A super picture.
CQMS = Company Quarter Master Sergeant?
A cut open "flimsy" can
Padlock chain wrapped around the rear frame
Tool box with padlock, does it have WD stamped on it?
Rob
email (option): robmiller11@yahoo.co.uk
So this is an M20 rack having it's bike replaced by a broken Norton 16H
I have this photo quite a bit bigger then it is here on the forum, if anybody is interested just let me know.
Henk.
email (option): ahum@quicknet.nl
These problems were more common on 1935 designs...much more common
...Ian
email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com
Ron
You're absolutely right Ron, it makes me shudder just looking at the picture. I'd consider bashing the guides out in-situ but pulling the new ones in might be harder.
During our most recent archive trip, Jan found some evidence that actually premature valve guide wear was a known problem on the WD16H...quite why the War Office retained an unsollicited letter in an official file is a mystery, but interesting all the same.
He received the usual official type of reply.
I think that H. is right about the carrier too. It's certainly not early Norton pattern as the legs seem to be at each corner.
email (option): 79x100@gmail.com
Hi Rik..What a great letter...Confirmation of poor design in three areas on three different bikes. Interestingly the BSA WB30 did have a metal 'drip tray' to deflect petrol leaks away from the drive end of the mag...So BSA were aware of the problem but did nothing about it on the M20..Rectifying the other two problems would have been a lot more difficult without major redesign work...It highlights the question though of why Matchless fitted the dynamo in such a dumb position for so long and on so many models and why Norton didn't upgrade the 16h to the Big 4 pattern, with properly enclosed and lubricated valve guides...
I'm still puzzled as to why the valve guide to stem clearance was 'secret information' as well...I've yet to see that basic information quoted in either a Norton or WD publication....
I have personally seen a few mags buggered up on M20s by the entry of petrol from persistant leaks at the taps...It is one reason why I worry more about function than originality in that case and have used more modern, non leaking taps for a number of years...be warned!....Ian
email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com
Yes, a fantastic letter, well done Rik, what a great find 
What else does it say in those pages..?
I think the solution with the 16H is to lubricate more often, and of course with the new Plasma Nitride Valves from G&S we have fitted, things might last a bit longer. It's interesting that he suggests a felt pad behind the valve. That might be worth a try.
I noticed the rack straight away because that is exactly how my 16H was when I got it. If you look at the "before" picture of it on the "16H lives" post you'll see.
Henk, I'd like a larger picture of it if you could send me one please. Just so I know how to remove the guides in situ, thanks
email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk
Ian, the question of why the Department of Army Contracts chose not to adopt the 1938 pattern engine for the 16H whilst doing precisely that for the Big 4 remains an enigma. The official line is that they had several thousand of the early machines in service and didn't want to compromise the spares inventory but this really doesn't make sense. For a start, it would have given much more commonality with the Big 4 (cam and rocker gear for instance). Sadly, for the sake of the first few thousand, the next eighty thousand were compromised.
I have an idea that it was just too much trouble to go through the 10,000 mile evaluation again with the risk of finding that there were other problems or that components which had been given the OK the first time were now failing.
I'm puzzled that the dripping fuel taps should have been just a BSA problem or was it overflowing from the outboard mounted float chamber that dripped the fuel into just the wrong place ?
The rest of the file is really Jan's project. It was less interesting to me in that it deals more with the proposed standardised motorcycle than with actual service machines. Basically they set impossible standards and then dismissed everything as unsuitable - They had to weigh less than 250lbs and be more powerful and stronger than the standard versions, plus all controls including handlebars had to be adjustable, but the bars had to have an anti-vibration mounting. Quite how they thought all that was going to be possible after deleting them from the early models is a puzzle...
email (option): 79x100@gmail.com
Personally I have never considered the 'lightweight' military models or the 'light' standardised motorcycle as viable..even if the latter were possible...Triumphs were very lightweight from the outset compared to other military machines and I have direct anecdotal evidence from a DR of how his 5SW basically fell to pieces after just a few months of use in North Africa, culminating in a major frame failure.. He commented that replacement with the much heavier, though far more robust M20, solved the problem...It is clear Civilian and Service use are two different things..
Of the motorcycles that actually reached production from the programme to produce a 'lightweight' military bike the one produced in the largest quantities, the G3L, suffer from early problems with structural weakness (yokes) which required revisions to improve them and a weakness of the front brake plate which was never rectified, as well as the brake being too small to be effective..there were no doubt other problems as well judging from the numbers of revisions to various parts.
The BSA 'pre production' batch of WB30s which went for 'troop trials' evaluation were heavily revised by the time they were deemed suitable for quantity production 2 years later, with an increase in front brake size, deletion of many weight saving features and a strengthening/replacement of numerous parts..In fact the only production batch of 100 machines that was completed were effectively different bikes and were little different in build standard (or weight) to a pre war Matchless G3.
As for the concept of a 'standardised' lightweight WD bike based around the extremely lightly constructed Triumph 3TW I would say from a study of the remaining example at Beaulieu that it was also woefully too weak for the rigours of service use and the Luftwaffe, if they had known of our plans, probably wouldn't have bombed Meriden and would have let us go ahead with it... ...Ian
email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com
Hi Rik
A most interesting letter. I had never heard of guide wear problems on 16H's before ( in over 30 years of ownership) so I dug out and read through the thread you wrote about your problems. What hard luck you had! Did you ever discover the definitive cause of the problem? If not this may help its from Alpha Bearings website.
Also cast iron guides are pretty much self lubricating, the grease nipples are provided just for additional lubing. Bronze guides are a no no as they require positive lubrication as on the M20. Hope this helps.
Regards
Keith
PS I've just noticed part of the picture is cut off on the right but the jist of it is that stainless steel valves have compatibility issues with cast iron guides. If stainless steel valves are used they should have a hard chromed or nitrided stem.