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

This bike is on EBay right now:



He calls it a '68. The LA motor number would be from '67. Both frame and engine have the infamous "Y" stamp. To me, the bike is obviously a '70. Clutch, horn relay, decals, etc.

The '70 I'm just finishing up has the date code letters and A65L.

Any ideas what this bike is? When did they start the BSA background stamping on the engine?

By the way, someone should probably snap this up. IMHO, price is fair and he's open to offers.

Its a '70. Here's the service bulletin:



Cheers~Bob

Wow, Bob, you genius! Never seen that bulletin before. Explains a LOT about the old "Y" debate, at least how it applies to the '70 bikes.

Thanks!

Wish I had a few bucks right now. I think I'd be headed to Wisconsin to pick up this bike!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/BSA-...otorcycles&hash=item3f0b388141#v4-33

Yep, the bikes with the 'Y' suffix on both engine and frame are generally 1970 models. The earlier 1967 bikes were never stamped on the frame, - and of course have a completely different appearance engine.

I think we were assuming the bikes appeared towards the end of the 1970 season, it is interesting to note this one is supposedly original and has the grey faced instruments.
I hope Bacon was not trying to rewrite history regarding the introduction of the black faced ones.
Those that were around at the time will remember when they first saw them..
I never saw a 1970 bike back then with the black ones, - but that would have only been from a very small sample.

This bike on Ebay is a good example of a 1970 model. A couple of guys here have just bought similar machines and they will be studying these pics intently. All good stuff.

Jim,

No genius here, just pasted an old post from here. My genius is concetrating on why my tach is suddenly jumping around this weekend. That is a great looking bike.
NOW about this -Y code.......

Cheers~Bob

I concur, it is a 1970 and not a bad deal with a low enough "Make Offer" option.

Don in Nipomo

No the USA got the first production run.
We got the dregs of what was left in the UK , called the "home & general export model" and then some of what did not sell in the USA and even some of the "Europe Export model" .
Best I can make out they generally had the bigger guards and a speedo marked in Km in stead of Miles, some times.

,

I am not sure I have come across this one before... I was in NZ and we never really got new season bikes. Bikes here could be sold and ridden any time of the year, not like the seasonal markets in the Northern Hemisphere.

I remember seeing a batch of brand new Thunderbolts for sale on the showroom floor in April 1974.
I think it was pretty well known and accepted that the market here would sell the bikes that had missed the selling season elsewhere in the world. So a bike still sitting in the States at the end of Summer/Autumn would be despatched to the colonies in time for the peak riding season here. I guess the last thing the dealers needed was competition from the 'New' season bikes.

Thanks Bob for taking time to post a copy of the SB. The battle of the '-Y' and 'Y' will be won yet...

Kevin, good that you included 'generally' as you know the late '67 Spitfires refitted and sold as '68's were stamped with the 'Y'.

Hi Gary, yes I did leave the out.... mainly because I know of one Y bike that appears more '69 model for what ever reason. Then there are the 'X' bikes as well.

As for the Spitfires.... many have the '-Y' on the engine.
I am familiar with the restyled MkIV appearance '-Y' bikes also but I am sure they were never stamped on the frame. Were all the restyled bikes wearing the '-Y' engine suffix ? I am assuming they were but can't recall now.

I see the Ebay auction has now been changed.... he is calling it a 1967 Lightning, - Duuuurhhhh

Sounds like an "expert" filled him in...

That would be me. At least I tried to to explain that it was a '70 but he wasn't having any. Oh well.

Nice try, anyway, Jim. I gave up long ago trying to tell ebay sellers anything. More often than not, you get an angry response.

Success, It is now a 1970 model.

This will cause a stir.....

Can you imagine all the owners who will now think they have 1970 model Spitfires and Hornets etc... hmmm.

For all that it may be that another battle in the war may be won.

At what point will the BSAOC in the UK catch up and correct their website ?

The late '67 Spitfires in the (about) 16000-17000 number group had the engine stamped 'Y', but not the frame. These were the converted '67's to '68 specs and were dispatched April-July 1968. There are 478 SA's in the '68 factory production book. These are not the '-Y' bikes.

Now that is interesting. Thanks Gary.
I have seen pics of some of those bikes and can't remember if they were Dash Y or Y. I am guessing Dash Y because I am sure they would have stood out for me.
They are very late despatch dates also... given that the first Dash Y Spitfires were shipped just after Xmas or New Year of 1966/'67.

Did you mean to say ?

Are you saying the very last batch of Spitfires were actually reworked 1967 bikes ? if so that could have been the foundation for one of the rumours..

Or is it that the last of the 1967 bikes were just getting the 2ls brake etc instead of the 190mm before production of the 1968 Mk IV really started ?
That would have been July 1967

Kevin,
I have others, but here is one example from my data base. This is a very late '67 Spitfire, reconfigured to '68 specs, and thus, sold as a '68. It would be one of the total I presented avove. They are '68 SB in looks and specs, but with SA numbers.





The '68 production book, and I am verifying '68, not '67, has dispatch dates of these '67/'68 hybrids (for lack of a better term) as presented previously. They were dispatched intermixed along with the true '68 SB Spitfires.

The last '68 model dispatched had a date of 7/68 and was TB 10918 (Thunderbolt). The last '67/'68 SA hybrid (SA 17892) had a dispatch date of 4/68. It is noted that bikes off the production line were not neccessarily dispatched in date order. So, the April thru July '68 dispatch dates presented previously of the '67/'68 SA hybrids is correct.

Sorry Jim, for the thread hijack.

Thanks Gary, I found pics of the same bike here also, now that I have bothered to look. They are all over the place aren't they ? Some with the Dash and some without in those high numbers. I have SA17890Y as a MkIV also. 17898Y is another...I have pics of it as a MkIV and good pics of the engine number.
Interestingly enough it is several numbers above the highest you have for that model.

