Britbike forum

Classic British SparesKlempf British PartsBaxter CycleBritBike Sponsor SteadfastCyclesThe Bonneville ShopLowbrow CustomsSRM EngineeringGirling Classic MotorcycleLucas Classic MotorcycleHepolite PistonsIndustrial tec supply

Upgrade your membership: Premium Membership Gold Membership


New Sponsor post
Cyber Monday Sale - 10% off at The Bonneville Shop
by The Bonneville Shop - 11/29/21 5:34 pm
New FAQ post
How to find my own threads?
by reverb - 11/20/21 3:55 pm
Manuals on DVD - Buy 4 for 3
All 4 DVD Manual
Member Spotlight
Blown Income
Blown Income
La Plata, Md
Posts: 844
Joined: September 2008
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Top Posters(30 Days)
NickL 79
Rohan 77
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
kevin 21
Newest Members
old ion limey, muzz750, Motorcycles and Art, SteveDee, Gus_Carrero
11,924 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
3 members (seanalex, kevin, htown70), 23 guests, and 13 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Thread Like Summary
Allan G, Beach, Kevin E
Total Likes: 15
Original Post (Thread Starter)
#848848 05/13/2021 1:58 PM
by Kevin E
Kevin E
Hi all,

Does anyone know why they changed the part number for the primary chain tensioner from 68-0244 to 70-8310.

The 68-0244 number is in the parts book up to 1968, after which it changes to 70-8310 but the image looks exactly the same?

More importantly does anyone know where I can get one in the UK? They seem to be as rare as the proverbial rocking horse thing!

I have seen some on sale on eBay but they don't look right, as shown in the first attached image.

I want one that looks like the right part, as shown in the second attached image.

Cheers,

Kev E
Attached Images
Liked Replies
by Allan G
Allan G
Originally Posted by gunner
I wonder whether its possible to recondition your existing chain tensioner?

You would need to cut off all the existing rubber and then find a suitable piece of rubber to replace it.

Then the rubber would need to be bonded to the metal, possibly using special glue and heat.

I dont know what glue would be appropriate but perhaps you could take it to a brake reline specialist, they could probably bond the rubber on.

Anyway just a thought.


If your in a position where you have one, and the rubber hasn't been ripped away in chunks but only the groove lines from the chain, then it doesn't need replacing. this is how it should wear, the raised part of the rubber then keeps the rollers supported and not the end plates of the chain. If its all busted and torn apart like some of the new ones seem to get, probably because of the low quality rubber being used now, then get it swapped.

You just have the dire problem of adjusting it for the next 1000 miles and the oil getting black very quickly
2 members like this
by kommando
kommando
Quote
The 68-0244 number is in the parts book up to 1968, after which it changes to 70-8310 but the image looks exactly the same?

You can't go by the parts book images, they did not get everything right. Put the part numbers plus BSA into Google and then click on images to see who is selling what and how they look.

This is the first one I found, image matches what you want, has both numbers you quote but out of stock.

https://www.britishbikebits.com/primary-chain-tensioner-bsa-a50-a65-a70-1962-72
1 member likes this
by MarcB
MarcB
Originally Posted by Kevin E
The 68-0244 number is in the parts book up to 1968, after which it changes to 70-8310 but the image looks exactly the same?

More importantly does anyone know where I can get one in the UK? They seem to be as rare as the proverbial rocking horse thing!
The change could be something as simple as the materials used, which wouldn't show up in a plate drawing. I am not sure what the difference would be, myself.

As far as what is and isn't available, I wouldn't go simply off of website listings. I've found that old-style phone calls often yield better results. If nothing else, they may be able to tell you who has them and/or why they're so hard to find.
1 member likes this
by gavin eisler
gavin eisler
last time I bought one it was from SRM.
1 member likes this
by NickL
NickL
Those different 'new' types are the ones coming out of India,
they don't really fit.
I have used t150 ones in the past and cut them down a bit.

Nick
1 member likes this
by Allan G
Allan G
Originally Posted by Kevin E
Well blow me down with a feather Gunner.

I only looked on the Draganfly website yesterday and it said they had no stock?

Thanks for the heads up.

Do you know why the later OIF tensioner is more expensive?

Cheers,

Kev E

It’s the same tensioner. Some part numbers got changed as numbering systems changed as more parts became common with triumph around 1971 I believe.
1 member likes this
by Ignoramus
Ignoramus
the one in your second pic is the right one dont use anything else
1 member likes this
by NickL
NickL
Sorry, it was T160 ones i've used, they are OK. Just a bit long.

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/124466579141?hash=item1cfac946c5:g:S5EAAOSwGYZfxh7f&frcectupt=true
1 member likes this
by Allan G
Allan G
Originally Posted by Kevin E
Originally Posted by Allan G
[quote=Kevin E]

one of the reasons I seldom deal with them now.

I don't blame you Allan. After dealing with them on several occasions they are my last port of call now and I am never confident that what I receive will be of really good quality.

I have had a couple of orders from them where they have only sent me part of the order and some of the items have been listed on the invoice as 'On Back Order'. It's annoying when you have ordered something that is listed as 'In Stock' on their web site. I don't see how anyone would order something from any web site that is out of stock.

