Triumph Rat Motorcycle Forums banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Not sure if it's any sort of record but this a project that I've had for >40 years. Yes, shame on me.
Bought with a mate as a butchered attempt at a cafe racer, it came apart quickly enough but has taken considerably longer to go back together. It has progressed in fits and starts, normally a splurge of cash, when I had some, followed by inactivity because college, marriage, family, work (which as a contractor meant all over UK and northern Europe) got in the way. I fitted new head bearings recently but had a disagreement with the fork oil seals so await new ones before I can continue. The engine has been together for a while and today I did a trial fit in the frame, so thought you might like a couple of photos. You'll note the absence of front engine plates; they've been repainted but I cannot get out to collect them due to the Covid 19 restrictions.

721508


Apologies for the flash reflection - but at least it makes the engine seem cleaner than it is.
721513


721514


Funny how you don't notice all the clutter in the background until you post the pic.
Crankcases were blasted but have become a bit grubby. Outer casings will be polished, honest.
I shall try to remember to post more photos as this project moves at its glacial pace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Hi Sussaxon. I have a '62 3ta bathtub that uses the same frame as yours. Can you photograph and post a down view of the sub frame battery area as mine has been modified a bit. I want it original. Thanks 57T'bird.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Happy to, although I'm unsure how much help I can be. I have no battery holder so all I can show are some close-ups of the sub-frame, which I believe did not have full-width welded cross-pieces on some later models but rather bolt-in pieces. I have to also believe that the multiple drillings in those cross pieces are not original. (I said it had been butchered by a PO.)
722595

722596
722597

I think the small tab on the LHS, near the hinge pins, is for mounting the rectifier - but I stand to be corrected. You'll also notice that the paint is damaged in a couple of places, because the seat I was sold was not in fact correct for the model, despite the assurances of the salesman. When I can leave the house, this will be resprayed.

Perhaps of more use is a .pdf I have attached (hopefully) of photos I have saved for my own reference from various sites/forums. The first is entirely gratuitous; Susan Hampshire in a cat suit and thigh boots, and on a BMW R90S. You can tell what kind of youth I was. Pity it was the Daytona Orange paint job and not the Smoked Silver.
The next three are afaict original layouts. The last shows a 650/750 but illustrates the bolt-in cross members for the battery carrier (and some useful tips on wiring).
If the .pdf has not attached, send me your email address and I shall be happy to forward the file.
I trust this is of some assistance in your project.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Addendum; Thanks, GrandPaulZ and you're quite right, of course. It is to my shame, however, that I left it for so long that it has become grubby and damaged, just sitting in the garage for years. My old and simple camera makes it look better than it is.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
7,039 Posts
Hi Andrew,

sub-frame, which I believe did not have full-width welded cross-pieces on some later models but rather bolt-in pieces.
The cross-pieces are correct for your bike - image from a '61 TR5AC:-



... all the pre-'66 parts books' illustrations show them, both Triumph Tiger 100 And Daytona and The Triumph Trophy Bible don't mention any change 'til their '66 entries.

The bolt-in cross-pieces you see on a 650 were only used on '63-'65 650's afaik and were Triumph's first attempt to isolate battery and oil tank from damaging engine vibration. In '66, both C-range (500 and 350) and 650 got the same new battery and oil tank rubber-mounting parts, none of which are interchangeable with either pre-'66 C-range or pre-'66 650 parts.

believe that the multiple drillings in those cross pieces are not original.
:( 'Fraid you're correct. Your bike's oil tank bolted to the hole in each cross-piece closest to the timing-side frame tube (although neither hole was originally oval ... :rolleyes:). The only other one likely to be original/correct is the 1/4" one about central in the rear cross-piece, to secure the battery carrier.

Btw, be aware you might run into problems matching battery carrier to those cross-pieces. Another '66 change was 12V electrics and, while a corresponding battery carrier will hook over your T100A's frame cross-pieces, it'll only have a slot, that hooked over a stud on each '66-on cross-piece. I'll speculate the change from bolt to stud was to obviate any chance of the battery vibrating against a bolt head, and to prevent the paddlers from the shallow end of the gene pool fitting a bolt the wrong way 'round so the battery could vibrate against the protruding end of the thread ... :rolleyes:

small tab on the LHS, near the hinge pins, is for mounting the rectifier
(y)

paint is damaged
this will be resprayed
... after the unnecessary holes in the cross-pieces have been welded and ground?

