Britbike forum Forums British Motorcycle specific Brands Bsa bulletin board Calling all Dash Y and Y bike owners..

Yes, they are an after-addition to the production books, so they could have been added at any time, even years after.



I do not believe there are duplicate numbers. What I surmise is the '69/'70 Y bikes are uncompleted/undispatched '67 numbers. The machines may have been be in various stages of completion from over-production in the '67 model year. (the '67 model year has a lot of numbers, more so than in '66 and '68).

The factory may have had a lot of '67 numbers already in the paper shuffle with the gov't involved and looked for a way out; hence the '69/'70 debacle. Just speculation on my part.

I am of the opinion we may never really figure out the micro-reasons and events of the time period for the Y machines. But we need to keep the pressure on the BSAOC UK to improve there description on their website to reflect recognition that some '69's and '70's have '67 style numbers with the Y after them. And for them to recognize that a lot of the true '67's have a "-Y" after the engine number. They need to keep it all simple on there website so as not to confuse the masses, but yet insure that the various issues and events are reported.

As I have pined before, we could surely gain more ground tons quicker if we had our own copies of the productions books to review. I only scratched the surface when researching the production books for a day and a half last year. When opening the books (literally) for the first time, it is very overwhelming. A massive amount of information to attempt to decode.

We are being held at ransom.

Us bean counters will never rest. Someone has to carry the torch. "Endeavor to perseverve"

I have to agree about the books. I think you have done extremely well given the limited access you had.
This would have died a natural death years ago if you had not been so encouraging and forthcoming with the information.

You may be right about the uncompleted 1967 bikes but surely they must have been numbers only.

I concede they may have even been a frame that could have been reworked. We did have an issue with some of the early Y bikes being fitted with what appeared to be older swingarms and hardware.

There can be no way a 1967 engine can morph into a 1969 or 1970 engine. Please let us be quite clear on that. It is impossible short of melting it down and starting again.

I admit I am still uncertain about duplicated numbers. That would be a massive risk to take and we have not yet seen a case of that.

How would it be though to have two bikes side by side with the same numbers. (Albeit different style).

Against this we still have the conundrum of multiple shipping dates.

For the life of me I just cannot accept the 1000 bike sitting at the factory story.

I am not even sure we know of a 1967 Dash Y bike being sold in 1970.
Morgan's Spitfire seems to have taken a year from export to retail sale. That seems to be a long time to me. I can see if it did not sell by the end of summer then it may have to be sold the following season at a discount. That would have happened to many.
But to sit in a showroom for two or three years has to be inconceivable.

The Y bikes were made in 1970 and sold in 1970. So that means there is no benefit to BSA in numbering them in 1967 style numbers.
They cost the same to produce, ship and sell etc.

That would be unless there was a law change that permitted bikes made earlier (1967 specifically) to be exempt, or subject to less, taxes.

The savings would have to be substantial though to contemplate such an exercise.

Another possibility is that something happened in 1967 that needed to be rectified.
Bikes showing in the export books that did not exist. Phantom bikes. Bikes existing in number only.
If questions were asked and these bikes could not be made to reappear then perhaps they had to be produced from somewhere.

The later reincarnations were not made in a batch. They appear to have trickled off the production lines. The production may have started during the 1969 season and extended well into the 1970 run.
The very last of the 1970 bikes had the shortened rear brake torque stay. I have not seen a 1970 Y bike like that yet.

Gary also mentioned shipping dates of January, February and May of 1970. That would tally ok.

If these are the two possibilities that we have to explain this situation then I am backing Option B.
BSA exported phantom bikes in 1967... If that is the case then the shipping dates for the first export are bogus.

Is that why BSA had such a good year in 1967. - They exported over 1000 bikes without actually making them ?

It was one of the biggest years, I am not so sure how it compared to 1966 or 1968.

I would be thinking 1968 was a lean one... we know very few true MKIV Spitfires were made as a fair percentage were hybrid MKIV's with 1967 style engine stampings. We also have the story about the 200 or so Firebird Scramblers (debunked I know).

BSA took it upon themselves to start the 1969 Twin serial numbers at 10,000 (or thereabouts).

Similarly the factory started the 1970 numbers with the digit zero preceding the numbers.

