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
Factory repro...

Jaguar have started making exact copies of the complete E Type Jaguar toolkit...Originals fetch up to £5000 apparently....You can have a perfect copy for a mere £732....When's the M20 version coming out?..:laughing: ....Ian

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

Re: Factory repro...

There are many forms of 'madness'...I'm in the middle of spending the best part of £2000 on some more uprated/one off parts for my M20 sprinter engine....
It's been a long term project and I've built a few other bikes along the way....Now, at last, I'm moving into the 'get it built' phase...This is a case of 'no one has gone that far with an M20' as well, but in a different direction...:laughing: ...Ian

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

Re: Factory repro...

When its done, put it in the back of a Bedford truck and set fire to it in Bray Dunes,that will top anything for originality.

Re: Factory repro...

All this seeking total originality is all very well and good but who is going to contact Firestone or Dunlop to get original WW2 motorcycle tyres manufactured again rather than fitting tyres that never even existed in the 1970s never mind the 1930s.

Re: Factory repro...

Although I don't think I should have to mention this on a forum that exists to promote discussion, at the outset of this post I'm going to state absolutely clearly that everything that follows only represents my personal observations and is not designed to be in any way critical....'A man's got to do what a man's got to do' as the saying goes...

I think the effort to reproduce an M20 that is visually correct even down to the minor details is a laudible one..(I am an M20 enthusiast after all)...It is the same idea in essence as a concourse restoration in the car world...It is also true to say that it is unlikely this level of detail has ever been aspired to previously with this particular vehicle...

Further, if the project goes through to completion it will be an extremely interesting bike for those who follow this hobby and will be a testament to both determination and endurance....The fact is it's much more easy to do something wrongly or incompletely than it is to do it accurately and fully....

However, the one thing it won't ever be, in my view, is either an 'original' or a 1939 bike...It was never together as a complete machine from that year and it will have a very measurable content of replica parts, which however accurately they are produced are still replicas from the 2000s....

Many of the NOS parts used in its creation, due to the commonality of parts of different years and the long production timescales of the M20 with relatively few changes, will not have been manufactured in 1939 either and for the same reasons it is most likely this will also apply to a percentage of the used parts...

There's no doubting the finished product will look like a 1939 M20 in every regard but it won't be one and clearly can't actually be one...Rather it will be an extremely accurate facsimile of a bike from the model year chosen for its creation...

Personally, that's how I see it and I feel that it is actually the best that can be achieved at this distance out from 1939...
When completed I'll still look at this machine as a considerable achievement and something very unusual but I won't look at it as being 'original'....
But then hardly any restored machines are 'original' in reality, it's a contradiction in terms and something that most people in the classic vehicle world have chosen to ignore/forget...If they didn't the 'house of cards' that is the classic vehicle market might be at risk of collapse and the value of many iconic 'original' machines might be regarded rather differently.....That's probably a discussion for another day though!!...:laughing: Ian

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

Re: Factory repro...

My G3L was built up in the early 1970s when no one really cared and just painted everything any shade of green, it was built out of new or recon surplus WD stock;the days when you could go into Russells and buy new mudgaurds and exhausts for very litle money and they were glad to shift it.

No two parts came off the same machine, no numbers matched, most were made up. It was still a G3L.

When I sold it I advertised it as very original but all wrong.

Almost the case here.??

Re: Factory repro...

When Nathan registers his KM20 it may end up with a long DVLA frame number not a KM20 one as it has been built up from parts..

Re: Factory repro...

['No two parts came off the same machine, no numbers matched, most were made up. It was still a G3L...']

[' When I sold it I advertised it as very original but all wrong.. Almost the case here.??...']

I'd agree it was certainly a G3L...Get some G3L parts, put them together and you have a G3L, there's no disputing that...'Original but all wrong' seems to be a contradiction in terms...I imagine you meant it was original parts but not an original bike?...

That COULD be the case here, as the same basic process has been followed, albeit with far more attention to the details...Does built using original parts mean the same as an original machine in the mind of most people?...I suspect not..

Neither bike existed in the apparent year of manufacture and neither bike was/will be made from parts that are, in the majority, from a given single year and this one at least will also have quite a few replica parts in the mix...
So, as Dave T points out the DVLA, if they are told, won't recognise it as an original vehicle under the current rules for exactly those reasons...In fact under the current rules it would get a Q plate...

If a shift in thinking is made to accommodate the idea that the result of this project should be regarded as 'original' in terms of a year of manufacture and that it has any sort of intrinsic 'complete machine' provenance, then it would seem to me just about anything can be called original as long as it looks as it should...If 'original' with all the connotations that word implies is not the correct term then what is the correct one and what does it mean?....Ian

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

Re: Factory repro...