If you'd like to see more images of that '61 TR5AC - 1961 Triumph TR5AC - pre and postrestoration.

Hth.

Regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Thanks for the pictures. They will help heaps. I may have a bit of a crossbreed between frame, sub frame, oil tank and bath tubs. I'm just piecing parts together now to check all the fits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
StuartMac; I had no luck looking at web sites for the correct battery carrier (F4219) but as I intend now to convert to 12v, it would not be the right size anyway. I anticipated I should have to make one myself and fortunately the 12v battery (PUZ5A) is a bit slimmer. From Parts Catalogue No4, it looks like quite a nice, simple idea; carrier hooking over the cross-members and then a single bar passing through holes in both, to secure the carrier and hold down the battery. Ironically, I have found the associated clamp rod (F4485) available on line.
Very nice TR5AC and I'm particularly keen on the very neat tacho drive. No doubt this timing cover is near unobtainable.
57t'bird; glad the photos helped. Nice to be able to give a bit back, as this forum has been invaluable for me, particularly Stuart, above. You'll have noticed, but I should have said, that although the layout of coil, rectifier, etc., may be original some components themselves are considerably more modern. I'll be doing the same thing (but keeping them hidden, as much as possible).
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
7,039 Posts
Hi Andrew,

battery carrier
12v battery (PUZ5A) is a bit slimmer. From Parts Catalogue No4,
Uh-uh, you're confused ... :)

C-range Parts Catalogue No4 is '62 '61, so the electrics are still 6V (apart from the Thunderbird, Triumph didn't go 12V 'til '66).

While I'm curious about this "single bar passing through holes in both, to secure the carrier and hold down the battery", Lucas supplied different-sized batteries under the "PUZ5A" designation ... and later ones were secured with a rubber strap, one end threaded through slots in the carrier, the other end through a buckle that hooked over a specially-shaped nut (82-8034), that screwed on to the studs on the '66-on battery-carrier "cross pieces" to secure the battery carrier in position.

Modern physical-size equivalent of the later "PUZ5A" would be the Motobatt MB9U or similar-size Yuasa; you won't be able to use any "bar passing through holes in both [carrier and cross-pieces]".

While the MB9U is a popular choice amongst twin-owning Forum contributors, bear in mind it's powerful enough to electric-start a T160 reliably several times in a short period of time. If I only had a non-electric-start Triumph, I'd be inclined to go for a physically-smaller (and cheaper :cool:) battery with an Amp-hour rating closer to the original PUZ5A - say MB5U or MB5.5U (both 7 Ah)?

TR5AC and I'm particularly keen on the very neat tacho drive. No doubt this timing cover is near unobtainable.
I knew the whereabouts of a cover some time ago, but it lacked the tacho. drive internals, and the Chronometric tacho. is rocking-horse poo too ...

Hth.

Regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Dear Stuart, You're right again; confused in my writing (though not in my head). I used to be better than this - and I tell my wife that communication is about making it clear to the other party!
Catalogue is indeed published Dec 1961 and the correct battery for my bike is listed as PUZ7E-11, which I found is 6v 12Ah, 4.13/16" x 3.9/16" x 6.3/8"h (120 x 90 x 160h). I then looked at the catalogue for a late Daytona, compared size of the battery (PUZ5A, 12v 9Ah) and found it's basically smaller.
Carrier F4219 is too deep and too wide (F-R) but not long enough (L-R) for the 12v battery but there is plenty of space in the sub-frame for either battery.
I then jumped to describing design of the 6v carrier but it reads as though it's the 12v item; sorry.
I attach the relevant page of the catalogue and my reading of it is that clamp rod, 25 (F4485), threads through the holes in carrier, 24 (F4219), and the sub-frame and is secured by a nut, 26 (F879). My interpretation could be wrong and I confess I have not seen such an installation but Tricor Andy has item 25 on his site .



