rewdco

Good to see some progress again Ron! Jan

Hi, If you send me an email I can send you some information on these WD/CO bikes. Cheers, Jan wd.register(at)gmail.com

171 Pounds for something that is most probably made of mild steel...? Their description is also hilarious: "Manufactured in India to the highest specifications and quality standards especially for Triumph 3HW Models Motorcycles for easy and trouble free fitment. This Spindle is lightweight, fuel efficient and low maintenance. It would give you better maneuverability, greater turning capacity, and consistent steering performance. This would fit to Triumph 3HW and many other models as reported by our Customers. " LOL! Jan

One hour after I had posted the airbox and oil tank shells pictures I came to the conclusion that the airbox had been made too wide... It could never fit... After a restless night I decided to make another airbox, see pictures below: And then it was only a matter of putting everything together, weld the oil tank seams and braze the seams between oil tank and airbox: Jan

OK, not finished yet, but getting there! Original oil tank cum air filter: Rear shell: Front shell: Air box: Jan

Really? Where can we find this rule? Anyway, don't worry, Sherman.dk isn't insulting anybody... Just asking how the project is going on, and if he can swap parts... Oh, by the way, welcome to the forum Sherman.dk! Jan

Hello Danny, I have sent you two private messages, did you see these? Jan

Just had a look in my workshop. I have the original taps from my early WD/C, and a pair of later taps from Ron's box here. The WD/C taps are dull chrome, the later taps look a bit shinier to me. And the sleeve in which the cork plunger moves is 1/16 longer on the newer taps! But both taps are stamped with the same patent number and look identical in any other respect. Jan

Hi Gary, On your late war WD/CO you need 1" 1/4 decals. It's all in the "Originality Guide" that I sent you in August 2014! ) Jan

Another "trick of the trade" for annealing aluminium (which work-hardens when you bend / shape it) is putting some carbon on the aluminium with a sooty acetylene or propane flame, then heat up the aluminium until the carbon disappears from the heat. Jan

I'm pleased to say that my previous post has inspired my friend and fellow WD Royal Enfield enthusiast Arnaud from France to make a sketch of yet another possibility for the oil tank cum air filter assembly. It may be interesting to take another look at the M.E.E. test report (see also #91): In my previous sketch I couldn't really find a position where there could have been a hole "drilled at the base, presumably to allow any water to drain away", but at the same time acting as a bypass. Now Arnaud has come up with another design, which not only looks very nice and simple, but also provides a location for this hole: Thanks very much for joining this brain-storming session Arnaud, I think we're getting very close with this one! Jan

As you will know, we're still a bit unsure about the oil tank cum air filter that was used on the lightweight. Enfield started using "steel wool type" air filters in 1939, but apart from the decal with cleaning instructions, these civilian air filters look completely different... In post #29 I explained a possible theory on how the system could have been. But Ron had a better idea, and I'm also quite convinced now that the air enters the filter through the louvres, is filtered somehow and then simply goes through a straight tube through the oil tank into the carburetor on the right hand side. I wonder if there was a thin pancake filter just behind the louvres...? But today, while I was browsing through some photographs in my WD Royal Enfield Register, I found an interesting picture of a WD/D that had been civilianized after the war and that had been kept in a shed since the 1950's. Imagine my surprise when I noticed that this WD/D had the remains of a "box" that looks an awful lot like our mystery air filter / oil tank! And it was fitted at the same position too! Obviously this "box" was not an oil tank or an air filter, but it's the same shape and it appears to have the same dimensions! So maybe somebody in Enfield's prototype department simply modified an existing (tool)box...? Problem is that I've never seen such a toolbox in an Enfield catalogue... Then Ron found out that it's a BSA Bantam toolbox... but Bantams are post war, so Enfield can't have converted one of these in 1940...? Could these toolboxes also have been used in the late 1930's I wonder? Or is it just a silly coincidence? Jan