I found quite a number of pics of engine numbers of SA17xxxY bikes but I have no idea of the model. Certainly a high percentage of those Spitfires are missing the Dash before the Y suffix though. The Piled Arms logo has disappeared by now also.

Do we have -Y bikes (Spitfires) that ran for much of the 1967 model year and then several hundred at the end of the run as just Y suffix and in MkIV livery... or is it not that easy ?
17732Y, 17365Y,17642-Y,17856Y,

It is all hard to interpet, in some cases, as I have an image of SA 17904Y which was not found in the production book. Go figure.



The piled arms logo stamp on the engine seems to have disappeared about #10000, although early '67 numbers don't have it. I have seen several in the 2000, 3000, and 4000 numbers that don't have it including my '67 Wasp that is in the 3000 group.



That is my observation. As you say: "-Y" SA's through most of '67 (except very early of course) then the "Y" SA's at the end made in to '68's.

So, there are actually three Y issues (oh no!): "-Y", SA "Y", and 1970 "Y". Whew! I think I will go have a beer.

Yep, I am a few hours ahead and had my Saturday night beers while trying to digest this last night.

I can see now that many of the last SA Spitfires had just the Y suffix (again with the odd exception).
And I am understanding your observations about that tallying with the MkIV styling.... my sample base is far too small to be accurate.

The big issue for me is the despatch dates.

I realise you have seen the records and may even have a copy, - which is marvellous. The thing we seem to be saying is that these bikes were built at the end of the model season (maybe... we don't know).
They were restyled as MkIV (or built that way before SB numbers). I am assuming assembled in June 1967 (for example)

B U T . . .

It all comes off the rails when you say they were despatched a whole year later... what gives ?

Could this be another part of the jigsaw ?
Alistair Cave, BSA Former Works Manager right to the end, also BSA Owners Club Vice President, was adamant that bikes were in storage and stamped with the 'Y'. (Well that is how BSAOC UK see it.. he may have been mis-reported. Possibly taken out of context.)

We know it was not the '-Y' bikes of 1967... they were selling immediately. We have Dating Certificates plus several owners here were riding them during 1967.

It was not the 1970 Y bikes.... BSA in the States included them in their SB when they had to match the Japanese warranties in the early '70's. The Bulletin was dated May 1970 so the bikes were in the USA by then, - indeed they gave an example of one selling in March 1970.
Again we have owners here buying them in 1970. And they were not sold in competition with the OIF bikes that appeared just a few months later.

Could it be the THIRD Y bikes that created all this confusion ? (ie SA17xxxY)

A restyled SA Spitfire is little competition for a SB Spitfire... it would sell for the same price.
If the model was being phased-out it might make them even easier to sell.
Did they run out of 190mm brakes, or forks or something ?
Was the market swamped with the massive run of 1967 machines and the bikes were held back ?

Presumably the bikes were already stamped with the SA numbers.
If they were not stamped you would just introduce them into the '68 production run as SB models.

Why ship them in April to June 1968 ? The last Spitfires to be sold ??

Rich B strongly believes the rumour about the small production run of '68 Firebirds is nonsense also.
The last of the 1968 Firebirds may have been sales competition for the last batch of Spitfires to be shipped.

Sorry Sir, We only made 200 Firebirds this year... would you like a nice new SA Spitfire (Hybrid). instead ?!!

What we need is a time machine. But then we wouldn't have anything to write about.

>>>...Was the market swamped with the massive run of 1967 machines and the bikes were held back?...<<<

That would be a posibility when looking at the production numbers. About 18600 '67's (all models), about 11000 '68's (all models).

I also was perplexed when I saw that the '67 SA (hybrids) were dispatched so late (April thru July '68). I would have thought they would have been the first to go before the '68 SB's.

Also noted in my image data base of the '67 SA's (hybrids) are that the cases are '68 style with the cast in place mount for the stator, and no threaded hole for the transmission oil filler plug. That could also throw a wrench into the mix of posibilities you have presented, or did the factory just run out of '67 cases (model-year part change - not-uncommon).

More '68 Firebirds were produced than true '68 Spitfires (SB's).

I've read somewhere that BSA manufactured the engines, stamped them with the model and serial number and then they went into stores to be fitted into a rolling chassis later. If there was a batch of A65SA motors right at the back of the store room they might have been the last to go down the cycle assembly line.

I don't know how true the story about the store room is, but it's quite likely considering that *all* of the triple motors were built at Small Heath, and the T150s stuck on a truck to go to Meriden to be put into bikes.

Hi Shane,
I have heard the frames were stamped to match the engines also.



In the case of all the Y bikes, - indeed all cases, at what point do you think the suffix was added to the engine number ? I would think later on at the time the frame was being stamped.
That would be convenient to indicate any peculiarities...... but why then would they stamp the engine with a suffix and not the frame ?

All very strange still isn't it. And only certain batches of the twins at that, - we don't see suffix stamps on other models during the late 60's onwards.

I know you have commented on the MkIV SA Spitfires before.., did you know about the very late shipping dates...? I think we are all surprised by that.

I would like to see a dating certificate for one ... I believe the numbers were assigned about June of 1967, a MkIII in the mid 15700 numbers was shipped towards the end of April. It was a "-Y" bike.

Possibly another question for Gary, - were other models apart from the A65SA bikes stamped with such high numbers ?
LA14295-Y is the biggest I can do. I have pics of LA16xxx and LA17xxx but they are 1970 'Y' bikes.
I have very few pics of any 1967 bikes numbered in the 13xxx to 15xxx series..(Apart from Spitfires).

The late Spitfire SA's (hybrids) stand alone with the "Y" engine/no "Y" frame. No other models. The numbers are in a separate section of one of the production books and are random from 11577 to 17892.

In the 13000, 14000, and 15000 number groups, a lot of Sptifires and Hornets were produced, with some Lightnings in there, all with "-Y".

1970 "Y" bikes numbers range from 10434 to 17042 in random of the 10000, 11000, 12000, and 17000 number groups.

Than there are the orphan 1969 Y bikes. My number is A65LA7752Y.