BATTERY BOX TIE ROD
Part No: 82-4485

The advantage, apart from one rod secring both the carrier and the battery, is that it avoids any unpleasantness with nuts or bolt heads fretting against the battery case, as you described.

My Lucas manual, from May 1966, does say that the minimum for 12v operation is, " ... 6 or 7 ampere- hours ...", hardly surprising as that gives the same wattage as the 6v 12Ah original. With modern components and LEDs I could probably get away with less but then again, I am intending a 60/55W H4. The MB9U would give a bit in hand but I shall have a more detailed look at the optimum battery size in due course.
 

Attachments

·
Moderator
Joined
·
7,039 Posts
Hi Andrew,

confused in my writing
:) No worries, my last post wasn't a model of clarity either ... :whistle:

Catalogue No.3 is for the '60 C-range.

Although Catalogue No.4 shows "Published December 1961", that seemed odd to me when the same page also says, "from Engine No. H 18612" and "September 1960" ... o_O Then I spotted the battery carrier I mentioned in my previous post (F5147) secured just with a bolt and nut is listed just for the T100SS ... Battery carrier F4219 and Clamp rod F4485 are on the following pages for the T100A (and 5TA/3TA) ... :oops:

I knew the T100SS was a '62-'66 model; I checked with https://www.triumph-tiger-90.com/index.shtml, it confirms the T100A was produced in '61 and the T100SS (and six T100A's ...) in '62.

So I'll speculate the Catalogue No.4's "Published December 1961" are second editions, including pages/parts for the '62 T100SS that weren't in first editions published towards the beginning of the '61 model year in late 1960. I don't know if your Catalogue No.4 has it but there's a "Published December 1961" copy on the Kim The CD Man Triumph CD with a Supplement for '63 changes ...

... then Catalogue No.5 is for the '64 C-range. (y)

However, getting back to Battery carrier F4219 and Clamp rod F4485, Nut F879 is 1/4" Cycle so Clamp rod F4485 must also be 1/4" OD but, in your post #4 pictures, I don't see two parallel 1/4" ID holes - for the Clamp rod - in both cross-pieces? Just as a matter of interest, where's your bike in the '61 H18612-H25251 engine/frame number range (early, middle, late)?

battery for my bike is listed as PUZ7E-11,
6v 12Ah, 4.13/16" x 3.9/16" x 6.3/8"h (120 x 90 x 160h).
late Daytona,
(PUZ5A, 12v 9Ah) and found it's basically smaller.
The PUZ5A was the standard 12V battery on every non-electric-start Britbike '66-'83, certainly Triumph and BSA, afaik Norton and Royal Enfield. I had hoped to be able to quote exact dimensions of a late one - Rabers in SF offered one on eBay a little over a year ago, I messaged Mike and he supplied its dimensions. Unfortunately the tossers at eBay have deleted his message ... ?

However, as in my earlier post, the PUZ5A's dimensions are within 1 or 2 mm. of the Motobatt MB9U's 136x76x133 (mm. LxWxH), Yuasa also do several similar physical-size YuMicrons, although their Ah are lower.

Carrier F4219 is too deep and too wide (F-R) but not long enough (L-R) for the 12v battery
Uh-uh. :) You've quoted 120x90x160 for your bike's original PUZ7E-11, the MB5U I linked in my previous post is 120x60x130. No worries about the carrier's extra width, T160's have a huge battery carrier for the original Lucas battery, those owners not daft enough to fill it with a modern battery for electric-starting some humungous V-twin haven't had any problems in the last thirty-plus years packing around smaller batteries with pieces of a particular type of foam. :whistle:

plenty of space in the sub-frame for either battery.
Uh-uh again. As I say, the PUZ5A was fitted to all non-electric-start models. Several OIF owners have posted in the past they've resorted to additional insulation over either battery terminals or all the underseat electrics to obviate the chance of the seat pan causing a short-circuit. (n) When I first put my T100 on the road, I had believed pre-'71 and -indicators had a lower (physically and Ah) battery (I later discovered that was just an earlier version of the PUZ5A :rolleyes:). I fitted a 7 Ah battery that was a few mm. shorter than the PUZ5A equivalents and glad I did but, because its terminals are still quite close to the seat pan, I've always had a second rubber battery mat strapped over the top of the battery. :( As a result of your posts, I hope you do pick a '6V' carrier and small Motobatt battery ... 'cos, if it works, I'm going to see if I can copy you on my T100. :D

