Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - JulianS

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46
661
Twins / Re: Refurbish old brake plate
« on: 13 February, 2017, 13:22:06 »
The edges were polished alloy rather than chrome. They will polish up very nicely.

662
Twins / Re: Brake plate removal
« on: 13 February, 2017, 11:55:47 »
See the little pressed rectangle by the spoke in photo, there are a number of these around the edge of the coverplate, they just spring over edge of hub with some pressure.

To get it off I gently tap the edge of the plate from the brake side of the hub using an aluminium drift.

Some pattern cover plates use different indentations around the edge which still spring over and come off the same way.

663
Twins / Re: Brake plate removal
« on: 13 February, 2017, 11:19:35 »
It should just lift off once the nut is removed but there is probably a bit of muck or corrosion holding it.

Try moving the brake lever as you pull the plate.

If that does not move it then with nut removed the spindle will move inwards a bit so gently tap the brake plate end of spindle and it should free off. the circlip only holds the bearing cap and bearing in place and does not effect brake plate removal.

Photo shows cross section of the hubs.

664
Twins / Re: A10 Head id
« on: 12 February, 2017, 14:42:31 »
It is an A10 head as fitted from 1954 til 1959.

67 1066 is the number for the basic casting of the head. The head with fixed fittings (guides) is 67 1065.

Fairly common BSA numbering system - for instance the rev counter inner timing cover is casting number 42 0154 but the finished item is listed as 42 0153 and the alloy head casting number 67 1549 is part 67 1548 with fixed fittings.


665
Pre War / Re: Sloper brake problem
« on: 11 February, 2017, 13:39:29 »
John

I dont think they were linked front and rear.

You could specify either a foot operated front brake (left toes)  or a hand operated front brake or a front brake with hand and foot operation, with rear operated by right foot.

Photo from 1929 catalogue.

666
Twins / Re: A10 rocker cover
« on: 10 February, 2017, 19:21:56 »
After 40 odd years trying this still presents me with a challenge.

It is probably the worst job to do on a preunit twin.

I dont think there is a foolproof way and I disgarded my pushrod comb years ago as it was quite useless.

The first issue is the limited space between the top frame tube and head can make it difficult to engage the four holding down studs into the holes in the head. This is worst with the alloy head 650s with long studs. The top inlet inspection cover stud was originally made with machined flats to ease its removal to increase the space.

Having overcome that obstacle I favour the elastic band method to hold the rockers in position. I put a bit of grease on the lower end of pushrods to hold them in the cam follower.

With an alloy head I cover the holes shown in the photo with a bit of tape, just incase the nut is dropped whilst fitting it, it can be a bit of a fiddle getting it out.

Fitting the sleeve nuts on the alloy head can also be a bit of a fiddle, getting the threads on the nut to catch on the stud.

 Having positioned the gasket and applied your chosen sealant, lower the box onto head and guide the pushrods into the rocker arms using your fingers. Sometimes the pushrods will be caught on the front edge of the inlet joint. Having fitted the pushrods, probably after several attempts, and avoiding force insert the four long bolts and gently tighten a bit and add the other bolt and the four nuts. You may need to rotate the engine to allow easy tightening.

Having finally tightened all the fasteners you can set the valve clearances.

If using thick modern gaskets, which might come in blue or orange or yellow materials, expect them to settle after a little use needing the fixings being retightened and clearances to be reset.

Keeping the oil in can also be a challenge but that is another tale.

667
Pre War / Re: Sloper brake problem
« on: 09 February, 2017, 14:20:55 »
Sounds like your front brake is a left toe operated option?

If yes then you could consider converting to either hand operated or the dual hand/foot operated option?

The significantly shorter cable from handle bar might help improve operation?

668
Singles / Re: B31 crankshaft/ cushdrive woes
« on: 09 February, 2017, 10:32:25 »
Worth speaking to some of the tooling specialists to try to identify your thread.

I got a number of taps and dies from Tracy Tools in Torquay 01803 328 603. Found them very helpful.

If making a nut then suggest you ensure the chosen steel is of sufficient tensile strength for the job.

669
Twins / Re: Float level on a 930 carburetor
« on: 09 February, 2017, 09:55:03 »
John

Its worth looking at this from Amal;


http://amalcarb.co.uk/optimising-mark-1-concentric-fuel-levels

670
Singles / Re: B31 Oil return
« on: 08 February, 2017, 13:11:22 »
It will return on the kickstart but might take a lot of kicks.