I posted a picture of the dating certificate a while back that says it left on 8/19/69 for NJ. Maybe it s/b be a 1970 with that late ship date, but the engine is pure 69...not having the 1970 changes for clutch entry and barrel studs.

Hi Bruce, I didn't realise you had a '69 'Y' bike but I was aware of them. They must be very rare..



It may even be yours !.... I will see if I can get some more details. an odd case within a series of anomalies, for sure..

Now we need a 'X' bike owner to step forward.

I have been thinking about what Bruce said.... A 'Y' bike shipped at the start of the 1970 season.

I then wondered if they were all like that,- before the early S/N struck home. By far the majority of 'Y' bikes (A65L and A65T) have very high numbers...again up around 17xxx in many cases.
Did BSA really make the same number of bikes in 1970 as they did in 1967 ? I thought they were well into decline by then.

Hmmmm, we now have a situation where they used the Y suffix for what ever reason at the start of the 1970 season.
Until now I assumed the largest batch was at the end of the run (going by large S/N)..
Many guys here have 1970 'Y' bikes. Can anyone provide an example of shipping dates for a 'Y' machine..... be dead strange if we found one in mid-season, or even April of 1970.

I have a feeling the large numbers were specifically chosen, either as a ruse or because they were certain they were never going to reach a production figure that great. I am thinking it is no coincidence that the 'Y' Spitfire hybrids and many of the (-Y) machines bore similar large numbers.

I remember reading that magazine article about a chap who bought one new, I thought he said it was during 1970. He was the guy that bought the bike back 25 years later and the bike had aged 28 years. It was now titled as a 1967... (It was a 1970 Y bike).

Good info! I've added Bruce's '69 LA to my '67 number database



As I mentioned earlier, according to the '67 production books, the '70 "Y" machines had random numbers from 10434 to 17042 and were in the 10000, 11000, 12000, and 17000 number groups. They were dated as dispatched in January, February, and May 1970 (68 machines in May).

I think I may still have that '67/'70 Lightning article

Sorry Gary, I may have drifted off there. I missed what you said about the 1970 Y bikes.

First off, here is a pic of Bruce's 1969 Y Lightning.



It certainly has some 1970 features but it is the engine that is different. Ok, we know the engine was probably made and stamped earlier and then when it reached the line the 1970 cycle parts were there.. a very similar situation to the Y Hybrid Spitfires of 2 years earlier.
Does the Y signify something there, ''' ok guys we have an earlier number but this is now a machine to be sold as a new season bike '''''.. ?
Did Bruce say 7000 something ? a very high figure for a bike shipped at the end of August.
Indeed 7700 after 6 weeks production maximum.... what did those guys do during their summer break ?
Surely that figure is out of sequence... does the LAxxxxY signify something there perhaps. A 1969 engine that missed the cut, we still want to use it but can't put it into either a '69 frame or '70 frame easily..



I missed some key points in this also I am afraid Gary.
Again many more questions than answers sorry.
Are you saying the 1970 Y bikes are included in the 1967 production books ?
We know they were not made until June 1969 at the earliest. Bruce has an engine conforming to 1969 specs and apart from that the change to 1970 engines seemed smooth and effortless.
ie, not fitted to 1969 machines and yet all 1970 models have it, including almost all the Y bikes of 1970.

Shane has asked this one before. Do we have documented any instance of a duplicated number.
A 1967 LA or TA-Y bike in the 11,000 to 17,000 number range.
ie sharing with a similar numbered Y bike..
Probably not because we know it was mainly the Spitfires and Hornets that were up around there in 1967.
I guess it would be very obvious also that the duplication was there seeing as they used the same book for both.
Is that the reason they used the 1967 book, - .. so there would be no duplication. The chap stamping the engine could choose a number that seemed to be spare, or available.

Why would BSA include 1970 model, and produced, machines in a 1967 book. It must have made the 1970 production figures look grim...

AND.. the bikes were shipped early in the season, or at least mid-season. Jan and Feb says Gary.

Here is a picture of the bottom end during tear down. Does anything appear to not be 69? (Can't claim to be an expert)



a before shot:


After:


Vin

Nice bike Bruce.. are you too scared to start it ?



Just because the HT leads were missing when you bought it mate.

Another thought.. it seems that all the Y bikes were export models.

We now suspect there were three main variants or batches.

Regarding the last group, - the Y bikes of 1970;
Could it be that something was going on with Export Incentives, VAT clawbacks or similar and that the factory had to make up numbers later on. If for example that claims were made for bikes that did not actually exist..., holes in the S/N sequence.
Is it unreasonable that these bikes were subsequently discovered (in storage directly at the end of the 1970 production line) !

They could then be drip fed back into the system via the '67 production books with a plausible cover story, or stories.
In storage, or exported and then sent back or whatever.

The staff must have known, they would have seen the numbers as the bikes came off the line. They would either been surmising or fed a story. The same with the USA dealers, they had seen the Bulletin and most would have physically seen the machines (1970 Y bikes).

Surely any man with a brain would be saying 'Hang on mate... what gives here ? We are (assembling/shipping/selling) bikes with 1967 style numbers.... what is the go then ?'

Someone must remember what the staff were told..

Good catch. She has about 800 miles on the clock now, and runs great.

In fact, don’t tell anyone on the Triumph forum, but RF rode her last fall, and found her to be smoother than my Triumphs! Doubt he would admit he rode a BSA though!

I was more curious about the unique ignition system. Wireless HT and all...

Now back to the subject bike, it appears A65LA11798Y sold for $2000.
It would have to be a great start for a project at that, I hope it has gone to a good home.
It was a shame we did not get to see all the Questions and Answers, going by all the revisions to the auction there must have been a bit happening behind the scenes.

I'm beginning to think the real story behind these Y bikes will never be known.

But no one can deny they don't exist!

A6LA10481Y

Especially for you Bruce.

I also came across this in my archives. A message I posted on this forum back in 2004... ( Some guys need to get a life, - honestly.)



