases.

So obviously there were quite a few Bultacos, several Montesas & at east one Derbi in national/international observed trials competitions before 1965, which were modified versions of existing production models. But there is no evidence that production M10 Sherpas were.

Bearing all that in mind we have to conclude that allowing M10s in Pre-65 competition was ill-advised. But if we’re going to be fair & consistent, we also have to conclude, on the evidence, that excluding all Spanish bikes from Pre-65 is also ill-advised - for the very same reason: neither is true to the era or history. (Tho’ no doubt both were done with good intentions.)

Even the Pre-65 Scottish (correctly) allows modified Spanish road/trail bikes of that era - but not M10s ‘cos they weren’t available in that era.


"Men are never more likely to settle a matter rightly than when they can discuss it freely"

JC1
Expert participant
Expert participant
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Bike: Bul, KT, TY
Club: wdtc
Location: Toowoomba, Qld

Re: Facts & observations surrounding the production M10 Sher

Postby JC1 » Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:04 am

Perhaps the biggest furphy in classic trials is the repeated claim that until the M10 Sherpa, all trials bikes were just modified street bikes. Or the similar claims that it was the first production “trials model” available or the first “specialized trials model”.

Prior to ’65, the available trials models appear to fall into three categories of increasing specialization:

First there were the modified street bikes. Not surprising since the first trials were organized by Alfred Scott to test his company’s road bikes. That turned into the legendary Scott Trial. And the ISDT was basically for testing road bikes subjected to rough country roads

i) Those based on modified street bikes; eg AJS 16C, BSA C15T (’59-62), CZ-Jawa Trials (eg Type 475), HJH, Matchless G3C/LC, Norton 500T, Panther Stroud, RE Bullet & Crusader Trials, Triumph TR20 Cub

Then came the era when many riders used the same machine for trials & scrambles. With less affluence then, people could not afford a different machine for each discipline, & several manufacturers produced "competition" models to suit both. Such "competition" machines used frames common to both trials & scrambles models, but not to their street-bike variants.

ii) Those with “competition” frames, shared by their scramblers, but different to their street bikes; eg BSA C15T (’63-65), DOT Trials Marshall, DMW Mk15 & 17, FB Falcon Trials 85 & 92, Greeves Prospect (TA/TAS), James Commando L25T & M25T,

Then followed the more specialized trials models for trials only.

iii) Specialized trials models; eg Ariel HT3 & 5, Butler, Cotton Trials Special, DOT Works Rep, Greeves Scottish (1960 ff), Sprite Trials, Scorpion, & Wasp.

As we all know, competition drives development which breeds specialization & that did not start in Spain in late 1964!

DerekWylde noted in 1991: “The difference between trials & scrambles was first recognized by a British factory with the introduction of the HS & HT. The HS was a scrambles version with suitable flywheels, high-lift cams, enlarged valves, stronger springs & a range of high-compression pistons. The HT was an out & out trialer with heavier flywheels, suitable cams & low compression pistons. Each of the models had the correct complement of tyres, carburetors, gearboxes & exhaust systems to ensure that you could have bought it on Saturday & competed on Sunday. They required virtually no extra work by the owners to make them competitive.”

Note the differences in models & specs below – eg the HT is 28 pounds lighter!

W'base 55" vs 53"
Weight 318Lb vs 290Lb
Gr Clear 6.25" vs 7"
C.R 9.5:1 vs 5.6:1
Diff internal gear ratios
Frames are completely different. Double down-tube versus single down-tube. No cradle tubes on HT.
Ariel HS & HT brochure.jpg
Ariel HS & HT brochure.jpg (66.88 KiB) Viewed 29918 times

If you want higher resolution, go to http://www.twnclub.ch/classic_trial_fil ... /ariel.htm

That was circa 1955 - ten full years before the M10 Sherpa!

The Butler, Scorpion & Sprite trials machines of 1964 all originated as specialized trials models not converted road bikes or scramblers - as did the Cheetah, Firefly, Elstar, Sapphire, Saracen & Wasp soon after (ie in the day of the prod'n M10 Sherpa).

Greeves adopted a rake of approx 27deg & shorter wheelbase (51.5”) on the1960 Scottish model (TCS?); specs which were to become the ‘norm’ for 60s & 70s trials bikes - 5 years before the M10 Sherpa.

Not surprisingly, the Greeves Scottish became the trials bike of choice for club-men. Morley notes that “up to 90% of all trials entries would be mounted on Greeves” in the early 60s (presumably in the UK).

Greeves also dominated the ‘64 & 65 Euro with 52% & 48% of known entries respectively, figures that the M10 Sherpa T never achieved.

(more to come)


"Men are never more likely to settle a matter rightly than when they can discuss it freely"

JC1
Expert participant
Expert participant
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Bike: Bul, KT, TY
Club: wdtc
Location: Toowoomba, Qld

Re: Facts & observations surrounding the production M10 Sher

Postby JC1 » Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:23 pm

No doubt due to the publicity generated from Miller’s win in the 1965 SSDT & Brit Championship, Bultacos made up 23% of entries in the 1966 Euro – more or less on par with Greeves’ 21%.

