OzVMX Forum
Marque Remarks => British (BSA, Greeves, Triumph etc) => Topic started by: huskibul on November 27, 2013, 07:34:41 pm
-
Looking for pic's of jeff smiths title winning 1964 BSA B40 (black bess) preferably of the right side/ close-up of the bike in the first 9 rounds of championship :switzerland,austria,denmark,sweden,holland,france,italy,russia,czech, any thing apreciated - Thankyou
-
no action pics from gps in any 64'Cycle world or 64'motorcyclist issues. dec 64 motorcyclist has a full page ad congratulating jeff smith
on his world title,pic shows left of his number 25 bike. have u tried google '1964 bsa motocross' brings up lots of images.
also try 'mike hayward collection'-brit and world mx pics. on ebay OUT FRONT 256 pg book 'British mx champions 1960-1974
foreword by jeff smith (9 brit titles) $41 inc. post from UK. on youtube plenty of old brit mx ' BBC Grandstand' cheers g.
-
Some great lead's there grant ! cheers mate
-
I had some signed postcards jeff Smith had reproduced and gave me when in Unzud will see if i can find them in the shed and will PM you for your adrress if i can find them
-
Enjoy :)
JEFF SMITHUNIT BSA COMING IN TO WIN BEWDLEY 1965
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/vmx247/20131127_172449_zps75e71389.jpg) (http://s146.photobucket.com/user/vmx247/media/20131127_172449_zps75e71389.jpg.html)
AT THE FIRST OF THE 1964 BBC TV (BBC SERIES IN "MOTOCROSS ON AIR" BY IAN BERRY WILL HAS MORE PICS AND INFO ONLY 30 ODD $$..GRAB A COPY FOR XMAS) :) BSA JEFF SMITH AGREED TO HAVE A HEAVY TV CAMERA STRAPPED TO HM AND SAID TO WIEGH NOT LESS THAN 300 POUNDS.THE TOP FIN OF THE UNIT BARREL HAS BEEN CRUNCHED :'( BUT WHETHER IT IS THE B 40 BASED 420 OR THE VICTOR TYPE 441 IS HARD TO SAY BUT SOME CYCLE PART DETAILS SUGGEST THE FORMER.JEFF INVARIABLY FAVOURED A PEAK TO HIS HELMET WHICH CARRIED,OF COURSE HIS DISTINCTIVE EMBLEM.THIS FINE STUDY IS BY GORDON FRANCIS.
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/vmx247/20131127_172517_zps4fed5fb5.jpg) (http://s146.photobucket.com/user/vmx247/media/20131127_172517_zps4fed5fb5.jpg.html)
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/vmx247/20131127_172606_zpsf98c5a17.jpg) (http://s146.photobucket.com/user/vmx247/media/20131127_172606_zpsf98c5a17.jpg.html)
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/vmx247/20131127_172746_zps0c42e577.jpg) (http://s146.photobucket.com/user/vmx247/media/20131127_172746_zps0c42e577.jpg.html)
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/vmx247/20131128_112032_zps75b90f7e.jpg) (http://s146.photobucket.com/user/vmx247/media/20131128_112032_zps75b90f7e.jpg.html)
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/vmx247/20131128_112018_zps71960bd6.jpg) (http://s146.photobucket.com/user/vmx247/media/20131128_112018_zps71960bd6.jpg.html)
-
Wow love the jeff smith Go Pro camera set up. Only 3ft tall on your back and 12 inches out from your chest with a 8 inch microfone
-
Good stuff Alison & Baz all those bikes look like sidepoint ! were there any dates /captions ? need to get something thats dated with-in those first 9 rounds before Namur with a sidepoint motor, also looking for the dates of RND-1 thru RND -9 -cheers :)
-
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/vmx247/20131128_112043_zpsa80fb18f.jpg) (http://s146.photobucket.com/user/vmx247/media/20131128_112043_zpsa80fb18f.jpg.html)
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/vmx247/20131128_112100_zps23dfc76a.jpg) (http://s146.photobucket.com/user/vmx247/media/20131128_112100_zps23dfc76a.jpg.html)
check this !! very rarely come up for sale :P :P
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/BRITISH-TRIALS-MOTORCYCLES-THE-MEN-THEIR-MACHINES-jm-/230963779225?pt=Non_Fiction&hash=item35c6839699
-
Very interesting snippet in the "british scramble" article stating the 441cc GP victor was released to the PUBLIC at the 64' earls court show (not 65') ? ???
-
here we go again ::) .... as a 1965 model....remember that the dates of release have nothing to do with eligibility.. otherwise I would be riding a Mikkola 360 Husky in pre 75
-
This threads not about B44's its about B40, and i think mikkola replica's are a well ahead of 74's
-
I believe the early round barrel B44's were available to the public in 1964, but the argument for pre65 eligibility was lost a long time ago by the then chief scrutineer Stewart Young. He actually had a B44 in 1964 but he was voted down by others and that was the end of it.
Fantastic photo's Alison. Looks like a great book to have on the coffee table!
I'm pretty sure that the Aussie military B40 was a sidepoint motor. Might be worth investigating Aussie military vehicles or the like
-
Yeah thats right TBM ,the WDB40 were sidepoint its just a very grey area ATM - that needs to be sorted ,they are trying to push pre 65 and there's b40's laying around idle - and most agree they belong in the class :-\
-
I can't disagee Huskibul...but you were talking at the time about B44's... ;D there may also be a bit of more recent history (Connondale) than when Stuart Young was involved..
-
1964 militry B40 were sent to Australian army,being looked in to at the moment (also 65-67) but 64 is the interesting ship ment
-
looked at a B40 tiz arvo,thinking it was x army,been painted civvy black 8),engine numbers GA-331,is A for army??,(B40G's 67 model) F is 66, :P
-
looked at a B40 tiz arvo,thinking it was x army,been painted civvy black 8),engine numbers GA-331,is A for army??,(B40G's 67 model) F is 66, :P
Yep, GA is the b40wd model - army
http://bsawdb40.com
-
B40WD = War Dept
-
Good to read I was of some help. I would of thought that all B40's were eligible for Pre65. After all, we know the B44's were available to the public in late 1964 and by 1965 they were around in bigger numbers. With that in mind, surely the B40 had reached it's development end before 1965 and were then given to military service throughout UK and Australia in 1964. They were side point motors.