I agree with you that very few bikes can be called even close to original and that includes the one you are building.....I don't regard that as a negative, it's just my view of it and the broad thrust of my comments was to illustrate that...

I do also think it is highly likely that many of the NOS parts aren't of 1939 or 1940 manufacture and have no markings to establish that..(see below)

['There's almost nothing on a KM 20 compatible with any machine built after 1940, if you want to be historically accurate...']

What about the gearbox, oil tank, many engine internals, the engine plates, chain guards, sump guard, the rear wheel, front mudguard, mudguard stays, rear stand and spring, the handlebars, steering damper assembly, throttle, primary chain cases, clutch, engine shock absorber, crank case breather assembly, timing cover, cylinder head, head steady, many of the fasteners and fittings etc. etc...?

Regarding registering it I went through all this recently with the last bike I built as I wanted to retain its original number after a 30 year 'lay up'..I still had the old green 'continuation logbook' issued to the bike, a bill of sale for the original purchase and some old MOTs. However, the bike still had to satisfy the laid down criteria before I was eventually granted the number....
My only advice is don't rely on what clubs tell you, get the information directly from the DVLA websites on registering classic vehicles and don't contact the DVLA ref. registering the bike or tell them anything about how it came into existence until you are sure you are telling them what they want to hear, so that you get what you want....

I would imagine it is important to you to get at least an age related number and to get that you'll have to tell them you found the complete bike in a barn somewhere...I'd bet money if you let on you built it from parts, irrespective of whether they are matching parts, you won't get that....I really hope others might comment here on that particular point if on nothing else....Ian

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

Re: Factory repro...


"I imagine you meant it was original parts but not an original bike?... "

exactly that.

G3 frame with teles, wrong guards for contract all that sort of thing, but it looked the part, and got featured in Classic bike.

back then,1970ish no one really cared about fine detail, and there was no incredibly knowledgeable Dutch guy around.

Its still going well in the hands of its new owner despite being a rivet counters dream.

I often regret selling it, but it was the right thing to do.

Re: Factory repro...

You have to very careful of what you tell the DVLA.I too have registered many laid up bikes also some were projects that someone else had given up on.None were made up totally from parts gathered here & there. DVLA takes fraud very seriously and it can end up with you given a criminal record.You have to be straight forward and tell them it was built up from parts to do otherwise is fraudulent as it was never a complete bike.Various clubs can help you but you still have to tell them you made it up from parts.As for finding out the original registration number from a frame number good luck with that, unless it was put onto the new system when DVLA changed to v5 registration documents..

Re: Factory repro...

It's my understanding that access to the information within the DVLA system for bikes that already exist under the 'V5,V5C' system is recovered using the registration number as a start point, not the frame number...That's why a vehicle search starts with the registration and not the frame number...I don't think the DVLA can cross reference from a frame number to the registration number, only the other way round...

With no V5, and no other supporting original documentation your looking at re registering the bike under a newly issued number..The DVLA website goes through this process in detail, including the validation criteria, so I won't bother to go through it all here...

Suffice to say there are three categories applying to 'classic/historic' vehicles, all with their own particular validation criteria...
1)Retention of an original registration number, 2)issue of an 'age related' number and 3)issue of a 'Q' plate, reserved for vehicles that do not conform to either of the first two sets of criteria, new builds, modified vehicles (beyond a defined point), imports and other oddities....A 'Q' plate, once issued, can only be removed within the first 12 months subject to the acquisition of new information/documentation that supports the change to one of the first two categories I outlined...

After the 12 months from an initial 'Q' registration expires it can neither be removed nor changed...Ian

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

Re: Factory repro...

It is not often I land on my feet but as I own the prototype Royal Enfield V Twin EXKX which was submitted for evaluation during WW2 as a potential replacement for the SWD Norton Big 4 - the machine having been returned to the Royal Enfield factory and sold to a Royal Enfield employee in 1946 then you might care to consider this machine which is unique in many areas as genuine.

Re: Factory repro...

I have been involved in registering quite a few vehicles over the last 33 years. Not just my own but also for many years as the Dorset area inspector on behalf of the MVT Verification officer.

The criteria laid out in recent years by DVLA is that the vehicle should be a certain percent of the original vehicle or period parts. For instance they won't accept a repro body tub on a Jeep.....(If they know about it).

The answer as Ian suggests is to present them for any inspection with a fully restored "Original" vehicle. I'd also be cautious about using the word 'restored' ........Repainted sound better. Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Re: Factory repro...

['I'd also be cautious about using the word 'restored'..']...

Yes, Ron is definitely correct there, 'Loose lips sink ships' (and bikes)...Terminology is important, what you mean by using a particular word may not carry the same meaning when presented to the DVLA...and what is said can't be unsaid...Ian

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

Re: Factory repro...

