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

Link to Lightning Spares website.

Brian Pollitt now owns Lightning Spares and was the previous BSAOC Dating Officer.

He seems to have written a good article on the A10 RGS based largely around the records he had available to him.

We are not asking for too much more on the history of the A65 production from 1965 through to 1970.
It is a pretty small topic all said and done.

Roy Bacon, and others, have had a good crack at it and we are all much wiser and keener as a result. It would be great if we could just now delve into some of the grey area and complete the picture.

Somewhere amongst our ravings of the past two years here in BritBike.Com we may have unearthed all the necessary data.

Once we have done a job on the grey areas we may even be brave enough to encroach into the 'black' regions where no man has been before.

If its of interest, I have an A50 Royal Star which has a Y suffix. Engine no A50RA9922Y.Bought it as an American import from Woodstock, Georgia a number of years ago. The info I found was that it was despatched to New Jersey in dec 1966, where remained unsold. It was returned to the factory and refurbished being redespatched to New Jersey in June 1969. It is registered here in the UK as a 1969 bike. When I bought it, it was a cross between an American dirt bike, big rear tyre and straight through pipes, with ape hangers that Dennis Hopper/ Peter Fonda could only dream of!

Rob

Hi Rob.
That is interesting. Very interesting indeed.
It has to be a Y bike of 1969. I would love to see some pics.

Is it a 1967 model or 1969 in your opinion ?
Is there a Y suffix on the frame number ?

I have been looking here and all I can see of Royal Stars in that number area are 1967 models. They are Dash Y bikes.

I am sure I have seen 1970 A50RAxxxxY bikes. I realise the SB does not mention them but I will look here now until I can get some more info.

Thanks so much for reporting in.
Cheers.




This one is A50RA10144Y and is a 1969 Y bike. It may be very similar to yours. The other bikes I am seeing with numbers about yours are Dash Y 1967 bikes.
With a shipping date of June 1969, as you have been given, I have to think you own an unusual machine. Please let me know if my suspicions are correct.

I don't believe it has crossed the Atlantic four times.

Kevin,

Both the engine and frame number end in a Y. I always thought the bike was a 1967, until I had it dated. I think the twin leading brake may have been fitted as part of the refurbishment? I have attached some pictures. Everything is orginal except the front mudguard and handlebars.

Hope its of some use to you.

Cheers

Rob



engine no photo




As is it now.

Wow Rob, that is brilliant. A nice bike and job well done.

I am not sure how well you have been reading this thread and the other similar ones.

Many of us here believe your bike was never refurbished. Your bike displays no features of a 1967 bike.

The story on the Dating Certificate has to be bogus. These bikes are either true 1967 and stamped with a Dash Y on the engine or what we are calling Y models.
There is no in between.

The 1969 Y bikes are not as common as the 1970 but several readers here own them. Yours is almost unique in that it is a Royal Star.... we have physical evidence of only a few of them.
(Two now).

As for the 1967 numbers on the Dating Certificate...
Well we have a least two schools of thought on that.

There is a possibility that a 1967 bike with the number A50RA9922 was exported in Dec 1966. (Albeit the engine had a Dash Y suffix, - many of the 1967 machines were stamped in that fashion). This would be another bike, not the one you own.

The other possibility is that the 1967 bike never existed and that the export entry is of a phantom bike, a paper bike.

I know of a Dash Y bike actually being exported to Australia in late December 1966. It is the earliest I know of so far.

Everyone reading this will have an inkling of which camp they are in. I personally am undecided.
I am 100% clear in my own mind that not one part of your bike was made in 1966.

If you read all the recent posts by Atlanta Bonnie you will see you both own similar bikes.




This is from one of your posts only 6 weeks ago. You were under the impression that your bike was a 1967..... that is exactly the problem all you guys are having.
It was never a 1967 model.

What part of the UK are you in ?

You are possibly the only owner in the UK with a Y bike.
That we now have a Y bike in England has to be a very good thing for the cause. I would love for a BSAOC 'expert' to look at it and tell us all about the 'refurbishment'.

I think the BSAOC owe you a new Dating Certificate also.

Clutch entry can be altered by the use of earlier timing covers.

Another sure way to tell it's a '69 is whether the timing plug at the front of the cases is a plate with two screws or a single screw-in plug.

Yep Allan and Alex, they are both 1969 bikes.

The Y bikes are normally associated with 1970, well at least on this Forum.