This has been going on far too long. I am now tripping over myself. Surprised to see the Royal Star there, the SB did not mention them.

I am 99% positive the bikes would have been stamped with the logos, I just could not make them out with the pics I had.

Wow, that is also a 69 based by clutch cable entrance….and cylinder stud size looks 69.

Wonder if it was sold as a 70 model? Do you know history? (or on any of the other 69 spec bikes you listed)

A65LA10971Y

This is the magazine article I alluded to.
The same bloke with a Y model bike but with the photos taken 26 years apart. The red bike is a 1970 bike which I think he bought new. The black bike is titled as a 1967, .... it just so happens to be the same bike. He aged 26 years and the bike 29 during the interval.

I have found the article in htm. form.

This is an excerpt;








He then goes on and details all the engine and frame differences between the 1967 and 1970 models.

He knows it is a 1970 and that the BSAOC have mislead him..

Wish I could get younger while my bike aged.

so somewhere in between 10481 & 10971 it became a true 70 model

I reckon.... and these numbers have nothing to do with 1969 or 1970 production numbers. It is almost like they were running two sets of books.

Which, of course, they were. Gary is saying the numbers are included in the 1967 production books. I hope he gets a chance to look into some of the numbers quoted here to give us an insight into that aspect of it. Naturally none can have been exported prior to the summer of '69..

(They were not made until then...)

We are getting a lot of mileage out of this hijacked thread, but it is somewhat related I guess.



The 1970 Y machines I spoke of earlier are all entered in two of the three 1967 production books. The entries are not on the usual production pages. The production books each have 100 double-sided pages, so there are 200 pages. Each page has 41 lines for entries, one machine per line. The '70 Y machine entries are located on the inside of the front and back covers of two of the production books. These cover inside pages do not have any lines like the normal book pages, so the '70 Y entries are smaller print and squeezed on the pages and not very well lined up, typical of someone making entries on a blank page with no lines. The entries look like an after-thought (just my opinion). The entries are in '67 number sequence, small to large, but in random number order, ie, with many number gaps.

Of the model year production books I researched, the '67's were the hardest to interpet. Everything is hand written, a lot in pencil, so some entries are hard to read. As an example, an entry may indicate a SA but next to it in the margin is a LA in different hand writing. So which model is it for that production number?

I suspect since they were using '67 numbers for the '70 Y's they thought is appropiate to put the entries in the '67 books.

Thanks for that info Gary, it is little wonder trying to get to the bottom of all this is such a nightmare.
I came across some bottler anomalies while going though the photos earlier, - I am not sure at what point to introduce them into our discussions here. (1969 this time).

I agree about the thread drift but I think we are not straying too far from the topic.
We have just seen a seller try and sell a 1968 A65L that he has supposedly been working on. How he did engine work without twigging is beyond me.
Regardless, he then advertises it for close to $3000.... possibly close to what it is worth. He is obviously confused about the mismatch of parts as he is even considering parting it out.
Come in Bonzo........

He then gets mail from all the do-gooders that think it is a 1967. Yes, they have read the books and the web sites.

Ok, now getting even more p*ssed off he edits the advert to read 1967.
Making himself look a little stupid in the process, full credit to him for reacting.

Then amongst all the questions and angst he is receiving there is an element of sense that it may be a 1970.
He discovers this forum, changes the Model to a 1970, stands firm on his decision and then lets it go for $2000.

This is very similar to what a large number of owners here have been through with their own machines.

I only hope he has mentioned this discussion to the buyer so that history does not repeat itself again.
I can name 5 owners off the top of my head that have thanked me personally for providing them with a definite answer on the dating of their bikes. The suggestion being it is a better service that paying $25 or whatever for the wrong reply.

The only problem is that I feel I have not answered them at all. Years ago I suggested that we sort this out before it is too late.
Doug Hele died just months after I bought my first -Y bike... and I asked the question on this very forum as part of my pre-buy.
Since then Alistair Cave and presumably many others are no longer there for us to ask.
We are talking about events of 40 years ago, not that long really. I think many men that were involved in the making or marketing of the bikes would remember.

I believe we will get answers, and very soon. Gary has been very helpful with his insight into the records he has seen. Dare I say it but others have also seen these records and almost closed ranks on us. The BSAOC UK been very quiet, or worse, on the situation.
I was always under the impression that the answers were going to come from the Midlands area, I am less sure now.
It may well be it will come from the States, that seems to be where the bikes were sent to. The dealerships had to explain to each and every customer why their new bike had funny numbers.

RF and John Healy were in the industry and they both have good recollections of events in that era. I believe others that were more involved in the BSA marketing and sales are still about and active. Perhaps we should be seeking some input from those guys before the years roll on further.

Previous discussion on Spitfire production numbers.




I am having trouble comprehending these figures.
I doubt the comments from the BSAOC Librarian are helpful also.
How can an incomplete bike be exported ?

We know 1967 Spitfires are plentiful, even the Dash Y ones are everywhere. I would put money on there being many more MkIII than MkII bikes about now.

Less than 500 MkIV bikes, so with the several hundred that we now believe were Hybrid added to the mix that makes over a thousand..ok, fair enough, - but that also means every second MkIV Spitfire is a SA17000Y bike.

The quality of those hybrid bikes must have been sh*t, - only a small percentage have survived compared to the 'true' 1968 MkIV models. The SB machines are more plentiful to my mind.

I guess all the info we come across has to be a step forward. I am just concerned about facts and figures that don't make sense. Somehow amongst all this we are making progress

Aww,[email protected] hell,now im really confused.What do i have...A65sa100...-y eng and frame no the same registed as 1967 ??????? Hmmm worth more? not likely.but what have i got.It is a 1967 spitfire isnt it??

G'day Crazy, sorry mate you just have a bog standard 1967 MkIII Spitfire. Common as, specially with the Dash Y suffix on the engine.

We all have them. How there can be more 1966 models is a mystery to me.