Apart from that, I know of 2 pre65 fourstrokes (not saying what brand of bikes or riders) that look like they run the magneto but are in fact a total loss system in disguise. And before anyone asks, I do not ride pre65 8)
-
Hi
If anyone is going to build a new Pre 65 bike have a good read, and look, at this essential historical document ,
"British Scramble Motorcycles" The men and their magnificent machines,
this is a factual historical record of period (dated) photographs taken and published in the day
If BSA had produced a B44, in 1964, that was available, and racing, it would have been on the front page of every magazine in the land ,
Dont get too invovled with what you see and read about current English pre 65 racing and rules , our criteria in Aus is different , Its interesting to look at the photos what they really used in 1964 and what they are using today as aPre 65 bike
I'm not an expert in anything , I thought B40 WD Army models were up to 67 in Aus and used B44 frames,
does anyone have evidence of this ,
BSA B44 of any discription is a great Pre 70 bike , B40 motor and B40 frame is Pre 65
cheers
-
After all, we know the B44's were available to the public in late 1964 and by 1965 they were around in bigger numbers
I've always believed to be correct that the B44 was first shown to the public at the Earls Court Show in November 1965 and not on the showroom floor until a few weeks after that.
In 1965 an off road motocross BSA B44 named the ‘’Victor’’ was launched at the Earls Court Show. Developed from scramblers used by Jeff Smith to win the 1964 and 1965 500cc World Championships, the model proved so popular that Victor Grand Prix and Victor Enduro models were developed,[4] as well as a road-going version, the 1967 Victor Roadster. The Victor Grand Prix Scrambler had a displacement of 441cc, and the Enduro model was known as the 441 Victor in the United States. BSA began offering a road version, the B44VR Victor Roadster, in 1967. When that model was exported to U.S. dealers in 1968, the name was changed to the B44SS Shooting Star.[1] The B44VS Victor Special was also successfully exported to the US between 1968 and 1970 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSA_B44_Shooting_Star (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSA_B44_Shooting_Star)
*************************
The 441cc B44 was a relatively successful manifestation. First shown at the end of 1965 as a motocross model the B44 was ostensibly developed from the 400cc and 420cc prototype scramblers upon which Jeff Smith had famously secured the 1964 and 1965 500 MX World Championships. Jeff had begun his campaign for the sport’s top prize in 1963, in which he was placed 3rd overall, and he continued this crusade through 1967, gaining a fine 2nd and a further valiant 3rd place alongside his two world titles. It was a fast moving 5-year period, which finally saw every 4-stroke brand, except BSA, superseded by the new breed of 360cc and larger sized 2-strokes.
Almost inevitably BSA’s mx model Victor Grand Prix was launched at the Earls Court Show, Britain’s annual November exhibition, which in 1965 opened its doors to 140,000 eager visitors. The bike, quite correctly, attracted considerable criticism from potential customers because – in what was a typical BSA policy decision – it was produced to a spec’ that yet required its rider to spanner the bike into a Race Ready condition…unlike the fully prepped Greeves and CZs on adjacent booths! Nonetheless the contemporary market was hungry, the B44 itself was admired by the anti 2-stroke brigade, and it did sell satisfactorily. Street legal versions with lights and mufflers duly followed. The B44VS Victor ‘Special’, aimed specifically at America’s burgeoning trail market, began in 1968, and continued in production over the next three seasons. http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/16078/lot/188/ (http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/16078/lot/188/)
-
#69 i dont think anyboby want's to build a hot-rod like we see OS, just use their sidepoint B-40's in their rightful era within the guideline's as youve stated B-50= pre 75, B44=pre70, B40=pre65 , the WDB-40 -GA models had bsa non oil-in-frame's , same as earlier C-15/B-40 frames of all persuasions not B44,this issue needs to be cleared up once and for all, there are people with these motors/bike's that are hanging in limbo as to what to do with them :-\
-
B-50= pre 75, B44=pre70, B40=pre65
Without getting into a lengthy post on why this bike fits that classification I agree with the above summation, no matter whether the B40 has got points or a dissy. Now all we need is to allow points equipped unit Triumph 500s into pre 60 and the world will be a better place :).
-
Exactly Firko wheres the advantage between dissy and sidepoint ? and i cant imagine spectators at the races giving two hoot's whether the bike that just blew past has a dissy tower or not ,their just glad to see more bikes !
-
I was talking to the mate of a mate about this B40 side point/distributor situation yesterday. He's a well known road racer that specialises in Beeza's with the unit singles being his main area of interest. He told me that he's certain that the points WD engine with the close ratio transmission was available prior to 1965. He told us he was going to go through his extensive BSA literature and get back to us as soon as he finds the relevant info.
In the meantime Jonesy told me he has a book with close up shots of Black Bess's engine. He too is going to dig it out and pass it on. As interesting as those photos might be, I don't think Black Bess can be used as proof. I may stand corrected on this but I'm fairly sure that works bikes can't be used to prove a parts legitimacy. I think we've discussed this before with regards to RC Hondas and RH Suzukis featuring parts later introduced into production and therefore the parts being allowed. I once discussed this with a committee member and he told me that works bikes can't be offered as proof of a parts existence. Even though Smiths '64 title winning bike was allegedly based on a B40, it was still a 'works' B40 and those cases could have been specially cast or even if they were legitimate 'pre production' cases, that's what goes against them....the PRE part of pre production alluding to them coming a year later on production machinery...which would be 1965.
I'm only playing 'bad cop' in a good/bad cop argument and still believe that all B40's should be allowed. I'm merely offering up what might be used in a an argument against the points engine.
-
It seems that I was led astray by a so called expert on all things B44 related....See my prior post for his name. Now I know why the argument for B44 being rejected as a Pre65 eligible machine came to it's conclusion. You blokes have given me a new knowledge of the fabled B44. Thanks ;D I should of known better than to take his word on anything after I saw the job he did on my B50's clutch when it failed for the second time. I didn't have time to work on the bike at the time as my business was keeping me away from the shed....
Exactly Firko wheres the advantage between dissy and sidepoint ? and i cant imagine spectators at the races giving two hoot's whether the bike that just blew past has a dissy tower or not ,their just glad to see more bikes !
And isn't it all about getting more bikes on the start line and out of sheds......
I say that IF the beeza is a B40 frame and a correct B40 motor, it should be Pre65 eligible, regardless of whether it a dissy or points motor. Surely the points engine could be classified as a follow on, no distinct advantage model?
-
See my prior post for his name. Now I know why the argument for B44 being rejected as a Pre65 eligible machine came to it's conclusion
The bloke in question was the original antagonist against Vern Grayson's Triumph. That should tell you something ::).
