Britbike forum Forums British Motorcycle specific Brands Bsa bulletin board EBay A65 dating question.

It was confusing back in 1989 when I bought it, I know mines a 1970.
Mission over... check check. :bigt

Don in Nipomo

I have not seen the books and don't know how they are laid out. I think one man has either tried to interpret them or believed what others have told him. The books must be a mess, - how can a bike be returned when it was not even made yet.
We will use Bruce's 1969 Dating certificate as an example... initially despatched in Nov 1966, and then re-shipped in Aug '69.
Three years later !!!! What do they think that machine did in those 3 years ?
I can tell you now that by looking at engine castings, frame specs etc that very little, - IF ANY, of this bike physically existed in 1966. The bike did not exist.

6 Digit bikes must be very rare, I can only speak for unit twins but I have only ever seen pics of two (now).
I am pretty sure those two bikes are not shown in the factory records as having the 6 digits either, I would be surprised if they were not sold during 1967.... nowhere near the factory in 1969.
As far as I can tell most of the Dash Y bikes were exported. It is not an English thing so they may be having trouble comprehending all this. I know of at least one bike that has
returned to the UK (in more recent times). It is a Dash Y and I am not sure what year Alan calls it. He is, or was, a member here.

Matching numbers came in midway through the 1966 season. The first Dash Y bikes seems to date from reasonably early in the 1967 season.

Honestly, the BSAOC could rewrite that comment and include so much good stuff. All these stories have been lingering for so long, some of the rumours just refuse to die.



I cannot comment on Unit single numbering but I have never heard the Y suffix used in relation to anything other than the twins. There seems to be very little confusion on that side or it, the guys with the 441's know their stuff and never speak of numbering issues.

>>>...I have not seen the books and don't know how they are laid out. I think one man has either tried to interpret them or believed what others have told him. The books must be a mess,...<<<



The production books I researched are very orderly.

>>>...At least that part of the UK BSAOC quote must have some truth to it.
"These returned machines are shown with a cross at the beginning of the despatch book record, they then reappear at the end of the book with the revised despatch date. The 1969 models are identified by the adding of an extra 0 at the end of the frame marking putting the number series into the 100,000's."...<<<

I did not see any crosses at the begining of the production books. Maybe I missed them. Nor did I see any 6 digit numbered entries either.

Perhaps we can ask the question again. Is any part of the BSAOC UK comment regarding the A65 numbering anomaly correct ?

I, for one, cannot make any sense of it at all.

Perhaps we are getting to the stage where we can rewrite the comment here. Once we are in agreement it could be submitted to them for their thoughts and possible inclusion on the website.
Many of us here are BSAOC members.


Oh, and another massive step sideways...

The same website talks about matching numbers on the 1966 models. I am not sure if I have enough info to go on but again I am confused.



I am not sure about this A65 engine and A50 frame but with matching numbers. I have seen examples of 1966 non-matching and 1966 A65 matching... but never came across one in between.
Any thoughts anyone ?

Given the accuracy of the rest of the comments I am now wondering about this also.

According to the '66 production book I reviewed, the matching numbers started at #3217 in November 1965. I would say that is a lot longer than "a short period" as presented above.

Gary, was this in the 1969 despatch book record or were you talking about the 1967 books?

I'm still hoping for access, for all of us, to digitized copies of the despatch book records. That way we can all really be on the same page.

Ok, I've started the process to get a dating certificate from the UK BSAOC with an email to Steve Foden.

Using the Jay Leno 1967 Lightning for reference, I made note of a few differences with mine that were very obvious.

My bike has newer versions of the following...
Front Brake
Fuel Cap
Taillight Assembly
Rear Shocks
Rocker Cover
Carburettors

No doubt there's more that a closer look would reveal.

I wrote a reply and then realised I was on the wrong track.

We think your bike is a 1967 model, but with an unusual number.
Are you saying now that it may be different to a 1967 ?

Ahhhh, I see the problem.

The bike Jay Leno is calling a 1967 is more 1966.

The side covers and tank would have been dropped very, very early in the 1967 season. They are features associated with a 1966 Lightning. As with the rocker cover, rear fender etc.

That bike would be a good example of a 1966 bike, it is not any indication of a 1967 Lightning. The guys commenting on the bike have mentioned that on his website.

http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/photos/bsa-lightning-moto/4725#item=115939

The following photo would be much better for use as a comparison.

http://www.cybermotorcycle.com/gallery/bsa_1967/images/BSA_1967_Sales_Catalog_A65_Lightning.jpg

The parts listed above, from my bike, look exactly like the ones pictured on the Firebird on the following page...

http://www.britbike.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=20287&page=38

Hey, who would have thought Jay Leno couldn't get it right!

Sorry Twin Apha, I have amended my post above a few times.

I have added the BSA publicity shot of a '67 Lightning, hopefully your bike looks more like that.

I did not see a Firebird in the link you posted, it took me to page 38...
Firebirds would normally have different features again, certainly with the tank. It depends on how close the bike you referred to was 'original'. The front brake would be different also, they all had 2ls brakes fitted.

