BSA WB30

[rewdco]

Think it would be appropriate to have a look at the history of the WB30 here... The history of the WB30 is quite complex, and shrouded in mystery. Some time ago I took all the WB30 information that I could find on my computer and started to compare, and to try to understand…

At the end of the 1930’s, the Norton 16H had in effect become the “standard W.D. motorcycle”. But in the second half of 1939 the Army had come to this conclusion: “Owing to the heavy weight of the 500 c.c. standard W.D. Norton model 16H motor cycle , and the consequent difficulty in handling over cross-country terrain, Messrs. Norton Motors, Ltd., The Triumph Engineering Co., and The Enfield Cycle Co., were each asked to produce a special 350 c.c. lightweight motor cycle, and these were in due course received for trial.” 

Testing continued until early 1940, when two extra manufacturers (BSA and Matchless) joined the group. BSA had prepared a 301 lbs. 348 cc OHV model (contract C/6623, frame number EX290, engine EX291), and Matchless presented a 282 lbs. 249 cc OHV model (contract C/6674). These models also had to go through the same test procedure as the Enfield, Triumph and Norton models.

 

And here's the test procedure for this “prototype” WB30: first it had to go through a performance test (20-21 Feb 1940). Then it had to endure a 10.000 Mile test (3/4 road, 1/4 cross country, during the spring of 1940. This was also the period of the German invasion in the Low Countries.) Then another performance test and then the bike was dismantled for inspection. 

During the 10.000 Mile test (and prior to the fall of France) this particular BSA was also shown to the French Lieutenant Baulny, who had come to the UK in search for thousands of military motorcycles for the French Army, as the French factories couldn’t provide them in time. The French didn’t order any BSAs, as BSA didn’t have the time to build so many bikes for a foreign army either. But I’ve added the French test report FYI...

[rewdco]

After the 10.000 miles of the “pilot” test as described in the previous post, all tested models were “approved” by the M.E.E..  In June 1940, a second “(pre)production” test was planned with motorcycles that had a less “exotic” specification (read: less aluminium parts). Royal Enfield (C/7972), BSA (C/7975; frame and engine number EX309), Matchless (C/8019), Triumph (C/8020) and Norton (C/8031) had all been asked to make one (two for Triumph) extra prototype(s) for further evaluation. Again, all motorcycles were tested extensively, but this time, “only” 5.000 miles had to be covered, of which 50% were off road.  The BSA went through this test in July - August 1940. And again, each motorcycle was completely dismantled after these 5.000 miles plus a “repeat performance test” to check all components. 

I found the illustrations below, and although the last illustration comes from the contract C8330 instruction book, it also shows EX309, the C7975 “preproduction” bike. 

[rewdco]

Around the end of the “(pre)production" tests (on August 1st 1940 to be precise), there were some interesting remarks in the editorial of “the blue ‘un” (The Motor Cycle).  Arthur Bourne pleaded for the approval of only one (or two at the most) motorcycle(s) to avoid logistical problems with spare parts etc. He also suggested ordering a batch of 100 motorcycles of the chosen motorcycle. The idea was that when ordering just a single motorcycle, the most experienced fitters in the factory would have built it. A batch of 100 motorcycles would have been built in more realistic circumstances… 

The influence of Arthur Bourne and Graham Walker in this standardisation project must not be underestimated! On August 9th, the Army ordered 50 BSA WB30 motorcycles (contract C/8330) and 50 Triumph 3TWs (contract C/8331) for final evaluation. Production of both contracts didn’t start immediately: it looks as if at that time, both factories were too busy producing all the motorcycles for the “normal” military contracts.

But on August 13th, the German bombing offensives against airfields and factories in England began. On September 15th, Germany starts massive air raids on London, Southampton, Bristol, Cardiff, Liverpool and Manchester. And in the autumn of 1940, the Luftwaffe did some serious bombing on the British industry cities (Coventry, Birmingham). During one of these air raids (on November 14th 1940), the Triumph factory in Coventry was heavily damaged. Tooling for the 3TW was lost, as was the complete production so far… Faced with this situation, Triumph could no longer fulfill the demands of the Ministry of Supply. This means that by 1941, Triumph was out of business. 