It appears you can build a machine up now from verified parts and get an age related number if you jump through all the right hoops......It seems the changes at the DVLA are constant as this certainly was not the case previously...I'd check the whole thing thoroughly before you start...Below is a partial extract from the DVLA website...Note the section about reproduction parts, though I'd assume that only applies to more major components so may not affect you ...

I'm still intrigued as to whether you will regard the end result of this project as 'original', a 'replica' a 'facsimile' a 'lookalike' etc. and what you mean by the description you use....Ian


Get an age-related registration number...

DVLA can only recognise your vehicle as a reconstructed classic vehicle if it meets certain criteria. It must be:
•built from genuine period components from more than one vehicle, all over 25 years old and of the same specification as the original vehicle
•a true reflection of the marque

The appropriate vehicle owners’ club for the vehicle type (‘marque’) must inspect the vehicle and confirm in writing that it:
•has been inspected
•is a true reflection of the marque
•is comprised of genuine period components all over 25 years old

They must also give manufacture dates for the major components.

DVLA will assign an age-related registration number to the vehicle based on the youngest component used.

New or replica parts

Your vehicle will not get an age-related registration number if it includes new or replica parts. DVLA will give your vehicle a ‘Q’ prefix registration number. Your vehicle must pass the relevant type approval test to get a ‘Q’ prefix registration number...

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

Re: Factory repro...

Nathan,

The rib was left on the front mudguard, it was removed from the rear.

email (option): jeepfinger@blueyonder.co.uk

Re: Factory repro...

[' I'm still intrigued as to whether you will regard the end result of this project as 'original', a 'replica' a 'facsimile' a 'lookalike' etc. and what you mean by the description you will use....Ian ']

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

Re: Factory repro...

I agree with Ian and Ron on this. I've also registered a few vehicles and once you've said something to DVLA, you can't unsay it! I've heard several horror stories from the Norton owners club records officer where people have "chatted" too much to the inspector, being very proud of their creation and really buggered up their registration application.


I've got a BSA B25 with matching engine and frame that was registered in 1981 on a W plate, the logbook said "Made from parts". The VMCC sent me a 1970 dating letter and it stated that the bike was registered in 1970 in Newport. DVLA wouldn't have it that the bike was registered before 1981 no matter what proof I sent them, but they did give me an age related plate. They wouldn't take off the made from parts but did change it to "Restored using some new parts". I was quite happy with that as every restoration uses some new parts. I think someone recommissioned the bike in '81 but talked too much about the new parts on the bike and ended up with a new registration, they didn't do Q plates then.

Here's my "1939" bike, it's registered on the frame so 1944. I'm happy not to get a Q. It would be a great shame if you ended up with a Q plate on your KM20 but that could quite easily happen and I'm quite certain it will say made from parts. It depends what you say.

image

email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk

Re: Factory repro...

That's a great bike Horror, I've never been a 'Norton man' having only owned a Dominator 'Deluxe' and a 19S...I did like the 19S though and I kept it for a while...I bought it home as a non runner in the back of my mates Triumph Herald after we took the front end off and removed the back seat from the car...We 'fed it in' horizontally through the boot in as far as the front seats and tied the boot lid down with a bit of rope......Ian

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

Re: Factory repro...

It's funny how so many of us are so tribal, isn't it ? Like football supporters without the fisticuffs ! :grinning:

Re: Factory repro...

Brand loyalty is a powerful force..:laughing: ....Ian

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

Re: Factory repro...

:+1:

email (option): jeepfinger@blueyonder.co.uk

Re: Factory repro...

Ian Wright
That's a great bike Horror, I've never been a 'Norton man' having only owned a Dominator 'Deluxe' and a 19S...I did like the 19S though and I kept it for a while...I bought it home as a non runner in the back of my mates Triumph Herald after we took the front end off and removed the back seat from the car...We 'fed it in' horizontally through the boot in as far as the front seats and tied the boot lid down with a bit of rope......Ian
I was sick of riding a cart horse so exploited the racing heritage of the forks Ian :joy: :joy: :joy:

email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk

Re: Factory repro...

Never mind the forks, the OHV engine must be a revelation after the16H!!!....Ian:laughing:

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

Re: Factory repro...

['The rib was left on the front mudguard, it was removed from the rear.
Rear then, I knew it was one or the other. The lower front mudguard support also changed to have a reinforcement and of course the lifting handle, which seems to have changed two or three times during KM 20 production...']

There's no doubt there are many parts particular to the 39/40s models, particularly cycle parts...Equally there are many, many parts that are shared between them and later models...Just check the parts lists..

However,to suggest the model is in itself totally unique and separate to other models is factually incorrect.. Many of the NOS parts being used to create this bike were very unlikely to have been produced in those years and in many cases there's no way of knowing when they were made....Take a NOS oil pump for example, or an inner gearbox cover...