Kevin, all I see in your post is a link to Leno's bike. Nevermind, I see it there now!

The Firebird is down near the bottom of page 38, the one restored by Richard Phillips.
The items I had listed are all exactly the same as on mine. The tank itself is different but the cap is the same as mine.

#346719 - 12/05, 2010, 9:38 pm 1968 BSA Firebird Scrambler [Re: raf940]

I found the picture of the 1967 Lightning at the link you gave, the following items are still different than on my bike.
Front Brake
Fuel Cap on Tank
Taillight Assembly
Rear Shocks

1968 makes a lot more sense as far as moving out excess 1967 stock, remember I mentioned earlier that I had thought for years that this bike was a 1968. That's what it had been sold to me as and I had never bothered to check the SN until just recently.

This is a pic of a nice 1968 Firebird.



Ok, so compared to a 1966 bike you thought your bike had features more aligned to the Firebird.
The brake could have been fitted late in the season, conceivably. The Lightning of 1968 had it along with the new forks, they were one year only.
The rear Shocks were a feature of 1968 and the new 'flip-up' fuel cap was introduced then also, as indeed the tail-light and Concentric carbs.



Can you post a pic of your bike here or email one through to me ?

How does it compare to this one ?

http://www.cybermotorcycle.com/gallery/bsa_1968/BSA_1968_Brochure_USA_03.htm

Yes, that's it in the bottom picture you posted, from the 1968 Lightning brochure.

Forget about the 1968 Firebird, I had just stumbled across that and had a bit of a "eureka" moment that I wanted to share!

I took a look at the 1969 Lightning brochure, the Shocks and the front brake mechanism had changed again.

So, my oddball serial number would seem to equate with a 1967 motor, and perhaps frame, with 1968 cycle parts. Possibly it was despatched in the '68 season and sold here in Canada as a 1968 model.

Again, that would seem to make a lot more sense than what they've proposed for these numbers on the BSAOC site.

I think we may have made a modest move forward here.

There are still a number of items that may help us out here. I know Gary wants to ask you about the gearbox oil filler location.
Is it an alloy cap behind the cylinders or a plastic dipstick arrangement in the inner timing cover ?

I would like to know about the headlight switch, is it a rotary switch or a toggle type ?





Pay the man his 10 Quid.... this has to be well worth it.

Your bike has so many '68 cycle features it has either had a ragged history and been cobbled up as a bitsa or indeed it may have left the factory like that.
We know it is a Dash Y engine.
We can see the frame did not have any Y suffix
Both now have the extra Zero suffix added, in 1967, '68 and early '69 style stampings.
BSAOC UK have spoken about an extra zero stamping, in a muddled and confusing manner.
We have seen how a large number of 1967 Spitfire numbered style engines have been fitted in MkIV cycle parts. BUT.... they have 1968 castings and are numbered differently. The A65SAxxxxY bikes.

We have seen a pic of ONE other bike only with the extra zero suffix on the engine. (unfortunately know nothing of the rest of the bike).

I don't see an alloy cap, there is a bolt/plug/machine screw a couple of inches rearward from the right cylinder base. There is no plastic dipstick, or hole for it, in the inner timing cover.

The headlight switch is a toggle type.

We need to see the dating certificate don't we ?

I can see you and I are now both thinking that it was a '67 engine and frame that was then built up with entirely 1968 model cycle parts.

I am now starting to believe that the zero stamping may not be just a coincidence.

It could possibly mean that the BSAOC comment has several small elements of fact but all rolled together into just a confused mess.

I would love to know if your bike left the factory with that extra zero, at the moment it appears to be unique in that it has so many 1968 model cycle features. There are many other possibilities there also though, especially since it has passed through many hands in the past 40 years.

It is still possible that the bike left during the 1967 season, just like the majority of the other Dash Y bikes.... not an answer you would like to receive I am sure but we have to take it into consideration.

I, like you, would love to see a despatch date of somewhere in the 1968 calendar year, - I guess even late '67 will be good enough.
Here's hoping..

I think that's it in a nutshell Kevin. It's as if someone recorded the details, in shorthand, and then the web-master didn't quite get it straight later on.

"Machines still in stock in the 1967 season (about 1000) were resold in the 1969 and 1970 season."
The comment misses the obvious here, that the 1967 extras would be sold in 1968, 1968 in 1969, and so on. Why would they just sit on the unsold 1967's for over a year?

"These returned machines are shown with a cross at the beginning of the despatch book record, they then reappear at the end of the book with the revised despatch date"
That could be the way they would do it each year with the excess machines. They would have to record it somehow and there probably wasn't enough room left at the original entry to do a neat job of it there.

"The 1969 models are identified by the adding of an extra 0 at the end of the frame marking putting the number series into the 100,000's."
We'll see about this one, It would appear that it should be 1968. I've informed Steve at BSAOC that the cycle parts on my bike appear to be all 1968. He may torpedo me yet.

"Machines re-exported in 1970 were stamped with a 'Y' suffix to indicate that they were 1970 models and therefore eligible for the increased warranty"
If these were just the carryover 1969 machines, I think the comment is probably ok. Tagged on at the end makes it seem like they are still referring to the leftover 1967 bikes.