minimum for 12v operation is, " ... 6 or 7 ampere- hours ...",
intending a 60/55W H4. The MB9U would give a bit in hand
Ime, with the high-output 3-phase alternator, a battery that big is a waste of money ... well, unless you have some really :alien: riding habits ...

Along with the 5,000 rpm Amps, Lucas also advertised 85% of rated @ 2,400 rpm from 3-phase - i.e. the 14.5A @ 5,000 rpm high-output 3-phase is still putting out over 12A at less than half those rpm.

Then I never use the q-h headlamp under streetlamps, where most low-rpm riding is. Reason is, from being a car driver, the standard motorcycle headlamp is ideally placed to shine directly into rear-view mirrors on dip; not only does this piss-off dazzled car/van drivers, dazzled they can't actually make any informed decision about how far or near a motorcycle is to them, but they do crazy things anyway ...? First mod. I made to the bike I used for dispatch-riding in London was fit a q-h pilot bulb, I only used it at night and in poor daytime visibility, never regretted it, modern equivalent's a bright LED. (y)

But, even if you decide you will ride with dipped q-h headlamp at low engine rpm, it's drawing ~4.5A, ignition's drawing no more than 4A, so you have to either fit a lot of fairy lights or ride at tickover for very long periods to be needing a high Ah battery? :)

Hth.

Regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Dear Stuart, I had a look at the Motobatt site after your last post, criteria being min 7Ah and physical dimensions. MB9U is closest in size to the PZU5A, so a slot-in, if I bought the later battery carrier from a Daytona, etc. I was hoping to avoid lots of packing, so it didn't resemble a mistake or a bitsa - although that would all be hidden under the seat so perhaps more that I didn't feel like I'd made a bitsa.
I cannot see the advantage of the MB5.5U over the MB5U; same Ah, same CCA but a bit heavier and 5/8" longer across the sub-frame than the original PUZ7E-11 and its F4219 carrier. Can you advise?
There's also the MBTX7U, which is 8Ah, 115CCA , more compact but heavier. Not sure what all the extra letters mean.
I have been guilty before of fitting a larger-than-standard battery (I think 32Ah instead of 28Ah on my BMW) and it didn't last, apparently plates too close together => can touch. But, as I've said before, I wanted to size things generously on this project (for safety and reliability) and not (as per BSA/Triumph) pared down to the minimum. And we all do like powerful, don't we? In this case, however , I agree the MB9U is unnecessary.
Thanks for the tip about a second rubber pad on top; will do.
" ... particular type of foam ..." ? Hazardous flammable type?

Re, sub-frame holes; 4 on the front cross-member and 6 on the rear but I've no detailed pictures of what goes in which - and it's been decades since I took apart the wreck I bought. Afaict, oil tank takes the 2 on RHS, as you said (and should not be oval). The central 2 on the front rail seem to line-up with the outer 2 of the central group of 4 on the rear rail and are about 5/16". I would guess one of these is for the battery carrier rod. The middle pair in the rear rail seem reasonably centred on the bike's axis, 1/4" and well executed but no idea for what. The 2 on LHS appear to be for the side panel. I didn't see a side panel in the parts book and don't know why you'd want one with a bathtub, yet the bike I bought came with the former and not the latter. This mod may also explain the less-than-professional drilling of the mounting hole. Having planned to get it running without the bathtub initially, I may have to leave those holes.

I have also found triumph-tiger-90 very useful - although, as I said to Mr Harvey-Jones, I have as yet only really read the bit about my own bike.
Mine is engine / frame number H24061, fairly late in '61.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
7,039 Posts
Hi Andrew,

Apologies for the delay replying.

criteria being min 7Ah and physical dimensions. MB9U is closest in size to the PZU5A, so a slot-in, if I bought the later battery carrier from a Daytona, etc.
Agree; it's essentially what I have on my T100. My only concern is ime the battery terminals end up very close to the seat pan, which is why I fit another 82-8091 rubber battery mat over the top of the terminals, using the later standard strap to secure both battery and extra mat.