That's a work of art isn't it! Jan

Curiously enough, these frame modifications weren’t intended to add some ground clearance, as can be seen in my last overlay. If you stretch the forks upwards, and the front and saddle frame tubes and upper rear frame tubes downwards, all you get is a raised saddle and petrol tank, while the engine is still in its original position. Obviously the ground clearance isn’t affected… Makes you wonder why they took the trouble… Did the longer stroke (90 instead of 77mm) require a taller frame? Ron didn’t have much problems fitting the engine to a standard frame… but Ron’s engine has a steel cylinder and cylinder head. Was the aluminium head higher? But even if it is, the first LW (#101) was first delivered with a steel cylinder… Or was it just an easy way to make this small and light WD/D motorcycle a bit taller, without adding too much weight? It looks as if a low centre of gravity (“low” engine position, for increased stability) was considered more important than increased ground clearance… Another thing that is worth studying now that we know that the frame has to be modified is the steering head geometry (rake and trail). And although the fork length will obviously affect the steering head geometry, this steering head geometry is completely independent of the geometry of the rest of the frame. I have added two lines to the WD/D and lightweight factory photographs to visualise these parameters, and although the accuracy of my sketch is not spot-on, these lines clearly show that Enfield “radically” changed both values (rake and trail) when they designed the lightweight! The rake decreases from 30° (WD/D) to 25° (LW), and the trail decreases from approximately 4” to approximately 2”. The effect of this modified geometry will be a more manoeuvrable and easier steering motorcycle, with less high speed stability. No doubt these are the handling characteristics that you would expect on a military motorcycle. In order to obtain this geometry, the steering head was tilted 5° and now makes a 40° angle with the downtube instead of 45° (WD/D). Jan

No Rik, if you stretch the frame below the headstock, the bottom of the frame drops again, and this will allow Ron to keep the standard mainstand! Please klick the link below to see the overlay that illustrates this theory. The toolbox is indeed the standard Royal Enfield toolbox, as used on many different models from that period. https://www.dropbox.com/s/vm9gmh196afipkd/comparison8.mov?dl=0 No lugs on this frame Rik, all welded joints. In my overlays I can clearly see that the lightweight tubes are longer than the tubes on a WD/D, but the angles appear to be identical. So adding spigots of the correct length should do the trick... Jan

Good question! Is this a Lucas MT210 or a Miller...? Jan

Handlebar mounted switch, same system as during 1939 - 1940. New models / specifications were always presented at the end of the year. Not impossible to see pictures of the 1948 specification at the end of 1947. Jan

From 1948 onwards Lex. Jan

No Lex, I didn't know... but indeed, there should be enough of these around! Jan

In order to find out some more information on the electrical components of this motorcycle, I took another look at the M.E.E. test reports (see also post #13). Bingo: the test report for frame #101 (the "pilot test") confirms that the bike was equipped with a dynamo, not an alternator, and that a dry battery was used, as in the model RE: And I also found another interesting paragraph about the air filter (which is situated "in" the oil tank, see also post #29). The description doesn't make me much wiser though... Unfortunately the test report for the "production model" (frame #303) contains no such information... But I can hardly imagine that they would have used an experimental alternator setup without mentioning this in the test report... Jan

You could be right Chris! I've just discovered that the lightweight headlamp is in fact the same (Miller) headlamp as used on the pre war model RE (or model RB, for Royal Baby, as sold in Holland): And then I found this 1939 or early 1940 advertisement, for the Royal Baby: The text that goes with the headlamp says Koplamp Rijkskeur met rijkskeur gloeilamp en ingebouwde droge batterij. In Shakespeare’s language: Headlamp Approved (headlamp) with approved bulb and built in dry battery. And this comes from the post war workshop manual: So the LW may also have had a (small) battery in the headlamp shell! So maybe no alternator but a dynamo after all! Jan

I would say that the difference was mainly the contact breakers cover / sleeve plus cap... Just checked both parts list, can't find any differences I'm afraid... Jan

This is all very weird Ron! I've just checked my documentation, and I think I have found something... Basically there have been 3 different specifications of WD/D and model D motorcycles in use with the British Forces during the second world war: the 1939 military “WD/D” motorcycles (contracts C/3739 and C/4452), the 1939 (phoney war) impressed militarised civilian model D motorcycles (various contracts with “impressed motorcycles”), and the 1940 (post Dunkirk) militarised civilian motorcycles (contracts C/7374 and C/7945). There is no specific information in the model D or WD/D instruction books... The contemporary WD/D and model D spare parts lists (printed in 1939 and 1940, all without illustrations) don't mention the magdyno. But: the combined parts list for contracts C/7374 and C/7945 (first printed in May 1940) was reprinted in April 1941, and this reprinted version (although still without illustrations) now contains some information on the magdyno! As you can see in the scan above, " * Items marked thus are applicable to contract C 7945 only." Please notice that "Sleeve, C.B. cover" and "Cap, C.B. cover" are both marked with an asterisk... Looks as if this setup was only used on the 1940 civilian model D (the contract C/7945 motorcycles were militarised 1940 civilian model Ds, ordered just after the Dunkirk losses!) Jan

This is really looking good Ron! Jan

Very nice job! But did you use the same thread system? Looks like BSF versus UNF to me... Jan