Thats what a car and trailer are for! And a set of hi-tech bobby-dodgers stuffed in the pannier bag, just in case. And travelling with mates in the middle of a group. Hey.....anything not to have to tear down that bliddy drive side to repair a dynamo that may work briefly or not at all! Anyhow, driving in the dark with no lights is part of the DR experience........although meeting a Renault Clio coming the other way is probably not.
Wrong dynamo by the way.
I lay no claim to much mechanical knowledge, but the question that looms large when it comes to the dynamo placement & drive is WHY???
A couple of spanners, a screwdriver & 5 minutes or so & the dynamo's off a Magdyno unit.
Though when these machines were new the dynamos would've needed a lot less TLC than they require now?
And it certainly didn't stop Matchless from selling oodles of bikes like this.
"WHY?" is a serious question too. Is there a particular reason for this method?
Bob,
AJS and Matchless singles never had a magdyno. It was always a separate dynamo and magneto. AJS put the magneto at the front of the engine but it is still impossible to remove the dynamo without opening the primary case. What takes a few minutes to remove a dynamo on a magdyno bike takes forever on an AJS/Matchless!
AJS/Matchless did this to make the bikes look different. A magdyno would have been a better idea but would not have worked on an AJS.
Bruce
Thanks for the reply Bruce. Difference for its own sake is all I could think of.
Actually I really like the lines of AMC singles from the G3 on & could have had one, the 50s bikes are available enough. It's this feature that kept me away from them.
But repeating, they sold lots so most folks didn't seem to mind.
It seems unlikely really on a road bike but a lower centre of gravity might have been deemed beneficial on a trials (or military) machine...
It's hard to imagine any manufacturer placing the dynamo in such an awkward position just to be different...Apart from the obvious difficulty of removing it the drive isn't the best either and clutches are best left alone once they are set up...Likewise with primary covers that have been made reasonably oil tight...
Cost implications on any work carried out under guarantee would also be a negative from the manufacturers view point...
Much as Matchless owners sing the praises of the machine (in fact it's been called the best of the wartime machines) the fact is many of them accept having a machine with no functioning lighting system....That may be possible with the occasional use that many machines get today but in proper service, either civilian or military, it wouldn't be an option and that would have meant more time in the workshop carrying out repairs...
It also won't do for anyone who does want to use their bike in all conditions...The system then has to be kept working with all the disadvantages that apply to this machine....
This and other features of working on a Matchless do make it a less practical machine than some others IMO and challenge the assertion that it might be regarded as the 'best' machine....Personally, I don't think there is a 'best' machine at all, they all have good and bad features which can be readily identified....Ian
email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com
BEST? Possibly in BHP and comfort. Ron
email (option): ronpier@talk21.com
You can highlight the good, or bad, features of any bike...An Ariel WNG has similar power...As does a Triumph 3HW...Most 350 OHV engines of the period were pretty similar...
The one thing the Matchless does have the others don't is the benefits of telescopic forks, that's not something I would argue against...
However, that alone doesn't make it better than everything else and is substantially offset by other features that do not bear favourable comparison with other machines such as the one under discussion ...
I don't want to list what I think are the strengths or weaknesses of a Matchless or any other bike, I'm just suggesting there is no 'best' bike when viewed in the round...The final decision usually just comes down to personal preference which isn't always logical....or even realistic:laughing: ....Ian
email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com
I've not been following the forum for a couple of weeks as I've been dragged down by this horrible Cov19 thing. Now,thankfully well on the mend.
My little tip is probably too late, but just a simple thing.Scratch a couple of little marks on the dynamo body and engine plate before removal to assist in getting the dynamo position and chain tension correct on re-assembly. If it was all in alignment and chain tension was good before it can save plenty of messing around.I find the chain tension changes a bit when tightening the clamp.
Dynamo removal / replacement is just one of many tasks on G3l's that is not easy,I sometimes wonder if if it was a deliberate thing to make them awkward to work on - But never thought of a reason why...
I have to say though that despite being difficult to work on,it does get easier the more you do with them.(I have 3 to look after,mine,my sons and my brothers, plus a 1950 AJS trials model)
Once properly built they will work hard for a long time,with sympathetic basic care. I find them much more of a riders machine,they do tend to encourage you to press on at times,my brothers G3l really wants to rev,(I couldn't see anything at all special about it when I built the engine) and with the tele forks they give plenty of confidence.
The best WW2 bike ? I really enjoy riding my friends M20 and 16H - both beautifully put together and set up, and a delight to ride. For me the G3l is better.All down to personal choice, despite the hard work in spannering them I think G3ls are worth the effort.
