Questions? Looking for parts? Parts for sale? or just for a chat,

The WD Motorcycle forum

WD Motorcycle forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: My pet hate

We all have our prejudices when it comes to makes and models. Ian recommends the WD/CO but I worry about the frame breakages and to be honest the lack of evidence that they saw any real service, let alone front-line outside of the UK makes them less interesting to me as a WD motorcycle.

The G3/L seems to owe most of its reputation to the more modern Teledraulic forks and that it has an OHV engine, but both the W/NG and 3HW powerplants are often spoken of more highly.

Again, pure prejudice but the modernity of the forks is precisely what puts me off G3/Ls - they just give too modern a riding experience.

If the preference is for old-fashioned motorcycles then it ought to be a case of the more ancient in design, the better in which case the WD16H wins hands-down :-)

Re: My pet hate

" - they just give too modern a riding experience. "

Cor blimey, Rik......you must try a really modern bike! You then realise how much motorcycles have improved in every department since the 40s and 50s. The thing about a WDG3L is that when you DO get it set up, it is a very capable, reliable and dependable mount. [NB: I never said this] As to whether you like it or not, thats down to personal preference. As to the Ariel WNG, I agree, nice bikes....I had one.....pity about the meccano arrangement that holds the front wheel on! . But clearly folk like them......and none more so than the bloke in Herne Bay (Doug Aldous of East Coast Jeeps?) who currently has his WNG on at £9,000 on eBay! Mind you, it is soooooooo original, blah, blah (well original from a restoration in the 1980s?).

Re: My pet hate

Ferg3
" As to the Ariel WNG, I agree, nice bikes....I had one.....pity about the meccano arrangement that holds the front wheel on! .


Ferg could you clarify this comment please! I have one also and can't think of much difference between the front wheel fitment of a W/NG and any other girder bike of the period. Ron

WING_150_2

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Re: My pet hate

['to be honest the lack of evidence that they saw any real service, let alone front-line outside of the UK makes them less interesting to me as a WD motorcycle...']...

I think it unlikely that a WD Enfield would suffer from a frame breakage when used as most WD bikes are these days...

However, more to the point I think is that bikes that weren't 'front line' machines during the war and those that came along, or were used after that conflict should warrant more consideration....

They are military bikes after all...As mentioned in another post I am hoping to acquire an M20 that is presented in BAOR MP markings, applied by the current owner (now 80) who served in that capacity.
Frankly, part of the attraction to me is to see something from
that 'forgotten era' represented...

I feel that maybe a rather narrow view of the history of the military motorcycle that focuses virtually exclusively on the WW2 period could stand some 'widening'....Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Re: My pet hate

Ian, I'd happily widen it into the 1930s or earlier ! :-)

My interest is really with the army of the inter-war years up to the fall of France.

Re: My pet hate

Chaps, as you have been so hateful about my favourite make of motorcycle I have decided that I have no alternative but to list my 1940 Matchless G3WO project on eBay for sale. I hope it will go to someone who truly understands that these were the quickest and most desirable motorcycles of WW2 and the most favoured bike for fast convoy work. JT

Re: My pet hate

['Chaps, as you have been so hateful about my favourite make of motorcycle ']...

Welcome to M20 world... .....Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Re: My pet hate

I prefer British bikes, always did. Especialy with girder forks,even with their flaws.
But i also have always admired the Japanese for their bikes, and BMW. Its just not my cup of tea.

We have to consider that most of our bikes are very old and still going strong ! Wonder if the Japanese will hold that long.
And i have heard British bikes are very popular in Japan these days.

Re: My pet hate

John Tinley
Chaps, as you have been so hateful about my favourite make of motorcycle I have decided that I have no alternative but to list my 1940 Matchless G3WO project on eBay for sale. I hope it will go to someone who truly understands that these were the quickest and most desirable motorcycles of WW2 and the most favoured bike for fast convoy work. JT


No denying that John. It must be lovely to ride one and then just hand it into a workshop when it goes wrong. Like Oddball said " I don't know how they work man! I just ride them. Woof Woof!" Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Re: My pet hate

Hi Ron,
With a little modification when you make the magneto hole on the upside a little bigger its easy to change the Magneto!
Of you make that before mounting the new one , its more practice the next time

Regards. Bram

Re: My pet hate

"Ferg could you clarify this comment please! I have one also and can't think of much difference between the front wheel fitment of a W/NG and any other girder bike of the period. Ron"


Ron.......it was just a dig at girder forks! Never understood them. Gawd bless BMW.

