BSA project

[huskibul]

    Are you a moderator ?

[yamaico]

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. :'(

[huskibul]

   Yeah though about 2 of those and at times practice #3

[KTM47]

    Are you a moderator ?

No

[Simo63]

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

[firko]

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. 

[huskibul]

   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 ??

[yamaico]

   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?

[bazza]

Any one with contacts to Auzy Army??
In 1964 50 B40 motorcycles were delivered to the Auzie Army!!!

[TM BILL]

http://forums.mxtrax.co.uk/showthread.php/342267-PRE65-b40-home-brew-help

[yamaico]

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.

[firko]

   One nice B40.   http://www.westcoastbritishracing.com/B40MX.html             
                                                                                             

[jimg1au]

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

[firko]

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.

[jimg1au]

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