OzVMX Forum
Marketplace => For Sale => Topic started by: mainline on November 03, 2013, 09:20:16 pm
-
Unfortunately I've decided I'm just not going to get this one done due to other stuff that's going on. I thought I'd offer it here as a package before I split it up on ebay. I've paid more for the parts than I'm asking.
BSA B40WD engine, seems to have good compression was apparently "rebuilt". I was always intending to pull it down and go through it though. The gearing on these would need to be changed for mx anyway. The stock WD gearing is more suited to trials. Comes with carb and header pipe.
BSA B40WD frame and swingarm. Very good condition, I've had inserts machined to fit the Betor triples included. Comes with a new set of swingarm bushes.
Betor 35mm forks and triples. Excellent condition, just need seals.
Rickman front hub, brake plate and axle.
Early Yam full width hub, brake plate, and axle
New spokes to suit Yam front hub, used spokes to suit Rickman front hub
CZ rear hub, brake plate, axle and adjusters
Used 36 hole Mudcatcher rear rim, needs polishing
Used 36 hole Mudcatcher front rim, still laced up to TM400 front wheel, needs polishing
New vintage style Magura trapdoor throttle and slimline grips
2 x sets of Tomaselli style levers
Used alloy front and rear guards
American Eagle tank, needs sealing, resto etc.
$1300
pic of frame with eagle tank
(http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn38/mainline_bucket/eagletank.jpg)
older pic with BSA tank which has since been sold
(http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn38/mainline_bucket/worksreplica.jpg)
-
without showing my ignorance is this Pre65 or Pre70?
Oops I just showed my ignorance ???
-
Finish it Paul, you have spent a fair bit of time gathering those parts and are a fair way there :)
I am the master of unfinished projects ::) and i have moved a few on unfinished and regretted it .
You will be well happy when you have completed it and will enjoy the class :)
Come on you know you can do it :)
-
Where is the bike situated please. thanks Rory
-
Might want to double check that B40 motor....
It looks like it could be a CCM unit as it appears to have the pineapple top end on it. Very Trick!
-
hope you change your mind and finish the build
-
Pm sent Paul
-
Paul ... hang in there bud, you will get there in the end.
Refer to TM bills Post .
Finish it Paul, you have spent a fair bit of time gathering those parts and are a fair way there :)
I am the master of unfinished projects ::) and i have moved a few on unfinished and regretted it .
You will be well happy when you have completed it and will enjoy the class :)
Come on you know you can do it :)
-
Finish it off (or put it back under the bench). It's not like you've got anything else to do. ::)
-
Thanks for the words of encouragement, I didn't make the decision lightly. Looks like it might be moving on to someone who I know will finish it and from what I've seen in the past will do a beautiful job.
-
Fair enough. If you get lonely and need a project to work on I can always bring one of mine over ;D ;D
-
Fair enough. If you get lonely and need a project to work on I can always bring one of mine over ;D ;D
Umm... Tony o'le mate...
any chance i could get that offer too with say...
maybe a...
TY250...?
-
No worries Mick, except I would never get the bike back ;D
-
PM sent
-
Thanks for all the interest, the bike has been sold. Should be a good thing when it's done. Cheers
-
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
-
It's a shame to see Paul have to move the project on but at least it's gone to a great home in the Klub Kevlar family and will be finished to a standard beyond the abilities of most of us. Another addition to the pre 65 resurgence ;D.
-
Firko, I dont like to be a stick in the mud and i dont know if you know something i dont ,but a couple of years back i was collecting parts to build a pre 65 bike using a sidepoint B-40 WD motor and was told by the "heiracy" they dont fit into pre-65 ! the ol' rule "must be externally un-changed" meaning theres no distributor on top of cases! even though under the models listed for pre65 states "BSA -all except B44 and B50 ??? :-\ has something changed !