The frame numbers that BSA had allotted for this contract C/8330 were WB30.101 - WB30.150. It looks as if 60 WB30 engines had been prepared (numbers WB30.501 - WB30.560). During assembly, engines were picked out “at random” (so no relation between engine and frame number).  

The first contract C/8330 bike was assembled in December 1940 (frame number WB30.101, engine number WB30.512). This motorcycle was road registered by the BSA factory (FOM 719), and it also had a military census number (C4279578). It was tested by the M.E.E. in January - Februari 1941.

More or less at the same time (Januari 1941) BSA also assembled a WB30 motorcycle with frame number EX289 - engine number 289. Judging by the EX prefix, this must have been another prototype. And this motorcycle was to become the 51st bike for contract C8330! EX289 was despatched to the M.E.E. on January 30th 1941, but the M.E.E. had other plans with the bike: this was going to be the first of the so called “hybrids” (a mishmash from different frames and engines). As such, the WB30.289 engine was replaced by an AMC engine (number 23297). This BSA-Matchless was tested by the M.E.E. during April - May - June 1941.

 

 

From March to May 1941, the original 50 contracted C/8330 WB30s were now officially handed over to the Army, for further testing. And for these tests, the bikes were sent all over the place:
- 25 bikes were sent to Chilwell (RAOC)
- 19 bikes were sent to Feltham (RASC)
- 3 bikes were sent to the USA
- 2 bikes were sent to Canada
- and we know that good old C4279578 (FOM 719) was used as a demonstrator for both weeklies: on May 22nd / 29th they both did an article on the new 350 OHV BSA. From the WB30 factory ledger we know that by this time the original engine (WB30.512) had been replaced by either WB30.509 (fitted to frame number WB30.101), or WB30.552 (fitted to WB30.101A). Yes, they messed it up! There was no frame number WB30.142, instead number WB30.101 was used twice! (Well, there was WB30.101 and WB30.101A to be precise). And we know that (in May 1941) 2 of the 25+19 RAOC-RASB bikes were also sent to the M.E.E., for further testing! (Frame WB30.125 - engine WB30.508, and frame WB30.149 - engine WB30.548).

And as if this was not enough, in February - March 1941 the M.E.E. started to test the other “hybrids” (BSA engines WB30.540, WB30.523, WB30.522, WB30.556 in respectively Royal Enfield, Ariel, Norton and Matchless frames, and Matchless engines in Royal Enfield, Ariel, Norton and BSA frames…)

For reasons currently unknown, the whole hybrids project was abandoned somewhere around June 1941. Steve Madden wrote this on the WD Motorcycle forum: “... it is thought that the drive for uninterrupted production, particularly 1941 into 1942 with the UK, Empire and Allies facing ongoing defeats across the globe, took primacy over new ideas and designs. Perhaps the fear of disrupting production lines at individual manufacturers factories was simply too much of a risk at the time...?”

But the whole exercise had convinced the military staff that a good WD motorcycle had to be a “lightweight”, and had to have an OHV engine with a 350cc capacity. So one week later, they ordered contract C/11101, for 10.000 WB30s! But without prior warning, the WB30 contract C/11101 was changed by the War Department and Ministry Of Supply to 10.000 M20s. “The exact reason remains unclear, but it is thought that at this point in WW2 Britain was still suffering the impact of the BEF losses from the fall of France, not to mention other theatres of war, and was still desperately trying to maintain production to meet demand. Although the threat of German invasion had eased, it was still a possibility, and Britain's overseas commitments in the face of continued losses and defeats throughout 1941 did not help with matters. Remember too, that the USA had not yet entered the war, and further defeats in the Middle and Far East were yet to come. To summarise, it is likely that somebody at the War Office had "cold feet" (and with good reason) about a new design interrupting the constant production of M20s at a time of great National crisis... “ (Steve Madden on the WD Motorcycles forum).  
 