It is the later 1967 Spitfires that were restyled and sold in 1968
that we were wondering about.... the A65SA17xxxY bikes.

I have seen pics of you on your bike, it is a good looking example.

My production book research can easily dispel the "471" production total of the true '68 Spitfires, (as well as the 200 or 250 total of the '68 Firebird Scramblers from previous posts). It is only about a third of what is recorded in the books. As I mentioned earlier one of the the '67 books have 478 SA Y's (hybrids) dispatched in '68. Even so, the ('68 SA Y and SB) are still the lowest year produced of the three years of the Spitfire.

I too, am curious oabout the higher number of '66's than '67's. With such a big error in the total '68's, I am not sure that I can trust any of the production numbers in that Alistair communication.

The lowest SB is numbered 2478, and went to Mexico in 1/68. Other higher numbers were dispatched in 10/67. The lowest numbered SB to the US is 3048 in 11/67 to the east coast distributor. The highest number SB was 10618 to Sweden in 7/68.

You are not alone there Gary. Thanks again for digging up those interesting facts.

What a way to run a business, surely someone at BSA must have had some idea of the numbers of bikes they were making and selling.

We know the bulk of the machines in question were exported, is there any way of getting access to the records of the US distributors ?

While we would all like to know specific details of each of our own individual bikes we can see that is just not possible in many cases. The records as they stand appear incomplete, erroneous and worse. (Misleading).

The crime in my eyes is that no-one can accurately date some of these models. It is almost like best guess will do, I can only imagine what some of the vehicle registration authorities make of all this.
I can see the problem the BSAOC dating officer has, but basically what he says goes. It is great for getting machines legal and VIN'ed but does not necessarily help the owners further down the road.

Of the engine numbers of the bikes, 1966-1970, that I have looked at in the past few days you can see trends. I know Gary can work from them also. They may be the numbers themselves, the style of stamp, the size of some particular stamps, other adjacent markings, casting marks, grinding marks or other indicators. There is definitely a pattern and a flow.

If it is not in order, ie if just one of these indicators is out of place it stands out like dogs balls.

That is just the engine number. Frames are much the same, certain features would be present during certain eras.
Naturally with BSA being British there are exceptions, we expect that. The passage of time has to be factored in also.

Sellers will still try and introduce lies into their sales pitch, - another good source of confusion and rumour. We have all seen them, indeed a large percentage of adverts on Ebay seem to be flawed. Some like the bike we have been debating are just honest mistakes.

At the moment it is just a case a 'buyer beware' and you get what you are dealt.
A number of owners here must still be wondering exactly what they have invested in.

THe last A65 off the line

You and Kevin have shed a lot of light on this. Definitely moving it forward. Thanks.

The only statement I believe on my BSAOC dating certificate is the 1969 ship date that probably came from the 1967 book Gary E mentions. Here’s a pic of dating certificate again. No way my bike is a refurbished 67. Also want to say these guys do this on a volunteer basis,and I really appreciate that, and the facts on these Y bikes are muddled for sure.

Thanks for posting that copy again Bruce.

We know that no part of your bike existed in November 1966, - so what bike is he talking about ?

He seems so certain with his dates..

Perhaps they do have different records to those that Gary has seen. The implication to me is that the same numbers have been used twice, - once as a 1967 model and then again three years later for your bike.
I am not suggesting that a LA77xx or a LA77xx-Y bike physically exists but I think we have to admit it is a possibility.
I believe the chances are more likely that it existed on paper only until it was discovered parked not far from the end of the A65 production line in mid-summer of 1969.

It did not leave the factory in 1966, go to the port, come back, go into storage for over two years and then get a massive make-over to become an early 1970 model. I hope people here are intelligent enough to understand that.
Well I know at least three wise men..

Sorry Eric, I was slow to realise that there is now a third batch of Y bikes. This was from 2 1/2 years ago and I was thinking you had a MkIII at that time.
I can now see you have one of the batch of MkIV bikes that were shipped in the period April, May and July 1968.

I have brought this back up as again it shows the two shipping dates that the BSAOC Dating Officer seems so keen on.
Gary was researching your case at that time and he will have an idea of what you bike did during that year or so.... again,- if indeed it physically existed in May 1967. At least in your case there is every chance a bike could exist.

We are talking the second grouping of Y bikes here now, - the 1968 model Y Spitfires, the A65SA17000Y machines.
Have you managed to determine a manufacturing date for your bike at all ?
Some items, if still original, may have dates on them.... Coils and oil pump come to mind. Several other Lucas components may also, - rotor, brakelight switch.

The oil pump in particular would be an interesting one. What would we think if it was dated after May 1967 ?
Actually the same question could be asked of any SA17000Y owner, does anyone know their oil pump DOM ?
A restyle operation would be straightforward, change of front end, headlight and rear fender tail-light unit and rear Shocks.
Tank and side covers, or at least a decal change.
Actually the tanks are dated also often, - in this case I would not be surprised with a 1968 date.

I do not believe records of the two US distributors are available or are even in existence.



Unfortunately, ebay doesn't have a system or provision for reporting inaccurate wrong narrative in sellers listings. They have a "report" button to hit on, but it only goes to pre-canned choices, none of which addresses the correctness of the listings content. The seller can just about include anything they want in the narrative, ie: 'the sky is falling'; 'this Lightning is made of solid gold'; 'this '67 Thunderbolt is the only one the factory made; 'only 200 '68 Firebirds were made'; etc.



I believe the factory had the best intentions regarding record keeping at the time. I may have portrayed the production books as a mess in my previous posts. They are not. They are very orderly. At the time, the entries may have been deemed very explanable. But to go back now 44 years later and determine what occurred with having a limited amount of information (only production books) at our disposal is a bit difficult. Can't image what archaeolgists have to try to determine history when going back 1,000's of years.



I do not believe there are any other records. I feel that BSAOCUK is utilizing the same (copies) production books that I researched. The dating officer has mentioned reference to a daily ledger which I think may be from Mr. Cave.