-
Firko i dont know how to post pics or articles but as ive said i have an original uk"MotorCycle" mag that i got specifically from uk for the 4 page article Jeff Smiths Story dated 1 october 1964 where jeff clearly states that the case's he ran in first 9 rounds were "Production" even though his bike was works- surely if theres pics of the bike in those rounds as a side point there is no question,- iam also playing good cop/bad cop but at least were getting clarity :) Ps Hopefully that 64' army info comes thru , some those sites are conflicting and also sounds like some of the the guys that restore the WD models are against using the motors/bikes as trials /mx /specials ? :-\
-
I was talking to the mate of a mate about this B40 side point/distributor situation yesterday. He's a well known road racer that specialises in Beeza's with the unit singles being his main area of interest. He told me that he's certain that the points WD engine with the close ratio transmission was available prior to 1965. He told us he was going to go through his extensive BSA literature and get back to us as soon as he finds the relevant info.
In the meantime Jonesy told me he has a book with close up shots of Black Bess's engine. He too is going to dig it out and pass it on. As interesting as those photos might be, I don't think Black Bess can be used as proof. I may stand corrected on this but I'm fairly sure that works bikes can't be used to prove a parts legitimacy. I think we've discussed this before with regards to RC Hondas and RH Suzukis featuring parts later introduced into production and therefore the parts being allowed. I once discussed this with a committee member and he told me that works bikes can't be offered as proof of a parts existence. Even though Smiths '64 title winning bike was allegedly based on a B40, it was still a 'works' B40 and those cases could have been specially cast or even if they were legitimate 'pre production' cases, that's what goes against them....the PRE part of pre production alluding to them coming a year later on production machinery...which would be 1965.
I'm only playing 'bad cop' in a good/bad cop argument and still believe that all B40's should be allowed. I'm merely offering up what might be used in a an argument against the points engine.
Mark its good that you are looking at it from both sides . It seems that the opinion ( on this forum anyway ) is that the majority would be happy with the side points motors being allowed . Who is likley to oppose there inclusion and why ?
Surley a loosening of the rules a little ( i know where does it stop ) for the older classes can only be a good thing . I know rules are rules but who are the rules for ?, i would have thought that the rules should reflect the opinion of majority of people involved in that particular era .
-
No where in the MoMS does it say works parts cannot be used
For a works bike to have a part fitted, the part has to exist prior to fitting.
-
Another interesting question is why did the wording which allowed all B40s get changed, and how?
-
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/vmx247/ruleamendmant_zps69b55304.jpg) (http://s146.photobucket.com/user/vmx247/media/ruleamendmant_zps69b55304.jpg.html)
-
It all started when in 1962 the MOD called for tenders for a new military motor cycle BSA put forword the B40 at the time it used plain bearing big end & right hand main was a bush & used a distributor.
It took till late 1966 for the MOD to place the order with BSA by then the B40 was about out of production, so BSA used the B44 bottom end with a 70mm stroke & cast iron 350 barrel & alloy head so the WD B40 is a short stroke B44 the sources for this info are Rupert Ratio's unit single engine manual, BSA Unit singles The complete story by Matthew Vale. & verious BSA parts manuals. What you make of this info is up to you.
Thanks Rory PS. It also say's that the distributor was used on the C15/B40 from 1959 to 1964.
-
All 250 C15's and 350 B40's were 70mm strokes ! B44 and B50 were 90mm , and the end fed cranks were just a natural progression along with sidepoint to give better longevity ,the B40s were gradually upgraded every model from their introduction in 1960 thru 64-65 when B44 took over - The part on the end of your post about Distributor being used 'to 1964" what book is that in and do you have it ?-cheers
-
It is on page 174 of Rupert Ratio's book unit single engine manual it is the illus 17.9. Now I dont know if it was used on 64 model & changed to sidepoints for 65.
Rory.
-
The pre 65 regs discriminate against BSA. I'm not going to champion the 'B44 for pre 65' cause here, the B44 is what it is, a good pre 70 bike as Mr Bamford said earlier. What has always had me scratching my chin however is that the 1966 G85 Matchless has been allowed to compete in Australian pre 65 with not a skerrick of protest of even any discussion. The cruel irony of this is that just as the B44 is an engineering updated flow on of the B40, the Matchless G85 is an engineering upgrade flow on of the G80 model. Adding to the irony is that the Matchless G85CS motocrosser was unveiled to the public at the same Earls Court Motorcycle Show as the BSA B44 Victor in November 1966.
Whenever I've brought this up I've been told that the differences between the G85 and G80 were minimal so it's fair that they be allowed as a flow on. Fair enough, if you regard a totally different oiling system as 'minimal' and a legitimate flow on, you'd have to agree that the very same criteria should be used in the BSA B40's upgrade from distributor to points magneto as 'minimal' and allow it into pre 65 as a flow on as well. The same criteria should also be used to allow the points magneto Triumph T100 engine into pre 60 (Yeah I know I'm pushing my own barrow here but Why not? :)) )
The vastly increased entries in both pre 65 divisions at the recent Classic Nats and the impressive number of bikes under construction or ready to return to the sport after years in limbo should be a signal that there's a lot of interest in the true classic classes crossing all generations so why not soften the flow on criteria to make it even easier to enter the classes and for the older classes to prosper. While I agree that the pre 90 class is essential to our sports future growth, the maintaining of the birthstone classes of Pre 60, pre 65 and even pre 70 is even more important to our sport, if only to demonstrate to younger generations how it was during Motocross's formative years.
-
Right on brother Firko
-
errr,norton pattern oil pump setup on matchos' for the 64 season,(developed 63 on factory mx engines),thats why they're not allowed in P3 roadracing(pre 62),no irony there mate!!, :P
-
errr,norton pattern oil pump setup on matchos' for the 64 season,(developed 63 on factory mx engines),thats why they're not allowed in P3 roadracing(pre 62),no irony there mate!!, :P
Apologies for this slight thread deviation into Matcholand.......
With utmost respect to a bloke with the Matcho Mick moniker ;), every reference I've ever seen regarding the G85 Matchless gives September 1966 as the release date. Old Frank Stanborough who builds G80/G85 engines for racers all over the world backs up that 1966 date. All written matter I've seen has the G85 being the first of the Norton pump models so I don't know where the 63/64 dates come from. Jonesy has a very early works G85 engine (SU= Special Unit engine #) in his Cheney and it's a 1966 model. Alan's got the master list of every G85 Matchy which gives both the release date indexed against the engine number and who it was sold to. He's going to scan it tomorrow and send it to me so I can post it on here......................
