Ti BSA dirt test

[TM BILL]

http://davestestsandarticles.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/4/5/4845046/motor_cycle_mechanics_october_1977_bsa_titanium_tragedy.pdf

[GD66]

A genuine beast, and one which could have been anything without the woeful effort of BSA management in farming out most of the not just expensive but very innovative new processes required for the machine's assembly to a disparate variety of specialist firms, with the result that by the time the beginning of the GP season approached, stuff was still scattered all over the place, meaning the essential pre-season shakedown and prep time was non-existent.
Surprisingly, Smithy isn't embittered about the disappointing season that resulted, and he points out that very few faults re-occurred during the year, also that ignition woes were included in the list of ailments as well as race shop errors. He remains upbeat about the excitement that accompanied the bike throughout the year, and while obviously he'd liked to have defended his titles a little more competitively, like all top-level hardcore racers remains convinced that pushing ahead with innovation and technological challenges are vital in the world of GPs.
I was lucky enough to share a room with Smithy for three days, and among many other subjects went through the Ti BSA experiment with him race by race, component by component. Bloody fascinating, and most illuminating.
And the man's still a racer to his eyes...

[oldfart]

 "best ridden sitting down  .... so low that the rider sits in the bike like a arm chair rather than being perched on top of it"
Love the comment at the end from a suzuki rider

[Tahitian_Red]

I ran across this version of the same article a few years back.  It does have a few more photos.

http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/290/1686/Motorcycle-Article/Memorable-Motorcyles-BSA-Titanium.aspx

If I see Jeff Smith at our awards banquet this coming year I can ask him about the motors. 

[Davey Crocket]

Hey Tahiti boy, do you get many people racing that type of bike/era where you are?

[Tahitian_Red]

The Northwest AHRMA region is dominated by the "Premier and Classic" year bikes.   

A gentleman here restored what was left of Jeff Smith's championship bike, that burned in the BSA factory fire, to it's former glory a few years ago and I helped them push start it for it's inaugural run.  I was pushing like hell down a small slope and when it finally hit I almost fell flat on my face. LOL  I'll see if I have any photos of that bike saved somewhere.

[Tahitian_Red]

60's 4 strokes and early 2 strokes. 

I found a pick on someone's Facebook page.  It is his '67 Works BSA, not one of the championship bikes.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=148031781888053&set=o.200767820675&type=1&permPage=1

[firko]

i know it was 420cc - hopped up B40 or pre production B44

The BSA competition department tried a number of different bore x stroke combos during the '64 and '65 season. The most favoured engine in '64 was supposedly 411cc and was basically a big bore B40 (plus a lot of factory tweaks). I had an article which mapped out the works engine development but I can't find it anywhere. I was looking to copy it for Mainline to help his B40 project but it's not where I thought it would be. It's an interesting read so I'll keep looking.

[huskibul]

     Thanks firko ! so do you know if that 64' bike had mushroom distributor or later sidepoints which supposedly make it ineligible for pre 65' in australia - either way i find it a very strange rule - where's the gain ? the only thing i see is a loss of numbers on the startline 

[AL161]

Has there been a definitive ruling about the eligibility of points vs distibutor B40s for pre 65?

[huskibul]

    It's all a bit cloak and dagger but -aparently so ? ! someone said dizzy V sidepoint come's under "must look externally unchanged" which to me is a croc !  B40's are to me  pre 65 in spirit and preformance they started in 61' and and were only gradually modified for reliability right thru to the  67' army motor (which should be a carry-over model ) ! unless you throw a lot of money at the motor and maybe a cheney or rickman frame with all the bells and whistle's would i think they'd be anywhere near competitive in pre 70"- isnt that where the B44 victors etc come in ?  maybe somebody more educated on the subject could fill us in a bit better ! 

[TM BILL]

I think this has been covered a number of times on here, if you feel strongly enough about it go through the channels to try to get the rule changed . For what its worth i agree with you cheers Bill.

[huskibul]

     Yeah thanks for the vote of confidence bill ! and yes it has surfaced a few time's but it gets buried as fast as it come's up ! I have been advised (by an official) a while back  about  putting it in writing and trying for approval ! what iam looking for is as much information/history  and input from others  as i can before maybe going thru the motions , surely there's other B40 owners/builders that would like to see this put right !  there is no problem with them classed as pre 65 in UK (scramble's and trials) and i think the US as well -why the difference ?  cheers 

[bert]

Suzi211 should be able to give us the details.
Sidepoint covers are not allowed pre'65 (for B40). This was the reason for the protest of a B40 at the 2009 Nationals in Queensland being upheld. Apparently even though the factory produced sand cast side point covers for Jeff Smith for the 64 season to go on his 420cc B40, and even though they had them on the prototype B44 GP Victor at the '64 Earls Court show, you are not allowed to copy them!? I thought that is what building a replica is all about - copying what was raced at that particular time?
Am I now shit stirring? Maybe, because MA made a very bad decision to the detriment of the pre'65 class in general and just do not want to admit it. Boofhead egos!

[firko]

To add my 2 bobs worth.....I think that all B40's should be allowed. We as a sport need to support the foundation classes (pre 60/65/70/75) or they'll gradually fade away. We need to make the pre 65 class as accessible to as many people by expanding the eligibility requirements, not making it harder than it already is. To me it doesn't make a lot of sense if Triumph engines built up to the mid seventies and even 1970's A65 Beeza's are all eligible but the poor old points B40 misses the cut. The B40 is the perfect example of an entry level bike for a class that is often construed to be prohibitively expensive. Many potential punters look at the high end Cheney's and Metisses's and decide that they could never afford build something for the class. If the points B40 was made eligible we would be opening a cheap(er) option for those who'd previously seen the pre 65 class as financially prohibitive.

The commission recently made some chassis eligibility changes in a bid to make it easier to get into pre 65 and as welcome as that was, I believe they didn't go far enough. I'm working on a submission that I think will open the class to more machines without it losing it's period integrity. I've got a bit more research to go but it's on its way.....watch this space.

The next morning, after a relevant point came to me in bed last night..........

The 1970 RT1 Yamaha was accepted into the pre 70 class almost 20 years ago because of it's being more pre 70 in spirit than pre 75 where it, because of it's May 1970 initial release, should in theory race. There were no protests from class purists at the time and history has shown that the RT1 didn't become an instant class dominator or anything close. In fact, I don't recall an RT1 ever achieving any major on track success in VMX. What it did do however is to offer up a low budget alternative to the pre 70 500 class dominating CZ side pipers, Maico square barrels and (dare I say it) BSA B44's.

My point to this is that the same criteria that allowed the RT1 to race in pre '70 should be used to allow the points B40 into pre 65. There must be a whole bunch of ex Army BSA B40's sitting in sheds waiting for their second chance at life.