Can you identify this motorcycle?

.

Please see opening paragraph … here: **LINK**

https://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/BSA_C10

MichaelG.

Michael, the OP image shows the engine fitted with an alloy cylinder head whereas the catalogue shows an iron head. The catalogue shows what appears to be a tool box on the off side and yet other images on the web show an oil tank for the dry sump lubrication on the offside where you would expect it to be located.

Robert

However other images show either an alloy cylinder head or one finished in silver?

Robert Butler

This is it surely:-

Yes, I know, Robert

… I was simply picking-up on what I quoted from your previous post.

MichaelG.

MichaelG the images in your latest post show an oil tank missing from the OP image.

Robert Butler

.

… and the relevance of that fact is ??

I simply posted a side-by-side pair of images for comparison and consideration.

We have already established that the C10 came in many flavours … and for all I know, the one in the opening post may be a bitza [or even something entirely different].

Off to bed now.

MichaelG.

MichaelG I agree but they are dry sump and need a separate oil tank and the tank either mirrors the expected design or sort of rectangular. Also missing in the OP image is the alloy valve chest cover present on all other images.

Regards

Robert Butler

Most small 2 strokes would have flywheel magneto, not a drive up to a dynamo. C10 had battery and coil ignition, you can just make out the distributor. As to the lack of an oil tank, we'll you can't see the gearbox either, but I'll bet it's got one. Exhaust would be lower down on 2 stroke as well

As Duncan says it is a BSA C10. The oil tank would be behind the girl's calf and the gearbox would be behind her heel. The carb connects to the barrel not the crankcase so clearly a SV 4 stroke. Fortunately the C10 and the C11 were replaced by the C15, a much better bike IMHO and on one I passed my test in '76.

Cheers

Dave

Pre war two stroke Triumph. Dave W

Interesting change from model eng !
Seems 2 serious contenders for consideration. I had some vague thought (as usual) that Triumph made many similar-looking bikes for the War Office in WWII and found the pic of the 3TW 350 sv complete with female riders.
Yet there was quite some support for the Beezer M20. Taking the op's original image, there wasn't much that even Photoshop could do with it. However, it would seem that the M20 and 3TW might have had the same basic engine in wartime and shortly thereafter. The alloy covers for the dynamo drive look virtually identical. The tappet adjustment covers are only slightly different. The BSA shows a vertical indentation in the cylinder fins not apparent on the Triumph.
I doubt we'll get nearer to a definitive identification given the poor quality of the original image.
The bike was probably a "bitsa" anyhow.

I have an original copy of Motor Cycling dated July 30th 1942 which has an illustrated article about army maintenance of m/cycles but doesn't contribute to the op's question. However there are within, fascinating bits about the compulsory purchase of m/cycles for military use as well as a form to complete so you could volunteer as a local dispatch rider !

I agree with Duncan, look at these photo's you can see there are two filler caps on the tank and its not unknown for the oil tank to be part of the fuel tank, this clearly has a dynamo & there is also a distributor at the front of the engine indicating a 4-stroke -- same as on the C11, C11G & C12 -- C11 was my first bike. Timing chain/dynamo drive cover is the right shape plus as Duncan rightly says I cannot recall ever seeing a 2 -stroke with a dynamo, they had a magneto & points mainly on the LHS of the engine.

John

don't know about the frame but the engine looks like a Villiers 197 to me.

Worked on one many moons ago. Which coincidentally went into a James trials frame with telescopic forks.

Although having quickly checked some on line images that engine doe's not have an eliptical side case like the OP picture So I am wrong.

Regards Clive

Duncan some pre war two strokes had a magneto in the same position as in the photo. Dave W

I would suggest that the specimen is definitely two stroke with the flat cylinder heads with no valve gear and unlikely to be side valve because although the picture is poor there doesn’t appear to anywhere for side mounted valves. Dave W

In favour of the Triumph, the front fork damper adjustment appears to be in the forwrd position as in the OP whereas the BSA is rearward ?

I would suggest that the specimen is definitely two stroke

I would equally suggest that it isn't - the position of the carb & exhaust outlet are just too far up the barrel to be a two stroke, but just right for a side valve.

Nigel B.

It's a real puzzler this one - I agree with Nigel B that the position of the carb. and the exhaust pipe seem too high for the engine to be a 2-stroke.On the other hand, on the photos of the various makes of SV motorcycles, the tappet chest covers are quite prominent, whereas there doesn't seem to be one on the original photo. Perhaps after all it is a Bitza - a B.S.A. - Bits Stuck Anywhere !

This discussion is reminding me of Antonioni’s Blow Up of 1966

**LINK**

https://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/david-hemmings-in-blow-up3-web.jpg

MichaelG.