To me that's less important than the fact a bike is being put together but it leads to me wondering what is being created other than a nice looking M20 built with a lot of attention to detail...It wasn't around in 1939/40 or any other wartime year. Some of it wasn't even produced during the war, it will have a leavening of pattern parts and it wasn't all pulled together in one place as a complete bike until 2020 or later...

I'm struggling to see how that compares in any way to a bike with a provenance similar to Riks Norton....?....Ian

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

Re: Factory repro...

['But then hardly any restored machines are 'original' in reality, it's a contradiction in terms and something that most people in the classic vehicle world have chosen to ignore/forget...']

That's pretty much my view as expressed above...There are machines like Riks and most other bikes are bitsas to one degree or another...

So I guess we're getting to it now...My bike , your bike and most bikes are bitsas but built to varying standards and specifications...Ian

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

Re: Factory repro...

My grandfather's hammer... This is getting philosophical. I've read that all of the human body's cells routinely die and replace themselves, the longest any last is over a span of seven years. What is 'you' today isn't built from the same matter you were made of a decade ago*. Think of watching a single wave rolling onto the shore. The fact is you're not seeing an object but a transfer of energy. The water molecules themselves only go up, then down. It's like snapping a rope tied to a post- there's a wave but the parts of the rope stay in place.

So it is with an original WM20. It was created circa the 1940s, much like we or a wave were born, and while many of its parts have been replaced over time, its essence or soul if you will, as ours does, remains continuous. Nathan's endeavor is much much different. It will be more a Frankenstein motorbike and the year of its birth, the beginning of its soul, will be the day it kicks over and coughs out its first power stroke. I'm not being dismissive, it's just different.

(*subsequent modifications such as tattoos or a stainless steel hip being an obvious exception)

email (option): moatjon [ at ] aol.com

Re: Factory repro...

It is more or less philosophical thinking but I think your point is well made...

I always consider a bikes history to be a linear thing...It can't be stopped anywhere along the way...You can affect or alter the linear progression by making changes but those very changes are also part of the progression ultimately...Even a full rebuild to the specifications of an arbitrarily chosen point in its history doesn't actually roll back the years...It's just your personal contribution to the machines on going history...Travelling back in time has yet to be perfected so the only way is forward...

Maybe that is the true 'originality'....surviving to have a continuing history....Ian

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

Re: Factory repro...

Nathan
I think that bike looks 'ckin terrific as it is.
Given the solidity of a BSA cast iron cylinder head, I sometimes struggle to imagine the treatment they must've received in order to break all those fins...

Re: Factory repro...

So you've acquired this bike for basically the front frame and brake plate, with a possibility of the forks and rear hub. Are you actually considering using the second hand forks, hub and brake plate or does your quest for all NOS parts still prevail? Would you ever expect to find NOS 1938/9 forks?

It's not a bad thing to my mind to strip this obvious bitsa for the required parts and at least have plenty of parts available for other guys less ambitious restorations. Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Re: Factory repro...

This is a replica, bitsa or lookalike machine....That's fine, it's true of many bikes out there, but it's about time that fact was recognised and accepted and people in the classic bike world stopped conning both themselves and others....

You can't realistically start with such a low number of 'original' parts and say by the time you've added the other 90% which have distinctly variable provenance that it's going to be an original bike. If the definition of original is that a given machine is broadly the bike that actually came off the BSA production line, not just a bike built up to that specification...

The frame (front) being used, like all frames fronts, started out as part of an original factory bike but that bike ceased to exist at the point when 90% of it got replaced...There has to be a lower limit to the number of original factory fitted parts employed from the original machine during a rebuild for the term 'original' to retain any credibility...

If that's the suggestion, that this bike can be passed off as 'original' after completion, in the sense that it is generally understood, then we're entering a world of fantasy IMO where facts are being distorted to create an alternative truth...Ian

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

Re: Factory repro...

Nathan, just leave that nice bike to itself, it has earned it's keep over a longer period then you exsist (I guess...)
Collect all your nos parts and stick them to the wall -see pic-
Or on to bits of cardboard, attach a float sidecar to this BSA and do the rounds at rallys and meetings.
I am positive that you will be able to tell tales standing next to your collection (ofcourse dressed for the occasion, e.g. forties style)
That way all bits will stay nos. The moment you put a spanner on them they will be no longer nos.

Schloss-Vincent-69

:+1:

email (option): vincent@vincentvanginneke.com

Re: Factory repro...

So do you accept the bike your are building won't be an original bike or not...?..The fact some of the parts being use in it's rebuild were manufactured in 1939/40 is completely irrelevant in terms of the machines originality....

I'm baffled as to why you find this question so hard to address and why you constantly return to the status of other machines when this point is raised...Originality or the lack of it has always been a subject for debate in the classic bike world...Ian

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

Re: Factory repro...

