79x100

Where had the crank end-float crept in ? Has it been eating shims ? You'll have a nice taut bottom-end when it's done as well. Be able to wear those cavalry twill breeches again !

Very nice, Ron. No idea what scared off the previous poster ! + You'll have a nice taut front end now. Did you not have the check springs before ? I assume that you're well on the way to building a project based on the WD/C forks ?

I can't immediately think of any pre-war images showing bridging plates. The documentary evidence suggests that it was a work in progress during April / May 1940 and had not yet become fully standardised.

I posted this excerpt from Vehicle markings 1942 on the FB page yesterday but things disappear so quickly there ! Probably vehicles in service before about the end of 1941 ought to have them and later deliveries not, but I bet it wasn't that clear cut...

As Ferg says, the 276 carb is the most likely suspect. Although it's quite a simple instrument, it does have a fairly critical set of cross drillings that can only be cleared by complete dismantling. If the instrument is removed from the motorcycle and the large mixing chamber nut underneath loosened, you will see the brass base of the jet block. If the slide above is removed and the needle jet underneath, you will be left with the mixing chamber and the interference-fit jet block. The way that I usually remove this is to immerse the body in boiling water and then invert it over a hardwood rod and tap the end down. The jet block should lift out but don't force it as it is a three-piece soldered assembly and the air slide guide above can deform. Nortons have a specific block that is no longer obtainable new and hard to find. Once the block is out, you will see a number of tiny drillings which include the pre-sized pilot air and fuel feeds. An untrasonic clean is a good idea but some careful wire work is often needed as well. Flooding (tickling) the carb effectively bypasses the pilot drillings so it will run for a short period.

It's all irrelevant anyway. There won't be a vehicle hobby in twenty years time. Enjoy it while you can as they're going to end up as static exhibits. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/25/new-diesel-petrol-cars-banned-uk-roads-2040-government-unveils/

Google 'Pur Sang Bugatti' They are Argentine replicas and are fantastic. The only problem is that in Europe at least they are only legal for use on private land. They are new and cannot pass Single Vehicle Approval. The trouble is that one or two of them did make it onto the road using the identity of genuine pre-war cars. It may well have been the case that the relevant owners club had approved and accredited these new builds but that may be hearsay. There seems to be an acceptance at DVLA that ex-military chassis were frequently swapped by a Government agency prior to sale but it is the case now (and strictly speaking long has been) that the registration number relates to the chassis it was issued to. This means that if the chassis is scrapped, the number dies with it. It ought to be possible to go down the 'Reconstructed Classic' route and gain an age-related number if all other components are historic. Better to repair than replace.

Mosi, I'm puzzled here. Your post seems to indicate that the headstock on the machine in the photograph is the one which was photographed detached in the 2014 posts. (Has the headstock and front tube been grafted onto another frame ?) Certainly I can see the horizontal numbers '8157' which appear to be part of the '18157 ?' on the earlier photos... But then the problem with the newly visible number 1515 is that as 'Rewdco' pointed out, the headstock has the horizontal cross-tube lug of a Type 2 CO frame. This would have had a number between 19827 - 26542 and prefixed with an 'M'. (although there were some Type 2 frames used at the end of contract C12425 (around number 11000 but again with the 'M' prefix.) Previous research also seems to indicate that the number was stamped parallel to the headstock between the bearings. I fear that 1515 is another non-official stamping.

Unfortunately it is impossible to calculate the WD serial to frame number correlation for contract C13948. A total of 5495 machines were delivered with 2129 to RASC and 3366 to RAOC. At this stage, RASC and RAOC still had separate numbering systems. The block C886687 - 890052 are RASC and 4852001 - 4854129 are RAOC. There is no surviving record though of which corps took which frame numbers and they are unlikely to have been delivered consecutively. There may have been blocks of numbers reserved for each or it may have been random. I believe that the VMCC have Triumph factory records for the 3HWs and if they record depot destinations then it may just be possible to reconstruct the sequence...but it will mean noting down and analysing 5495 hand-written entries. In general, identical numbers stamped inside cases are factory shop numbers intended to ensure that castings which had been milled or bored together ended up fitted to the same engine. At the engine assembly stage, it would not have been known what WD serial number would eventually be allocated.