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/firko2001/matchlessG85_zpsdab1dabc.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/firko2001/matchlessG85_zpsdab1dabc.jpg.html)
Matchless 500cc G85CS – 1966
4-Stroke Scrambler
Too little (or possible too much), too late. That could probably be said about the Matchless G85CS Scrambler. As one of the last models of Matchless to be made, it was the last (and best) attempt by the British to build a 4-stroke scrambler capable of beating the light-weight 2-stroke machines that were dominating the European Scrambles scene.
It’s easy to see the Rickman brothers influence in the design of the frame. The G85 was a duplex design with lightweight forks, machined front hub, magnesium rear hub, and as many lightweight fiberglass and aluminum components as possible utilized. Though Matchless claimed 291 lbs, actual weight was nearly 320 lbs, much heavier that the 2-stroke competition.
The G85CS looked and sounded magnificent, but was not particularly fast and when combined with the weight, missed the mark.
This is one of my favorite motorcycles! Lovingly restored by British specialist Don Harrell.
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/firko2001/matcho_zps8e87a770.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/firko2001/matcho_zps8e87a770.jpg.html)
"Looking at the bacon books it would seem the G85CS was available from 1965 to 1969 and most were supplied in the 1966-68 period. It is just possible that your bike could have made in 1964 if it was for the 65 season. I do not suggest this is likely and i would reccommend obtaining the frame and engine numbers so that they can be checked for likely date and if OK you could obtain a dating certificate from the club dating officier. I think this costs ?10 for club members and would be worth getting the difinitive answer before buying. It is a splendid machine so you may want to buy it anyway! There is a link to the dating officier from this site".
"The first production of g85cs was in 1966....By then the bike had also changed in many details but not the engine "
http://motocrossactionmag.com/Main/News/4627f246-757d-4516-9a5b-67c0520ba6b1.aspx (http://motocrossactionmag.com/Main/News/4627f246-757d-4516-9a5b-67c0520ba6b1.aspx)
http://theowencollection.com/66G85.htm (http://theowencollection.com/66G85.htm)
-
Whenever I've brought this up I've been told that the differences between the G85 and G80 were minimal so it's fair that they be allowed as a flow on. Fair enough, if you regard a totally different oiling system as 'minimal' and a legitimate flow on,
fugg,teach me to generalise :)
ok 64 G80CS,what i'm basically trying to say is that oil pump was around before the G85, just!, :P
-
ok 64 G80CS,what i'm basically trying to say is that oil pump was around before the G85, just!,
Not according to "my informants" who tell me that the Norton oil pump came with the G85 in '66, NOT the G80CS in '64. Being an anorak wearing train spotter is a flucking curse Mick :-\
Whenever I've brought this up I've been told that the differences between the G85 and G80 were minimal so it's fair that they be allowed as a flow on
And I totally agree with you. That's the same reason I reckon the 1966 points B40 should be allowed in pre 65.
-
[/quote]
And I totally agree with you. That's the same reason I reckon the 1966 points B40 should be allowed in pre 65.
[/quote]
Exactly right Mark. There are some weird anomalies in the rule book that do need to be addressed....... No, I don't have a B40 or any Pre65 eligible bike so I have no vested interest in seeing the side point B40 allowed in Pre65, other than hearing the rumble of more four strokes in amongst the class. I just don't think it right to discriminate against the B40 when other "flow on" models are allowed even though they were manufactured AFTER the cut off date.
However, what about the frame? Isn't it the case that the later side point B40's motors were used in B44 frames? Is there any significant difference between the 2 frames?, excluding the OIF GP bikes of course.
-
I have a BSA instruction manual (printed by bsa) for B40(61-64') and B40 SS90(63-64') which has a illustration of (i presume) is the SS 90 that clearly shows it has side point and where the distributor tower was is blocked off/capped ? points towards jeff smith stating his early 64' had production cases - if it was side point ?? TBM i also have a army B40 350cc mk1 parts list catalogue which has the frame - part # 83-1689 it is not OIF and looks identical to all the earlier c15/b40 frames with separate oil tank :)
-
Why not let them in as the side points will be replaced with electronic sparks. frames were the C15 comp ones I think.
-
Well if the WDB frames are identical to the C15 frame there should be no problem with allowing the side point B40 motor to race in Pre65 in my opinion. Firko has written some interesting stuff on the inclusion of the Matchy G85 as a follow on model that could be argued as being a precedent for allowing the side point B40 in Pre65 as a follow on, no distinct difference/advantage model engine.
I would of thought that someone on the classic commission would be reading this and might provide us with some answers on why the rule against the side point B40 is in place.....
Huskibul, if your parts manual is like mine is for my B44, it will have all the dimensions of the frame. That being the case, you might be able to compare your frame with the C15 and use the information as indisputable evidence for your claim as a flow on model. It all helps when it comes to dealing with officialdom 8)
-
Well if the WDB frames are identical to the C15 frame there should be no problem with allowing the side point B40 motor to race in Pre65 in my opinion. Firko has written some interesting stuff on the inclusion of the Matchy G85 as a follow on model that could be argued as being a precedent for allowing the side point B40 in Pre65 as a follow on, no distinct difference/advantage model engine.
I would of thought that someone on the classic commission would be reading this and might provide us with some answers on why the rule against the side point B40 is in place.....
Huskibul, if your parts manual is like mine is for my B44, it will have all the dimensions of the frame. That being the case, you might be able to compare your frame with the C15 and use the information as indisputable evidence for your claim as a flow on model. It all helps when it comes to dealing with officialdom 8)
Good luck with that ;) like the optional B arm its much more fun to enjoy the power trip and mind fork people ::)
-
As shown below, the C15 and B40 frames are very similar, the only noticeable difference being the height/length of the steering head and apparently the top tube diameter. The B44 frame is very different in every aspect. I have a 1959 C15 frame identical to the one shown that's eventually destined to house my 500 Triumph motor for pre 60. There is quite a lot of structural work needed to get them into race ready condition, especially around the steering head and swing arm areas. http://www.bsa-c15.org.uk/c15_frame_and_suspension.htm (http://www.bsa-c15.org.uk/c15_frame_and_suspension.htm)
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/firko2001/BSAC15_zps9ad9e2d4.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/firko2001/BSAC15_zps9ad9e2d4.jpg.html)
1960 BSA C15 frame
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/firko2001/b40frame_zps143ff275.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/firko2001/b40frame_zps143ff275.jpg.html)
1963 BSA B40 frame
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/firko2001/BSAB44frame2_zpsc20df6d2.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/firko2001/BSAB44frame2_zpsc20df6d2.jpg.html)
1966 BSA B44 frame
-
That 66 'B44 frame looks identical to my 1964 C15E (enduro) frame and to the Army B40 parts catalogue frame - would that classify them also as carry-over ?