I did put a ? after my statement "Best" But certainly as far as the performance figures are quoted. Just for interest sake:-
The G3L gave 16 BHP and probably about the same if not more for the previous model G3. Closely followed by Triumphs 3HW at 15.8 BHP. Velocette's at around 15 BHP Ariel W/NG at 12.5 BHP. BSA M20's and Norton 16H's at 12 BHP and the Triumph and Enfield 350 SV down to about 10 BHP. I haven't got the figure for Enfields WD.CO but between 13-14 BHP I'd guess.
Ron
email (option): ronpier@talk21.com
Perhaps the fastest bike with probably the weakest front brake...marvellous.. and there is effectively nothing to choose power wise between the G3L and two of the other OHV designs..
It has many design features that make it more difficult to work on than some other models and the more honest owners of the bike admit that... There were multiple upgrades to parts that must lead to a questioning of the serviceability of the early versions of those parts and of the initial design...
It's probably as competent as the rest, but as I said, not the 'best' motorcycle overall IMO, there are too many negatives for that to be true...It's just different to the others. Some of those 'others' have better features than the Matchless in certain areas and some have worse features...
I still argue there is no 'best' bike overall but if I was forced to choose it wouldn't be the Matchless for me...I'm not going to say which three I would choose in preference though...That would definitely start a heated discussion...:laughing: Ian
email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com
I think the thing we can all agree on is that they are a pig to work on in most respects ! (Not mentioned in this thread, but I also think the Matchless has a definite edge on looks,and I am a sucker for a good looking bike...) I can't wait to feel well enough to start putting my engine back together in readiness for riding again when its appropriate.
Ian, you mention the weak front brake,that's not something I've heard of before,all three of our G3l's have very good brakes,front and rear.Are we just lucky ?
I think the G3 is a very handsome bike. Ron
email (option): ronpier@talk21.com
As mentioned, it's really all about personal taste and preference.....I've owned and ridden many WD bikes over the years and became familiar with their various characteristics...a fair few have floated my boat, others not so.....
I was very much an M20 fan for years, riding two as daily commuters. They were reliable, mostly easy to work on and pretty quick....it was only when I got a 16H Norton that my preference changed to the later. It just felt more comfortable for me, and I liked it's handling and turn of speed......I still have it...
I've had various Matchless's, both G3's and G3L's. I'd agree that both types were challenging to work on, and out of the two I preferred the earlier G3 for the same reasons as the 16H.......
Enfield's.....with the exception of the Flea, I've owned several C's and CO's........in fact, I used a Model C as daily transport for a few years. Not the quickest of bikes, but really comfy and pretty reliable too.......
But for OHV's, I've stuck with my Ariel W/NG for a long time now. I've found it to be comfortable, reliable, easy to work on, with a decent turn of speed and perhaps the best brakes of any of the WD bikes. The W/NG stoppers incorporate car-type adjustable cams in the plates and they really do work....perhaps the only downside of the Ariel is a clattery engine, even when well set-up......
BHP figures for the 350's are pretty irrelevant at the end of the day. Some of these figures were doubtless claimed by the manufacturers based on their pre-war civvy products, not necessarily the item delivered to the War office with it's various departures from standard. All the 350cc OHV's and the 500cc SV's were expected to perform to a similar standard by the military and with official restrictions in place affecting speed, this and BHP figures were unimportant.....
The G3L may have the purported advantage of teledraulic forks, but having experienced them and similar I must confess that I find little little difference in comparison with a well set-up girder fork......
About to embark on the dreaded dynamo replacement on my '43, ex 4 Armoured Brigade. I've been running total loss electrics, but feel the time is really here for a "proper" solution! Wish me luck!!
email (option): guageman1@gmail.com
There is a simple reason why the G3L dynamo is mounted in such an awkward place.
In the early 1930's 'slopers' were the fashion and like everyone else the cylinders on Matchless singles sloped forward allowing a magdyno to be mounted behind the cylinder. When fashions changed and upright cylinders came back in vogue (in 1936 for Matchless) there was only room for a magneto. The magdyno and the carburettor wanted to share the same space. The carburettor won.
Matchless were already familiar with having a second sprocket on the drive side crankshaft behind the primary chain sprocket. That was the system used to drive the magneto on their 'R' and 'T' series bikes of the late 20's, early 30's although in those days the magneto was mounted in front of the crankcase. All they did was drag out an old system they were already familiar with and rejig it to drive the dynamo.
Unfortunately the only available place to fit the dynamo without having a monstrous primary chain case was tucked away where it is a stinker to get at.
So, the dynamo position on the G3L was a simple marketing exercise done to update a bike as cheaply as possible using bits and bobs already in production.
I'm familiar with all of this as I own a couple of 'R' and 'T' series Matchless with forward mounted magneto and once owned a'sloper' 1933 D/6 350ohv Matchie. The whole nonsense is very familiar.
email (option): bobmcgrath21@hotmail.com