-
Good question Huskibul. 8)
-
its alwasy been no b44 or b50 the wb is a follow on from the b40 its still a 350
all a65 bsa without oil in frame are legal but not oif ones
all unit 650 triumphs are legal as well but not oil in frame and 70s running gear is conical wheels
jim
yes some rules has been changed for the better
-
Youve missed the point jim, the forum has been over this in a few threads over the last few years and its not that clearcut , the "all except B44 and B50" rule has always been there unchanged -yes- but was over-ridden with the sidepoint not looking externally like the earlier distributor B40 motor (as stated by an official ) ???
-
any bsa is not in the book any more just checked allows follow ons wb40 is a follow on from the b40
18.5.2 Acceptable Machines and Components
- Pre 65.
18.5.2.1 Acceptable for the pre 65 class are
machines and components built up to
and including the 1964 model. The only
exception to this rule is where the model
remains unaltered after this date.
18.5.2.2 Frames of any manufacture are
acceptable within the suspension criteria
and considerate of the era.
18.5.2.3 Front wheel travel will not exceed 178mm
(7 inches) rear wheel travel will be limited
to 102mm (4 inches) measured at the
axle. Rear shock absorbers will be in
the original position using the original
mounting points.
18.5.2.4 Engines and gearboxes must remain
externally unchanged.
18.5.2.5 Carburettors; any type of pre 75 round
slide may be used.
18.5.2.6 Exhaust may be modified but must follow
the original lines and be fitted with an
effective muffler.
18.5.2.7 Folding footrests must be fitted.
18.5.2.8 Countershaft sprocket covers will be
fitted.
1975 cr125s are follow ons to 1974 and they have extra ports in the motor.
this is all the 2013 moms for pre65 a lot has changed
its like the rear chain gard rule all bike except cmx/cdt some officials only think they no the rules i take my moms to all meetings because of this
jim
-
Without wanting to start another of those tedious eligibility threads, I reckon all B40's are legal. I think you'll find the points B40 was available prior to 1965. I have a bloke working on getting proof right as we speak.
-
Ted? ;D
-
You can borrow my push-up bra and be Erin Brokovic for a while Davey. Now fu..koff and leave me alone. GO MANLY ;D ;D
-
If the rule "all except B44 and B50" isnt in the latest MoMs book then theyve seen the loophole and taken it out! its a fine line/long story when the sidepoint came out (64'65') They rightfully belong in pre65 - they are pre65 in UK and US , just as the B44 is pre70 & B50 pre75 , Good luck with the submission , i have a good original cycle news article on jeff smiths 64' title winning sidepoint if it helps :)
-
Good luck with the submission , i have a good original cycle news article on jeff smiths 64' title winning sidepoint if it helps
First up I'm not making a submission, it's not my problem. The whole trouble with these situations is that people usually sit around waiting for someone else to do the hard work. Anything I find out will go straight on here and to the people directly involved and you and anyone else interested can start the submission ball rolling via your club. I've got my own difficult situation to deal with getting a points T100R Triumph motor into Pre 60. That's where my efforts are going. BTW....Jeff Smiths works bike has been submitted as proof of this or other situations before but Works bikes and Production bikes are different things. The production bikes release is what is taken into account.
-
Please note anyone wanting to submit a rule change, please go to page 41 of the 2013 MOMS.
You will also be able to see that a submission for an amendment or new rule does not have to go through your Club or SCB. It can be sent straight to MA.
However a submission that has come from a club and has a SCB support has a better chance of going through.
If my memory is correct submissions have to be in around March next year.
I'm not sure if the forum is the best place to debate any changes there is just too much crap involved.
-
Thats fine! but after my son and i got told back in october 2011(half way thru build )that they don't fit in ,and i tried to drum up support to right it without success we moved on (very disappointing ),and since then we've all witnessed thru the RM-B swing arm debacle whats involved in the "process" - so ATM its over and out from this end and we will enjoy the old girl on club plates ;) PS i think you'll find jeff smiths first title bike in 64' "black bess" was based on a production bike - its a grey area/fine line with dates with side points but for the good of the sport they should be in as a carryover - simple
-
That is exactly why I think debating things on the forum is not the right way. If you have something you think could/should be changed and you have some reasonable evidence, submit a rule change/amendment.
I have got several different rules added or changed. I did it directly through the system.