-
I just found this 1960 ex works B40/C15 trials bike.......it looks like points to me ;). I do suspect that it may have had some upgrades in its life however.
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/firko2001/smithB40_zps3758717d.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/firko2001/smithB40_zps3758717d.jpg.html)
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/firko2001/sandifordbsa-590x269_zpsf9335398.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/firko2001/sandifordbsa-590x269_zpsf9335398.jpg.html)
The ex-works, Jeff Smith, Jim Sandiford,1960 BSA 343cc C15/B40 Trials Frame no. C15S 2580 Engine no. B40 3294
-
The frame on the Trials bike looks totally different to the C15 and B40 frames Mark. It looks more like a B44 to me.... Nice looking jigger though.
"There is quite a lot of structural work needed to get them into race ready condition, especially around the steering head and swing arm areas".
Are frames allowed to be modified with extra gusseting and the like Mark? I was led to believe that the frame had to be "as per the parent frame".....
-
Are frames allowed to be modified with extra gusseting and the like Mark? I was led to believe that the frame had to be "as per the parent frame".....
Yes frames can be modified. Think of the lowered DT1 frames, any number of lengthened swingarms, and the many other 'cut and shut' jobs that make for turning a horrible, ill handling crapmobile into a half decent racer. The C15 frame has been modified for trials and scrambling since the day they were released. The two main areas are to triangulate an extra top rail from the top of the steering head to somewhere near the rear tank mount and to gusset the very flimsy swing arm pivot area. There is (or was) an excellent 'blow by blow' blog from a guy modifying his frame for trials but I'm buggered if I can find it. The photos are excellent and he even gives gusset measurements and overall dimensions. I had full intentions of saving the site so I can use his ideas on my own C15 but I forgot about it and now I can't find it. Bummer.
The frame on the Trials bike looks totally different to the C15 and B40 frames Mark. It looks more like a B44 to me....
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, I think the 1960 date might be about 5 years out. Even the look of the bike is mid to late sixties.
-
They must of changed from those earlier c15/b40 high steering stem frames in 64' for c15/b40 and then the first b44 & wdb40 used them as well - afterwards the army b40 stayed with them and b44 went to OIF
-
The C15S & C15T changed from the "swan-neck" style frames pictured in reply # 46 to the later style "competition frame" pictured in reply # 48 in 1963. Note that the frames # is given as C15S *****.
Methinks the 1960 date is a several years out too.
-
This is a slight thread deviation, purely to demonstrate the C15/early B40 frame mods.
Here's an early C15 frame (swan neck as JC so eloquently describes them) fitted with a Triumph T100 500 engine.. This is the basic setup I'm intending to use for pre 60 but I'll be using a B44GP tank and seat for a less cobby , slapped together look. However in the top photo you can just see that the builder has fitted a bolt on top brace from the top of the steering head to just in front of the seat. The frame still features the bolt up rear subframe where I will probably weld it and triangulate a tube from the front subframe mount to the swingarm pivot area in an attempt to tighten up that area. I'll be using an A65 swingarm too which both gives 2" of extra wheelbase and allows for a wider rear hub (I'm using Harley Davidson Sportster). All the dimensions will be as close to the B50 as I can get.
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/Tri2-1_zpsc61b0971.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/Tri2-1_zpsc61b0971.jpg.html)
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/Tri1-1_zpsc08675ad.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/Tri1-1_zpsc08675ad.jpg.html)
-
Can the distributor model have electronic ignition?
If so why is it different to points model that's modified to electronic?
-
Can the distributor model have electronic ignition?
If so why is it different to points model that's modified to electronic?
I think its only Aesthetics Mike , changes the appearance of the motor :-\ yes you can run electronic ignition with the distributor .
-
So MBF.....will you be happy to run a A65 swingarm in pre '60..??
-
Amazing- you can run electronic ignition and Fork emulators and modern fork internals (gives an advantage) but cant have points, no performance advantage :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
I guess given Verns bike now races and Suzuki swingarms now get used one can only hope MA "will get it" o0ne day
-
On the Bsa c15 owner's site (b40 also) they state boyer bransden electronic ignitions "up to 1964 for distributor" !on the same page theres a paragraph - " Manufacturing at BSA" ,the manufacturing year was august thru to july of the year given - IE. a bike manufactured in november 1964' would be a 1965 model ? ive still seen nothing to say there weren't any production sidepoints before december 1964 ! and read quite a few articles stating distributors were up to 1964' - very grey area that should be over -written with whats best for the sport ;)
-
On the Bsa c15 owner's site (b40 also) they state boyer bransden electronic ignitions "up to 1964 for distributor" !on the same page theres a paragraph - " Manufacturing at BSA" ,the manufacturing year was august thru to july of the year given - IE. a bike manufactured in november 1964' would be a 1965 model ? ive still seen nothing to say there weren't any production sidepoints before december 1964 ! and read quite a few articles stating distributors were up to 1964' - very grey area that should be over -written with whats best for the sport ;)
This phrase sums it all up really :)
-
All fascinating stuff. As a previous owner of a 1968 B44, I've enjoyed the banter. However, it all boils down to the process, and how rule changes can be made - if you want to. VMX24 posted a copy of the procedure and the relevant form to submit, to apply for a change. Talking for days is great, and interesting, however nothing will happen. If anyone here feels strongly about the eligibility issue, and wants to apply for change, follow the process and fill out the form, for goodness sake! We're all getting older.
-
I think everyone knows what "The Process" entails :-\ this thread is about gathering as much information as possible before some poor bugger/s take it any further ! eveyone thats had input seems to be interested so the longer it goes on the better - wouldnt want to go in half cocked would we
-
I think everyone knows what "The Process" entails :-\ this thread is about gathering as much information as possible before some poor bugger/s take it any further ! eveyone thats had input seems to be interested so the longer it goes on the better - wouldnt want to go in half cocked would we
Too Right! The more information that can be given as evidence all helps "The Process". I for one am very interested in this thread. 1, I am learning more about BSA's. 2, I enjoy giving food for thought :)
Are frames allowed to be modified with extra gusseting and the like Mark? I was led to believe that the frame had to be "as per the parent frame".....