However, bear in mind I faff about with this because I can have one battery for all my Triumphs, the MB9U having enough ccA to electric-start a T160. Otoh, I've assumed so far your T100A will have a battery that doesn't have to fit in anything else ...?

was hoping to avoid lots of packing, so it didn't resemble a mistake or a bitsa
Also agree; it was just some information you posted earlier that lit the Idea light-bulb in my head:-

PUZ7E-11, which I found is
120 x 90 x 160h
Carrier F4219 is too deep and too wide (F-R) but not long enough (L-R) for the 12v battery
... agree F4219 won't take the MB9U (PUZ5A equivalent) 12V ...

... otoh, F4219 will take the 12V MB5U, which is 120 x 60 x 130 ... so same length as the PUZ7E, the width would need to be packed in the carrier (~15 mm. thickness on each side?); however, imho most significantly, even if F4219 originally placed the terminals of the 160 mm.-high PUZ7E close to the seat pan, the MB5U is 30 mm. shorter so the terminals wouldn't be anywhere near the seat pan. (y) And the MB5U meets your "min 7Ah" criterion. (y)

" ... particular type of foam ..." ? Hazardous flammable type?
Uh-uh.

Background - many years ago, when I bought my first non-Lucas battery for my T160's, it was from the eponymous Les of L.P. Williams, he'd sourced a Varta that'd electric-start his T160-based "Legend" reliably, the Varta was a very similar physical size to the MB9U, so considerably smaller that the carrier space in a T160 for its original Lucas battery, Les supplied some pieces of a particular type of foam to pack around the Varta, which I still have and use.

If you decided to use a F4219 carrier for a Motobatt MB5U, I was intending to find out for you if this type of packing/foam was still available, as it's worked so well for me.

sub-frame holes;
Any reason to think the parts book frame drawing isn't accurate? That shows only two holes in each rail?

oil tank takes the 2 on RHS,
Agree, shown on the parts book frame drawing.

2 on LHS appear to be for the side panel.
:confused: Your pictures only show one on the LHS, in the rear rail?

At present, I'm relatively certain this is a PO addition, not original - I found a photo. in Triumph Tiger 100 And Daytona - actually showing the '62 T100SS sidecar mounting parts - that also happens to show no holes anywhere near the LHS of the rear rail.

Plus, when fitted later, all sidepanels had two upper brackets, one that might've matched up with the hole in your bike's rear rail, but the other matched up with a hole in the front rail on the LHS.

middle pair in the rear rail seem reasonably centred on the bike's axis, 1/4" and well executed but no idea for what.
Parts book frame drawing shows only one hole in about the centre of each rail. Battery/carrier F4485 "Clamp rod" is 1/4" OD, so I'd have guessed if one rear 1/4" hole lines up with a front one, they were originally for the Clamp Rod.

Or, if both rear 1/4" holes line up with holes in the front rail, take your pick; extrapolating to '66 and later rails, the studs for securing the battery carrier are in about the centre of each rail.

If one or both rear 1/4" holes line up with bigger holes in the front rail, ime the enlargement is likely to have been done by a PO - if something like the Clamp Rod is 1/4" OD, while any hole for it will be slightly bigger, it'll only have been "clearance" bigger, which wouldn't originally have been as big as 5/16" OD.

The TT100AD photo. also shows one hole towards the centre of the rear rail ... but the air filter is fitted and, due to the camera's angle to the frame, the air filter obscures the remainder of the rear rail. :(

Finally, I appreciate your restoration is still some way from being concerned about such details but remembering:-

indicators
bar-ends are so vulnerable. Plus I have to put a mirror somewhere.
... when I originally suggested bar-end indicators, I was thinking of the pattern Hella ones that Goffy (amongst others) sells, and possibly you were too? However, I spotted these when looking for something else ... at that price, wouldn't matter if one got scraped or broken? Plus one image in the listing shows them mounted with a bar-end mirror too?