Suggest you check oil is reaching the engine by undoing the feed pipe at engine end.

If thats OK its a good idea to prime the pump by introducing some oil into the sump. A good 200ml or more is what I use on my A10. Unless you prime the pump then it will take a while to get oil there from the feed side of pump before it can return.  You should be able to prime by removing the tappet cover at base of cylinder and squirting oil in there and allowing it to drain into the sump.

671
Twins / Re: A65L engine rebuild
« on: 08 February, 2017, 10:04:42 »
No A65 experience with roller conversion but did have the A10 converyed back in 1985 by SRM. It has been faultless over about one hundred thousand miles including commuting.

The reason for selecting the conversion was due to bad experiences with the bush in the first 12 years of A10 ownership. Back in the 1970s it was not always easy to buy good quality spares. The timing side bushes on offer were not the original factory spec steel backed shell with a rolled insert of strip steel faced with a proper Vandervell bearing material, but were solid bushes of variable quality and sizing, and sometimes with significant variation as to position of the oil holes which in some cases did not correspond the the oil channel in the crankshaft. This caused some significant lubrication issues and several new bushes for the bike and as soon as the conversion became available I went for it.

The bushes now seem to be of much better quality than those I experienced 40 odd years ago and new oil pumps are available so would I go for the conversion again? I would consider it as a whole package including planned useage and overall cost. Whatever  bearings chosen need to be top quality, properly fitted (and shimmed for a bushed crank) and the lubrication needs to be based on a sound oil pump and pressure relief valve.

672
Singles / Re: 1963 C15
« on: 05 February, 2017, 16:42:27 »
What did the auto electrician check and what was his report?

With engine running headlight brightness should increase a bit when you increase the revs meaning there is some output from the alternator.

If not then I suggest you check it yourself before assuming it is the rectifier. It could be other things - the rotor could be low on magnetism after over 50 years, the wiring could be dodgy with poor connections or the switches could be faulty and more.

I would start by checking if there is any voltage coming from the stator - disconnect the 3 cables from the stator from the wiring harness and with a multimeter set on ac volts and engine running check the voltage you get between the cables with the figures between the cables in the attached photo which is from the Lucas service literature.

If you get near the figures from Lucas then the fault could be the rectifier solid state  replacements are available cheaply. See e bay or your favourite classic bike parts supplier.

If no output then you have a faulty alternator. Replacement the solution.

Your C15 from 1963 would originally have had an RM18 alternator and the rotor would have been 74 mm in diameter.

673
Singles / Re: B31 crankshaft/ cushdrive woes
« on: 03 February, 2017, 19:57:06 »
Have been through the old parts books.

The B31 used the same drive side mainshaft from 1946 until 1957 when it changed for the alternator engines.  Part 65 1128 for the shaft and nut 65 2520 until 1955 when it changed number.

So the thread would be 3/4 inch x 20 tpi cycle for both cush drive nuts.

I dont recognise a 22 tpi thread. A cycle thread would be 20 tpi or 26 tpi.

22 tpi is fairly close to a 1 mm pitch metric? And 18 mm is close to 11/16?

674
Twins / Re: BSA A10 twin leading shoe brake
« on: 03 February, 2017, 14:07:58 »
I agree with TTJOHN and STAR TWIN re the 8 inch half width hub. It is much underrated. My experience with an A7 so equipped was that it was a powerful and reliable stopper. The A10 8 inch full width hub was very poor in comparison and the 7 inch full width hub on my 1968 Starfire was even worse.

Both the latter were converted to TLS for safety of all and peace of mind.

675
Lightweights / Re: BSA Dandy Aluminium Cylinder
« on: 03 February, 2017, 09:33:09 »
The Dandy seems to have quite a lot of service sheets in its first 2 years.

There are 3 for the Beagle - 101 which deals with clutch, 102 which deals with front brake and 114 which deals with big end lubrication.

There also a number for the A65, some of which you can see in members area and some US market ones, which are not there, dealing with running in - apparently there were seizure problems - and gearbox problems. There are also a number of parts service bulletins which show many changes to A65 parts - including a 4 side update of the 1967 parts book.

The photo shows further changes to the Dandy kickstart.

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46