They tell me that my advance-ordered copy has been sent. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0750970235/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

RN Fire Control apparently. http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/208-319.pdf All you have to do now is find yourself an MTB or Fairmile Launch.

Rick, the territorial limits are shown in the terms- basically UK only. This means that even UK members won't be covered if they are abroad - and lots do travel to Normandy and Arnhem etc. At the moment, UK law relating to third party insurance and liabilities should be fairly similar to European law - although the UK is more litigious....but the fact remains, I really don't understand at what point I fall outside of the standard third party motor vehicle liabilities and yet at the same time am not covered by the liability section of a household insurance. I'm also puzzled by Clive's suggestion that 'anybody who engages in any activity that is slightly different is at risk'...The liability section of a household insurance covers legal liabilities and then lists exclusions. I've never seen beach-combing or metal detecting listed (and my memory of those goes back to when I had to purchase a 'pipe-finder' licence in order to use it). I come back to the conclusion that the problem lies with liabilities that would not otherwise exist being included within the contract terms by event organisers. Perhaps the clubs should be putting more effort into fighting these unfair and unreasonable conditions ?

I understand that, but it is intended for organisers of an event. If I pay for entry then I'm a customer, whether I'm displaying or not. Is there some magic point where one takes on additional liabilities ? I regularly visit autojumbles. Am I resaonably well insured if I park a vehicle in the car park whether it is modern or an old one ? If I let someone sit on it, am I sudenly uninsured ? If I place the vehicle inside the grounds as part of a display, are my liabilities affected by whether I pay for entry, am given a free ticket or even a small payment to cover expenses ? It doesn't really concern me whether a club decides to offer extra cover to members, I'm more bothered by whether my use of a historic vehicle can somehow make me liable in addition to what would attach to any member of the public parking a vehicle in any location where it might attract attention from members of the public. In all honesty, the only reason that I can think of is that by agreeing to the terms and conditions imposed by show organisers we are assuming additional contractual liabilities which may not be insured except where required by the RTA.

I'm abroad so I have no axe to grind and nothing to gain here but further to 8_10's comments, I'm puzzled by what extra liabilities are incurred when one parks a vehicle at a 'show'...Is it because the organisers are attempting to attach liabilities under contract which would not otherwise apply ? If I take part in a parade and then park my vehicle in a place accessible to the public, am I taking on liabilities which would not apply if I drove individually and parked in Sainsbury's car park ? I can see no terms in a motor policy which include one and exclude the other....or are all motorists badly insured ? If we help a small child or attractive young lady onto a vehicle, is this any different from any other passenger, whether intending to ride or not ? Should we have a special insurance before allowing next door's kids to climb on the thing ? Are we covered if an ageing veteran, overcome by nostalgia and emotion, puts his hand on a hot exhaust pipe ? I'm not intending to rock the boat and I have little knowledge of the UK show scene but I really am struggling to understand what suddenly changes with a 'show' or event that does not also apply each time we take out a historic vehicle.

All the records up to and including 1940 were destroyed but the VMCC state that they hold records from 1941 to 1983. This may well be where O&M got their information from as I know that they viewed the factory records when they were at the Science Museum. An enquiry via VMCC or possibly TOMCC might shed some light but I think that you'd have to be a member of each. Most clubs these days see this sort of record as a source of revenue. A gap in the records could just as easily indicate that for instance already-delivered test models were taken into account or maybe proptotypes of another model that were paid for under this contract rather than all the bother of getting the unwieldy MoS to process an amendment. My impression is that the factories provided the War Office with a list of frame and engine numbers and the WO in turn issued a block of serial numbers. It would seem logical that omitted machines simply dropped off the list and that the link was retained for all others. The situation is not the same as pre-war or 1940 when contracts were made up from whatever could be delivered.

