sparks2

Sorry, it's not a Greeves, Parkinson or Marcelle barrel. My best guess would be a DMW barrel. But what do I know. Regards Sparks

Yes, well, I hope I'm wrong and you're right. Give it a go. All the Best Sparks

OTF Just read this topic. How many early Bultacos, Monts, Gaunt Jawas, Cotton Minarellis, etc, etc, do you think are left? Just how many owners are would be willing to ride? Very, very few, I would suggest.

Yes, blow the pilot jet air passages out with an air line, they get blocked with water that does not evaporate.

Lowbrow You can't rule anything in or out at this distance in time. However:- I don't think the SM Bultaco/Villiers frames were plated, just painted. The Villiers 37A engine came with the round cast iron barrel (although a square alloy barrel would have been a popular mod). The carb would have been the Villiers S25, as supplied with the engine. The forks on the SM Bultaco/Villiers were originally REH, the Bultaco forks having been passed on to the new lightweight SM framed bike. I am fairly certain the back wheel would have been 18'' at that point. The alloy tank/seat units were available to purchase on their own as an after market goodie from SM. Yes, unless the Villiers trials engines were given reasonably careful maintenance they could end up gutless and difficult to start. But, given that maintenance, they were the equal if not better than the Spanish for the average rider (in my opinion). It has always been a popular mod amongst private owners (especially in the early pre-65 days) to put a Villiers engine into a Bultaco frame. So, you could have had the (much modified) remains of an SM Bultaco/Villiers. But, slightly more likely, you had an assembled 'special' (as you originally thought). Not that there would have been inherently wrong in an assembled 'special' , most 'pre-65' machines today are just that. Regards Sparks

Woody The batch of Sammy Miller Bultaco/Villiers machines were a marriage of convenience. At the time (1969) SM had been selling brand new Bultacos fitted with his own high quality chrome plated frame for a couple of years. Thus had a quantity of brand new, mild steel, M27 and M49 Bultaco frames left over from the above conversion. Norton Villiers had some 37a trials engines left over when their own AJS 37AT trials bike didn't sell as well as expected. I think that the engines were offered to SM in the belief that they would be sold on the spares market and not as complete bikes to detract sales from their remaining AJS 37AT trials machines. Never one to miss a commercial opportunity, SM put the two together. The engine mounting points would have had be altered, not a major job. Add in REH forks with British Hub Company 'Motoloy' front and rear alloy hubs. And finally top it off with the SM goodies including the alloy tank/seat unit and Hey Ho we have The SM Bultaco/Villiers. As far as I can remember about 30 to 40 were made to be sold in kit form (to avoid purchase tax) by SM at a price, I would guess, just below the Bultaco/Montesa level. I believe they were great bikes with better low down power than the Bultaco. But they ran with the original Villiers flywheel magneto so would need careful maintenance. And also ran with the original 15 tooth gearbox sprocket, so would seem high geared by todays standard when we run with 12 or 13. If anyone can disagree or add to this, I would be very interested. Sparks

Hi The bike is a Montesa Cota 247 MK 2 (from 1969 or very early 1970). It has had a later top yoke fitted, a chain tensioner and gas Girlings. The tank is a Sammy Miller alloy tank sold to fit the Bultaco of the day. But I have seen them fitted to Montesas quite successfully. Not sure about the seat unit but could well be the seat unit to match the tank. Obviously didn't fit the Montesa quite so well. As Cleanorbust pointed out, this alloy tank/seat unit was fitted to the batch of Bultaco/Villiers machines produced and sold by SM. These had the standard Bultaco M27 or early M49 frames so the seat unit would have been a better fit. And, I would point out, were sold as a complete machine in kit form, not a frame kit, if that's what Cleanorbust meant. Regards Sparks Edit:- Having had a better look, I'm fairly sure it's the seat unit to match the tank.

Hi In my opinion, I think you would be better off to get an age related numbers for both bikes. The INF85 document refers to a scheme to give off-road machines, mostly motocross bikes a 'Q' plate and registered on the DVLA computer as a deterent against theft. I am told a vehicle with a 'Q' plate is worth considerably less than the equivilant normally registered vehicle. Once a machine has a 'Q' plate it becomes irreversible and cannot be registered on any other plate. If you decide to go down the 'Q' plate route, I would fulfil the INF85 requirement by attaching good photos of the frame and engine numbers. For the proof of ownership, ideally a bill of sale or receipt, failing that a covering letter saying that over time the receipt has been lost and where and when and from whom you purchased the bike and keep your fingers crossed. Hope all this helps Regards Sparks

Sammy Miller Products, it's not home made.

