TS inlet manifold packing

[Warkton Tornado No.1]

The TS1 manifold would not require having to rely entirely upon a sealant if the fixings were four corner. It is a ridiculous design flaw.....

a 30 yr design flaw as well! Monza barrels only have 3 fixing points

The problem with many of the people that take the decision to 'improve' existing items is that they remain constrained by convention.

For example, take the myriad of reed valve kits that have the inlet & exhaust @ 12 o'clock & 6 o'clock, where the proximity of the frame dictates huge compromise, particularly with battery trays in the case of the inlet. As for the exhaust, why have so many 'designers' failed to take advantage of the benefits of angling the exhaust port so that it exits downwards (toward the rear of the machine) as many contemporary two stroke engines do?

Then, along comes Max Quattrini with genuine 'blue sky' thinking & proves with his first attempt a far more efficient design, delivering a larger upper capacity limit, greater power & torque, universal fitment & very little compromise within the original frame/engine geometry.

I am repeating myself here, because I am fully aware that life is not a 'level playing field' but would love to see the BSSO remove the protective rules of their 'production' class as in the case of Vespa kits to allow entry of the MQ....

[dscscotty]

Agree the Quatrini Kit is a great cylinder, with some great features and performance, however its not the first kit to have an angled rear exit exhaust port, this was a feature of the RB, along with Boysen transfer design which was also first on any Lambretta performance cylinder, the RB kit is a little over 10yrs old now, but imho is still a fantastic kit.
Regarding the production class, the idea behind it is for all the competitors to be on similar machines with similar performance so that the racing was close and competitive and came more down to rider ability and race-craft. Having the tight regs that it has and all riders/Teams using the same kits and spec this was only achievable by using the same kit and running gear, its been a great success, and really cheap considering.
Going back to the original thread, its great to know we're all in the same boat tinkering and improving things, I just wish sometimes the manufacturers would take note.

[Warkton Tornado No.1]

Agree the Quatrini Kit is a great cylinder, with some great features and performance, however its not the first kit to have an angled rear exit exhaust port, this was a feature of the RB, along with Boysen transfer design which was also first on any Lambretta performance cylinder, the RB kit is a little over 10yrs old now, but imho is still a fantastic kit.
Regarding the production class, the idea behind it is for all the competitors to be on similar machines with similar performance so that the racing was close and competitive and came more down to rider ability and race-craft. Having the tight regs that it has and all riders/Teams using the same kits and spec this was only achievable by using the same kit and running gear, its been a great success, and really cheap considering.
Going back to the original thread, its great to know we're all in the same boat tinkering and improving things, I just wish sometimes the manufacturers would take note.

Rayspeed are to be acknowledged for what they bring to market, but my point was MQ's first foray into Lambretta kits has proved to be a very competent one, delivering very tractable power without compromising the frame.

As for the Production class, I still am @ a loss as to why Lambretta are restricted to one kit, whilst Vespa have a choice.

If I wanted to prove the capability of 'my kit' (if I were mad & wealthy enough to produce one) I would wish to prove it's prowess by ensuring it raced against the same machine but with alternative kits from other manufacturers! After all, consider the Mugello (as raced predominantly in Group Four) & how many times that kit has been revised! There would be nothing to stop AF doing the same if there was other competition, & in many respects, many road users would welcome any worthwhile revisions.

As this Post was relevant to the TS1, my comments seem pertinent, because, as you say, a "thirty year old design" could & should really have been updated by now.....

[dscscotty]

As for the Production class, I still am @ a loss as to why Lambretta are restricted to one kit, whilst Vespa have a choice

The class is the LCGB production class, sponsored by said club initially there was no vespa's, when they did appear there was no kits comparable on par with the RB kitted Lambrettas, the regs where changed to allow further tuning/parts to be fitted to bring them up to somewhere the same bhp, which was bummer really as the power to weight advantage came into play, but to date there has been no vespa to win said championship,
Group 4e (evo) caters for various kits, imola,super imola, ss200, RB's etc have all competed for last 2 years making for some great racing, this yr will see it being very competitive with both new and experienced racers entered.

[Norrie Bodge]

the std AF type manifolds
has anyone alloy welded the awkward fitting threaded hole, & fitted/sealed it ok (leak tested) with 3 studs??

[gaz_powell]

I know people have had trouble sealing the Readspeed manifolds with no front fixing.
No front fixing seems wrong to me personally.
I've never had any problem with a standard AF manifold using the 4 fixings
Had problems with an MB one with 4 fixings as it has a lot taken off one edge and barely covers the barrel face....
Im sure fast and furious modified a barrel and manifold with 4 extra smaller (M5?) one in each corner.

[Warkton Tornado No.1]

The next time I take on a TS barrel for anybody, (which will be ages because it's the kind of work that usually arrives as a lash up with so many other issues present that I cannot simply ignore, as many 'successful' tuners simply must!) I will be modifying the inlet & barrel from the outset with four corner fixings. High tensile fasteners of M4 or M5 are more than capable & a better engineered solution than relying heavily on sealants IMO.

The good thing about having to overcome issues such as those inherent in the engine I did, was that I was able to prove that a barrel that many would have scrapped or sleeved due to a rod being thrown had the damaged effectively turned into a virtue. I'm a great believer in having LPC (Low Primary Compression) in any case & now that engine has a feed direct from the crankcase through the inlet into one large boost port, rather than the fingers many have, because of the workaround of repegging.

If any tuner states that repegging is unreliable, what do they mean? Ultimately, they mean that THEIR own repegging is unreliable, surely?

BTW. The 70 mm bore TS barrel was £90 from eBay & the Mitaka piston with genuine (non Dykes) rings was about £50, it being a DT 250 which is very similar to the TS 250 piston apart from having inlet ports already present. I have suggested previously that the GT 240 barrels could utilise these but have yet to hear of anybody that has.