Wanted: Pics of Jeff Smiths 1964 BSA

[AL161]

Another interesting question is why did the wording which allowed all B40s get changed, and how?

[VMX247]

[big mac]

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.

[huskibul]

   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 

[big mac]

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.

[firko]

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.

[bazza]

Right on brother Firko

[matcho mick]

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!!,

[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!!,

 
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......................                                                                           
                                                                         
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.
 
                                                                   


"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://theowencollection.com/66G85.htm

[matcho 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. 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!,

[firko]

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.

[FourstrokeForever]

 [/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.

[huskibul]

        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

[big mac]

Why not let them in as the side points will be replaced with electronic sparks. frames were the C15 comp ones I think.

[FourstrokeForever]

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