As I say, just a thought ...

Hth.

Regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Dear Stuart, no apologies necessary. I am, as you say, quite a way from some of these details - and anyway, look who's tardy now. My wife still finds things to take me away from bike activities.

Battery carrier F4219 is proving hard to find. Almost all I've seen on line are for later models and quite a bit shallower top-bottom, so I understand the potential problem with seat pans.
'Feked off' offer one (brkt 011) that they say is equivalent to 82-8024 and 82-4219 but those are not, I think, interchangeable. The photo shows no through holes for the clamp rod but slots for the later studs and provision for a strap. The same thing on Classic Bike Shop states it is for '68-'70 and only 120mm high: not much good for a PUZ7E-11 battery that is 160mm high.
British Bike Bits has one, 82-5333, that's for '63-'65 and looks more like it, w.r.t. fixing points and original height but its width is reduced to take a 6N11A-1B battery (ie by about 30mm). That would limit my MotoBatt choice to the MB5U (not even the MB5.5U or MBTX7U). And at £45, it is 4x the price of the one from 'Feked-off' !

Happily, the MB5U is the same size (+/-) as the MLZ9E originally fitted to my little RE 250 GT and, like you, I too faff about swapping the same battery between bikes. In my case it's been BMWs (and a bit of a pig!) but why, indeed, would one want multiple batteries, most of the time unused and each requiring maintenance? Swapping the MB5U between T100A and RE250GT will be a doddle in comparison.
Upshot is that I shall probably use the MB5U and may buy a carrier from 'Feked-off' just to play around with. With a 30mm shorter MB5U, that neat idea with the clamp rod F4485 isn't going to work well - unless I make a bespoke carrier.

I shall also find out what all the frame holes are for.
My LHS side panel has 2 vertical brackets at the top and a horizontal bracket at the bottom, which I think attaches to a lug on the rear down tube (originally for the air filter box?). They all line-up. More-or-less. With some rubber packing washers.

Re, indicators; I saw some like this on various customs, incl a BMW K100 cafe racer at Bournemouth M/c but those were German-made (not Moto-Gadget) and £100's, lovingly hewn from a solid lump of ally, etc. These are more to my liking, precisely as you say. Hope they can fit 1" bars.

Having a bit of fun at the mo with bits not fitting. I bought new fork bushes but they are really too loose on the new stanchions. The 'U' bolts for 1" bars do not fit the spacing of the holes on the top yoke, by about 1/16" . I naively thought that these days we'd got the hang of tolerances.
(Bit ticked-off, as you can tell :mad:).
There's only so many times I can tell myself, "What's life without a challenge?" :cry:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Erratum: possibly.
Having had a longer look at the battery carrier 82-5333 and compared it with the Parts Catalogue No5, it may after all be the one for the job. The battery changed in '63 from PUZ7E-11 to a MLZ9E and the carrier from F4219 to F5333. As discussed, MLZ9E is dimensionally the same as the 6N11A-1B and MB5U. Furthermore, carrier F/82-5333 appears to secure the battery some distance below the level of the sub-frame cross rails, so the seat pan, bolt heads, etc., ought not to be a problem. This is not obvious from the drawing in Parts Catalogue No5, so I've asked British Bike Bits for confirmation.
If I'm right, there would also be a bit of extra space on top of and behind the battery, possibly even enough to mount the A Reg 1 unit, as long as cooling would be sufficient.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
7,039 Posts
Hi Andrew,

Battery carrier F4219 is proving hard to find. Almost all I've seen on line are for later models and quite a bit shallower top-bottom, so I understand the potential problem with seat pans.
'Feked off' offer one (brkt 011) that they say is equivalent to 82-8024 and 82-4219 but those are not, I think, interchangeable.
This is Feked talking through the proverbial orifice, something he does/they do about numerous parts he/they sell; one of the modern 'dealers' to whom Baffling with Bullsh1t seems perfectly acceptable when they can't Dazzle With Brilliance ... as you probably understand, I don't deal with such people on principle.