Yes frames can be modified. Think of the lowered DT1 frames, any number of lengthened swingarms, and the many other 'cut and shut' jobs that make for turning a horrible, ill handling crapmobile into a half decent racer. The C15 frame has been modified for trials and scrambling since the day they were released. The two main areas are to triangulate an extra top rail from the top of the steering head to somewhere near the rear tank mount and to gusset the very flimsy swing arm pivot area. There is (or was) an excellent 'blow by blow' blog from a guy modifying his frame for trials but I'm buggered if I can find it. The photos are excellent and he even gives gusset measurements and overall dimensions. I had full intentions of saving the site so I can use his ideas on my own C15 but I forgot about it and now I can't find it. Bummer.
I wish I would of known that frames can be modified/gusseted before I finished painting my B44 frame. I would of triangulated the "subframe" with some gussets and welded in an extra bar from the down tube to under the back bone. Ah well, the plan always was to get this B44 up and running and then build a GP replica with the spare B44 frame I have....One day at a time 8)
-
up to and including the 2011 MOM's (gcr's) the wording had Bsa All except B44 and B50.
The 2012 Mom's had a major rewrite and no longer listed bikes that were acceptable in any of the classes, except follow on models in pre70 , pre 75, and pre78,
The whole" Classic" section was revised (rewritten) ,
I don't think the intention was to actually changed the rule ,
I suggest you try to get clarification on this before getting to upset about the current wording.
Just my observation
-
So MBF.....will you be happy to run a A65 swingarm in pre '60..??
Cheeky prick....you love using me as a plaything don't you Brian ;D. I made a mistake, I think the swingarm's out of an A10. Happy? ;)
-
Whilst I fully support the return to the previous wording which effectively deems all B40s to be pre 65 eligible i.e. carry overs, it is important to note that there are changes to the later models other than the ignition which also alter the external appearance of the engine. These are associated with the change in crank lubrication.
-
Whilst I fully support the return to the previous wording which effectively deems all B40s to be pre 65 eligible i.e. carry overs, it is important to note that there are changes to the later models other than the ignition which also alter the external appearance of the engine. These are associated with the change in crank lubrication.
From what I understand, the lubrication system changed on the Matchless G85 from the G80 as well. What's the big deal? As for appearance of the motor, a lot of BSA B50's get the CCM treatment on the motor.....
-
Whilst I fully support the return to the previous wording which effectively deems all B40s to be pre 65 eligible i.e. carry overs, it is important to note that there are changes to the later models other than the ignition which also alter the external appearance of the engine. These are associated with the change in crank lubrication
I'd also add that any B40 using the B44 OIF style frame would automatically be cancelled out from pre 65 unless the motor was retrofitted to an earlier frame or Metisse/Cheney or eligible aftermarket frame.
-
Here's an interesting and cheap item, a NOS set of what appears to be "distributor" model B40 cases. The interesting part is the sellers '65-66' dating of them.
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/B40CASES_zpsbb34a99d.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/B40CASES_zpsbb34a99d.jpg.html)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-BSA-Crankcase-B40-SS90-350-Singles-199-1969-65-66-New-Old-Stock-/200901240345?pt=Motorcycles_Parts_Accessories&hash=item2ec6a5a619&vxp=mtr (http://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-BSA-Crankcase-B40-SS90-350-Singles-199-1969-65-66-New-Old-Stock-/200901240345?pt=Motorcycles_Parts_Accessories&hash=item2ec6a5a619&vxp=mtr)
You will get the brand new BSA B40, SS90 350 Singles 1965-66 new old stock BSA drive and timing side crankcase with bearings, bushings, seals, etc. We combine shipping costs on multiple wins, so check out our ebay store. To get an order with combined shipping you must request and invoice before you pay. Contact us with any questions / 661-877-7911 / 661-252-1174
-
Yeah very interesting firko ! just went into the Rupert Ratio's engine # prefix's and the SS90 first come out in 62' as the BSS model then in 63-64' as the B40SS,and then in 65-66' as the B40FSS odd that they keep the dissy cases, where as in other sites (c15/b40) and on other models they state the dissy as only going " up to 64' " ??? - very grey area
-
Wow Firko, those cases are very different to the side point cases aren't they. It's the first time I've ever set eyes on them there things. Even the oil gallery is totally different. It'd be a lot of work to make that case be able to mount a points ignition. Whether that would be any advantage other than saving a little weight from losing the dissy or not, I have no idea.
You are in a very "grey" Huskibul. But, I still reckon that providing you are using a genuine B40 motor and frame, it should be pre65 legal just for the sake of having more bikes out of sheds and out amongst the fray!
-
Dont know why you'd want to do it ,but to turn that distributor motor into a sidepoint could be as easy as bolting on a sidepoint cover and camshaft and blocking dissy hole ,theres a c15 or b40 on the c15 site that looks like thats happened and it looks like a BSA factory picture ???
-
350 BSA Classic Scrambler......from B50.org
I finally got round to uploading a few pictures of my 350 BSA that I race in Classic Scrambles. I don't apologise for the lack of originality of some parts but after a season and a half the chassis has not presented any problems at all. Last years engine was a distributor B40 but I built the current end feed one from a set of B44 crankcases, a NOS B25 crank fitted with a Thunder Engineering Triumph T100 performance rod. On to the rod I attached one of Ed's JE pistons and machined the crankcases and iron B40 barrel to give 10.75:1 compression ratio. I balanced the crank to 70% based upon a collective judgement from Ed and Roger Taylor at RTS. The head is B40 with a larger inlet valve and ported to 30mm. The exhasut is standard with the port opened out to take a 1 1/2 in pipe. The silencer is from Terry Weedy. The gearbox is from a TR25W that I picked up in the US as are the timing cases I have reversed the shift to 1 up to be the same as my AJS Stormer which being a drum selector cannot easily be changed. Ignition is PVL rotor and stator with Rex Caunt CDI box and coil. Advance curve is 31 degrees with full advance set at 34 degrees BTDC. I have just about got the 30 mm Mk1 concentric carb dialed in now with 25 pilot, 106 needle on middle groove, 220 main jet and a 3 cutaway raised to 3.3. I find that the cutaway can make a big difference to the response and it is worth experimenting to find the optimum. This motor is very responsive running on 105 octane leaded race fuel from Anglo American Oil Company in Dorset and is lubricated with filtered Rock Oil TRM fully synthetic 20-60. I went to this because of detonation that I was getting on Super V with 5% Proboost. Now there is no detonation at all. All in all I am please with what I have created, it didn't cost an arm and a leg, is reasonably quick and gives me great fun.