If there was a cover-up in progress were these departures from previous years part of it ?

Sorry, - yet more questions.

I was wondering about the dock strike that affected the 1967 models getting shipped.

The BSAOC did say that it prevented the bikes reaching the States in time for the peak selling season.

I did a Google and sure enough..

.



So there was a strike in 1967.
I stumbled upon the USA entry also to ensure there was no disruption there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes

So we have a strike, it was actually 6 weeks long, during 1967.

I did read that it caused such a chaos and disruption that the backlog extended well into 1968.

The strikes were numerous and widespread and extended from September into November 1967.

Whoa.... Say what ?

That is for the 1968 bikes.
The strikes would need to be about Xmas 1966 or early 1967 to affect the shipping of the 1967 models.

There were strikes in 1966.
The Seamen's strike of 1966, another big one.
Resolved at the end of May 1966.

Ooops.... that is before the 1967 production even started.

So now our Dock strike story is lacking an important ingredient. NO DOCK STRIKE..

Well not one that would have affected the shipping of the 1967 bikes anyway.
I am sure the 1968 bikes would have been affected by the 1967 strike and that would have had an impact on sales.
I did think 1968 was a leaner year for BSA.

This came about because I started wondering why Triumph had not been affected in the same way.
A dock strike must have been just as damaging to them and their product.
The same would apply to the electrical component shortage.
What part was unavailable that you could not upgrade the bike ?
Why bother anyway, - the story has us believing complete working bikes went to the docks and were processed.

The sad thing about that version of the story I quoted earlier...

the real sad thing;

It was written just last week.

From a previous post by Gary E..."About 18600 '67's (all models), about 11000 '68's (all models)."


Here's a quote from the "Shooting Star" book which might explain some of the late shipping dates in 1968, as well as the lower numbers sold.
Providing it's true of course, I'll try to find confirmation in the Hopwood book and elsewhere.

-“The first warning signs of an imminent collapse came in 1968, when a combination of labour troubles and missed production deadlines by a host of subcontractors caused BSA and Triumph to ship motorcycles to America late in the spring, which meant the firm missed much of the “selling season,” as the British always called it. This is likely why the new triples weren’t seen in American showrooms until June that year. The company was forced to buy back several thousand machines, mostly twins, and dump them on European markets at a loss.” (Aamidor, 2009, 115/116)

Following up on 11/18 2011, here's a relevant quote from what I consider to be a trustworthy source.

In reference to the 1968 season...
-“Large stocks of BSA motorcycles, which had missed the US selling season, which generated 90% plus of the division’s annual income and profits, were brought back from America and had to be sold off at a substantial loss. This was due to late design changes delaying completion of the urgently required motorcycles” (Heaton, 2007, 128 )

This quote from Joe Heaton's thesis references Hopwood, 1981, 228 and 240.

Part of quote: "Many of the machines were refurbished and then sold at a discount in the USA however the warranty arrangements changed in 1970 so some form of identifier was needed to identify which machines would obtain the extra warranty. This was solved by adding a Y for 1970 although this may also mean they have an uprated alternator which would have been added as part of the refurbishment."
Has this person seen the '67 numbered 1970 Y bikes, or a photo, because they have 1970 engines, different cyls, studs and nuts, C/cases, 2 x timing cases, clutch lift mechanism, oil dipstic for trans, all obvious and visible, and internally, different rods, gearchange quadrant, etc. What stayed the same? Maybe gears cluster, pistons, crank, clutch, primary, head? (not sure about head) and now they are saying they had the alternator replaced as well?
So did they really replace all that stuff in a refurbishment of a 1967 bike? If the guy doesn't mention new cases cyls etc etc and thinks the main holdup was the alternator, he doesn't really know what was being done, or something? Surely he has got to know he is talking to BSA owners.

Thanks Mark.
The comments came from the BSAOC just a few days ago. I was unsure if they really appreciated what a Y engine looked like so I sent a pic of one for their comments.

I have not heard back yet.

In the many years I have been pursuing this I have yet to receive any acknowledgement that the dating lists could be improved.



Many of the guys reading this Mark actually own Y bikes.
They are now only too aware that the BSAOC UK website is far from factual.