It appears that a small percentage are 1969 and with shipping dates of June 1969 for Rob's A50 and August 1969 for Bruce's A65L that would be correct. I cannot say when the other 1969 Royal Star was shipped.
I am certain all Y bikes have the single plug for the timing tool access.



When the truth finally comes out I am confident we will find that the Y bikes ran from late '69 until towards the end of the 1970 models.


Link to pics of unusual cases.

I have placed a link here to a set of cases which have to be unique.
You can see clearly that they are 1970 castings that have been partially machined to appear closer to 1967 cases.
The obvious machining is to that plug access and also to the transmission fill hole.
I would say they have been a 'best attempt' to make up a set of 1967 model cases as spares.
I have never seen cases like it before.

As I mentioned earlier.. All the Y bike engines of 1969 and 1970 are true in every respect to their model years.

Thanks for the question Allan.





First thing.
Only the 1969 and 1970 Y bikes have the Y suffix in the frame number.
(The Dash Y bikes of 1967 don't have it).

Second thing.
BSA changed the style of stamp to a new font early in the 1969 season. I believe it was about September 1968 (possibly October).
It meant the 'sixes' and 'nines' now had straighter tails for example. Similarly the 'five' lost it's curvyness.

The two numbers above are typical. I have actually labelled the Y bike one as a 1969 model machine.

So the frames are not only physically different, there are a number of changes between 1967 and 1969/70, but the numbers are also.

The Y bike numbers have been stamped after September 1968.

Just to elaborate a little further on the frames.

The pic is of a normal 1969 model frame. It is exactly the same as a Y bike of 69/70.



The differences are relatively minor. (From a 1967 model bike).
The diagonal bracket for the condensors has been added.
The fairing lugs are now on the steering head.
The swing arm pivot is of the later bearing type.
The little tab retaining bolt hole is filled and re-tapped to a UNF thread.
The rear seat brackets may be repositioned on some bikes also.
All relatively easy to do you would think.

Oh the horizontal battery support gets removed for 1970 and some of the rear frame tabs get removed.

Still easy..

Ok, now they grind the number pad off and then re-stamp the same numbers back on. Only this time they stamp a Y suffix on it as well.

While this is going on we are to believe the engine is refurbished. Cases split, new castings and many components replaced including oil pump and rotor. Indeed very little of the engine is kept if you are still believing the refurbishment story.

Now the entire front end is removed and replaced.
As are the fuel and oil tanks, chainguard is modified.
Rear mudguard (fender) is replaced and a new tail light fitted.

So BSA now have a heap of NOS spares they have removed from all these bikes. Over 1000 front ends for example, and 1000 fuel tanks.... what are we to believe happened to them.
What would you do with 1000 alternator rotors. (Dated 1966/67) ?
How about 1000 crankcase halves already stamped up ? They must have been melted down because they are certainly no longer about.

If we are still believing the refurbishment story we have to bear in mind that progress was well under-way preparing everything for the introduction of the OIF models later that year.

Were BSA so affluent in 1970 that they could afford to dismantle over 1000 bikes and carry out a complete refurbishment programme.

The story is trying to tell us that this is happening in 1970 calendar year.. Do we have to remind ourselves that the first of the OIF bikes rolls off the assembly lines in August 1970.

I would have thought the factory had more pressing issues to be concerned about.

I think the refurbished 1967 leftover bike story is a POS.....

I find it interesting that there are four different stampings on the engine casings: The flush casing (up until 1968), the raised pad without the BSA anti-theft markings(late 1968 early 1969), The raised pad with the anti-theft BSA stamp unter the numbers (1969 to 1973) and that weird wide raised pad casting that Kevin showed for Christmas 1970. Were the BSA stamp under the number Kevin?

Interesting...

Yep, that is what I have been seeing.
One observation was that there are some flush casings stamped with 1969 model numbers.
Many TC, LC etc but also the new style PC and similar.

The change to the raised pad occurred early in the 1969 model run but obviously some of the older cases were not picked up out of the pile for a few months.
There were many subtle changes introduced in those last few months of 1968 Calendar year. (Early 1969 model year).

But My Firebird has the raised pad number stamp on the case with the Anit-theft BSA stamp underneath the number is and it is A65F AC17XXX which means January of 1969 and almost 7000 bikes different from Rob's. That is huge from his raised pad no anti-theft stamp and numbers that look sorta like an 1967. The raise pad and the number difference say two different things...the raised pad screams late 1968 early 1969 but the number on the case don't make sense/match with the date the cases were made.