82-8024 is what my T100 has as standard. What Triumph called "Front strap" and "Rear strap" - between drive-side frame tube and oil tank, that the carrier hangs from - are generously far apart that a PUZ5A or modern equivalent can be well-padded front and back. (y) 82-8094's (n) is its (lack of) depth puts the battery terminals close to the seat pan, Classic Bike Shop's 120 mm. is the depth of the carrier itself. Crucially here, the MB5U is only 3 mm. shorter than the MB9U so 82-8024 won't solve the terminal-seat proximity problem. And, as you've noticed, from the pov of an owner who wanted a battery with a similar 160 mm.-ish height to the original PUZ7E, Feked's claim is simply nonsense. :(

may buy a carrier from 'Feked-off' just to play around with.
unless I make a bespoke carrier.
Thought ... as you've also noticed there's sufficient room for the obviously-greater depth of carriers for PUZ7E and MLZ9E, is bespoke so daft? 82-8024 is a simple shape and my T100's about 1/16" thick, subtract the likely powder-coating thickness suggests 18SWG steel, or about 1.25 mm. I'll consult on detail but I believe that'd be easy to cut with decent tin-snips, even easier if it's ally sheet, easy to bend most of the shape, even steel if heat can be applied. I suspect the hardest bends are likely to be the tight ones that fit over the Triumph "straps", but maybe those bends could be made by a local sheet-metal pro.?

The advantage of such a carrier would be that length and width could be sized for, say, either MB5U or MB9U plus surrounding padding, but the depth could be similar to a F4219 or F5333, the battery terminals would then be an inch or so away from the seat pan? Bespoke could still be drilled for and secured with a standard F4485 Clamp Rod?

Having a bit of fun at the mo with bits not fitting.
:mad:
I feel for you. Once I moved out of London, I bought increased numbers of bits by post. However, I quickly stopped buying from just anywhere, precisely because of the "bits not fitting" problem even then (twenty years ago now); I rapidly went back to using the same sources I used when I lived in London ... Sadly, several have since closed (e.g. Roebuck, Harwoods, Reg Allen) but I continue to trust L.P. Williams and Hawkshaw and I also now use TMS and Grin.

I naively thought that these days we'd got the hang of tolerances.
Tolerances we've got the hang of, what we haven't is checking internet forums for dealers and wholesalers that repeatedly give poor service. Feked is one such dealer but people still buy from him/them; there are literally hundreds of my posts about Wassell and "Genuine Lucas" on every Britbike forum and going back years ... but people still buy their stuff ... ?

Hth.

Regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Dear Stuart,
I'm still thinking about a custom carrier but I estimate the F5333 will leave the battery about 30mm below the seat pan, so not much difference. The item from British Bike Bits also looks sturdily built, from the photo (whereas the Feked one looked thin). One thing I note is that the factory carriers seem to be sized for a snug fit on the front and back of the battery - presumably without any packing originally, if they're held tightly enough to prevent any relative movement due to vibration. Am I right?
I have pretty much settled on the MB5U, not the bigger MB9U. My ethos in the electrics has been to go bigger than strictly necessary, to have a margin (eg cable cores) but you are right that the MB9U is much more than I should need and the MB5U can be also used on my RE. Also, I had to move my new, still dry and uncharged, BMW battery (Yuasa 12v 30Ah) and was reminded just how much these things can weigh!
Re, dependable suppliers; I am a novice in this, so I look at all the sites, although some cause me to think twice (eg the carrier from Feked was so cheap, but may have been ok to cut about as a trial, etc). I read on this forum or Britbike (or maybe VMCC) that Ace Classics was another good one but, disappointingly, the new items I mentioned all came from them. The other thing is that they specialise in pre-unit machines (about which they are completely open) so do not do everything I want. Similarly Les Williams is mainly much more recent stuff, particularly triples, obvs. The early 'C' range seem less well catered-for.
I hadn't heard of Hackshaw but their website seems a bit of a challenge. Allen's, Hamrax and Hughie Hancock were the first names I had in my list, from OBM, etc., but all now gone. Martin at TMS seems a straightforward chap if a bit snowed-under at present, I think. I'm sending him a list. I'd prefer not to have to go to too many different suppliers.
Others I peruse are Draganfly, Tri-Supply and Tricor Andy. Prices vary considerably but if they all buy from the same wholesaler or manufacturer (and I don't know) that's no guide to quality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
Others I peruse are Draganfly, Tri-Supply and Tricor Andy. Prices vary considerably but if they all buy from the same wholesaler or manufacturer (and I don't know) that's no guide to quality.
It is a minefield isn’t it. In my recent air filter thread I went to the trouble of contacting the UK manufacturer who kindly put me in touch with a wholesaler who then even more kindly agreed to sell the items to me. When they arrived I found they looked identical to the Feked items which had failed after 7 months. Conversely I bought a UK made battery carrier from TMS and paid a premium over the non UK made item, when that arrived it was far better than the item fitted to my bike.