I do not believe the factory used numbers twice; one machine, one number. The path of a particular machine, in several cases, over a period of years is what is perplexing and is in question.

The late Spitfire SA's (hybrids) converted to '68 specs entered in the production book are random from 11577 to 17892, so not just in the 17000's number group.



As well as the newer '68 style case with the cast in place stator mount and undrilled transmission oil filler hole.

While we have the thread well and truly hijacked, here's another -Y Spitfire for the image collection

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/BSA-A65-...t=AU_Motorcycles&hash=item2a11eb6caf

Thanks Shane, is that another one for the collection ?
It is not so far down to Melbourne.

I can see Crazy chipping in soon also, he has to travel just a little further for it.

That depends on the reserve and who else bids

Yeah, I can do Melbourne and back comfortably in a weekend.
If I was patient enough, I could probably put the bite on somebody down there to pick it up and hang onto it until the All British

Kevin was wondering about high numbers, here's a couple for you.

Frame - A65LA 105590 (boss)
Engine - A65LA 105590Y (no boss)

The second 0 in the engine number is stamped a bit lower than the rest with the Y slightly higher but not quite matching the rest. The rest are actually a little uneven in vertical location, but fairly close.

The frame number is fairly uneven on both levels, very up and down. There definitely isn't enough room left to squeeze a Y on the end though.

I'm off to work shortly, and the camera battery is stone dead anyway, I'll take some pics later to post this evening.

May even need to change the date on my sig, and do some re-arranging, once your opinions are in.

Ok I am not so sure about these ones.
The engine in the photo may be similar and I have known about it for many years.
Until now it was the only one and as the BSAOC website mentions the extra '0' I assumed someone had stamped the engine number to 'correct' it.
Unfortunately I cannot find the frame number on this particular bike to see how it matches, which presumably it will.

From your description I am confident your bike is a 1967 model.. you will no doubt see similarities with the pic above. I am guessing you will have the Piled Arms logo in a similar position also.
The number in my pic are uneven and it may be noteworthy that the second 0 is in a different style... actually it is more like the style of stamp BSA started using during 1969.

Now whether these bikes had a Dash preceding the Y is difficult to say. I have not seen a Lightning without the Dash, 1967 model bikes here. I assumed they had stamped over the previous stamping, - is that sort of mark behind the 0 ?
How about on your bike ?

The engine is definitely 1967, and I am confident was initially stamped up then. When the final 0 was added I cannot say, and similarly I would be guessing with any production history of the bike itself. Hmm, or indeed of any history since 1967. If it is a production marking then I am sure it will be pretty rare.

I was not sure where to introduce this next photo.

I will show it here and see how we get on with it.



This one is completely out of left field..

Sorry if it too much of a thread drift but it may show what historians, authors, and just riders and owners are up against.

This is presumably a 1969 engine. The numbers themselves would indicate that.
The style of stamps was first used by BSA at the end of summer in 1968 on the 1969 models, I have never seen a 1968 model stamped with them.
The Date code would suggest that the engine was stamped in September 1968 as an early '69 model year bike.

BSA Numbering Systems

I mentioned earlier about the flow of the stampings, this bike certainly confirms that. The first few bikes of 1969 season had the TC, TC, FC etc that we read about in the Bacon books. Even the site I referred to here correctly mentions that also. Then we now know in September the Month/Year code was accepted and ran until the end.
This would date the introduction of the new style stamps.

The problem here is that it is also before the raised pad , - which was first introduced in late summer 1968. Most early 1969 engines have the pad, starting with the TC bikes etc mentioned earlier.
(The TC, LC and FC bikes didn't have the BSA icons nor did the initial few months of the later numbering style ... the NC and PC bikes would not have them).

I have seen pics of early 1969 season engines without the raised pad so it was just a gradual phase in as the older engines where used up. I think the change to the new numbering system and the introduction to the new stamps started abruptly though... and possibly at the exact same time.

Oh, and one more thing...

It must be unusual for any 1969 Twin to have a small engine number.. They all seem to have 5 digits.

Just re-read the thread again to make sure I hadn't missed anything. Very interesting stuff.

I'll apologize in advance for the picture quality, the bike is a bit awkward to get at right now so the shots are from a bit of an angle and not quite as clear as they could be.

Here's my frame number. The two 0's look similar enough that they could have been stamped at the same time. Very doubtful that an acceptable Y could have been added on at the end.



And a couple of pics of the engine number.





The two 0's look to be from a different stamp. Was the Y added at the same time as the second 0, or was it added at a later date again?
The UK BSAOC site has this to say...
"Machines still in stock in the 1967 season (about 1000) were resold in the 1969 and 1970 season. 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. 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."

Apparently, my bike was left over from 1967, marked as a 1969 model with an extra 0 (engine also had a 0 added), left over again, then re-exported in 1970 as a 1970 model eligible for the increased warranty!
I wonder how many of these 100,000 numbered bikes the UK BSAOC knows of? This one and the one Kevin had posted appear to have been just over 500 units apart on the 1967 assembly line. I guess that's reasonable if there were a total of near 1,000 bikes left over in 1967.
Glad I wasn't in charge of keeping the records neat and orderly!

Yep, that entry does appear on the BSAOC website... has anyone ever seen it anywhere else ?

Perhaps we should be asking the man who wrote the website how many of these bikes that they refer to has he actually seen.

That website has been the cause of so much grief, and it is flawed in so many places. The only good thing about it is that it has had a going over recently and has been reformatted.
It now has little notes saying that no listing is 100% accurate and buyer beware.
Exactly correct.

The problem I have, and this is just with the A65 twins, is that it is misleading.
In 10 years I have now seen photos of two bikes with the extra zero. I have seen more pics of 'X suffix' bikes than that.
We know many hundreds of the 1967 bikes have the Dash Y suffix on the engine. We know that they were on the road within months of being assembled, some even before Xmas 1966. (Or very close to it).
The BSAOC does not mention them, nor does any other dating list.