Ferg

Re: My pet hate

Bram
Hi Ron,
With a little modification when you make the magneto hole on the upside a little bigger its easy to change the Magneto!
Of you make that before mounting the new one , its more practice the next time

Regards. Bram


OK Bram I get your idea, but it's not suggested by Matchless and seems a bit of a bodge to me.

And Ferg I get your meaning now also. But to me, an old bike is not an old bike if it hasn't got girders

Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Re: My pet hate

Ron, I understand your personal preference about motorcycles with girder fork but I feel both you and Rick are missing the point. The first G3L was produced in 1941 early on in the war and combined with its light weight its handling and performance was light years ahead of any of the other WW2 motorcycles on offer. This is why it became the Despatch Riders motorcycle of choice and to be frank when presented with a line up of M20's or 16h's or a G3L no self respecting young DR would have chosen anything but a G3L. I appreciate that there are certain aspects of its maintenance that are more difficult than other makes but is was unquestionably the best performing motorcycle of WW2. My sons bike will happily clip along at 70 mph and extremely fun to ride. For this reason alone I have decided to build another one. I own 2 16h's and a WNG but not an M20 but for simple grin factor the bike I would never sell would be the G3L. Rant over. JT

Re: My pet hate

John as I've already said. I would agree with anyone that the G3L is the nicest and fasted bike to ride. Its 16BHP far out strips a W/NG and M20 at just 12 1/2 and 12 BHP respectively. It's just that working on them is definitely not on my list of favourite things.
But here's mine anyway. Ron

G3L_131

I'm currently still working on my G3 and I've decided that there is something amiss with the carb which will require a total strip for inspection and clean.....Again I really like my G3, but even taking the carb off is bloody fiddly, and as I've been privy to in France, a broken throttle cable necessitates either removal of the tank or the carb
G3_208

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Re: My pet hate

To single out performance as the sole measure of how good a motorcycle is strikes me as the wrong thing to do...Or even to home in on a couple of features of the design..

In a 'get there fastest' contest it may be the primary factor but in the real world there was more to it....

I have met ex 'young DRs' who swore by their M20s for example, for their strength and reliability not their performance...'If you want fun take a Matchless, if you want to get there take an M20' was the exact phrase used by one I met in Normandy...

Wartime conditions were harsh and the ability for a bike to survive the 'rough and tumble' was a big factor....

However, I wouldn't suggest that the M20 was therefore the best bike..Ultimately they all did the job in their own way and no doubt in reality each make had its supporters amongst the DRs...Best not to believe the 'folklore' too much I think...

If the whole thing is considered 'in the round' today IMO the Matchless isn't 'the best bike by far' or 'light years ahead' as suggested (perhaps we should look to BMW for that)...It had some good features as they all did but I could list a lot of things that would compromise that suggestion and illustrate that the Matchless is just another bike that merely has a different set of virtues and vices to some of the others...Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Re: My pet hate

To suggest that any british bike was light years ahead is nonsensical and narrow minded jingoism. Technically the BMWs were ahead. They had shaft drive and it was their fork which Matchless had more or less copied. As for reliability, ease of maintenance and cost per unit, well I leave that to others. Just because a machine is the best performing doesn't make it the best choice. Hurricanes were inferior to fly but cheaper to invest in and to produce, much easier to maintain and repair in operational conditions and stayed in production throughout because they were pretty rugged and adaptable. In the battle of britain they shot down about the same number of fighters as Spitfires and far far outstripped Spitfires in the additional number of bombers they took down [often their primary target]. The Sten was in no way superior to the Thompson excepting in one vitally important aspect, it was a more cost effective weapon. Nation wars are not normally won on the battlefield. They are won by which ever side can produce more and effective armaments. That was the case in the American civil war and the first and second world wars.

email (option): j@clogmaker.co.uk

Re: My pet hate

Going back to the original post its actually quite clever to incorporate both chains in one casing, and on a machine with a Magdyno it would save having the external timing chain case, but because AMC used separate Magneto and Dynamos no saving was made. I suppose it was the only way to fit it all into a smaller machine?

And as to tele's being better, I read recently that the smallest damage stopped them from working, perhaps that's why the stronger girder machines were mostly used for Despatch and traffic duties and many G3Ls were passed to the Home Guard.