The majority of so called experts on this forum don't know what they are talking about.
Does everyone knows the definition of expert?
-
Are you a moderator ?
-
I hope I'm wrong and Jeff's bike in '64 was based on a production model but everything that I have read in the last few days about the side points B40’s seems to indicate that they weren’t manufactured until 1965. From this it would appear that the deletion of the “all except B44 and B50” phrase in the MOMS has been done to specifically exclude the side points B40’s, for a reason that is not clear to me. As appealing to the better judgement of the MA based on precedents set in the US and England would more than likely be a fruitless exercise my options are:
1) finding and modifying an earlier set of cases,
2) finding definitive proof of the motor's existence in 1964 or
3) building the bike up, giving it a run and then pushing it into the corner of the shed in a position that enables me to sit next to it, drink beer and ponder what may have been. :'(
-
Yeah though about 2 of those and at times practice #3 ::)
-
Are you a moderator ?
No
-
I hope I'm wrong and Jeff's bike in '64 was based on a production model but everything that I have read in the last few days about the side points B40’s seems to indicate that they weren’t manufactured until 1965. From this it would appear that the deletion of the “all except B44 and B50” phrase in the MOMS has been done to specifically exclude the side points B40’s, for a reason that is not clear to me. As appealing to the better judgement of the MA based on precedents set in the US and England would more than likely be a fruitless exercise my options are:
1) finding and modifying an earlier set of cases,
2) finding definitive proof of the motor's existence in 1964 or
3) building the bike up, giving it a run and then pushing it into the corner of the shed in a position that enables me to sit next to it, drink beer and ponder what may have been. :'(
Your other option is to let me have the thing (I missed it by minutes apparently) and I'll handle the issue and grief :)
-
I might have come across a bit hard in the previous post ... "First up I'm not making a submission, it's not my problem" but that's not at all how I intended it to sound. It's just that whenever these things come up they turn into a giant shitfight and we all go away and brood, and nothing ever gets done to right our perceived anomaly. As Pete said, it's pretty much written in blood that the B40 side point model came out in 1965 and in my own little world of hurt, the side point equipped T100 Trumpy engine came out in 1963....too late to build my pre 60 TriBSA. In a perfect world I'd be sticking to my mantra of period integrity and calling for the side points engines not to be allowed in their pre 65 for the BSA and Pre 60 for the Trumpy. However I honestly believe that for these classes to become more attractive to potential new racers, we need to drop the pedantic attitude and allow the points engines.....lets be honest, there's no real performance advantages or disadvantages between the before and after models, everything else is pretty much the same. I know the attitude behind the removal of the "all engines except B44 and B50" paragraph but our sport is currently in a position that if we don't make these really early classes more accessible we run a big risk of them fading away. The B40 is a great entry level bike for pre 65 when compared to the big dollar Metisse and Cheney options and can be made to perform quite pretty bloody well as the Poms have shown.
-
Thanks for the input firko ! yamaico i just dug out my uk "Motor Cycle "mag dated 1st october 1964 and in the 4 page article "Once is enough!" Jeff smith talking to Bob currie he states that he used the production cases right up to the 10th round at Belgium which he had to change every two meetings because they weren't up to the 420cc motor after which they built sandcast cases for the last four rounds ?????
-
Thanks for the input firko ! yamaico i just dug out my uk "Motor Cycle "mag dated 1st october 1964 and in the 4 page article "Once is enough!" Jeff smith talking to Bob currie he states that he used the production cases right up to the 10th round at Belgium which he had to change every two meetings because they weren't up to the 420cc motor after which they built sandcast cases for the last four rounds ?????
Well that's interesting Huskibul, thanks for digging that up. Anyone have any thoughts on this development?
-
Any one with contacts to Auzy Army??
In 1964 50 B40 motorcycles were delivered to the Auzie Army!!!
-
http://forums.mxtrax.co.uk/showthread.php/342267-PRE65-b40-home-brew-help
-
Any one with contacts to Auzy Army??
In 1964 50 B40 motorcycles were delivered to the Auzie Army!!!