In three years from Jan ’65, Bultaco sold 1275 M10 Sherpa’s world-wide. They appear to have been well-received in Spain, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Finland, UK & USA. To put that sales figure (1275) in perspective, in six years of HT production, Ariel sold only 500 HTs.

How many of those sales were due to its capability, its availability or its reliability?

It’s hard to measure reliability, but it wasn’t hard to better British reliability in the 60’s. Bultaco also had their problems due largely to poor metallurgy – “at the time they were not known for either their quality of finish or the durability of materials used” (Morley). But there seems little doubt they were generally more reliable & less temperamental than many of the British bikes of the day. No doubt many would have gladly welcomed a more reliable 'beast of burden'.

Ironically by the early 70s, Bultacos were regarded as somewhat unreliable compared to the Japanese.

As for availability, in context it had a huge effect. Consider the following events:

AMC collapsed financially in ’66. In Sept ’66 Norton-Villiers tried to save AMC & decided to “shelve production of the profitable trials bike marques of James & Francis Barnett” (Morley)

The Villiers engine factory was converted to assemble AJS, Matchless & Norton models, & they ceased the entire production of their 2-stroke Villiers engines for several years at a critical time.

The independent trials bike manufacturers (eg Butler, Cotton, DOT, DMW, Scorpion, Sprite, Wasp etc) who depended almost entirely on Villiers engines were “virtually devoid of power plants & almost crippled overnight” (Morley). Greeves continued in production till ’68 as they had surplus stocks for their Invacar.

Norton-Villiers did not make the 37A trials engines available again until ’69 - claiming that they needed all the production for their own AJS 37AT trials model (they built a whole 42 of them!) - but by then ‘the horse had bolted’ well & truly. (The Starmaker trials engine was available, & some offered it – eg Sprite, Cotton, Butler, Scorpion - but try as they did, nobody could make it work for trials. Villiers had excess stocks of it... no doubt because nobody wanted it.)

Although not affected by all this, BSA-Triumph “chose this moment” to pull out of trials production & also began “running down their works trials teams” (Morley) in 1966. The C15T ceased production at the end of ’65 & the TR20 Trials Cub at the end of ’66 (tho’ other Cubs continued to be available).

Even if BSA-Triumph tho't the 4-stroke's days were numbered in trials, they had the ever-popular Bantam at hand, & not without some success. John Draper had tied with Sammy Miller for 6th in the '56 SSDT on a 150 D3 Bantam Major. In '64 a D7 175 reportedly won the 175 Cup in the Welsh Trophy Trial but it was unlikely to have been a factory effort & was still hampered by the 3-speed box. With the advent of the four speed D10 model in '66, competition manager Brian Martin "felt for the first time that the Bantam had a true potential as a trials model, capable of taking on the 250 Greeves and Bultaco" (Norm Vanhouse, BSA Competition History).

He completed a couple of prototype Bantams by Dec '66 on which he & Jeff Smith rode the St David's Trial & Victory Cup Trial. In Mar '66 Mick Bowers won the 200 class in the Cotswold Cups Trial on one.

With minimal development, & very little practice, Dave Rowland had a superb debut ride on it in the '67 SSDT finishing runner-up to Miller. He followed with wins in the Allan Jefferies & Mitchell Memorial Trials that year, displaying its potential for all to see. "Rowland's success created enthusiasm at the factory with hopes of a production replica model, but the financial problems of the company were already manifest, creating the need for a reduction of short-run, non-standard specification models" (Vanhouse). BSA had again missed the boat as yet another opportunity went begging. What might have been a very affordable Brit model to take sales from the SherpaT never materialized.

Through all these events, Bultaco was ready, willing & able to take up the slack & fill the production void, & they “did so literally unopposed” (Morley).

The flow-on effects of those events on availability/non-availability correlate remarkably with significant fluctuations in percentage of Spanish & English makes entered the year after in the ’65-70 Euro:

Year -> ‘66 - ‘67 -- ‘68 -- ’69 -- ‘70
Bultaco - 22% - 45% - 41% - 42% - 47% - TR20, James, FB & Villiers prod’n ceased in ’66
Greeves - 20% - 24% - 28% - 11% - 1% - Anglian/Wessex prod’n ceased in’68
Triumph - 16% - 8% -- 2% -- 0% -- 1% - TR20 Trials Cub prod’n ceased in ‘66
Zundapp - 13% - 14% - 12% - 10% - 6%
Montesa -- 0% -- 2% -- 5% - 19% - 26% - 5sp Cota available in ‘68
Ossa --- -- 0% -- 0% -- 2% -- 5% -- 7%

Of the Villiers-engined makes, Butler, James, FB, Cotton, DOT & Sprite entrants dropped out of the Euro almost over-night at end of ’66, leaving Bultaco to take up most of the slack with Greeves picking up a little too.