Oi vey.

The number sequence for 1969 models is different.

First off we have the 'normal' bikes. They seem to have started at 10,000 and not 101 or whatever, of the previous years.

So they run from 10,000 to almost 23,000.

Now the Y bikes can't do that. They have 'borrowed' their numbers from the 1967 books.
(Or rather the 1967 despatch books dictate what the numbers have to be).
We have completely different number sequences as a result.

We may well discover that the Y bikes of 1969/70 are numbered in a random sequence.
I think the guys were trying to disguise something at that particular time.
Gary has seen the shipping dates which may give us some kind of lead.

Here's my refurbed 67 frame sold as a 69....

There is very little chance that any of the parts of a bike despatched in 1967, are on a bike despatched in 1969 or 1970 that has virtually the same serial number, give or take a "Y" or "-Y"!

Check out my Previous Post, I've added a bit more reference regarding bikes being returned from North America in 1968.

It is probable that almost all of the bikes returned were the late-being-delivered 1968 models (LB, TB, etc). Surely almost all of the 1967 bikes, including the -Y's, would have already been sold by the time the 68's finally arrived in North America. If no 1967's are returned, how do they get to refurbish them and ship them back in 1969/1970?

Perhaps the theory that there were a bunch of phantom numbers in the 1967 books is correct. Maybe the 1969/1970 RA/LA/TA bikes were an attempt to make the books right.

Why was the "Y" on the 1969/1970 LA/RA/TA bikes there to indicate that those bikes got the extended warranty, the other bikes with far more proper 1970 numbers were given the extended warranty and they didn't have a "Y"?
Because, there was a bit of a problem, the LA/RA/TA made those bikes look like they were made in 1967 (the plan), but that also made them look out of warranty! The "Y" became necessary to indicate they still had any warranty at all, never mind extended.

It would be nice to see something closer to the real story regarding the use of the 1967 RA/LA/TA prefixes on those 1969/1970 bikes on the BSAOC UK website.

Hopefully they will get a good look at Rob's A50, and the certificate they produced for it!

I am seeing a few flaws in some of our reasoning here.

We know many of the Dash Y bikes exported during 1967 were A65LA and TA... but we have RA, SA and HA bikes there also.

If we do indeed have phantom bikes then surely some Spitfires and Hornets would be on the books. BSA would not have known they were about to cease production (or did they) after the 1968 season.

If they had to find these 'missing' phantom bikes then there is no way they could refurbish a Hornet in 1970, or a Spitfire for that matter.

We have never seen a refurbished bike, of any kind.
Gary will tell us that no Hornet was ever refurbished like the story is trying to tell us happened to Rob's, Bruce's and John's bikes.

Where are the Spitfires and Hornets with the raised engine pads ?
None exist.

I am now going off the phantom bike idea.

Rich B wrote the following about 3 years ago on another Forum. (Yahoo Groups).

Quote

To back up Kevin's comments, I have access to some paperwork &
original owner 67 BSA twins that are -Y bikes and were delivered to
the customer in March, April, & April of 1967 locally. Definitely NOT
bikes that were unsold and sold later.

Some of my sources say the -Y indicated the running change in 67 to
move the zener to under the headstock that is considered a feature of
the 68 on bikes. This is odd in light of the fact Hornet's were also
given the -Y number even though they had no zener. But early 67's
(Hornet & other models) don't have the -Y and models equipped with a
zener do not have it under the headstock. Models that do have it
under the headstock are always stamped -Y. So there must be some
truth to this change.

The old local BSA dealer is still alive, kicking, and ornery as ever.
I have asked him about the story of the unsold 67's. He laughs,
curses, etc. Said in 67, he was selling them as fast as he could get
his hands on them, would have choked his "road man" if there were
unsold 67's sitting in Nutley when he needed bikes.

OK so BSA did have a good year. They made many bikes and basically could sell them all easily. We know the dock strike was later in the year so that did not affect them and we know they were never returned to the factory.
They were all sold and on the road.

Why then did BSA make A65LA, TA and RA bikes in 1969/70.
The answer is obvious... it was because they could.

While they could not make new Spitfires and Hornets, - that would be too obvious... the factory figured they could certainly find a batch of old 1967 bikes that they had in storage.

The fact they made no attempt to even make them look like 1967 bikes speaks volumes. It was purely to get a Twin with the correct numbers on the engine and frame.