This debate is going around in circles, a lot of us have given an opinion which in this case is quite polarised.

Is it a replica Spitfire, Yes.

Would I love to see it flying, Yes.

Should Nathan attempt his project, Yes.

We don't all have to agree on everything but I don't see why we have to be so negative about another point of view.

At least its on topic.

IMHO Rob

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

Re: Factory repro...

I think you are right - this debate is going round in circles. It is the sort of stuff that I was having to deal with in the 1970s and early 1980s as the VMCC WD Marque Specialist - a period before computers when letters were the main means of communication supported by the telephone and it drove me to the point where I walked away from direct involvement in the WW2 motorcycle scene and only returning to this website in the last couple of years as I thought that with so many more folk involved and the knowledge base substantially broadened matters may have calmed a little.

Re: Factory repro...

I'm debating a fair point IMO and asking for a straight answer to a simple question but I can't get it after asking it multiple times.... I consider that to be unreasonable on a forum such as this...
I answer questions here that are sometimes off topic and get criticised for it, although they don't represent a particularly high input into this forum and previously have always been accepted...
I have contributed heavily to the Technical Section of the forum for other peoples benefit...
I answer peoples questions at length and in detail, frequently over multiple posts but when I ask a simple question I can't get the answer...I've can only conclude there's no point asking frankly...This c**p really reduces my desire to contribute...

I think I'll just retire to the workshop and keep on with the work up there where it's more productive...A more recent 'expert' can stand in for me answering questions...:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: ..though you might have to wait a while for the answers...I'm sorry to say the recent offer of coordinating the production of a batch of 720 pistons is now withdrawn as is the offer of any technical advice, on or off forum (yes, I do it off forum as well).......This won't affect the forum over much...People have short memories and everything will soon settle down again...

This is called getting your ass in your hand....It happens once in a while...I'm done...Ian

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

Re: Factory repro...

This discussion is indeed worthy of the VMCC or Vincent owners club.

Like keith Chandler,just another of the reasons I too walked away from it all in 1984; later incursions I found things every bit as bad.

Once upon a time we had an old bike, renovated it how ever we could afford it and rode it. That was the best way.


Re: Factory repro...

You are all aware that Your beloved M20’s are pile of left over parts, from much better BSA models, including Slopers, Blue Star, Flat Tanks, Model J, X0, V twins and even model K.

Your beloved combination levers are a left over from 32 as are the brake shoes, front axle and a host of other parts.

By the way I built my WM ten years ago from at least 85% NOS stock parts, could have even used a NOS un-stamped frame.
So nothing new here.

Re: Factory repro...

Ken
This discussion is indeed worthy of the VMCC or Vincent owners club.

Like keith Chandler,just another of the reasons I too walked away from it all in 1984; later incursions I found things every bit as bad.

Once upon a time we had an old bike, renovated it how ever we could afford it and rode it. That was the best way.


Ken & Ian

Thanks

Re: Factory repro...

Wow Ian, you can't leave here... it is lifetime membership. :relaxed: :relaxed:

Your asking a simple & fair question but there seems to be no straight answer....what is the definition of original? Do you want more opinion's?, think it differs to a lot of people....

Please reconsider and come back here in time. You basically are the forum, at least to me, and the main reason I am here for years now.

Cheers, Michiel

Re: Factory repro...

Thanks Nathan’
Fucked it up for everyone ‘
Can you please go and play somewhere else’

email (option): rustytomm20@hotmail.com

Re: Factory repro...

My Norton wasn't complete and had suffered in storage. Its saving grace was that it appeared to have been damaged in 1940 which prevented either civilian use or modification and the survival of markings which let me pin it down as one of the four motorcycles used by a headquarters unit has allowed me to research it in depth.

My original intention was to build a girder-forked greenlaner but the surviving detail distracted me along the way.

We're all guilty at times of using verbal and written shorthand. I don't tend to use 'original' without a definite article. I retained for instance the orignal wheel bearings and the original dull chromed finish on the fasteners but that doesn't mean that the machine is 'original'. I think what we really mean to say is 'to the original specifications' or 'to 1939 factory spec'. Any project involves discarding parts that we consider to be either unsuitable or unserviceable.

I think that what I've tried to achieve is a connection with the past. To me that meant Research, Research, Research. No generic parts, no use of 'Don't tell me that they wouldn't have done it' Every visible detail based on what had survived or photographic and documentary evidence. The task that I set myself was that if a time-machine were to be invented, neither Norton factory tester, Chilwell fitter, nor BEF motorcyclist would be able to say "We didn't have them then" or "That part is wrong"...Inevitably I've fallen short in some areas..There were compromises that I chose fo myself and others that came about due to incompetence or ignorance.