The problem for me is all the potential buyers and sellers that are having problems because of the website error.
Troy Engineering thought he was selling a 1967 engine but many guys wrote in to him. He has now changed the title to a 1970 engine.
A few years ago that engine would have been sold to someone as a 1967 and the purchaser would have had problems. It was not what he expected.

The website errors are costing BSA owners money.
The BSAOC UK claim to be the official website for BSA motorcycles.
The BSAOC UK has the factory records and have known about this dating confusion for many years.

What do we have to do to get them to actually do something about it ?



In the meantime they are still taking money off people by selling scraps of paper like this..

It does not seem fair to me.

Kevin sez:

"I concede they may have even been a frame that could have been reworked. We did have an issue with some of the early Y bikes being fitted with what appeared to be older swingarms and hardware."

Early on in this saga, someone posted pictures of a bike we all agree was a 70, but definitely had the older style swing arm pivot, as I remembr. I have seen some bikes, no question 70's, but with the original style swing arm pivot. The old dealer locally, claimed some service parts frames and left over 2nd's got used up towards the end of the 70 model run to clear inventory for the change over to the OIF. I also believe 70 was a pretty good year for BSA sales even though they may not have forecast too well.

"I admit I am still uncertain about duplicated numbers. That would be a massive risk to take and we have not yet seen a case of that."

Like I have stated before, when it comes to S/N's, as long as it conforms to Federal standards (which were just then being implemented) and is documented by the OEM as a legitimate S/N, it is game on..... A65LA12345-Y is NOT the same as A65LA12345Y as long as it is documented by the manufacturer as legitimate.

If you or I did it, we would get to wear a dress and dance for our new 400# cellmate friend named Bubba

As far as my 1968, since that year is in also question, the dealer remembers my bike specifically, it is a low S/N 68 Lightning, that was made available at a discount during the model changeover at the end of the model year. It came to him as a 68 with 69 cases and head pipes when he recieved it. It was also painted the darker red color we associate with Hornets & Firebird Scramblers, not the more common "Flamboyant Red". Go figure

OK - probably a gross oversimplification but...


If it has the cases with the raised numbers then it a 1970. If it has the old style cases with the numbers stamped on the case flush with the bottom of the cylinder barrel flang then it's a 1967?

I know nothing but the idea that they used old numbers that they hadn't built yet but had already been taxed on is very plausible. SO I guess the accountants made them do it?

Or perhaps some floor manager trying to get union workers to build bikes that were supposed to have already been built but not actually left the shop?

I can envision some machines not being sold very quickly and sitting in dealerships for a long time. In the US, during that period, some states officially titled a motorcycle in the year in which it was sold (application for title). So, for example, an actual '67 bike which did not sell until '68 or '69, (or whenever) would be titled as a '68 or '69 motorcycle. If someone bought a '67 bike but didn't bother to apply for a title/license until 1970, then some states would label it a '70 bike on the title.

Both of my Hornets were that way when I got them. It caused alot of grief for me getting Oregon titles for them with the other states' titles having the wrong year on them. Also, some states back then didn't require a title for motorcyclces.

There was a Rocket 3 a few years ago that went up for sale that a dealer in the northern US (maybe Canada - can't recall) had saved. It was still in the original wood crate with all the paper work and 0 miles on the speedo. The sale included the original crate as well.

Some BSA dealerships were small operations located in small obscure towns with few sales of new bikes. Probably a similar situation around the world. The British bike dealer in my area sold BSA, Triumph and Norton in the '50's and '60's and was a small one man operation; a personal family friend. In talking with him thru the years (he's in his 80's now) I do not believe he sold very many BSA's. As a result, I can see where a new bike might sit for a long time before being sold.



True '68 Spitfire Mark IV's produced out number the '67 hybrid Mark IV's, three to one.

Gary, I've been trying to sort out all this information about the BSA Group, 1965 through 1975. You have provided a lot of solid facts based on your research (many thanks). There is one slight contradiction that I hope you could clear up though.