There had to be some financial gain in making out that these bikes were older models that had been left sitting around.
The scheme must have been hatched in 1969 and continued into 1970. They would have had to stop production of the Y bikes when the OIF machines came into being.

If this supposition were true then we have to be looking at the duplicated numbers situation.

From Gary's description of the despatch books it seems the Y bikes have entries within the covers themselves.
The numbers are always identical to another contained within the book itself.
I don't know of any instance of a stand alone Y bike in the books.

All the Dating Certificates have the initial export date (of the first bike) followed by the later Y bike Export.

The warranty extension of 1970 can have nothing to do with it. It was first announced in March 1970 in SB (Gen) 2-70.
The Bulletin obviously causing confusion so in May, SB 5-70 was released to clarify the situation.

Basically BSA USA was forced to admit that the 1970 Y bikes had been manufactured. The Warranty started from March the first and the announcement had been made not long before that.

We know the Y bikes were being made and stamped before June 1969, Rob's bike was exported then.
Atlanta Bonnie's Y bike was despatched in August 1969.

The Y stamp was in use well before the extended warranty scheme was devised.
We can soon find out the dates there because John Healy remembers Peter Thornton announcing it. It was across the whole BSA/Triumph group so the Triumph guys will have the details.




A quick Google search came up with this..


John Healy commenting about warranty on another forum.

They had to have known about the end of the Spitfire line as the Triples were already in progress. Perhaps the Hornet as well as it was gone at the end of the 1967 season. Maybe Gary can fill us in on why the change to the Firebird name was made.



Assuming you mean that you doubt the phantom bike theory...



You are saying that "The numbers are always identical to another contained within the book itself" but we haven't yet seen two different actual bikes with identical numbers, just identical numbers within the book.

If every 1969/1970 "Y" has a corresponding 1967 number with a "-Y", or perhaps no "-Y", why hasn't one of these older bikes ever turned up? The phantom 1967 numbers theory holds water until one of these identical number bikes from 1967 is shown to actually exist.

There have already been a number of examples of 69/70 "Y" bikes posted in this forum over the years, ebay is another good resource. I've been collecting images of these bikes for the past six months or so and Kevin's been at it for probably ten years now. Others like Mark appear to have multiple sets of the cases in their personal inventories.



I'm pretty sure BSAOC UK has got the 69/70 "Y" numbers on their records, Gary has confirmed that they are in the original books.

The real questions are...
Why did BSA manufacture new motorcycles in 1969/1970 and put 1967 serial numbers on them?
Why have the BSAOC UK, and numerous authors, avoided asking and answering that question?
It may have been completely above board, but the concerted effort to avoid the subject suggests otherwise.

I think we've shown in this thread that it is extremely unlikely (impossible really) that these 1969/1970 bikes are all refurbished 1967 models. Yet BSAOC UK still suggests that on their website, and have been selling owners certificates for years based on that premise! In the end, they may have some explaining to do.
We want the truth, d**n it!

Here's two that are close, nearest I've found so far.

1967 A65LA 15826-Y




1970 A65LA 15824Y

According to the production books no Hornet, Wasp, or Spitfire was refurbished for '69/'70. Some '67 Spitfires were refurbished for '68 (we call them the hybrids)



I'm glad. I never subscribed to that scenario.



That is correct. The "Y" bikes are entered on the inside of the front cover of book #274 and inside of the front and back covers of book #275



I have never presented that. The books are arranged by numerical order. So, the Y bike numbers in the inside front and rear covers COULD (likely) also be included (be the same) in the numerical numbers throughtout the books. BUT, whether those numbers on the pages of the books have any entries is suspect. They could be blank lines.

Until two bikes show up with the same numbers, I will not consider that theory.



That I do not know. I only suspect it was a marketing decision.



The Y machine entries in the production books are random in number. There are some that are consecutive, but generally they are scattered throughtout the 10000, 11000, 12000, 17000's groups.

Allan I don't believe there was ever a recalled bike.
Rich B is in Ohio and said the '67 models were snapped up fast.
Gary however mention he knows of Hornets in Oregon that sat for a while. We could say the same with Morgan's Spitfire.

I would consider that a normal marketing and sales pattern though. Even in my time we saw leftover bikes in the showroom... they were then just moved to where the market was. (Downunder, we don't have any selling seasons here. I bought my Bonneville at the beginning of winter for example).