We now know there is a batch of Spitfires stamped up as A65SAxxxxxY, these bikes appear to have been made in late 1967 and possibly even early 1968. They certainly have 1968 model features, including both crankcase halves.. plus headlight switch etc. BSA would have had to be keen, and intricate, to get them all so model perfect. Oh, and we have not seen any extra zeros on them either.


Then we have the third batch, - the Y bikes of 1969 and 1970.
Again, all very honest to their model... in almost every detail.
To rework these bikes the factory would have had to replace about 90% of the machine. Apart from handle bars, rear wheel, speedo drive and instruments, just about every thing else would
have to be replaced.
Major engine changes, both cases, cylinders, heads and a host of other items, including outer timing cover and the likes.
The frame gets a new swing arm, bridge for the condensors, fairing lugs, new fuel and oil tanks as well as complete new front end.
Again we have not seen one of these yet with the extra zero.
We know that it is some of these bikes that are eligible for the extended warranty period. 180 Days, just like every other BSA made as a 1970 model and sold retail after 1 March 1970.

I think the BSAOC website entry is just one confused mess.

The 1969 model machines may have started at S/N 10,000 or close to it. All the twins I know of from 1969 are in the 10,000 to 20,000 series... ie they all have 5 digits. Yes, that is different, it makes 1969 model unique.

I just wish someone from the BSAOC in the UK would take time out to read all this and then at least make an effort to correct the website. Just a few notes mentioning the examples where confusion always creeps in would be a very good start.
All the years, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970 have anomalies.


You can probably guess what I think about some of the Dating Certificates they have sold as well.....


2A, I can see the doubts in your mind also...

So the thinking is that BSA built that bike as a '67 model and after 3 years of reworking were able to put a much more reliable bike on the market. In that time they had done, - hmmmm, all of stamp a zero on both the engine and frame.

I look at pics of those two bikes and I am sure that I see a faint outline of a Dash lurking underneath (behind) that final zero on the engine number. I think it is a genuine Dash Y bike that has been over-stamped at some point. It would be interesting to see how far back in history those numbers go.


Just to confuse things further..
I have pics of A65LA10520Y and A65LA10587Y, both have the raised pad and are 1970 bikes.
The factory must have had some method of avoiding duplication of numbers when they assigned the 1970 model bikes the similar numbers.
Have you any idea when you bike was first titled or registered ?

I concur with you Kevin that his bike looks to be a "-Y" with a "0" over stamping. The original number would be consistent with what I have observed in the books.

Is that the dash, just outside the 10:30 position on the "0", most noticeable in the second picture of my engine serial number?
It looks straight, with 90 degree corners, too perfect to just be a random scar.

I had no clue about most of this stuff prior to yesterday morning! Bought the bike back in the mid 1980's as a rolling chassis with most parts still attached, the engine was out of the chassis. It came with a few more boxes of parts from a similar vintage A50/A65. I had pulled a few parts off of the chassis back then but kept them separated and identified as being from A65LA105590Y. Maybe I need to bring this bike back into the workshop and get to work on it! Seems to me it is very similar to the ebay bike this thread is based on. Obvious differences are that mine is red, and has the older no boss crankcase.

Last evening was mostly spent looking for images of the factory records. I know that I have seen them in just the past few months, stumbled across them on a European website when I was looking for info on an A10 project I am currently working on. Kicking myself now as I can't find them on my hard-drive either, why oh why wouldn't I have saved that!

A clearer picture of when the initial serial numbers were added to the engines and frames would help me out. Some things I've read have said that the engines were stamped first and then the frames were stamped to match. Other times I've read the exact opposite!

It's quite disappointing that this stuff hadn't been sorted out years ago by the folks that were there. Hopefully some of the people that were near the stamping and recording process are still around to finally give us the definitive story at some point.

Is it possible that these were just excess 1967 engines with perhaps just the A65LA stamped on at time of manufacture, and that were finally mated to a frame and the rest of the serial number added for the 1969 or 1970 model seasons?
As Kevin mentioned above, A65LA10520Y is stamped on a raised boss, yet A65LA105590Y is stamped on a pre-boss left crankcase!
This would seem to indicate that they were filtering in the older excess 1967 engines just prior to stamping the serial numbers on these newer 1969 engines.
Why were they using the "LA" designation for these newer engines, other than to perhaps to provide some continuity for the assimilation of the older engines?
Why wouldn't there be some half decent explanation noted in the log book for these unusual numbers? Perhaps there is, maybe in one of the books from previous years. As mentioned by Kevin, they had already been using the "Y" to indicate carryover of an engine to the next years model Spitfire.

Cheers,

John

I must say though, this is much more interesting than if a computer had been pounding the numbers on!

Kevin, I zoomed in a ways on your picture of A65LA111050Y, it looks like the right end of the dash is at the 9:00 position, right where you would see the "9" on a clock face. The add on "0" was stamped right on top of a dash on that one.

I did think that was a possibility with the hybrid 1967 MkIV Spitfires. Gary has since pointed out that the stampings are infact on later engine castings.




I have had to rethink on that one. The transmission filler reposition is a true 1968 feature and all of the Hybrid Spitfires have the later hole and cap.

The old hole above the gearbox was not filled in, it is as cast. The Hybrid A65SAxxxxY Spitfires now appear to have been purpose built as opposed to left over or rebuilt.
Bugger... it was these bikes that I thought may have been the start of the 'missed the market, missed the boat rumour'...
These bikes were shipped towards the end of the '68 season, - indications are now that they may have been assembled later in the season also.
Of course, we still have the dilemma of why they are stamped with 1967 style numbers.

This is what happen when you start looking..

This is what I believe to be a 1967 -Y bike. I have not seen the bike itself.

I read that number as A65SA 17642-Y. It could also be without the Dash, how good is my eyesight ?

It has the 1968 crankcase features that Gary spoke of but we would not expect to see it in a MkIV Hybid bike because of the Dash.
What a shame it is missing the chassis, but we can see it has not been drilled for the transmission filler so presumably (Positively) had the 1968 style filler cap on the inner timing cover instead.