-“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.” (Gary E, BritBike post 382555 )

-“My research of the production books indicated that machines were not dispatched in the numerical order of their frame/engine numbers. As a result, low stamped numbers were sometimes shipped later on by a month or more. So, my opinion is that the "-Y" does not include most of the '67 model year. Generally, the -Y shows up on a consistent basis beginning in the 4,000 numbers. (Gary E, BritBike post 403654 )

Just hoping for clarification as these two posts are somewhat at odds with each other.

I have me one of them -Y bikes, and as far as anyone can tell it is a 67...my buddy has a 70' lightning and it has alot of differences from mine like bars, ammeter etc..etc...

Yep BJ your bike is a run of the mill Dash Y bike of 1967. We all have them.
Common as.

You say your mates 1970 is different to yours... if you look beyond the bars and ammeter you will see the entire front end is different

The tyre, tube, valve cap will be the same or similar, and perhaps the headlight bulb.

What we are saying is that a 1970 Y bike and a 1970 'normal' bike are as near as identical.
At the moment there is no published material stating that.
BSAOC, Bacon and all the other experts that have gone to print in the last three decades have either missed it or chosen to ignore the issue.

I can't understand how it has been left for so long.




I doubt we can get much simpler than that. Works for me..

Similarly for the frames.
If there is a Y in the frame number then it is a 1970.

“In the meantime they are still taking money off people by selling scraps of paper like this..”

You’re absolutely correct about my certificate!! I’ve thought of writing my own “draft” and sending it over for a redo! The only good news is that the VIN number was at least listed in the books!

Good to see you leading the charge on this issue.

Thanks Bruce.

I think we all have a few questions over your certificate.

What do you think they are saying the bike should be titled as ?

What is it titled as ?

Mark wants to know what they mean by the phrase 'It still retains it's original motor'.
What is your interpretation of that ?

Finally the certificate seems to imply that 10th Nov 1966 can be taken as the build date.
During your ownership of the bike do you think you have come across any parts made in 1966 ?

Encore question...
Do you think you are entitled to a refund ?

The numbering in '67 went to about 18000, and the "-Y" bikes are up to but in the 15000's, actually closer to the 16000's with some about 15800. Take out a bunch in the 10000's, 11000's, and 12000's that are "Y" bikes and the percentage of non "-Y" machines goes up. Although the "-Y" bikes are then still a majority, the difference isn't as big as some have made it out to be. Hope this helps with a little clarification.

Sure does, thanks Gary!

I think it means a matching number bike.

I can agree with all 3.

Hmmm

I really don't mean to upset things here but the Y bikes went well beyond 16000. Be they Dash Y, Hybrid or 1970 Y.

Am I correct in saying that many of the Hybrid MkIV's for example are in the 16000 and 17000 areas.
Are these recorded in the 1968 books ?

I have some 1970 Y bikes using the 17000 numbers also.

From the 1967 bikes I have actually seen I would be saying most are Dash Y bikes.
I have not seen many Home Market bikes sold in the UK so I really can't speak for them.



A65SA16835-Y is a MkIII of 1967. A Dash Y bike.


The problem we are having here is that Gary only had access to the despatch books for a short time.

It appears that the despatch books are being used as a fundraiser by selling "Dating Certificates" rather than being put to good use for research.

http://www.realclassic.co.uk/newsfiles/news05022800.html
http://www.vmcc.net/library.htm

The Triumph records were held by the Science Museum but have since been handed over to the VMCC.

I think the present BSA records ownership needs to be reviewed.
If there are only the originals in existence then that needs to be corrected immediately, - like yesterday.

I realise Alistair Cave has gifted much of his own workings to the BSAOC but again that info must now be too valuable.

Do we need a fundraising campaign to have this material reproduced (electronically) and then made available to owners.

I have reservations about the service we are receiving from the present custodians.
Having an unpaid committee member delegated to write out dating certificates on the kitchen table after work is just not doing justice to thousands of owners.

Is it time ?

I think this may be the highest Y/-Y I've seen evidence of so far.



The owner had posted the following text with the photo...

here are the dates that I got from the BSAOC dating service concerning my Spitfire A65SA 173xx Y (not a DASH Y)

initial despatch date 12/05/67 (May 12th 1967) BSA NJ
second despatch date 12/04/68 (April 12th 1968)

I think that will be a Hybrid bike, I can go to A65SA17898Y
with one of them. Also 17890.
I have a few in the A65SA176xxY area.