I think any wise man can see the engines were never refurbished.
Doing the frames would be a waste of time. BSA were never that stupid.

The 1968 models were coming onto the market, and possibly delayed by the shipping strikes. In reality they were similar bikes to the 67. OK a tls brake on the Twin Carb versions and a new tank.
Some small details like revised transmission dipstick and 6CA points.

If the '68 bikes were missing the target (Dock strikes) then it was not a real issue as there would have been surplus '67's that could have filled the gap.

We have the Hybrid Spitfires for example.

The Dock strike story actually works against the bikes being returned. The docks were closed Sept to Nov 1967 with the backlog going into 1968 calendar year. Imports would have been affected so why would you try and send a brand new motorcycle back to England?

The only connection between the 1967 Dash Y bikes and the Y bikes of 69/70 is the Serial Number style.

We know the Y bikes have '67 style numbers.
We know that the despatch dates are recorded in the 1967 books.

Many of us can tell you that the 1969/70 Y models were made 1969.. or 1970.
They are a later model in every respect.

We have shipping dates that confirm the bikes were exported in 1969 and 1970.

The only problem we have, and only one issue..
People still think that the bikes are somehow linked to 1967 models.


How has this come to be ?

Because the BSAOC website, Bacons books, and the other publications have charts telling them so.

That is all it is.
All this drama and grief because we have urban myth and some generalisations on the charts.

If you look for the dockstrike, refurbished bikes, extended warranty etc story then chances are you will find it in only one place.

The BSAOC website.

The worst thing about that is many of us are members of that club... we are the ones that indirectly are responsible for the mess.

We are duty bound to rectify it... we owe that to BSA motorcycles,- and history.

How many times has this been regurgitated ?

We could correct this within months.
Revise the listings and modify the web sites.
Within a few years it would be job done.

Originally posted by Gary.


Thanks Gary. I did not intend to mislead but I was running through an option.

I think I was basing that on the Dating Certificates. For the story to hold water then the bike must have the two dates, - it seems to be the case with the Lightnings and Thunderbolts.

I have only ever seen a handful of dating certificates. Less than 10 for sure.

The Dating Officer could easily flick through those they are holding and see the trend.

How does their story hold up with the Hornets ?

That is your area and you have researched it.

You said this;


That makes sense. I have mentioned how it would be impossible to refurbish one...
None of us here have ever seen evidence of one existing.

So where does that leave the BSAOC version of the story...
The whole Y stamping thing is all based on that.

YET NONE WERE EVER DONE...

Quote

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.

Can anyone here really understand any of that ??



I think we all agree that your efforts last weekend may have solved the Dash Y puzzle.
BSA wrote on 12th October 1966 that the Y suffix advised of the fitting of the newer style 3 pipe oil manifold.

Simple, clear, easy... and in print.
(this would be the Dash Y, depicting an addition).

The Y coding was inflicted upon us some time later.
Why, - we don't know yet.
We are however inching closer to it.. I am sure.

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! ” ...

Two Alpha said.




+ 1

Go for it Allan.

He is just over the hill from you.

BSA factory workers

Someone there needs to do something before it is too late.

I was saying that in 2004 and the guys in the UK did nothing.

We have had a few photos posted here that I believe are very telling.

The two frames for example. It shows the completeness and attention to detail of Bruce's 1969 A65LA77xxY frame compared to the 1969 A65T DC21253 frame.

They are identical. All the features I addressed earlier are there for all to see.

Now the engines, if we look at it as an auditor we would see the same numbers. Sure they are seperated by two digits but that only means that one bike was built between them.
So the two engines would be like twins, coming off the production line just minutes apart.

Anyway, we as BSA experts, know that they may be similar but not in every instance. We probably know the reasons why also, - there were no fixed change points as such on the production line. It depended very much on the castings that were chosen to build that particular engine.

We now look at the engines again. Gary has seen the books, he knows production is all over the shop.

The rest of us must be seeing two engines completely different but with almost matching numbers.
Who wouldn't go 'Wassup widdat... Lannis ?'

I am saying that we can see the later Y frames appear identical to 1969/70 frames.
We can see the engines are identical to 1969/70 engines, and nothing like a 1967 engine.
We can see that the numbers appear to a layman to be very, very similar.
How could you possibly not be saying 'what gives ?'.

I KNOW I AM ASKING

Joe Heaton Thesis on BSA Motorcycles.

Shooting Star, - The Rise and Fall of the British Motorcycle industry.