Does the casting number on the left hand case half give us a clue ? One thing for sure though, this crankcase was not machined up in the early 1967 calendar year.

I'm soooo glad my Y has a raised pad with "BSA" stampings.
A65LA 10943 1970 Lightning manufactured Jan 1970.


Don in Nipomo ... Y?? Why not?

Hahahha Don, so you think you have a 1970 model ?

A good firm believer, good on you. I think Bruce is standing firm alongside you also. Well done chaps.

So the 1970 guys are happy, the bulk of the 1967 -Y bikes are also well sorted and we, the owners, are accepting them as genuine 1967 models.
I have two Dash Y bikes, one a Mk III Spitfire. Still many unanswered questions but I feel relieved that myself and other owners can now see that the books as they stand are incorrect. (Well at least the BSAOC website comments are).

It is now the Hybrid guys that must be wondering, I think it is pretty clear though that the bikes were built alongside MkIV bikes and even shipped later than the bulk of the SB bikes. A Hybrid bike is a MKIV in every respect.

Try this one;

These are pics of one of the very first SB Spitfire engines, it can be compared to the last of the MKIII cases I posted a little earlier. (A65SA17642-Y, or just Y if I misread it).

A65SB2690








I will give you a clue, they are identical castings.

Kevin,

There should be a sticky at the top of this section with your current (and future) knowledge of the 1967 to 1970 BSA twin cylinder serial number anomalies.
It may be a work in progress for a while yet, but it would sure help to clear some fairly muddied waters for a lot of folks.

Took a closer look at my engine serial number this evening, washed it off and peered at it with a magnifying glass. It definitely was A65LA10559-Y at one point, no doubt in 1967.

The $64,000.00 question is who put the "0" over top of the dash, and added one to the frame number as well? Was it BSA?
It seems that somebody that was there must have confirmed that they had done this in some instances. Was there any part of what the UK BSAOC site says about this true?

Don, perhaps your mission could be to come up with the definitive answer as to why BSA thought it would be a good idea to use the 1967 prefix and number range for your bike. That should keep you busy for a little while.

Thanks Two Alpha, I realise that this topic may have not run the way you may have liked but I am glad you are running with it and keeping up with the play.



A very good question, I am thinking that the more we dig here the more we deviate from what they are trying to say.

I hate to say it but if you break down the comment into manageable portions we are basically disagreeing with each and every one of them. They seem to have taken a complex issue and tried to paraphrase it in a few simple sentences.
I thought that the previous example of a Dash Y bike being overstamped with a zero was an effort by a frustrated owner to 'correct' it.
Your bike may well be the second, and there will be others about as well.

You guys should form a little club and gang up against me and what I am saying.

Gary cannot say too much about individual examples from the records he has seen but I think he has given a very good indication that is agreeing with what you are now saying. Your bike was a genuine Dash Y bike, a true 1967 model, it may have gained a zero but I don't think that changes much for you.


For those that want a little more of this intrigue, and think they can hack it...

Another thread discussing Hybrid 1967/1968 Spitfires.

Page 3 is about where we are here. I have shown a photo of a late MkIII Spitfire that appears model correct in every way. It is however a very high number and has the enlarged '8's in the stampings that we normally associate with 1968 models.

If the title is the original, I would have thought the dates seem a little late. It is shown as a 1968 model which is ok, but the certificate appears to me to be dated May 1969... a very late date for a MkIII bike.

No probs Kevin, I really had no expectations or preferences here, just ran into a number of contradictions that I needed to slog my way through. Good thing you guys were here.

For many years, I thought this was a 1968 model. A couple months ago, while trying to sort out an A10 that had joined the collection, I decided to check this A65 as well and determined that it was actually a 1967 model. The Y at the end had me wondering a bit at the time what it indicated.
Then this thread showed up a few days ago!

The quote from the UK BSAOC is odd for a number of reasons. If the bulk, perhaps all, of the 1967 twins had the -Y, there is no way that the extra zero could be added, and then the Y added later. It's already there!
Why would they even come up with this statement? It seems like a very poor guess as to why some bikes were perhaps showing up with this unusually configured serial number.
Or do these serial numbers actually exist in the factory log?

I'm tempted to go the certificate route just to see what comes back. Is there a certificate for the other 100,000 number you posted?

Now that is funny..... at least to many here.
The Y, Dash Y debate has been going on for 10 years and my name tends to get written all over it. It has become a bit of a joke in certain drinking circles.

This time around has been a little more satisfactory, mainly because we have more support, many now know the facts and can see it coming together. In the early days we were still trying to find each other


With this thread it seems to be coming together, like I feel we have made progress. Especially with the input from Gary to guide us and put us back on track when we come off the rails.

I have a better picture of things myself now. Still no idea about why BSA wanted to use the Y on any bike but at least I know what ones have it... well sort of.

I am very surprised at the revelations of the 67/68 Spitfires, - I never saw that coming.

It is winter here at the moment, but the weather is brilliant. The longer nights give me a chance to tap away here and I am determined to get some more answers here yet.

All we need is the BSAOC to amend their website. The other dating lists are all incomplete but they are not causing as much grief as the 'OFFICIAL' one.

Just removing the remarks about the Y bikes would be a VERY GOOD start.

I would love to see what they come up with for a dating certificate for your bike. One in the 6 digits...

I really do feel for the Dating Officer though, - he is not paid for his efforts and has pressure to deliver. You take the money, you have to send a Certificate.
Some bikes I have seen are just nightmares, - I could not say what it was..... it is much easier on the outside looking in and saying what it is not.

I would forget the records, look at the bike and make a statement to the effect that based on our expert opinion, taking incomplete factory records into consideration, the machine is deemed to be a 196x model. Do it by a committee if necessary, at the moment issuing a certificate saying that the bike was shipped in 1966 when we know that it did not even exist cannot be right, legal or fair.

Something needs to give here.....