It can be a lottery until you know which retailers sell the better parts and you’ll end up favouring different retailers depending on what you need. The only rule I have at the moment is that if TMS offer a UK made option the part should be ok.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
7,039 Posts
Hi Andrew,

pretty much settled on the MB5U,
can be also used on my RE.
(y)

the factory carriers seem to be sized for a snug fit on the front and back of the battery - presumably without any packing originally, if they're held tightly enough to prevent any relative movement due to vibration.
Can't speak for the carriers intended for the 6V batteries but 82-8024 on my T100 is 4-1/8" front-to-back (the "straps" the carrier hangs between are 4-1/4" apart then the carrier material itself plus the powder-coating is ~1/16" thick each side). So this is considerably more than the 3" width of the MB9U (and PUZ5A?). The rubber "Battery retaining strap" being threaded through the slots in the rear of the carrier, when it's pulled to secure the "Battery strap anchorage" (82-8032) on its end over the "Spigot nut" (82-8034) on the stud on the "Front strap", the front of the battery leans against the top of the battery carrier where it's hooked over the "Front strap", Meriden stuck a strip of foam (82-8031) to the top of the front of the battery carrier. However, the T160 has a larger foam pad (83-5014) that also happens to cover pretty-much all of the front of the 82-8024 so I used one of those. Notwithstanding my T100's "straps" and oil tank are rubber-mounted, I wouldn't want any direct metal-to-battery contact, especially on a 360-degree twin.

The early 'C' range seem less well catered-for.
Ime, C-range generally, except where bigger-Triumph bits fit; :( in the 1980's and early 1990's when I was also looking after the-then girlfiend's C-range bitsa, I recall some of its '60 cycle parts were difficult even then (although it had a 82-8024 battery carrier ;)), and we knew a guy with a humungous parts stash, contacts throughout a much-bigger British retailer network and detailed knowledge that enabled him to 'do' autojumbles without wasting much time.

Hackshaw but their website seems a bit of a challenge.
:) Ime, you get used to it fairly quickly. Also, that could be said of TMS's website too? Perhaps the rule-of-thumb is if the website isn't slick and full of Wassell images, the dealer's better at actual parts?

Others I peruse are Draganfly, Tri-Supply and Tricor Andy.
Haven't used Tri-Supply myself but he's not far from @rambo who's praised him in the past iirc.

Another I've not used but heard good things about is Chris Knight, although it's actually run by his wife since Chris himself passed a few years ago.

Ime, Draganfly's disappointing. :( Aiui, they acquired an-allegedly large Triumph parts stash last year(?), one of the IKBA contributors is employed part-time cataloguing it. However, while Google part number searches frequently return Draganfly as one of the links, when I've followed them, there wasn't any actual stock ... :( Given up on them because their website's wasting my time.

if they all buy from the same wholesaler or manufacturer (and I don't know)
My understanding at one time was each of the 'big three' British wholesalers commissioned different parts. Now I'm not so sure - e.g. the recent news of the Harris oil pressure switches, hopefully because of the long-time and widespread dissatisfaction with the usual shonky nonsense?

prefer not to have to go to too many different suppliers.
Understandable if only because all(?) have a minimum order cost. :(

Hth.

Regards,
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top