[rewdco]

End of story for the WB30…? Not really… In February 1942 there was a demand for 100 WB30s for the GPO (contract C/13683). The allotted frame and engine numbers were WB30-501 until WB30-600. Which means that engine numbers 501 - 560 have been used twice: first time for the contract C/8330 bikes, and then again for the GPO bikes. Unfortunately the factory ledgers for the GPO bikes haven’t survived, so the exact despatch dates are unknown. Must have been somewhere during the summer of 1942… GLP 664 was a typical GPO registration number of that period:

[rewdco]

One month later there was a demand for 100 WB30s for the Royal Navy (contract C13872). The allotted frame and engine numbers were WB30-601 until WB30-700. Once again, the factory ledgers haven’t survived, so the exact despatch dates are unknown. Must also have been somewhere during the summer of 1942… FOM 785 is another works registration number, looks as if this is the RN demonstrator. If you study the pictures carefully you’ll find lots of specification differences between the early contract (FOM 719) and the later contracts (FOM 785). 

[csbajku]

 🙂 Thanks for compiling this Jan. Well done. 

[Ron]

Yes thanks Jan. It all makes  interesting reading and adds to the history. Cheers Ron

Edited February 24, 2023 by Ron

[Jonnyob]

Great you have noted all this & put it on here 

it clarifies a lot about this model

thanks Jan 

[welbike]

Yes, had seen it already in email form, but here it's much better!

Thanks!

Lex

[Ron]

I've been calculating the position of the front guard and made up the support bracket at the forks. I've worked out that ultimately this should be riveted to the mudguard. But what a faf pressing the side divots into the mudguard, especially with just one pair of hands. (I wish I lived near Bruges sometimes😏)

The radius distance from the wheel spindle is equal all around where I've set it for the pictures, however I've calculated that about 5"- 6" needs to be removed from the back of the mudguard. Ron

[Ron]

Mudguard shortened and bracket riveted on.  Awaiting arrival of a front wheel to see how it aligns. Ron 

[Ron]

Ha Ha! My wheel has exactly the same brake plate as Lex's. I've already started drilling the rivets out. 

[gregbent31]

Great job

[Ron]

I thought I'd have a go at re-fabricating my pre-war brake plate. I spent lots of hours over 5 days to produce a reasonable copy of the WB30 plate. Starting with one of these.  Ron

[csbajku]

Well done Ron. At this rate it's going to be on the road in a year! Keep it up. 

[Ron]

Thanks Clive. Yes that is the plan. Ron

[Ron]

Today I made the oil tank support plate. Ron

[Jonnyob]

Nice work on the brake plate so far 👍

[Ron]

My engineer friend John made the missing front brake cable lug for me. It was awkward to weld on, but by the time it's had more primer and then top coat, it should blend in nicely. Ron 

[Jonnyob]

He did a nice job on that Ron - I wonder if you could persuade him to make a few more of them ?

jo’b 

[Ron]

John is very busy being retired, but spent many hours with his mill and lathe making the basic shape. I then spent at least 2 hours fettling and filing to produce the finished shape before I fitted it. Then came more filing to tidy the welding. 

Considering the lengths that BSA went to to make these bikes lighter, what were they thinking of, by adding this lug that was never fitted to other models which all had the much lighter and simpler cable lug on the brake plate??  Ron 

[csbajku]

13 minutes ago, Ron said:

John is very busy being retired, but spent many hours with his mill and lathe making the basic shape. I then spent at least 2 hours fettling and filing to produce the finished shape before I fitted it. Then came more filing to tidy the welding. 

Considering the lengths that BSA went to to make these bikes lighter, what were they thinking of, by adding this lug that was never fitted to other models which all had the much lighter and simpler cable lug on the brake plate??  Ron 

Ron,

Would I be asking too much if you can send us a set of pictures of it from different angles please? 

[Ron]

Hi Clive this was the basic drawing I made for John. Backed up with pisctures I have.  I can take more pictures of mine, but it's only what we think it should look like. Ron

Edited March 6, 2023 by Ron

[csbajku]

32 minutes ago, Ron said:

Hi Clive this was the basic drawing I made for John. Backed up with pisctures I have.  I can take more pictures of mine, but it's only what we think it should look like. Ron

Thank you Ron. 

[Ron]

We decided that my calculated width of 3/4" at the 11/16" fork needed to be bigger to give a stronger diameter on the fork leg. I then drilled a 1/4" hole each side of the ring before cutting it in half through those holes. Both parts were held onto the fork tube and the holes were where I mig welded it to the tube, along with the rest of the cuts. Inevitably I had excess weld to sand and file away.  Ron