It's an ongoing thing too. There came a point where I just had to decide to get on with it or I was never going to be able to enjoy it as a functioning motorcycle and that remains the most important aspect. It has to be capable of riding reliably anywhere with just a quick check of levels and adjustments.

We all find our own level and place in this hobby. There are ex-WD bikes around which in all honesty cause me to shake my head and walk away, both in terms of how the owners expect thrown together worn-out components to function effectively and aspects of finish and accessorising that wouldn't look out of place in the centre-spread of 'Fantasy' Magazine. There are others that are 'spot-on' in terms of engineering and workmanship.

I've said before that there are some first-class engineers in the world of ex-WD motorcycles, others who have produced a large number of superb restorations which have raised the bar for attention to detail and helped to make what would have been considered 'exceptional' twenty-five years ago into more or less the norm now. Others have researched detail, specification and contracts, going back to a time before digital cameras and the internet, and even published it. Without their groundwork, we wouldn't be anywhere near where we are today.

If I stand back and look at the current discussions, I have the impression that much of the 'prickliness' stems from the fact that Nathan sometimes gives the impression he considers his project to be truly ground-breaking and different from anything that has gone before which can in my opinion lead to the impression he is not acknowledging that it wouldn't be possible without the knowledge , help and assistance of those who have gone before...and inevitably he is setting his own compromises which may or may not differ from what others have chosen.

I truly hope that the KM20 will be exceptional but there are a few really good examples already with perhaps more historical provenance as complete machines. We all have our preferred aspects and priorities when judging them.

In terms of the registration aspect, if there is a complete machine being imported then surely it will either have European documentation or can be registered as it stands. A subsequent replacement engine of the same type is no problem.

Re: Factory repro...

Tom Green
Thanks Nathan’
Fucked it up for everyone ‘
Can you please go and play somewhere else’
Please take back your words, Tom.... they don't seem fair to me.

There must be room for Nathan and his project on this forum.....I don't recall him being rude, just a little different maybe, but lucky we all are...

Re: Factory repro...

Tom Green
Thanks Nathan’
Fucked it up for everyone ‘
Can you please go and play somewhere else’
Sorry Tom,
Thank the know it all.

Ian has helped probably more than 90% of the forum. Alas no more.

Re: Factory repro...

Ok I take it back sorry Nathan’
Ian has been a big help to us all,
Apologies to all forum members, I am also building an early WM20 from mostly NOS parts but the finished article will look more like it was left over from Dunkirk rather than before it’
Best regards Tom.

email (option): rustytomm20@hotmail.com

Re: Factory repro...

Tom Green
Ok I take it back sorry Nathan’
Ian has been a big help to us all,
Apologies to all forum members, I am also building an early WM20 from mostly NOS parts but the finished article will look more like it was left over from Dunkirk rather than before it’
Best regards Tom.
Ian has been a big help to us all,

Totally agree, Ian plese come back.

email (option): jeepfinger@blueyonder.co.uk

Re: Factory repro...

Oh dear, Ian and I have been friends for many years, not just forum friends but real life actual friends doing Normandy trips and shows across the south of England, and now it seems I'm the reason he has left the forum, I was the one who winged about "off topic", and it looks like it was my post on this thread that was the final straw.

I'm very sorry.

Rob

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

Re: Factory repro...

Perhaps we should just make a point of not using the word 'original' except in the context of an individual component and even then, with care....It seems a little odd though that this thread got out of control as your initial response only included the words 'refinish and restore'...It seems that it was Ian who focussed on the word 'original'. I'm not quite sure why. Something was bothering him...

Re: Factory repro...

As far as I can make out from reading all this waffle, which seems mostly to be about your OCD expensive parts buying, what will you have at the end? a bit of an old bike with lots and lots of new parts hung off it.

I cannot see the point of the exercise,all it has done is upset some people who have been a mine of information and help to others.

I no longer have a WD bike, let alone an M20, but I still read on here as there is often pertinent info I can use for my other bikes.

personally I think you should just piss off.

Being a cynic I also suspect this bike if ever finished will be advertised with a stupid price and a bullshit blurb about how good it is.

Don't answer you spent more on it than it will be worth, there are a ton of mugs out there with too much disposable.

In some remote part of the empire we once had I am willing to bet there is a store with a greased up brand spanking new M20, better to have searched for that.

Re: Factory repro...

Yes Ken, rude post picking on Nathan again......

Why all this constant picking on Nathan and his project?, let him go, he clearly knows what he wants...... And if you don't like it just skip it...

I think you also owe Ian an apology, Ken.... Can't imagine comparing his debate he had here above to former VMCC discussions where to walk away from did any good......

Re: Factory repro...

I think everyone is understandably a bit on edge these days and with more time than usual to spend on social media forums such as this, things can get testy.

But, Nathan, I have to point out that while your project is interesting, you have recently come to very much dominate this forum. You only joined on February 2nd of this year and yet you've commented 340 times in 117 days. There are others who've been here for years and their total comments are much less. Ian joined in 2009 and has in excess of 10,000. That's an average of 2.5 per day, less than your 2.9 per day. All of us here would agree both are prolific but the amount of help and concrete information Ian has provided over that decade has been invaluable. He's indirectly helped me many times because I've searched the forum and found an answer he gave someone else in 2014 that I needed last month. You, a very new member, on the other hand are, mostly, simply sharing your latest procurements. (as for myself I joined in 2016 and I have a grand total of 62 comments but I nevertheless read the forum daily).

I understand your enthusiasm and desire to share. Maybe if you began your own blog that you updated daily where we could follow you with interest it might be a better place. I see you're also on the Facebook page 'BSA WDM20 The Cult Single'. Share your finds there and reserve this for questions you have?

There are many unspoken rules when navigating an online forum such as this. One of them is know when to slow it down and another is respect the senior members. Your intensity is admirable but may have blinded you a little. Don't 'piss off' but maybe step it back a little? I don't speak for anyone else, this is just my own observation.

email (option): moatjon [ at ] aol.com

Re: Factory repro...

I swear like a trooper, but I quite agree. Swearing at other posters really isn't justified on here and will only make the atmosphere worse.

Re: Factory repro...

If Nathan had shown a before and after picture of his KM20, with the original frame number and found some early crank cases to match, everyone would have said well done what a lovely bike. The majority of people would have seen that there wasn't much of the unrestored bike left as it wasn't in KM20 spec and Nathan could have then said I used NOS parts where possible. No different than we all do when restoring a bike. For some reason the NOS "new bike" thing is winding people up, is it a new bike? is it an old bike? It's a ridiculous argument like Trigger's broom, and I would have thought we've all been around vintage bikes long enough to realise there's no right answer, only people's interpretations. As long as a correct specification bike emerges at the end of it, who cares.

email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk

Re: Factory repro...

I think we could all do with learning where to just shut up and leave it be, never have I seen such aggressive behaviour on here!
I freely admit I am not a fan of Nathan, but enough is enough, all of you need to have a chat with yourselves and remember we are all different.
Maybe there are elements of truth BOTH ways, maybe you do wind some up the wrong way Nathan, maybe they consider your attitude a tad "over confident", but equally if you are one of those people nobody forces you to respond to him either.
So can we just let this thread die and move on?
Right I'm off to the garage to wet n dry some primed parts, hoping I don't come back to find this still dominating this forum.....

email (option): larkesrAAAATgmail.com

Re: Factory repro...

I find this site a mine of information. But more and more it appears to Be Nathans web site or mouth piece. I admire what he is doing but having it rammed down my throat just about every day is getting to be a turn off. Not being rude just stating as I find it.

Re: Factory repro...

Nathan- "I've been using online forums since 2005, I'm no stranger to threads like this."

That's admirable. I was moderating listserves in the early 1990s.

Nathan- "I think this feeds into egos and jealousy/envy, people don't like it when someone does something better than they do."

Or maybe... it's something else? Think about how you characterized that. Really. How do you think it sounds to others? In my experience, when a member of a forum is constantly defending themself there's a reason it keeps happening. Reading social cues are hard enough face to face. Online it takes a lot of extra effort to understand, empathize, how your comments are being received. No need to be defensive Nathan, this isn't an attack, it's my observation.

email (option): moatjon [ at ] aol.com

Re: Factory repro...

"People get jealous over NOS parts. I think this feeds into egos and jealousy/envy, people don't like it when someone does something better than they do."

I don't think this is a fair statement. I'm sure we all have NOS parts, some more or less than others. Will an expensive NOS DU142 look or function any better than a well restored original? Probably not. I'm sure lots of us have taken a project and added lots of quality parts to make it better during a restoration. Does this be viewed differently than the reverse procedure of taking a lot of NOS parts and adding used parts? Obviously does. I think it's all great debate, and interesting to view the different mind set between enginneers/restorers/motorcyclists/historians. Could some of us do what Nathan is attempting? Probably, however in my case I just couldn't be bothered. I love the extremes, the Rat M20 and what is purported to be the best KM20 in the future. I hope it works out, I really do - will it be the best ever, time will tell.

Out of interest Nathan, do you have a timeframe for this project? Also, and I'm just asking because I do foolish things like this, but have you made out a spreadsheet with every part in the parts book and update with cost, quantity, source etc? Would be a useful tool for tracking the project and potentially helping others in the future.

There's room in this forum for us all, all opinions and views. I'll definitely miss Ian's posts, I know I've completed many tasks and educated others based off the technical inforation and experience that he has shared. I'm sure I've visited this forum every day for 10 years and have found it a great source of conversation, debate and experience so I really hope this will not be the end.

Maybe we need to just be mindful of others when posting. Perhaps the references to cost could be toned down a bit, some people have access to more funds to spend on their projects than others. Just my 0.0000001 Bitcoin's worth (for the younger generation). All the best, Glenn

email (option): glenn_mullan@postmaster.co.uk

Re: Factory repro...

Like many of us, I've known Ian for a long, long time.....he's a fantastic bloke with a rarely-rivaled mechanical and engineering skill-set going back decades. He's always willing to assist anyone along the way and share his massive knowledge of motorcycles and related things....he's also a pillar of integrity and speaks his mind....he also has an incredible wry sense of humour that some may not initially comprehend......

I guess Ian's having a well-earned break from things....like everyone else, he has a life and other interests away from this Forum and motorcycles......taking a step back sometimes is a dignified way of managing things....

Some of us may remember a time when Ian wasn't on this Forum at all, largely because he didn't have a computer (let alone a television)...the Forum has certainly become a better place with Ian's input and contributions.....

I'm pretty certain that Ian will be back in his own good time and I wouldn't mind betting that he's having a good read and chuckle of this Forum in the meantime.....and on that basis keep well and safe mate ! Steve

Re: Factory repro...

Please, please, there shouldn't be 'sides' on here. If someone's got their grumpy head on, just ignore them. We're not trying to win a debate or an election, heaven forbid !

Unfortunately, the search function on this message board is not the most sophisticated and it's quite difficult to find previous threads, although it is more useful than facebook, but I don't believe one can state that subjects have not been discussed before with any certainty.

Tools and toolrolls have been talked about in quite some detail and there is a fair bit of knowledge here. Best not to alienate it in my opionion by claiming to have re-invented the wheel.

Even if it hasn't been posted on here, that doesn't mean that it hasn't taken place. Quite a number of us still do things the old-fashioned way, round a kitchen table with a pile of photographs, parts lists and actual tools and parts.

The internet isn't the be-all and end-all and winning an argument on it, much akin to gaining 'likes' doesn't advance the hobby one iota.

Re: Factory repro...

From Doctor Who

I have greatly enjoyed this discussion so far. Admittedly some heat raised but nonetheless it's good to have all these different opinions and what Nathan ends up with will be fun and interesting for everyone and we can all have our opinions, strong and otherwise about it.

However I do need to advise everyone, I've just come back from a quick trip to Dunkirk circa May 1940 and my companions have kindly lugged a whole load of WD bikes on board the Tardis. Before you ask, NO they are not for sale but I can assure you that they are all totally genuine and some are from 1939 and even before that i think.

I may be setting up a museum at some point, but not sure which planet or solar system to locate it on, but will advise the specialist press.

all best your chum Dr Who (Ms)

Re: Factory repro...

Ian Wright
It appears you can build a machine up now from verified parts and get an age related number if you jump through all the right hoops......It seems the changes at the DVLA are constant as this certainly was not the case previously...I'd check the whole thing thoroughly before you start...Below is a partial extract from the DVLA website...Note the section about reproduction parts, though I'd assume that only applies to more major components so may not affect you ...

I'm still intrigued as to whether you will regard the end result of this project as 'original', a 'replica' a 'facsimile' a 'lookalike' etc. and what you mean by the description you use....Ian


Get an age-related registration number...

DVLA can only recognise your vehicle as a reconstructed classic vehicle if it meets certain criteria. It must be:
•built from genuine period components from more than one vehicle, all over 25 years old and of the same specification as the original vehicle
•a true reflection of the marque

The appropriate vehicle owners’ club for the vehicle type (‘marque’) must inspect the vehicle and confirm in writing that it:
•has been inspected
•is a true reflection of the marque
•is comprised of genuine period components all over 25 years old

They must also give manufacture dates for the major components.

DVLA will assign an age-related registration number to the vehicle based on the youngest component used.

New or replica parts

Your vehicle will not get an age-related registration number if it includes new or replica parts. DVLA will give your vehicle a ‘Q’ prefix registration number. Your vehicle must pass the relevant type approval test to get a ‘Q’ prefix registration number...
Now that's an interesting thing to know, I wasn't aware of the possibility to get the advantages of an actual historical vehicle for a modern reproduction of it! That opens a whole new field of possibilities...

email (option): czp02270tr@yahoo.com

Re: Factory repro...

DVLA are mainly concerned about frame numbers, that being original and correct is essential to get an age related reg. They are well aware that any vehicle that's 80 years old has been maintained through out those years, so is unlikely to be the same parts it left the factory with. It looks like they've put a minimum age of 25 years on these parts. There are certain parts that have to be correct for that bike. I think wheel hubs (you can change the rims), forks etc, if these parts are newly made, you run the risk of getting a Q plate.

email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk

Nieuwe pagina 1