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
BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

I had noticed that pre pannier early M20s often had the short prop stand at differing angles, I had been wondering if this was because some machines had a braised on pivot and some had the clamp on type, but JoB mentioned the other day that the position of the spring clip stud on the lifting stay varied, can anyone explain the number of varieties and the evolution of this part please?

Rob

Image29

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

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

Hi rob

So far I have seen 3

The distance between the lower fixing point & the clip seems the same

The difference appears to exist in the total length - distance between the mudguard & the handle - early versions seem closer - later are taller & early types seem to be more broad in width

Just now I have a bit on - but like I promised Keith C - I will photo what I have here ASAP

Br
Jo’b

email (option): jonnyob1@googlemail.com

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

Hi John, thanks for the info, so the angle of the prop stand is just down to where the clamp is tightened, unless the braised on pivot lug moved at some point, I would still be interested to hear more about the different handle heights when you get the time.

Rob

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

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

For as far as I could find out, there are three versions:
- pre war: "short" version without a stud for the field stand.
- early war: "short" version with a stud for the field stand.
- late war (1942 onwards, pannier frame version): "long" version without a stud for the field stand. (Due to the longer carrier, the lifting handle the pannier frame version is less accessible. So the lifting stay became 1" longer.)

Please correct me if I'm wrong...

Jan

email (option): wd.register@gmail.com

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

Its interesting that when the pannier upgrade kits were added the rear stay wasn't altered, and the rear rail of rear carrier is just as sturdy when it comes to putting the machine on its rear stand, its also true that if you have anything strapped onto the rear carrier it can be tricky getting hold of anything, so I wonder where does this extended handle finish up to be of more use?

Rob

BSA-Pannier-Fitting-instruction-03

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

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

It does make you wonder...It's like the feeling you get that the person who designed your tent has never actually been camping....

I'm careful when I'm packing for touring to leave enough space around the rear rail of the carrier for a gloved hand....Ian

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

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

I'm struggling to see the reason for that alteration...Any theories Gents?....Ian

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

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

Ian Wright
I'm struggling to see the reason for that alteration...Any theories Gents?....Ian
Matchless-Envy, probably. Someone at Small Heath thought "If AMC can make stupid changes and raise the contract price, so can we ! :grinning:

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

The first two pictures that Nathan put up do appear to hint at a different distance in regards to the spring clip lug on the handle, its lower on RME than it is on PME.

Rob

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

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

Ian Wright
I'm struggling to see the reason for that alteration...Any theories Gents?....Ian


Yes, they earlier stays are really too short when you have big hands or/and wear thick gloves...

From this picture it looks like the longer version of the lifting stay has been adopted earlier than the pannier racks...

C4354358

And when the pannier rack came the lifting function of the stay was lost but they probably didn't bother to change it and it became more or less a mudguard stay only....??

It also still has the stud for the springclip which makes it a fourth version!, Jan :smile: :smile:

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

Rob Miller
The first two pictures that Nathan put up do appear to hint at a different distance in regards to the spring clip lug on the handle, its lower on RME than it is on PME.

Rob
The RME is a very early one, Rob, and think the only picture I have seen where that clip is that low, maybe prototype or very first series?

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

Michiel W

From this picture it looks like the longer version of the lifting stay has been adopted earlier than the pannier racks...



And when the pannier rack came the lifting function of the stay was lost but they probably didn't bother to change it and it became more or less a mudguard stay only....??

It also still has the stud for the springclip which makes it a fourth version!, Jan :smile: :smile:


Oh, yes indeed! How complicated… :thinking_face:

Jan

email (option): wd.register@gmail.com

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

I think there are 5 versions

Short no lug
Short low lug
Short high lug
Long high lug
Long no lug

Rob

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

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

The original 1937 prototypes tested early in 1938 had 'HMP' series registrations.

C389161 (RMD 414) was tested in December 1938. It was KM20 318 (Delivered to Chilwell 25/10/1938)

This image shows RMD 680 and it too has the lower mount. Unfortunately, I can't read the WD Serial.

BSA-MP-M20-RMD-680

RMD 728 looks to have the lower mount too.

RMD-728

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

I have checked my notes and sometimes the length difference between the short version and the long version appears to be 1", sometimes 1 1/4.

On the other hand, the "handle" part of this lifting stay is sometimes almost straight, sometimes it is curved (large radius). This different shape may have been the cause of the lenghth difference tolerance of 1/4 Inch.

But... Which bikes had a "straight" handle, which bikes had a "radiused" handle?

And if that is not enough, I guess some bikes may originally have had a straight handle that got curved due to the pulling action which is inherent to these lifting handles...?

Jan

email (option): wd.register@gmail.com

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

Regarding the last point I don't think enough force would be exerted in pulling the bike onto the stand to bend the lifting handle...
On one end is the riders weight/arm strength acting as a counterbalance to part of the weight of the bike.(some weight is acting through the 'rolling' front wheel)..Also, once the 'pull' is exerted there is nothing resisting movement other than that partial bike weight...

Finally, on pannier equipped bikes, where the rack is actually wider and is used in lieu of the lifting handle, curved rear carrier bars would probably be a common sight...Ian

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

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

Good spotted, Rik! so it looks like the very first series had the low stud ?

But what would be the reason to bring it up higher ?? Might be the reach of the angle of the pivot... To click the stand in the clip works the best if it is at the end of the swing...

Jan, no proof but think the 'handles' originally were all rounded in around the same curve as the mudguard, when you find a straight 'handle' I would suspect a DIY job or has been in a vice at some point...

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

John O'Brien has just sent me this message:

Hi Jan

At last I have been motivated to go to the garage

Attached you will see some photos related to the lifting handles
Red handle comes from a 39 Wm20 - early model
Green handle from a 41 wm20
Grey handle - 1944/45 n20

There is some slight bending required to achieve alignment but not only are the handles different in overall length - but also in width - the earlier one being wider & shorter

The distance between mounting point & clip mounting point is fairly similar

I can’t load photos to the forum maybe one of you could for me


image0
image1
image2
image3

Just a few remarks... I would say that the "handle" on the red one issn't really curved, I would say it is "almost straight"... And I'm a bit surprised by the width difference. Is the early rear mudguard wider than a later rear mudguard? How else could you explain this difference...?
Jan

email (option): wd.register@gmail.com

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

The hexagonal spacers might have been longer....Though even if they were the frame would have to be wider as well at the lower end unless the 'legs' of the handle bent inwards or, perhaps, were the last thing to be fitted to the frame studs after the horizontal and vertical stays......None of that seems logical though...

As the grey handle doesn't have the stand clip lug might it have been fitted incorrectly to an M20 from another model...G14/Sloper etc...?Ian

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

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

Could the narrow one with the lug be WB29 from contract C7370?

Rob

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

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

Hi folks

Sorry no response to your posts until now

All the lifting handles were taken from bikes or obtained in Ireland so the likely hood of these being from other sources such as slopers or other contracts is extremely remote & judging by the fit meant have been on the bikes for a considerable time

Very recently I have taken on some additional m20 parts etc & with this comes an early lifting handle & another early rolling chassis still with valence mudguard & lifting handle

I will measure these & let you know what I discover

Br

Jo’b

email (option): jonnyob1@googlemail.com

Re: BSA WM20 Lifting stay 66-6947

Hi Jan / Keith
Apologies - my time management has deteriorated in covid times & with retirement
I have measured the lifting handle as best as I can & the measurements between the upper bolt holes inside to inside are
6 15/16”
176mm
Hope this helps

email (option): jonnyob1@googlemail.com

Nieuwe pagina 1