Dont look if you have a weak stomach !!!!

[BSARoadRocket]

Nobody noticed that this is not a '47 frame even when it has the later VIN number?   The '47-'48 frame is one piece meaning the rear rigid frame section is one piece with the front section.  This frame is at least  a'49 or possibly later since the rear rigid section is bolt on.   In the US the only rigid BSA twin frames I've ever been able to find are the old one piece frames and the later two piece bolt together rigid frames never turn up, although the two piece bolt together plunger frames are quite common.

[duTch]

Nobody noticed that this is not a '47 frame even when it has the later VIN number?   The '47-'48 frame is one piece meaning the rear rigid frame section is one piece with the front section.  This frame is at least  a'49 or possibly later since the rear rigid section is bolt on.   In the US the only rigid BSA twin frames I've ever been able to find are the old one piece frames and the later two piece bolt together rigid frames never turn up, although the two piece bolt together plunger frames are quite common.

 Well that's what I was getting at, but forgot about the 'one piece' frame. I thought I wrote in English- ...  The parts book I have with engine/ frame marking ID makes ZA7 3109 a '49 frame.....prior to '50 frames starting at 4001- doesn't it...?

I also wondered about the frame number John, as I had the notion that 'early' A7 Vertical Twins started with a 'X' prefix, then 'Y', followed by 'Z'...
 ( the frame number code page in the '49-'53 parts book I have says the rigid was made up to ~'52)...??

 ....but I could be wrong...!!

 Can't see why anyone would retro fit a dodgy design stand though...but I know nothing about their design

 

[Brian]

Its not a "drop down stand" frame, that part of this frame is bog standard.

They had a section that bolted to the bottom of the frame to take the stand, for some reason it is not shown in any parts book I have come across.

The number on the frame shown in the pics indicates a 1949 frame but I am a bit suspect about the numbers, they dont look quite right to me.

[kiwipom]

hi guys, Brian i think this is the stand that you refer too,cheers

[BSARGS650]

metalflake11...

I agree with you opinion.  Back then, the British stuff was two a penny and nobody give a damn. Money (credit) was getting easier to spend with the drift was towards fashion, Japanese bikes and cars becoming more affordable to impress the girls! 

What was in the scrap yards and what was being gobbled up by the furnaces in the steel industry certainly would churn the guts, but, not then, it was just scrap metal....it meant nothing.

For those that were not so flush with money and dabbled in the backyard creating something different to pose with out of scrap metal bikes and ride their (sometimes not too safe) creations - good luck to them!  Some of those creationists went on to better developments....

When I joined this brilliant and respectful forum, I was politely asked to supply some photographs of one or two of the bikes that I have in my possession.  Before I presented the photographs, I did warn that:.... "the purists may choke on their caviare" - glad to see there has been no obituaries since posting.......

Best regards to all.....

[chaterlea25]

HI All,
Well what a can of worms I stirred up??? 

The rigid frames are outside my knowledge area and I took it that the seller had some clue as to what he had for sale 

John

[Briz]

That frame isn't at all unrestorable. Whoever cut the lugs off probably didn't realise it was a rare one.
It takes a lot more work than that to get a unit Triumph lump into one!