Rob

email (option): robmiller11(a)yahoo.co.uk

Re: My pet hate

Without doubt the positioning of and access to the dynamo was the worst feature of the Matchless...It basically makes maintenance a nightmare compared to any magdyno equipped machine and can fairly be described as a major design flaw IMO...

The lightweight of the G3L is also its Achilles heal...I consider that the general build standard and design was inadequate for purpose initially...That was why there were so many upgrades to components to improve things...

To name but one, the front brake size and initial brake plate design is a good example of how a machine can be under specified in the quest to hit a weight target...

Although there was only one full production batch, the WB30 BSA went through exactly the same process as the result of field trials which highlighted the inadequacies of a design that was the direct result of an effort to reach an excessively low weight target...In that case the brakes were increased from the 5" diameter units to 7" units to provide adequate stopping power on a machine that had the same performance as a G3L...

The Matchless retained the 5" brake and I would suggest the bike is under braked for its performance...

The limits of the forks design, the difficulty of carrying out some maintenance tasks due to inadequate space, the additional problems during engine and gearbox replacement due to the fiddly design of the assembly (note Rons comments about spacers between the engine plates and crank cases), the ass about face method of assembling the taper roller wheel bearings (only employed by Matchless)...The list goes on...and on...

Don't get me wrong..It's not a bad bike but it has plenty of faults as well as its much vaunted advantages....Very like my M20 and all the others in fact...Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Re: My pet hate

I'd forgotten about the wheel bearings Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Re: My pet hate

I still think you are barking up a tree that does not exist! Lets face it, as DR machines, ALL the British bikes were cr*p! OK, compared to a Harley on anything but smooth tarmac, they were brilliant, but they were all just warmed over variants of middling road bikes from the 30s (or 20s in the case of the Notrun). They were too heavy, too low slung, too noisy, underpowered and underbraked. Most of the ex-DRs and motorcyclists I have spoken to had very few kind words to say about any of their machines. So at best, we are maybe talking about the least worst bike? Us Brits like wrestling with the mediocre and regard excellence as rather unsporting. I suspect that if the Jeep had not been the success it was, the Yanks would have come up with something better.....like the Germans did! [OK, Pussy......go get those pigeons! ]

Re: My pet hate

['I suspect that if the Jeep had not been the success it was, the Yanks would have come up with something better']....

I doubt that if the Harley was anything to go by....

I would suggest the bikes used weren't 'crap', just representative of bikes of their time...

There were no alternatives in production at the time that could have been deemed more suitable for the task and even if they set out to design the 'ideal' machine they could only work with what was the current state of knowledge at the time...

That's why they ended up with the G3L (and all its flaws) which WAS actually designed for purpose...

Without a portal to today or the ability to have hindsight in advance they wouldn't have come up with anything better within the constraints they were working under....

Motorcycle development has always been a series of incremental improvements over time...not quantum leaps forward....and the Matchless, however you view it, wasn't a quantum leap forward...

When judging the viability of technology from the past care must be taken not to compare it like for like with anything produced later or to fall into the trap of forgetting that what we know now, they didn't know back then...They had no real concept of anything other than the standards of the time which they simply applied to the task...Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Re: My pet hate

But the Jeep WAS a quantum leap forward in terms of being exactly the right tool for the right price (cf German BMW combo.......great machine, crazy cost, until advent of Kubelwagen). The same COULD have been done for Allied two wheels, but for ???? But for lack of grasp? I postulate.

Re: My pet hate

I have to agree the Willys Jeep was a great machine compared to a Lawn rover how the hell these things have a mass following I dont know. These so called 4x4s are made up from meccano and need rebuilding every weekend ask my neighbour .

Re: My pet hate

Jeeps and SWD outfits are not the same thing as solo motorcycles at all. Water cooling of a solo was out on weight grounds and the reliability of air-cooled engines using the technology of the time was always suspect.

The British were able to produce motorcycles in huge numbers and used them in quantities that no-one else did. In the end, their ability to marshal convoys right down the lines of communication proved critical. You don't need motorcycles to marshal horse-drawn transport so German use was different. They had a lot of stink-wheels too.

The fact remains that G3/L owners are notable for constantly wittering on with this 'my old motorcycle is better than your old motorcycle as it's more modern' line. Much the same as the owners of Japanese stuff from the 1970s which seems to be missing the point that we often chose our machines just because of their period charm, not despite it.