Again I am forgetting where we left off with them but it is good having access to the two shipping dates.


That bike may well have been retrofitted with the MKIV features...between those two dates.

Gary will be the man on this one.

Yes, correct. I was only reporting of numbers below 16000 as that was the clarification question presented. '67 numbers go well into the 18000's.



Hybrid '67 SA's start at #11577 (dispatched 4/18/68) and randomly go to #17892 (dispatched 4/18/68). Yes the same date.

Dispatch dates are April, May, June, and July of '68 (yes '68).

The entries are in the 3rd '67 book (#276), in the middle of the book, after several blank pages. They are not in the '68 books.



"Most" can be anything from 1 machine over 50% to all machines but 1 of the total production year, so I really hesitate to use that word. As I presented previously, although a majority are "-Y" bikes in '67, there is clearly a large number that are not. 4000 (roughly the first part of the production year) is 22% of 18000 (roughly the '67 production numbers). Again, take out the "Y" and hybrids and the % get bigger.



The VMCC also has the original BSA books given to them from the Science Museum.



I do not know what type of records the BSAOC UK has: originals, copies, microfiche, digitized, or otherwise.

The VMCC does a very good job of protecting and maintaining the originals. And I mean that in a positive way. They are very forthcoming with help within their time constraints. Their library and records storage encompass the entire 2nd floor of their building. I feel they should continue to hold the originals.

Unfortunetely, present day worldwide identity theft has gotten to a point where everyone is hesitant to release anything but very limited info. Imagine what could happen if a picture of only one page from the books was sent to someone that had an honest interest in their one bike entry on the page. 40 other bike entires are now exposed to some nimrod that wants to misue the data.

Re: Originally Posted By: Kevin (NZ).

Mark wants to know what they mean by the phrase 'It still retains it's original motor'.
What is your interpretation of that?

I think it means a matching number bike.

More precisely, I have taken it to mean that the bike left the factory with that frame number and that engine number.
The phrase 'It still retains it's original motor' avoids the confusion that can arise if the phrase 'matching numbers' is used in relation to earlier year BSAs that left the factory with frame numbers that differ from the engine numbers.
Interestingly though, when the factory were 'randomly selecting' A10 Spitfire Scrambler engines to go into frames they occasionally produced one with identical/matching NUMBERS, though the codes for the frame differ from the engine code. One of my A10 Spitfires differs by a single digit - 214 v 215 for the engine and frame numbers.

“What do you think they are saying the bike should be titled as ?”
I don’t think the BSAOC really knows except what the book had in it referencing both specific dates.

It is titled as a 1969…but I don’t have any history back to 69, and it could have been re-titled along the way.
Being shipped late in the season, perhaps it should have been considered a 1970.
However, It was a mostly complete junker with 1969 features such as:
• Raised number pad on engine that matches frame (99.99% sure not a re-stamp)
• Clutch cable entry at back
• Smaller cylinder base studs
• Flat headed OPRV, not domed
• Oil pump had 69 written on it?

“Do you think you are entitled to a refund ?”
Yes…if the BSAOC were a commercial concern. But given that these are volunteers giving of their time and effort, I wouldn’t ask for it…except for maybe a discount on a corrected certificate.

Hi Lew, thanks for the comments.

Ok, I can see the phrase is a cut and paste one of convenience.
Mark's interest was that has has examples of both engines scattered in his workshop.
He is saying that all the cast alloy components are different. A 1967 engine has different numbers, and features so it does not resemble a 1970 engine.
I read that comment as trying to tell us it is a 1967 engine that has been refurbished.... Is that what the BSAOC is trying to say ?
'Retains the original engine'
I think that is a brave call.

The engine was made in 1970 folks..
If the holder of the certificate thinks his engine is a 1967 model then he is in for a few surprises.


Thanks for your replies Bruce,I think the 1969 title is pretty close.

I am of the belief that the Bob Down bike was retitled as a 1967, probably on the basis of a certificate worded in a similar manner to yours.

Perhaps the BSAOC will send you a new certificate when all this confusion is finally resolved. You don't want to see any mention of those 1966 dates on it.