Wonder how I'd go about authenticating that Mike?
http://forums.mxtrax.co.uk/showthread.php/342267-PRE65-b40-home-brew-help
Thanks for the link Bill. No problem with any B40 in the Old Dart apparently. Shame it's not the same here.
-
One nice B40. http://www.westcoastbritishracing.com/B40MX.html (http://www.westcoastbritishracing.com/B40MX.html)
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/firko2039/b40_zpse48c03b3.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/firko2039/b40_zpse48c03b3.jpg.html)
-
all this talk is just bs !!!!!
all 650 unit triumphs are pre 65 legal even when they have joe hunt and ard ignitions.(like mine has).its not the same as the 1964 or std 650 unit.and we are talking just ignitions here.mine and i bet 100s more have aftermarket ignition systems on their trumphs.all fitted as after market.
i thought the rules were any type of ignitions. and dont go on about the change in how the motor looks with side point ignitions.ist different but so are ards joe hunts and the rest.
YES MY BIKE IS PRE65 LEGAL rode it in 2013 dirt track nats with the ard
just my 2cents worth again
jim
-
all this talk is just bs !!!!!
I agree its silly Jim but its not BS, you need a distributor model B40 350 for pre 65 and a distributor model 500 Triumph for pre 60. 650 Triumph's are all OK for pre 65 no mater what ignition you have. I know you can put ARD or Joe Hunt ignitions on these engines but you have to use the correct 'distributor' cases.............crazy but true.
-
still bs as you can change the whole ignition system on a triumph and still be ok
cant see ma knocking it backWB40 as a follow on with triumphs as an example of leagle ignition change
i think the pre65 aussie dt champ has an ignition that sticks out to the right of the motor no way it looks stock and its ok.
the new owner just needs to put all this forward to ma and i am sure it will be ok as long as the engine has the round barrell and head just like the 64 b40s
jim
pre 65 rider like the rest of you guys commenting here all have pre65 bikes and ride them
1 rider
1 project pre65
2 project pre60s
all leagle
-
Jim......they have been knocking points B40s back, that's the thing.....there was a big hooo haw at the Conondale Nats over just this point if I remember correctly. Things are a bit tougher in motocross than the almost nonexistent eligibility at dirt track. But I agree with you that it's crazy to knock them back......my Triumph as well.
-
Yamaico i spent 5mins on google to find info on 50 x 1964 b40 being sent to Australain army,but no photos.Army records?,some one who now owns one of them?,some must have survived,army meusem?Will research more if i get time
-
Yamaico i spent 5mins on google to find info on 50 x 1964 b40 being sent to Australain army,but no photos.Army records?,some one who now owns one of them?,some must have survived,army meusem?Will research more if i get time
Thanks Mike,
I believe that they were C15's fitted with B40 engines (engine numbers B40.5436D to B40.5455D). I have sent an email to a B40 register in England in the hope that they can tell me what ignition was fitted to that engine number series.
Pete.
-
Pete that will be interesting,Mike
-
I dont want to be a smart arse ::) but the general consensus seems to be that the rule is outdated and not what the masses want . Instead of trying to find proof to comply with whats written why not get whats written modified to suit what the people want :)
Im a simple person and i cannot understand why it seems so difficult to get a rule changed if thats what the licence holders want .
I was on the MX commision for MNZ for some years ,i know smaller operation etc etc but we looked after all MX & Supercross things for the kids through to the top level , not just one facet of the sport . When the paying licence holders felt a rule was not in their best interest or outdated they approached the commission (us )either directly or through their club . We then looked at what they wanted changed and asked others in the sport what they felt .If it was the general consensus that it should be changed we took it to the annual MNZ conference and got it rubber stamped . The next rule book would show the new rule and everybody was happy :)
As commissioners we were representatives of the licence holders and were appointed due to our experience in the sport .
I don't know how your system works but i would imagine it must be fairly similar ???