Re: My pet hate

['But the Jeep WAS a quantum leap forward in terms of being exactly the right tool for the right price (cf German BMW combo.......great machine, crazy cost, until advent of Kubelwagen). The same COULD have been done for Allied two wheels, but for ???? But for lack of grasp? I postulate..']

Are you actually suggesting that the solution to the problem of the design of British (or any) motorcycles was the introduction of a four wheeled vehicle...?..Surely the answer to that is a better motorcycle?...

I agree the Jeep was a great vehicle and certainly led to the end of the motorcycle combination as it fulfilled that role far more effectively..

However, it was NOT a great demonstration of the Americans ability to build a better motorcycle and it didn't and couldn't replace the solo motorcycle in at least two of its primary roles, that of carrying messages and convoy escort...

American attempts at building better motorcycles (the Harley XA and the Indian transverse V twin) were dismal failures that fell at the first hurdle, the first being a not very good version of a German flat twin and the second not fit for purpose if for no other reason than its overall weight...A feature incidentally it shared with the WLA...

I would say the various British attempts at building a lightweight, manoeuvrable OHV motorcycle were far more along the lines of what was required and if the enthusiasm for the G3L displayed here is an indicator, far nearer a successful solution......

The suggestion here is the Matchless design was not as well executed as it could have been making it a problem to work on..(forgetting any other design issues)...There is yet to be any reasoned argument against the criticisms levelled at the model in that respect or any logical argument to explain why it is a better machine when considered all round than the rest...

I think the ONLY feature of a Matchless that really differentiates it is the forks....The engine/gearbox and remainder of the bike contained nothing new or measurably better and in various areas they don't match up to some of the others.....Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Re: My pet hate

I agree with all that, Ian. Re the Jeep, my point is that there was no Allied 2 wheeler with the same design brilliance as the Jeep. Sure, it was a lightweight design, made cheaply and therefore disposable.......but it did the job very well. But we failed to match that progress with motorcycles and, Jeez, even by the 1960s, progress had "advanced" to the TRW and the B40! Pathetic. Arguably, there never has been a decent mainstream (not special services) British Army motorcycle???

Re: My pet hate

Hi All, Reading these posts has been really interesting but my opinion is (shoot me down in flames) is that the Matchless was a easy bike to handle for the leaner/novice DR, (My self and btb off this forum had a fantastic Sunday afternoon ride out this summer checking out the locations of the 44 colour film' Highly recommended) and most of them could'nt ride for toffee,Maybe to prepare themselves for the M20s or 16h which i think needed a more experienced rider and maybe a amateur mechanic as most of them were (My great uncle Harry was a DR in the RAF on a 16h did'nt have a clue how it worked) just an ordinary guy doing an extraordinary job, John,

email (option): rustytomm20@hotmail.com

Re: My pet hate

['even by the 1960s, progress had "advanced" to the TRW and the B40! Pathetic. Arguably, there never has been a decent mainstream (not special services) British Army motorcycle???

I owned a Rotax engined Armstrong and thought that was a good bike...The same 504 Rotax engine was also used in the Harris Matchless (what irony) and was pretty unburstable even when tuned...Mine was over 50bhp after some work...

The TRW was designed during the latter part of the war and introduced in 1949...The GB40 came along in 66 I believe..In the late 1960s which bike would you have expected them to use which you don't think was 'pathetic', ...?..Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Re: My pet hate

Ian, if memory serves me right, back in the 50s and 60s, there really were no mounts that would have been good DR fodder. "Scramblers" (as they were then) and trials bikes were in the main either works bikes or one-offs.......many were bitzas based on the WDG3L! OK, there were a few rather weakly nods in the right direction from Greeves and Triumph, if you count the Adventurer as off road. The Matchless "desert sleds"?? I suspect the Army motorcyclist role was even by then reaching its tactical end so there would not have been much enthusiasm over developing a good Army bike beyond the B40 or khaki painted road machines. OK, by the 80s we had the Bombardier, and then the Harris/HD bikes. OK-ish. I own an MT500 now myself as perhaps the best of that breed, but its not a great bike, especially compared to the standards set by the Far Eastern offerings available by then! Today, the market is stuffed with "Adventure" bikes, ironically in time to see even the White Helmets disbanded. RIP the DR bike. The best thing you can say about British DR bikes is that they were piloted by a band of very tough, brave and resourceful gentemen!

