Moto Plast to sell.

You used to be able to buy kits to attach a side stand to MX bikes swingarm, they don't have them as std and trail riding without a stand is a pain, they would attach with Rivnuts after you drilled a few holes. That took some guts drilling holes in your swingarm. But better than pissing off mates by leaning your bike on the ones with stands or searching out trees to lean on.
 
I don't know Patrick Kan, but I'm sure he must have liked the bike to have owned it and maintained it beautifully.

However, it's not a bike I'd lust after.

For a start, I think it's a little ugly and it has a weird looking frame. The frame might be nicely welded, stiff and handle OK, and it might be a lovely bike to ride, but it just looks wrong to me. It looks like it weighs more than it needs to with those redundant tubes welded into it. I dunno if you can get the cam cover off with the engine in place, but it looks pretty tight in there. Hopefully Motoplast left some room for maintenance.

You'd think with all the effort that went into making that frame and swing arm, they could have made a half decent side stand. It's in the wrong place, it's too short (because it has to sit on a 25mm thick spacer to get the bike to lean at a normal angle) and the foot is at the wrong angle. I could live with the location on the swing arm if they'd got the length and foot angle right.

I'm confused about the alternate lower rear shock mount on the swing arm too. What's it for? If you move the shock to the rear position, it'll make the suspension stiffer by putting the bottom end of the shock closer to the rear axle, but the decreased angle between shock and swing arm will make it softer again. So you gain and lose stiffness at the same time. I'd have to do some arithmetic to figure out which of the two effects will win out, but I'm not motivated to do that. Looking at the geometry, the only obvious effect would be to lower the rear ride height. Velocette did a better job of an adjustable suspension via a moveable shock mount back in the 50's.

I'm trying not to be negative so I've been looking for features that are an improvement over an original 3C. So far, the only thing I've found is the gearshift cover with the oil filler and neat little sight glass.

It seems to me to be an exercise of form over function. Nicely fabricated though if you like that sort of thing.
 
Hi Cam, plenty of room in that frame for taking off the cam cover. Also, removing the whole engine is a question of 4 bolts and simply jacking it down. The bike is absolutely designed for easy maintenance. Swing arm mount of the side stand is simply due to there is no lower frame rail to mount it to - where should you mount the sidestand elsewhere?!?

There are two shock mounts on the frame, too, so you can change the rear hights without changing the shocks, just moving them more forward or leaning them more foreward.
The frame is defenitely stiff and - to my surprise - way lighter than the original one (roughly 10 kilos!). Headstock is much longer for better support and stiffer front end.

The look is defenitely not charming and I was told the setup is more for high-speed stability than for easy turns. Can't tell, mine's still a project...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top