Ron, the difficulty here is that although Orchard & Madden list a gap in the frame numbers, they still allocate 3000 WD serial numbers for the contract. It is impossible to tell if the numbers for the missing bikes were never issued or if the numbers were re-allocated and the last few numbers cancelled. The Chilwell record card simply shows 'Complete' and makes no reference to a short delivery. After 1940, the manufacturers were paid to apply the WD serial numbers (which is why each make tended to have a house style). Did Triumph work from a prepared list showing which number was allocated to each frame number and simply leave a gap if frames were undelivered / rejected ?) or did they number each one in random order as they came off the line and end up having used less serial numbers ? Based on how other manufacturers had a link between frame and serial number, I'd suspect the former. As far as I know, there are no post-war Triumph 'Key Cards' which would have let us analyse the relationshships between numbers as we have been able to do with BSA, Matchless and Norton. C8886 had an October 1940 demand date and would originally have related to 3SWs but was never delivered due to the destruction of the Triumph factory during the Coventry blitz. In all probability, the canny Edward Turner saw towards the end of the war that Triumph had a signed contract for 3000 motorcycles and insisted on it being honoured. Serial numbers were issued but production was delayed until existing contracts had been completed. Triumph seem to have been given rather favoured treatment by the Ministry of Supply. They were a minor motorcycle supplier in 1940 but had a huge new factory built for them at Meriden while others struggled on in cramped inner city locations. If it were my machine, I'd base the number on the fuel tank on what it ought to have been rather than try to calculate any unknowns in. I'll try to look in my Ministry of Supply ledger copies later to see if a rebate was given for undelivered machines but I haven't catalogued the Triumph stuff so it's a long job squinting at hand-written entries.

The '44' arm of service serial looks to be on a horizontally divided background and in the centre there looks to be a Royal Artillery red / blue tac sign which would fit in with that. I don't have a list of post-war Arm of Service serial allocations.

The background colours to the Arm of Service sign indicate Royal Artillery with an 'Army Troops' bar underneath. This is consistent with the serial '191' which was amongst those issued to AGRA HQ Regiments. Although lacking a sword, the blue cross on white shield suggests 2nd Army. I'm not sure, in cases where the formation sign might have been painted rather than a transfer, the sword was always present ? Designs were sometimes simplified. The difference in blue shade between vertical line and cross-bar looks to me to be down to the video scanning. 2nd Army had a straightforward single colour blue cross.

A Google of EWC turns up 'Electric Wheel Co'. http://www.yesterdaystractors.com/cgi-bin/viewit.cgi?bd=implment&th=247515

An Enfield 2-stroke 'Class 1' reliability ? :-) Was Class 1 the lowest then ?

Is the engine the stressed member or were you the stressed member, Ron ?

Rifle clips ? What's wrong with string ?

It was my Norton that Mike Starmer looked at parts from. Areas such as the rear of the brake drums had formed an airtight cavity since assembly in 1939. I'm confident that the colour he arrived at matched on a 1:1 scale in good daylight. There are two problems with KG No.3 though. One is that it changes from a sort of 'goose-**** green' to almost brown depending on the light and it's difficult to predict how modern paint mixtures will react under all light conditions...and no-one had ever seen it in a workshop illuminated by LEDs at the time. The other aspect is that the chromate compounds were known to be unstable and with exposure to light and even simply oxidation by air contact, it loses the green tint and becomes more of a yellowy brown. I've seen no evidence of how quickly this arose but it was often stated that KG No.3 faded quickly to almost a background colour in the Middle East so it might be that with strong sunlight it changed in a matter of months rather than years. I've never seen anything that called itself olive drab which came close but it can be improved with the addition of some brown.

That's my brother. He was still waiting to be old enough to ride it. I rode once in flares - got flapped half to death and never wore them again....Platform shoes were bloody awful for changing gear in too. Being a stupid kid is a stage that we have to go through on the way to becomming silly old buggers and I wouldn't want to turn the clock back.

Did Fantic make a military motorcycle or did this thread escape from 'off topic' ? I suppose that my disinclination to let any machine get the better of me might well date back to that particular type of unreliable Italian two-stroke. I wouldn't care if I never saw another Dykes piston ring, ever. I had a 'GT' which I then replaced with an even more troublesome Benelli...In the end I gave in and started playing with comparatively reliable British motorcycles. When it was running, it was quick. Surrey Constabulary gave me a nice little paper certifying 54 mph and Oxted magistrates were less than impressed.