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/b40orange1_zpsd8df3864.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/b40orange1_zpsd8df3864.jpg.html)
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/b40orange3_zps412d14e5.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/b40orange3_zps412d14e5.jpg.html)
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/b40orange2_zps55c8f906.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/b40orange2_zps55c8f906.jpg.html)
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/b40orange_zpsfc7b4a3b.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/b40orange_zpsfc7b4a3b.jpg.html)
-
Its a B40 motocross bike and was built with no expense spared to the highest specification to compete in classic motocross events.
Ive been assured this bike is very competitive and that in the right hands could win at the highest level.
The bike benefits from recently being subjected to an engine refresh.
The specification is as follows but if you require any further information then i will happliy put any prospective buyer in touch with this machines current owner.
-Bsa frame, modified for competition with folding footrests.
Terry Weedy swingarm (Longer and stronger than stock for more stability)
Betor forks, widely recognised as the forks to have and have alloy yokes plus benefits from a fork brace.
Oversized magnesium competition front brake
Rickman type rear wheel.
Wheels are built with stainless spokes, brass nipples and new rims
Tyres are Michelin S12, regarded as the best tyres available for this type of machine fitted with heavy duty tubes for peace of mind.
Rear shocks are Reiger, regarded as better than ohlins (one has some damage to body but doesnt affect the suspension performance)
Sammy Miller period copy mudguards
Magura Levers
Renthal Alloy Handlebars
Amal competition throtle
-Pvl Ignition
NEB mainshaft and clutch
-Amal concentric carb, larger than standard for competition use (custom jetted to enable bike to run on methanol)
-The engine has been built by Roger Taylor at www.rtsracing.com
Please contact me with any enquiries.
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/b40a1_zpse0d531e8.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/b40a1_zpse0d531e8.jpg.html)
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/b40a2_zps8e3e654e.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/b40a2_zps8e3e654e.jpg.html)
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/b40a3_zps81f45eb2.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/b40a3_zps81f45eb2.jpg.html)
And another one........ http://www.westcoastbritishracing.com/B40MX.html (http://www.westcoastbritishracing.com/B40MX.html)
-
They are both B44 frames Firko.... The things they can get away with in pommy land! I also think the first bike has a victor GP or round barrel B44 head going by the left side entry of the carby.
-
Nice bike firko ! like the old school low styling ;) pretty sure b40 head intakes are on the left and b44 square heads right ? and as JC said earlier those competition c15/b40 frames come in 63' and were on the early round barrel b44's
-
They are both B44 frames Firko.... The things they can get away with in pommy land! I also think the first bike has a victor GP or round barrel B44 head going by the left side entry of the carby.
have oil in frame
Yeah now I look a bit harder I can see they haven't got the C15/B40 style frame but while I'm not so sure of the silver bike, I'm fairly confident that the orange bike doesn't have oil in frame, going by the stock oil tank on the rhs. There was a time where the Brit pre 65 and pre 68 rules were something to follow for purity but these days some weird stuff gets through, especially in the BSA single area. I was reading in Classic Dirt Bike of a 580cc B44 which I guess is legal, even here as long as it's all internal. I suppose it's to counteract the 750 kitted Triumph and BSA twins. Still, these are still nice looking little 350 Beezas. That's the look I hope for with my TriBSA. I've got three of those tanks now, two alloy and one fibreglass.
-
hope this helps,safe and merry chrissy to all vmxers g.(http://[URL=http://s1284.photobucket.com/user/gbankier/media/bsa001_zps8a00bcdb.jpg.html][img width=582 height=800]http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a561/gbankier/bsa001_zps8a00bcdb.jpg)[/URL](http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a561/gbankier/bsa001_zps8a00bcdb.jpg)[/URL[URL=http://s1284.photobucket.com/user/gbankier/media/f2e27a26-2d69-4103-9751-54e52e35950d_zps69b5e28b.jpg.html](http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a561/gbankier/f2e27a26-2d69-4103-9751-54e52e35950d_zps69b5e28b.jpg) (http://s1284.photobucket.com/user/gbankier/media/bsa001_zps8a00bcdb.jpg.html)(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a561/gbankier/bsa3001_zps69d29bbf.jpg) (http://s1284.photobucket.com/user/gbankier/media/bsa3001_zps69d29bbf.jpg.html)](http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a561/gbankier/0aa3522b-b6b6-4f4c-834d-9ced8c4a1ae1_zpseccf4004.jpg) (http://s1284.photobucket.com/user/gbankier/media/0aa3522b-b6b6-4f4c-834d-9ced8c4a1ae1_zpseccf4004.jpg.html)[/img]
-
According to the article they used the stock cases for the first nine rounds of the 64 season until they went over to sand cast cases for the final four rounds. The photo of the sand cast engine clearly shows a points cover so from my perspective, that settles the case, the points cases clearly existed in 1964. The only fly in the ointment being whether the sand cast works cases constitute production proof. I'm just playing good cop/bad cop here, throwing an opposition perspective into the ring. I personally think this is proof enough.
Grant your vast library has once again helped answer a hotly debated legal question. Thanks mate and a Merry Christmas to you too.
-
Thats the article -cheers grant! as Ted suggested earlier "theres nothing in the MOM's about works parts ! BUT the MAIN arguement is whether the bike in the first 9 rounds was sidepoint ,were Jeff clearly states they were production cases -Hence wanting pics of the bike in those rounds , if it is sidepoint there is no arguement ! surely theres pics out there
-
Interesting to find out the 420cc B40 was mounted in the GP OIF in 1964. That could open up a whole new can of worms should someone want to argue the point..... :o
-
I think all round barrel BSA engine should be pre65, as they where in the beginning, it needs to be revised. and b50 should be allowed to run in pre 70
-
So where do you fit the b44 square barrel then Dave
-
DISCLAIMER I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT RULES BE CHANGED OR THAT THE CURRENT RULES DONT WORK
But is there somthing in what Dave says :-\ Obviously with a year cut off for classes its not possible to change to much in the way of elidgibility . If the older classes were remaned eras with a broader scope for models would that encourage more people to bring out their older bikes .
In the early days of VMX 25 yrs ago in Australia ? the current classes ( pre 70 , pre 65 and pre 60 ) were probably well subscribed and the classes made perfect sense following development across that era . Blokes who raced those bikes in the 60s probably came back out for a ride and the class structure suited perfectly .
25 yrs on with few exceptions i dont imagine many of those blokes are still racing .
From a spectator point of view i dont imagine the average spectator would care less if 67,68 model bikes were racing in pre 65 or 71,72 B50s were racing in pre 70 , they would rather see fuller grids and closer racing .