So no doubt Bultaco sales were bolstered considerably due to the M10’s ready availability when the opposition weren’t.

to be continued


"Men are never more likely to settle a matter rightly than when they can discuss it freely"

JC1
Expert participant
Expert participant
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Bike: Bul, KT, TY
Club: wdtc
Location: Toowoomba, Qld

Re: Facts & observations surrounding the production M10 Sher

Postby JC1 » Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:13 pm

.
Such was the M10’s availability & reliability, but what about its capability?

Morley concluded in hindsight (1988), regarding all three Spanish makes, “The performance of their engines was much better than that of Britain’s humble Villiers, & from the word go all employed superior suspension, brakes & electrics”, & he is probably right, at least on two of them.

How much better?

Electrics: Brit bikes gave you dodgy Lucas, Energy-transfer, Wipac, & Wico-Pacy. Joy of joys! Bultaco had Femsa. No contest.

Brakes: If Bultaco brakes were better, Brit bikes' brakes must have been dreadful! Sixties Bultacos weren’t known for their brakes, as anyone who sampled them can attest.

Suspension: This is perhaps where the M10 shone brightest. Matchless introduced the first oil-damped telescopic forks (“tele-draulic”) on a Brit bike in 1940/41 on the G3/L (having copied the technology from a BMW racer 'acquired' for that purpose) & Norton introduced their famous Roadholder forks in 1949 on the Manx, but neither had much/any further development in their lifetime. Many models still used leading-link/Earles front suspension (eg Greeves, DOT Cotton, Butler). Travel was limited. FB claimed 5.75” on their Falcon 92 with roadholders, but in reality 4.5” is about the norm for actual travel. The Sherpa out did them all considerably - in travel & in operation. The 35mm Betors it soon came with (after VIN # M1000026) were delightfully supple.

Morley waxed lyrical: “this bike, with its almost unheard of 6.5” front fork movement that actually worked as opposed to being a mere claim, allowed its rider to simply float over rocks & obstacles in a manner that no other trials iron had ever done before.

“Unlike their British equivalents, each Telesco fork leg [there was some confusion over whether the early 32mm forks were Telescos or Betors] was not only hard chrome plated but ground very accurately, allowing the matching top bushes & bottom sliders to run at much closer tolerances than had been used on trials machines before. Those Bultaco forks were so good at erasing stiction… (&) would not become coil-bound on compression, unlike so many rivals.”

And he reaffirmed that recently (Classic Bike Nov 2013): “The suspension was the big difference.”

Miller himself did likewise: “Fortunately, Bultaco had very close ties with suspension manufacturers Betor. Betor worked 24hrs a day to develop forks with the characteristics I wanted. They’d turn up at test sessions with boxes of springs & damper rods & we tried everything. In the end we came up with a leading axle design with 35mm stanchions, based on the Sherpa N trail bike forks (the 1st production Sherpa Ts had 32mm forks) , that was vastly superior to anything found on a British bike. I could use lighter spring rates & get the benefit of all the available travel.

“Travel on British bikes was a joke then. The Betor rear shocks were so much better than the Girlings the British factories were still using. We had probably twice the suspension travel… at the rear of the Bultaco & an extra inch or two at the front. Those forks were so good, the same basic design carried on for years” (Classic Bike, Nov 2013).

Ceriani’s excellent 35mm alloy forks & yokes were available before ’65, as were CZ’s with similar performance, but neither were readily available. REH & Metal Profile’s Ceriani-copy forks were also apparently available before ’65, but were a cut or two below Cerianis & Betors, tho’ perhaps better than other Brit forks. (Bultaco/Betor, R/Enfield, Velocette, Maico, some Montesa forks & perhaps BMW were the only ones with offset axles as far as I know).

Light weight: It could also be argued that this was another advantage, for a short while. At 204lb it was considerably lighter than your average heavyweight & some of the ‘lightweights’ (eg James, FB, C15), & about 20lbs lighter than a typical Greeves, DOT, Cotton etc. (See above)

Whilst the Butler & Scorpion trials models of ’64 bettered it, they were limited production. Of mass produced bikes, only the Cub TR20 matched it (more or less). In fact, it could easily better it, as the Comerford Cubs did. MotorCycle’s Sept 30 1965 issue bragged about the “under 200lb” Cub using parts developed by Gordon Farley & available thro’ Comerfords or as a “Comerford Cub”.

The Sprite (210lb), which entered the market a few months before the M10 was also in the same ballpark, as was the later Greeves TJS (215lb). And the new models from Wasp, Cotton, Cheetah, Firefly, Saracen, Miller & Elstar, which came soon after the M10, all bettered it.

Given such improvements, its ready availability & affordability, and the fact that it more than made up what the other makes lost in sales, you’d have to credit it for a reasonable portion of the trials boom & the spread of the sport across Europe & the USA in that era.


"Men are never more likely to settle a matter rightly than when they can discuss it freely"


Return to “Twinshock & Classic Trials”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests