Not quite right for this site......But anyone want to see the other side? Ron
email (option): ronpier@talk21.com
More of a custom bike than a serious sprinter I think...but love it or hate it, it is beautifully executed..Ian
email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com
Wow, that is a work of art. Really well made 
email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk
Can you mail me a copy of the picture Ron?...Ian
email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com
I also saw these pictures and saved them. I like well done customs....
There appears to be two springs attached to a cam system, facing backwards, between the swing arm and saddle. A very nice and well thought out conversion. I guess it would be a sprinter or some other short distance racer due to the size of the tank. If it isn't then it will be part of a growing family of 'Truck to and from the show' type customs......
email (option): stinkypete80@hotmail.com
The Jap/C11 effort is crap...nothing like talking it up though ...Ian
email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com
It does have footrests, if you look at the last picture, they are not fitted, along with the rear brake pedal! I guess the Gramaphone that the exhaust came from would be worth more......
email (option): stinkypete80@hotmail.com
'Talked up' (as opposed to torqued up )..is exagerating the description of something to make it sound better than it actually is.. I would say that applies to this bike for sure..Basically he has found a not very nice C Series BSA (take a look at the close up showing some of the parts, they are heavily rusted under the paint) and has assembled it with no noticeable finesse, originality or new parts. Into this he has then inserted a JAP industrial engine which is probably less capable than the original.
The bike is not fully assembled and he doesn't even seem sure that it is a JAP engine....which kind of makes you wonder what state that is in.
No doubt having run out of steam the bike is now for sale and described in a manner that infers it is an engineering work of art..which it patently isn't.
Take a look at the other bike in this posting...that displays all the considerable skills of its builder, both in the originality of the concept and the quality of the engineering and finish...the two bikes are like 'chalk and cheese'....Ian
email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com
I don't know anything about board track racing, but do they have a separate class for stationary engines ? I'm pretty sure that's where this one started life.
Yet another abuse of the 'dating letter' system that will surely result in the whole set-up being chucked out when the authorities realise what's going on.
I was a judge at a motorcycle show for 15 years and I realised early on that I could not be influenced by 'style'..When presented with a number of bikes rangeing through standard, cafe racers, low riders etc. WHAT an individual decided to create had to become secondary..otherwise I would always pick what I liked.
Common to all of them though were things such as fit and finish of the components, the quality of plating, polishing and paintwork,the neatness of the wiring etc. etc.
An examination of both the bikes in this posting immediately shows a discrepency between the two.
Those, of course, might not be the criteria applied by everyone and in that case a different conclusion would be drawn.
For myself I rate all bikes by these standards...to my mind a rebuilt bike is an exercise in engineering and in the case of specials includes elements of design as well.
The more competently and skillfully this is executed the better the bike..it's why not all rebuilt bikes are considered the same.
I don't think the second bike was well done at all..in fact I couldn't see anything that struck me as particularly well executed... that's just my opinion. However, I am not in a unique and qualified position to judge and I don't expect everyone to agree..Ian
So how would a standard bike stack up against the 'best and wildest' ideas? Not very well if it was a 'wildest ideas' competition. But if it wasn't what do the two bikes have in common that can be compared?. I would suggest it is the build standard. And if it was two standard bikes how would you choose between them? What criteria would you use then?
It's not necessarily about the amount of money spent either...someone may buy the most expensive parts yet make a bad job of putting it all together...or they may build a very nice bike on a more limited budget.
Personally I don't generally enter my bikes to be judged in shows..that's not my thing. But if a 100 people do 99 of them are going to be disappointed at the end of the day...and some will be genuinely upset. I know, I've been on the receiving end.
The truth is it is impossible to make comparisons without someone thinking you are talking out of your hat.
At the end of the day I have my ideas about what makes a good bike...and everyone else has theirs.
That's lfe..and a bit of variety is a good thing..Ian
Well said Ian, and this is getting far to serious about a couple of pictures of bikes. Ride 'em and have fun I say
email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk
You're right Horror..It's another example like 'ex factory' and 'in service' finishes or 'polished' and 'unpolished' ports in tuning...each has their following and it makes for an interesting discussion...but nobody really changes their beliefs!!(and some won't agree that you should 'ride 'em and have fun') Ian
Well according to "Yesterdays antique motorcycles" they are just for looking at 
email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk
Why do you feel it necessary, or that you are in a position, to 'aim' your article at anyone?
I have expressed my opinion about both the bikes that are in this posting and their relative merits have been debated by anyone who feels they want to express a view.
It is clear, and unsurprising, that those views differ...after all few people share the same idea of 'perfection'.
No particular opinion, ultimately, has any more validity than any other.
As noted previously I don't hold any special or priviledged position that makes my view the 'right one' any more than yours is the 'right one'...they are just different. Bikes are different things to different people..enjoy it...Ian
I talked once to someone who turned the head round on a Triton in the sixties. It seemed like forced induction for free.
Unfortunately, the forced air flow served mainly to keep the slides up at full throttle (down Saltbox Hill as I recall). It soon went back the correct way round.
By the way, is there a publication named '100% Motorcyclist', aimed at chaps like me ?
I'm thinking of building a forecar using a thermosyphon Lister. It'll be the original 'Bored' track racer and there'll be a plastic duck bobbing up and down in the water tank. Hey, a real bobber !
I 'got the point' a long time ago that customising was frequently about style over function... and that is a negative in my book when a motorcycle's primary role is to be a functioning machine.
The hotshot that reversed the head on his Triumph and who thought he was creating something original (which he wasn't) also reduced the engines capabilities into the bargain. That doesn't deserve any accolades in my book.
If he had produced a well made special that actually improved on the original machines handling and performance he would have achieved something.
Function WITH style in a balanced package produces a good motorcycle.