The last time that this happened, which was only a few weeks ago, I rang them and asked them why they had listed one of the items I ordered as 'In Stock' but on my invoice it said that it was on back order? Their reply was that the web site had now been updated but they could not tell me when the part was likely to become available. I asked them to refund me the money, as I did not want to wait an indefinite and potentially infinite amount of time for my £30 to get me what I had expected to have within a couple of days.

The parts I have received in the past from Draganfly have been a mixture of ok and perfectly usable, to plain cheap and nasty.

Battery carrier rubber mounts, for example, were just bits of reinforced rubber hose crudely cut into small lengths. They were not even all the same length, the ends were not cut off square and they were the wrong O/D for the carrier. They went in the bin and I wrote it down to experience, as they were only cheap items cost wise.

I really do not like to be negative about parts suppliers and wish I could say more positive things about them but that's the way it is.

Generally I would describe myself as an optimistic depressive. My glass is half full but the bar just closed! wink

Cheers, Kev E


I hear you on every point,

I bought OIF head lamp shouldered nuts off them (should be chrome) one was chrome, the other was zink plated... I wouldn't have minded if they were either both zink or both chrome... but the picker of these parts must really hate its customers.

A set of tank badge screws (I since learned the size and bought stainless) should be a 8-32 philster screw, some had pozi heads and some had flat and 3 out of 4 looked like they came out of the river and much rustier than the 4 I just taken off.

amongst other generally piss-poor quality parts.

The final point was the oil pressure switch which should have been straight thread and was tapered. You would like to hope/trust that a company thats been going for as long as draganfly would know what is what (especially with BSA parts), and I put my faith in them... I think if I had bought it off a ebay shop with some unknown seller or a newer company (like Feked) I would have put my faith aside and checked the part before fitting... seems I should have done the same there too.
1 member likes this
by kommando
kommando
The problem with Draganfly is they were not long ago 100% pre unit BSA and Ariel, as the volume of spares sales for these has dropped off they have included the Unit side but lack the product knowledge. I see they have now added Triumph, will be sticking to the suppliers that know about what they sell.
1 member likes this
by Ignoramus
Ignoramus
Draganfly ....DANG now you have stated me

I think the fact hat they send a return of goods form with every order (or they used to) kind of says it all.

I will never buy anything from them again after the last load of junk they sent me ... it included 1. screw in gearbox bungs (pre unit box outer cover) with totally stuffed threads ( the chaser teeth had bottomed out and ripped the treads form to bits THEN some clown tried to run the chasers over it a second time) 2 bolts which had been cut to length with a hacksaw and no even chamfered off 3 some engine parts described as NOS which were severely pitted with scale rust ...it goes on

I did not even bother returning the scrap metal I just resolved to never use them again

clearly they think that because i am in in the southern hemisphere they can send al the reject rubbish here ,,, well Slagnfly not again you wont !

PS (some) UK suppliers have a long history of this my 40 years in engineering tells me !
1 member likes this
by The Bonneville Shop
The Bonneville Shop
For the 1969 model year, BSA started using the Triumph numbering system, where some of the part numbers that were formerly prefixed with a 29-,42-,68-, etc. were superceded to familiar Triumph prefixes, such as 57-, 70-, 82-, and 97-. It not only included parts that were common to both marques, such as the 57-0448 main shaft bearing, but also to parts that were unique to the BSA design, like the 70-8310 chain tensioner blade. As they continued to move towards integration of the two marques, more superceded part numbers were found in the parts catalogues. Even the format of the BSA parts books more closely followed the layout of the Triumph parts books for the 1969 model year and onward. We stock the 68-0244 chain tensioner blade, but have been out of stock on that item for months. Parts suppliers worldwide rely on a relatively few manufacturers and distributors to supply our inventories, and when shocks to the supply chain caused by unforeseen events like a worldwide pandemic occur, sometimes we look to local manufacturers for fulfillment of orders for parts that have been traditionally sourced from the UK or Taiwan.

-Dave
1 member likes this
by kommando
kommando
Originally Posted by koncretekid
Our of curiosity, has anybody tried a plain steel shoe like used on the singles? Theoretically, the chain plates wear grooves in the steel and then the rollers can roll on the shoe. Of course, you may wear out a couple of chains before the grooves are deep enough to allow the rollers to roll. Or possibly a shoe of brass ?
Tom

If you look closely the OEM ones have a hard metal welded onto the area the chain runs over. maybe stellite or similar. So if you have a original one hang on to it, the later all steel copies do not last.
1 member likes this
by BrizzoBrit
BrizzoBrit
I fitted a new one to my 69 A65F just a few days ago. It was from BBB. Purchased maybe a year ago. Looks OK, but wasnt exactly the same as the original that came out.

I ran about 400 miles on it over the weekend and it seems good . Checked chain free play, didn't seem to move .

The upper one in the photo is the new one. The chain runs more to the rear of the slipper as it has less curve. Its about to get a flogging on a 2000 mile trip so that will test it.

I've now added an image of it fitted also.
Attached Images
1 member likes this
Job CycleBritish Cycle SupplyMorries PlaceKlempf British PartsPodtronicVintage MagazineBSA Unit SinglesBritBike SponsorBritish Tools & FastenersBritBike SponsorBritBike Sponsor






© 1996-2021 britbike.com
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5