Re: My pet hate

Don't forget the lovely Can Am Bombardier 250 two stroke.

email (option): sacombsashtrees@hotmail.com

Re: My pet hate

Also, the Chinese had to put up with the CJ 750 for some considerable time.

How is that for a production run; from a BMW R71 to the CJ 750.

email (option): sacombsashtrees@hotmail.com

Re: My pet hate

As an ex DR I feel I should put in a good word for the M20 I don't remember anyone
hating them I just loved mine. I was a DR with 42nd Artillery Field Reg with BAOR
1950-1952. I had 2 m20 in my care you didn't have a choice of bikes and I did like the looks of a G3L but never rode one. I was never let down on the road surviving a few slides on wet cobbles. On the gun ranges I thought it went well in the sand Most of the convoy work was at 30mph but they did get thrashed in the sprints we had between DRs at times when no one was in charge.I think the G3Ls were to slow to enter! My bikes I think finished up in Korea the Reg moving there in 1953. On demob I bought a 500T Norton but never looked back at the m20 as being inferior which no doubt it was.

Re: My pet hate

Patrick Meagher
Don't forget the lovely Can Am Bombardier 250 two stroke.


Mmm! I had one of these, beautiful engine with torque from low revs.

Re: My pet hate

['As an ex DR I feel I should put in a good word for the M20 I don't remember anyone
hating them I just loved mine. I was a DR with 42nd Artillery Field Reg with BAOR
1950-1952. I had 2 m20 in my care you didn't have a choice of bikes and I did like the looks of a G3L but never rode one. I was never let down on the road surviving a few slides on wet cobbles. On the gun ranges I thought it went well in the sand Most of the convoy work was at 30mph but they did get thrashed in the sprints we had between DRs at times when no one was in charge.I think the G3Ls were to slow to enter! My bikes I think finished up in Korea the Reg moving there in 1953. On demob I bought a 500T Norton but never looked back at the m20 as being inferior which no doubt it was.']

What a pleasant change to hear someone praising the M20...

I've had mine for nearly 40 years and it fails so rarely that I can't actually remember the last time it broke down...Definitely not since before the 55th. anniversary of D day...

In that time it's done a lot of miles including many trips to Normandy(ridden there and back) and numerous other events as well as hacking about locally and the occasional holiday..It's been used on and off road (I even entered it in a pre 65 trial!), on motorways and has been treated pretty hard on many occasions...

It certainly isn't the best of the bunch in a battle of theoretical specifications on paper, but I'd bet mine against any of the other WD machines in a reliability test....over any distance...Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Re: My pet hate

I've had my M20 for over 31 years and it's definitely my good old faithful favourite.

I've just been out on another 20 mile test ride on my G3 and I must say, it's a joy to ride. But I'm still not happy with the carb. I gave up yesterday on the carb that Martyn re conditioned for me, there's definitely a fault with it somehow. I've installed a nearly new carb that I bought from Burlen (Amal) a few years ago for my M20 (suitably jetted for the G3). But I'd also given up on this carb because you can't even begin to tighten the flange nuts before the slide nips up. I've had to leave the nuts quite loose and hold them with loctite. I should have returned it to Burlen back then but Martyn found me a NOS body which I built up with all new parts, and that carb has been working fine on my M20 ever since.

I bought my G3 15 years ago (already restored) but I've had issues every time I've dared to use it and I keep addressing the issues as they arrise. It was also hand painted and apart from the frame, I've re-spayed it. With hind sight I should have done a total strip and rebuild Ron
G3_211

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Re: My pet hate

I always argue for full rebuilds if you want to do reliable miles over long periods of time...

Once you've checked out and properly returned the bike to as close to the original tolerances etc. as you can they are remarkably reliable.

You are also then aware of the general condition of everything and can keep track of when remedial work is needed as things begin to wear....

I did over 55,000 miles on my B33 before having to do anything other than routine maintenance on the engine, gearbox and transmission...I had to replace a points end bearing in the mag at that point....Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Re: My pet hate

Having had both a couple of M21s and AMC singles in my youth, when I came to the point of wanting another such one it was the BSA that I plumped for, without a second thought.

email (option): j@clogmaker.co.uk

Nieuwe pagina 1