Styling at the EXPENSE of function will ultimately, and often does, produce a piece of furniture....or if you prefer..art.
I'm not against customizing..remember Uncle Bunts Chop Shop in the 70's?..you probably don't..I had one of the first chops to come out of there...been there, done that. Extreme examples of the 'art' are often unrideable and milder examples are frequently impractical and less effective as a motorcycle than they were before they were 'improved'
2" ground clearance, reversed heads that reduce performance, steering head angles and forks that break the basic rules of good frame geometry..etc. etc.?..Yeh right...Cooooool..I understand style. When will you understand the principles of 'function' and the seemingly alien concept that it should be improved not made worse?....Ian
You've just made me reminisce Ian, talking of Uncle Bunt frames and chops. I can remember my mate having a BSA A10 chop with the longest springer forks you've ever seen and a small peanut tank. The bike looked great in a classic 70's style. Looked really cool (or we thought so at the time). The springer action on the forks didn't exactly work as the rake was so flat. The forks just bounced about in the middle, It wasn't much fun for him though as we went on a run up the A46 to Coventry before it was the smooth road it is now. Having to stop at every petrol station and it had a turning circle bigger than a lorry
He didn't have it long after that ride out.
Uncle Bunt made some good frames I thought, that were meant to handle..? I remember the Yamanx which was a Yamaha 650 XS engined cafe racer that again, looked good at the time and suposed to handle well. I saw it at the Bristol classic show in the late 80's and it was for sale, and looking a bit sorry for itself.
email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk
Hi Horror..Happy Days..My Uncle Bunt Chop was also based around an A10..a plunger. Extreme rake, moulded on tank, metalflake paint and long springers. Very 1970s as you say and reminiscent of the Swedish 'long bikes' still favoured in that part of the world. I also thought it was the 'dogs bolleaux' at the time.
I remember biting the bullet and handing over a subtantial 'wedge' to have a professionally built chop..they weren't all that common for that reason.
A couple of years later I was building my own but had decided the 'low rider' was a more sensible option by then.
Also got involved in the whole 'bike club' thing that was pretty much in it's infancy at that time...Great times...'Easy Riders' has a lot to answer for ..Ian
And here is another sprinter Ron
email (option): ronpier@talk21.com
It is fun Michael..It was built for classic sprinting so it is fairly 'Traditional' spec. wise. It is also road legal (just!) in the UK. Gold Star gearbox internals in a 4 speed C12 gearbox, Newby belt primary drive, electronic ignition and modified brakes and forks to improve handling and braking.
Engine is B33 based but has got an 82% power boost to 37 BHP( confirmed on a dyno) at the back wheel (approx.42 BHP at the engine).
It's very quick in such a light chassis..a Goldie can't live with it on acceleration and Japanese road singles struggle to keep up with it. It has regularly beaten bigger twins at the sprints and has even embaressed a few people at track days. A real 'all rounder' in the BSA tradition...Ian
Hi Michael..I'm a fan of light weight and minimalism.
Light weight makes it easier to sort out the handling, gives the brakes and tyres an easier life and makes the bike more responsive.
I think bikes with a low mass and a good power to weight ratio make the best bikes for riding fun.
The one I am building now has a lighter chassis, a lot more aluminium and far more attention paid to weight reduction of individual components...right down to the fasteners, studs etc....Ian
Well I had a nice long post there but it disappeared when I clicked "make changes" 
Anyways. I was tought the engineering trade under this same thinking.
Im not sure if you have the V-Max in the UK. Here is a project from the shop I learned at. Everything but the forks,engine,swingarm, and plastic seat molding were done there in that garage. It left the shop unfinished. Evern the rear sets didnt get completed. The guys bill was up to $20,000 and he didnt wanna spend anymore.
The seat is the gas tank. All of this design was created by Steve. I worked for him for a while and he is my neighbor.
email (option): micran1234@yahoo.com
Hi Michael..Yes, we have the V Max in the UK and it is a favourite for custom builders. I think the sheer 'grunt' of the engine is the attraction.
For my own taste the engine unit is too heavy and too powerful.
This weight and power dictates a rigid chassis, multiple discs and calipers, large diameter forks, substantial swinging arms etc. etc. to ensure it can stop, doesn't flex and goes precisely in the direction you want it to. That leads to real difficulties in achieving a moderate finished weight.
In fact that may be impossible without the use of some of the more 'exotic' materials.
Nevertheless, if the demand is for high brake horsepower and a higher weight is deemed an acceptable penalty then these types of engines are the way to go. For outright BHP in a reliable package it's hard to beat the Japanese.
I must say I like to see all the thought and expertise that has gone into that V Max project..if you are into engineering it gives you a buzz just to examine it.
I'm not a horsepower junkee and over there you have the bike that epitomises the style and thinking I like in a 'special'...the XR 750 Harley. I think it's a classic and a lovely example of how to get the maximum from a moderate starting point..Ian
A brilliant film...everyone who is into bikes should see it. I was amazed at the skills of many of the riders. Harley wise I'd like one in the 'Trackmaster' frames they used to make..I've thought of getting another Sportster to make a flat track replica for the road..ideal for a sunny sunday 'thrash' in the area where I live, it's mainly country roads with a lot of hills and bends.. ..Ian
A friend of mine had one of those triples back in the 70s..he ran a 'bodywork' shop and made a beautiful seat/tank unit and full fairing for it. It was the first tank I ever saw with an 'aero' style filler cap.
He also fitted expansion chambers and bought in some special cylinders from the States with more radical porting. It would out accelerate just about anything in a straight line and the two stroke 'crackle' was amazing..but it wasn't too good on the bends with the standard chassis...15-18mpg was a bit of a downside as well!
Nice neat frame for the shovelhead in the customers bikes gallery...Ian