I have major issues here though.
The majority of these bikes are true 1970 models, at least the ones I am aware of. That is many.. !!

They have the larger engine barrel studs, the clutch cable entry and the battery mounting... and other 1970 features. Sure we know a handful that have some '69 features also.. Bruce has one.

The numbering is also different to the run of the mill '69 and '70 models. We now know the details are entered in the 1967 factory records.... hmmmm,

The warranty statement is just confusing also. It is the 1970 models that were eligible, not the Y as such. Many Y models would not have been.
They had to be 1970 models AND sold after 31 March 1970. We know some were on the road before 31 March.

You are correct though, the 1967 Dash Y bikes could be mistaken as being left behind and carried over. Three years is just ridiculous and makes a mockery of the whole comment. The unfortunate thing is that there are so many Dash Y bikes about and many hundreds of people have read (and believed) that statement.

I am not even sure that the BSAOC UK realise that there are so many Dash Y bikes about. 1967 was a very good year for BSA, - one of their best. A very large percentage of A65 twins bear the Dash Y engine suffix. There must be 3,000 bikes at least possibly even many more. I would think 6,000 may even be possible. This is just the 1967 Dash Y bikes... not the A65SAxxxxY Spitfires (MkIV's) and not the Y bikes of 1969 and 1970.

The BSAOC Dating Officer has been issuing certificates for some of the 1967 Dash Y bikes. They show (correctly) shipping dates all through the 1967 year.
The BSAOC committee must realise that these bikes are just normal models, not held back due to shipping strikes, poor exchange rate or whatever other excuses we have been hearing.

The good news is that the BSAOC UK seem to be working on their website. The dating page is getting a flowchart look about it and they have left blocks yet to be completed. The identification one in particular could be interesting and include much of this detail.

BSAOC Dating site

Was it only the leftover 1969 LA and TA bikes that got a "Y"? I think that is probably the case.

Service Bulletin 5/70 explains that all the 1969/70 LA and TA "Y" bikes were eligible for the longer warranty, one of the examples they use is A65LA3058Y. It was eligible, just had to be sold later than March 1st, 1970. If it had the "Y", it was considered as a 1970.
Even though Bruce's bike retained many 1969 features, and was despatched on a fairly unusual date, it would have been considered a 1970 model at the time.

It almost seems to me that they must have switched over, late in the 1969 season, to the LA and TA plus Y serial numbers for the machines that would get left over. Especially if all of their orders were filled at that point.

Perhaps they were already upgrading the engines to 1970 specs. Do you know of any/many later 1969 season machines, with regular 1969 serial numbers, that already had the 1970 engine improvements?

The Lightning is edging ever closer to the front of the shop, it probably knows it's going to have it's picture taken pretty soon!

I don't think this is the case. The LAxxxxY bikes ran all the model season, I think Gary may have provided details there. For a while I was thinking they were end of 1970 season bikes.

This is what he had to say back on 27th June.




Yes, I agree.It does say that regular 1969 bikes are not eligible. It does also say the Y bikes can be called 1970 models. The thing is some were produced early season and shipped soon after. I think there is every chance Bruce's bike for example would have been sold well before March. It was shipped from the factory in mid August. It could even have been sold before Xmas.


Yes, I agree. Many bikes are dated on first title date. The shipping date alone may have dated his as a 1970 model.
As you say the SB 5/70 calls it a 1970 also.


No.. never seen one. It may even be the other way round. The first of the '70 models may have missed out on the features, - just as Bruce's bike did.

I was around when some of these bikes appeared in the showrooms, I saw some odd blends, particularly with the 72,73 Bonnevilles. There were certainly hybrids, possibly changeover models but the numbering was never tinkered with.

BSA changed many bikes for many years at the summer break. All models had yearly model changes. Bantams, Singles and Twins. They managed for all those years until 1967, '68, '69 and '70.
Then we all of a sudden start getting this numbering confusion, and then only with the twins.
The bikes themselves, physically, remain in sequence. It is just the Serial Number allocation that wanders all over the show.

The "-Y" bikes are numbered from about 4200 to about 15000, so that is about 10800 '67 machine; a majority of the '67 model year production.

Hi,
Are all the -Y bikes export machines?
I've just been Googling changes in UK tax etc. for 1967-1970.
In 1967 the government devalued the pound and introduced an Export Promotion program. This continued upto 1970 when as quoted by the Government the books were balanced.
This may or may not mean anything to this debate. Just a thought that if the -y bikes are export only could this possibly be a reason why they were specifically marked?

Thanks

Keith.

1967 '-Y' bikes seem to be a change to the wiring harness, so they're pretty right.

The 1970 'Y' bikes with 1967 numbers are the ones which have been causing the problems. Since I'm a cynical old so-and-so, pretending 1970 bikes were 1967 models to get export subsidies seems eminently reasonable to me. It would also explain why Al Cave wouldn't let on about it.

I have also read that a fair proportion of the X75s were built in 1973 and stamped with 1972 month codes to get around US noise regulations, although that was Norton Villiers, not BSA