-
Spot-on bill ! thats how this thing should unfold its such a fine line/ grey area it should tip toward "whats best for the sport" ;)
-
Yamaico i spent 5mins on google to find info on 50 x 1964 b40 being sent to Australain army,but no photos.Army records?,some one who now owns one of them?,some must have survived,army meusem?Will research more if i get time
I think the Aussie Army had more than 50 WB40's over the years Mikey but it's worth checking to see whether that particular shipment were points or distributor models. If the records are correct and the side points engine wasn't released until 1965, those 50 Army WB40's are probably distributor models and would be no help to our argument.
However, like everyone on here agrees, it's a rule that really doesn't help in attracting more racers to the older classes. The B40 is the pre 65 equivalent of the DT1 in pre 70 or the TM250 in pre 75......a simple, (comparatively) low budget, entry level bike that can be hotted up to achieve some serious performance, be kept reasonably stock or any stage in between. There has been a serious resurgence in interest in pre 65 and pre 60 over the last year so it would be a smart objective to make submissions calling for a softening of the engine flow on regs for both pre 65 and pre 60. The softening of frame requirements seem to have helped in the pre 65's come back so let's bring back the "all except B44 & B50" paragraph ASAP.
-
Spot-on bill ! thats how this thing should unfold its such a fine line/ grey area it should tip toward "whats best for the sport" ;)
Surely that's what were all here for , the betterment of the sport .
I know in the past a commissioner has come on here and announced that this forum will not dictate what rules are adjusted and fair enough to.
But this forum does seem to represent a fair number of people who have an active interest in the sport . You are never going to please everyone , but if its what the majority wants give it to them , its their sport at the end of the day .
-
Surely that's what were all here for , the betterment of the sport .
I know in the past a commissioner has come on here and announced that this forum will not dictate what rules are adjusted and fair enough to.
But this forum does seem to represent a fair number of people who have an active interest in the sport . You are never going to please everyone , but if its what the majority wants give it to them , its their sport at the end of the day .
I agree Bill, I'm hesitant to argue eligibility stuff on this forum as 9 times out of 10 these discussions turn into slanging matches that make us all look like a team of wankers to the outside world. However, this is a slightly different situation where the engine that was once legal, by the simple removal of one small half sentence from MoMs is now ineligible for the class. It's time we lobbied for its reinsertion.
-
Not just reinserted but "defined" regarding the side points !I was told sidepoints were out when that "all but b44 and b50" clause was in the book :)
-
I dont want to be a smart arse ::) but the general consensus seems to be that the rule is outdated and not what the masses want . Instead of trying to find proof to comply with whats written why not get whats written modified to suit what the people want :)
Im a simple person and i cannot understand why it seems so difficult to get a rule changed if thats what the licence holders want .
I was on the MX commision for MNZ for some years ,i know smaller operation etc etc but we looked after all MX & Supercross things for the kids through to the top level , not just one facet of the sport . When the paying licence holders felt a rule was not in their best interest or outdated they approached the commission (us )either directly or through their club . We then looked at what they wanted changed and asked others in the sport what they felt .If it was the general consensus that it should be changed we took it to the annual MNZ conference and got it rubber stamped . The next rule book would show the new rule and everybody was happy :)
As commissioners we were representatives of the licence holders and were appointed due to our experience in the sport .
I don't know how your system works but i would imagine it must be fairly similar ???
I also have a reasonable understanding of the MA Commission system. I know how the MX/SX Commission works. The system is sometimes influenced by other parties, not just the riders, clubs and SCBs.
Although I have raced Classic MX on and off for probably ten years I haven't really got involved in the politics (until now). I have looked at the rules and there are a lot of things that can be better. There also seems to be a lot of people with their own agendas and stubborn views. Really what probably needs to change is the wording that says "The only exception to this GCR is where the model remains unaltered after this date" I believe if there is only a slight change that there needs to be a way to approve the machine.
Also I believe everything can't be put in the rule book. Maybe there needs to be an appendix stating what is acceptable. This appendix can be up-dated on the run. There needs to be a process that permits the Classic MX & DT Commission to clarify things and then put it in writing, so it isn't left up to individual scrutineers to decide, from meeting to meeting.
Also is everyone working from the current MOMS?
One major problem, like track standards, is that rules are open to interpretation.