Deryk As far as I can remember, the book is a fictional tale about a mill owning family in the Colne Valley (a very real place as we know). There actually are, or were, Colne Valley mill owning families called 'Crowther' so the name 'Bankdam' was chosen as it was purely fictional, ie no such place exists in the real world. I only know the book and never remember it on the tele. Although I do seem to remember a film, will do some research. Regards Later edit:- Yes, there was a film but it was called 'The Master of Bankdam' based on the book (sounds like an early day version of Dallas or Dynasty). I shall paste in the Wikipedia entry:- The Master of Bankdam is a 1947 British historical film directed by Walter Forde from the novel, The Crowthers of Bankdam, by Thomas Armstrong.[1] It starred Anne Crawford, Dennis Price, Tom Walls, Stephen Murray, Linden Travers and David Tomlinson. Two generations of brothers struggle for control of the family business in 19th-century Yorkshire. The film is the story of Bankdam, a small Yorkshire Mill. Run by the Crowther family, around 1860 it prospers and grows under its patriarch owner, Simeon Crowther. After family upheavals the firm goes through several crises under the management of his sons Zebediah and Joshua, who tend in oppose one and other. Joshua dies with many others in Mill collapse, partially blamed on his brother Zebediah. Joshua's role is taken over by his son Simeon. The old patriarch, Simeon dies. Zebediah with ill health retires to Vienna for treatment leaving his son, Lancelot Handel, with power of attorney in his absence. Things at the Mill deteriorate and a fatally ill, Zebediah returns and, with a mob outside the door, in a final scene he makes amends and entrusts Bankdam, not to his own son, but to Simeon as he realises that he is the only person that can save Bankham. It was produced by Walter Forde and Edward Dryhurst, and directed by Walter Forde.. It was adapted for screen by Edward Dryhurst with additional dialogue by Moie Charles. The music is by Arthur Benjamin, performed by London Philharmonic and conducted by Muir Mathieson.[2][3] There is also evidence that it was produced by Ernest G. Roy of Nettlefold Studios according to his death notices. The film was made by Holbein Films at Nettlefold Studios, Walton-on-Thames, Surrey, England. It was produced by Rank Films and distributed by Prestige Films.[4]

Deryk Your confusing it with that great book 'The Crowthers of Bankdam' Was that ever made into a film??

Hi Deryk Well, my friend and informant worked at Shuttle Eye, Grange Moor, in the sixties, not a mile or two away from Lepton Edge, infact the neighbouring pit and he says it was 'Banksman'. One -- One, I reckon. Great banter, bye for now. PS which mill in the Colne Valley?

Very good, Gordo, thanks for posting. But haven't we all got to have the 'knack' to keep a 20, 30, 40, 50 and more years old machine running whilst throwing it at the mud and rocks (those of us not buying new machinery these days). Many years ago, someone, speaking down to me, explained in a patronising manner, that to be an Engineer you had to be Chartered, ie a member of a Chartered Institute. Until then, you were just a fitter, technician, turner, welder etc. I have not been comfortable with the term 'engineer' since. Not that I think a fitter, technician or turner has any less to offer society. Deryk - just had it confirmed by someone who worked down t'pit, the winding engine driver was called the 'Banksman'. ---- One up to me. Regards

Hi everybody and Deryk 'The internet is a wonderful tool, but it opens up access opportunities without, sadly, responsibilities' - Deryk, the original plagiarism was on hard copy, not the internet, it was the internet that exposed the fraud. Hope you are not arguing against the internet. 'there is a new generation of alleged 'authors' who know that the copyright laws are all bar toothless, - coupled to a generation of 'journalists' who have never worked for the old time editors and learned their real trade' I was trying to say as much when I described it as 'the lazy school of journalism'. Anyway, I would agree with most of the sentiments expressed and interested to read what Graham F. has to say on the matter, and agree it that it would be unlikely that copyright would be given away -- or accepted, without written permission. Regards Sparks