Maybe in time a loosening of the rules and moving to a circa system rather than a fixed year cut off could be a progresive move :-\
To play Devils advocate if someone suggested doing the same to my eras (pre 75 and pre 78 ) i would object ( however that could change in another 10 yrs )
-
Referring to the publication " Classic British Scramblers ", an Osprey publication, it refers to the following re BSA 420 -
" UNTIL MID 1964 , the ignition systems contact-breaker assembly remained housed within a car type distributor, rather than as points on the side."
I have a copy of " Out Front - British Motocross Champions 1960-1974 ", which has a couple of photos of JS's 420, unfortunately of a clean 420 on the drive side, and a very muddy ignition side, can't see what it has!
Mike
-
I personally feel that the cut off dates are all wrong, it should have been thought out much better than they where.
pre 73, pre 68, pre 62.
-
This could easily turn into a can of worms :D. There was a time when I shouted the "B44 for pre 65" mantra from the rooftops but today I'm not so sure. The November 1966 release date really sticks in my mind to the point that I now think the bike races where it belongs, in pre 70. Dave also calls for the B50 to be allowed for pre 70. That idea has some merit and has been raised in the past but the 1971 release date and it sharing the class with the less developed square barrel B44 causes a problem in my mind.
I think the BSA spread should be......B40 (ALL)in Pre 65....B44 Oval and Square barrel in pre 70... and the B50 remain in pre 75. I understand that BSAs technological advances were a couple of years behind everyone else's which is why we have a bike that for all intended purposes should be a pre 65 (B44) and a pre 70 (B50) but by the tragedy of their birthday they miss out. If we start fudging cut off dates we open up a hornets nest. Which brings me to Dave's other point that the cut off dates should be 73, 68 and '72. While I think the current cut offs historically fit into the technological advancements pretty well, Dave got me to thinking that perhaps "the pre 65" class might be a better if changed to pre 68. The pre 68 class was run as an experiment a few years ago with mixed reaction. I personally liked it as did many others but it did cause some dissent and in the end the experiment was canned. Ironically the winning bike for the three years (I think) at National level was the B44. I also wonder why you picked 1973 as a cutoff Dave? The Poms went with pre '74, I'd presume to avoid the Maico CCM, KTM, Montesa 5"+ rear travel situation but what would you do with those 1973 and '74 model bikes that have 7" and 4" travel Dave? They'd be totally uncompetitive in pre 78 so in my eyes 1973 creates more problems than it solves. I can see the Pre 62 was picked to replace pre 60 because it historically excludes aftermarket framed bikes but to bundle all of the Metisse/Cheney etc bikes in together creates a big technology gap. For instance you'd have a B44 BSA competing against a Rickman Weslake 490 and Cheney's early 60's products were vastly different to his 1967 models. Once again, I understand your reasoning but think it creates more problems than it solves.
-
73, 74 75 models would become pre 76.
-
Here's a shot of 'Black Bess' from Frank Mellings classic book 'The Big Leap". Even though the caption says 1965, one would have to assume that the bike existed in 1964. I'll search a bit more over the holidays and see what else I can dig up.
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/b442001_zps20ed2c82.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/b442001_zps20ed2c82.jpg.html)
73, 74 75 models would become pre 76.
So....We've also now got a new pre 76 class? What's the reasoning behind these cut offs Dave? A 1973 7"& 4" travel bike would now be up against an 8" front and 7" rear travel '75 model. You're making this up as you go aren't you Dave ;D. Let's just stick with what we've got. It's worked for thirty years all over the world.
-
Just a thought, getting back to the real topic, B40 should be pre 65, all this changed to suit Vern Graceson and his cheney/ triumph I do recall. I don`t want to open up a can worms, but pre 65
would be a lot stronger fields if the b40 and b44 round barrels where aload back in.
-
I think we all agree that the B40 should be included in pre65 Dave, providing it has the B40 frame and NOT the later b44 frame that the last B40's came out with. The problem with including the B44 in pre65 is that no one will want to ride the B40 up against the more powerful B44. Not when we're racing for sheep stations ... ::)
As Firko said, the B44 is a very competitive bike in pre70 with a good rider controlling it. Even more so when it's had the big bore treatment.
I have to admit to having an interest in any attempt to move the B50 back to pre70 but I can't see that happening unless the date was changed to pre72, which, in my opinion, is a much more aligned date than pre75.
But, as the saying goes...If it ain't broken, don't fix it ;)
-
I do agree pre 72 era, as it should be, b50, b44, came match it together, the straw can be broken and fixed to the right era, I think it deserves a shot. at national level, B40 into pre 65.
-
I think we all agree that the B40 should be included in pre65 Dave, providing it has the B40 frame and NOT the later b44 frame that the last B40's came out with.
-- Sorry i dont agree with the above on frames ,as stated back in reply #51 ive had my C15E(enduro) frame number's checked on database's before and it came up as 1964 , Then on reply #52 JC reckons those same later "competition" style frames were introduced in 1963 ! Iam thinking those same looking Non- Oil -In early B44 frames were carried over from 63' up C15/B40s , and we all know B44 soon changed over to Oil- In frames and B40 kept them right thru from 63' .
-
I think this may have been posted before but it's a good read
http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/290/1686/Motorcycle-Article/Memorable-Motorcyles-BSA-Titanium.aspx (http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/290/1686/Motorcycle-Article/Memorable-Motorcyles-BSA-Titanium.aspx)
-
Great read! Plans for a Ti Bultaco frame look like being shelved. Just concentrate on the Carbon fibre guards and tank instead. J PS Is Frank still going?
-
PS Is Frank still going?
I'm assuming you're referring to Frank Melling Jerry. As far as I know he's still kicking.....
-
(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j41/Tento850/DSCF2898_zpsbdebae64.jpg) (http://s77.photobucket.com/user/Tento850/media/DSCF2898_zpsbdebae64.jpg.html)
http://www.bsawdb40.com/WD-B40-Prototype
http://www.bsawdb40.com/Mitchell-collection-bike-9
-
Hmmm interesting ! a distributor motor/cases with side-point inner and outer timing covers - no major upgrade there :-\
-
Looks like there also mods to the cylinder and cylinder head. Larger than std exhaust would also indicate that there has been a increase in valve sizes.
-
Looks like an optical illusion ! dont know that bike but army B40s use a std 1-3/8" header and std valves ,the earlier SS90 uses" big valve" and certain other unit single heads right back to 1960' -all in rupert ratio book :D