Eh Up Deryk Was it you I woke up? Can't speak with any authority on this because I've never been down t'pit, up chimneys, yes, down t'pit, no. We were more textiles in this neck of the woods. But I think the man who drove t'winding engine was called the 'Banksman', either that or just the winding engine driver, certainly not engineer. I think your saying your Great Uncle was an all round machinist (on the machine tools of the day) so could call himself an engineer. Woody, No Yellow Cards for having a go yourself, just Brownie points. Now, I'm not an engineer, just someone who has learned most things in life by the desperately hard school of trial and error, a few observations:- When in any doubt, run very slow, with slow feed and small cut, most materials will still cut and risks will be much less. If things work out you can increase speed a bit. When cutting a large diameter (such as the flywheel OD), surface speed is up, so lathe RPM can go down. Cutting speeds are not an exact science, witness the few speeds on older lathes. Don't worry about the odd kickstart disaster, your bikes are a credit to you. P.S. Social Engineering Genetic Engineering Traffic Engineer There's more when I can think of them Not sure about Domestic Engineer, is that the same as Domestic Appliance Engineer ???

Have to agree with Atomant and Shercoben, would do wonders for Doug's profile and the Sport. Not that I would ever watch such rubbish myself (I'm a Celebrity, Strictly, etc,etc), you understand, ........ I just happen to be looking in that direction when it's on.

Woody - Let's not have any more of this 'Now, I'm not an engineer' stuff. You know what your talking about, more than most 'engineers' I know, it's just false modesty to draw attention. Any more and it's a yellow card. Regards Sparks P.S. What is an 'Engineer' anyway? Chartered engineer? Electrical engineer? Electronic engineer? Engineering Fitter? Control Engineer? Civil engineer? Refrigeration engineer? You name it, there's an 'engineer' for it. Oh dear, I've upset someone, (or woke them up).

Wasn't Laurie Bird a Comerfords' supported rider ??????

The bottom picture is the late John Roberts

Hi Woody and everybody, Just checked my M80 (same yokes), the size is M8 x 1.25 pitch (standard ISO metric coarse). I still have the 'Bultaco' headed bolts. M9 is an ISO non preferred size, so would be difficult to get replacements for. However, looking in my metric tap set, the M9 tap has a 1.25 pitch. Looking at the old German and French metric thread size charts, M9 has a 1.25 pitch. So in all probability, if you have an M9 thread size, it will be 1.25 pitch. Yes, the favourite on the Montesa is M7 (the bane of my life). M7 x 1.0 is an ISO preferred size, but difficult to get replacements for. Later Edit:- feetupfun- 3/8" is quite a bit larger than 9mm, Woody should have been able to tell the difference with a vernier, but, as you say, a possibility it has been tapped out to a 3/8" size. Regards Sparks

Hi Yes, as the others have said, you have the correct engine and cylinder head for an M10 Sherpa. The shocks with chrome top shrouds are old type Girling units (now unobtainable) which would have been replacements for the original Betor units. As others have intimated, just replace with a modern day equivalent (Betor, Hagon, NJB, Falcon etc, etc).

Hi I agree with nearly all of the above, solder pot, not too hot etc, etc. But be careful with the Bakers soldering flux, it's very corrosive. I prefer to use 'Fluxite' soldering paste. I know, I know, all flux is corrosive, but 'Fluxite' is less corrosive than most and still effective. The last time I saw Bakers being used was to solder lightweight sheet steel rollers where the flux could be cleaned completely off afterwards.

And what's worse, think that your paying customers are so stupid or ill informed they won't know the difference.

Hi Well said, Henderpump and the Laird. That's exactly what I have thought for some time, but have not had the guts to say. It's the lazy school of journalism, don't research your own original material, just read what has been published in the past and paraphrase, or it seems in this case, copy outright. All the mistakes and grey areas are reproduced and we learn nothing new. In fact, the initial mistakes and grey areas become reinforced into 'fact'. Regards Sparks

Hi Woody Thanks for your reply. No sense in arguing about this, but on your M80 'before' photo the large 'Bultaco' script looks old and weather beaten enough to have been original, just as it did on mine before I had a paint job. Point taken though, that in the publicity shots it is missing. On the 'KC' v SM kits of parts, it is difficult to be definitive as it was such a long time ago, but having lived though those times, and if asked to express an opinion, that would be it. I have put the same opinion on here before and nobody contradicted. Not sure about EOR 2K being a 'prototype', when it first appeared the 325 was already well established. It was SM's last bike before defecting to Honda. It had a chrome SM frame, Mikuni carb and no doubt all the SM goodies, but a conventional Bult all the same. I have never seen the number (EOR 2K) since and it has never appeared on the DVLA web site. I could say more but won't. Regards Sparks