Seat Indentification

[ncpierce]

Hi,

Looking to get a replacement seat and would like confirmation of my thinking before I pull the trigger.

I have the seat in the picture below which I think is 42-9072


This is held one with a bracket at the front and then two angle secitons bolted from the seat into the rear mudguard.

What's the difference between 42-9072 and 42-9230?


Do I just replace with the same or should I be getting 42-9230?

Thanks

Nigel

[BSA_54A10]

top seat goes on a twin,
bottom set fits unit single and I rather think that it is a B40 seat

[ncpierce]

Thanks very much - 42-9072 it is then!

[Brian]

Actually the bottom seat is the correct seat for the late A10's. The top one is the earlier, around 58'. I'm not sure of the exact year they changed to the seat in the lower photo, somewhere around 1960.

I am sure someone on the forum will know the exact year.

[beezalex]

'58 parts book lists 42-9272 and the '60 parts book lists 42-9230, so as brian sez, it changed somewhere around '59 or '60.

[trevinoz]

Definitely the lower one for 1960 and later. It is held at rear with two "L" brackets as you have. The other has a bracket which bolts to the top of the mudguard.
Also, with the larger seat, you need two buffer rubbers which sit on bolts screwed into the frame top near the battery. The bolts are adjusted and lock nutted to support the front of the seat.
Part number for buffer - 42-9183.
  Trev.

[ncpierce]

Now I am confused  ???

Do I need the top seat (match my current one?) or the bottom one (the correct model for the year?)????

My current seat (A7SS) has a bracket bolted onto the front which hooks into some lugs on the front of the frame.

Definitely the lower one for 1960 and later. It is held at rear with two "L" brackets as you have. T
Also, with the larger seat, you need two buffer rubbers which sit on bolts screwed into the frame top near the battery. The bolts are adjusted and lock nutted to support the front of the seat.

I don't think that there are any holes for bolts to screw into on the frame near the battery?!?

[trevinoz]

There are threaded holes on top of the frame either side. The battery earth is probably connected to one of them.
The bracket which hooks onto the lug is still used.
The rubber buffers are used in lieu of the rubber blocks which were part of the early seats.
  Trev.

[LJ.]

I don't have a clue as to which is correct etc... but regarding looks, i'd say the top one looks best!

[Brian]

I have to agree with LJ on this one. Although the bottom picture is the correct seat and its what I have on my bike with hindsight I wish I had bought the earlier type. I do think they look better on the bike. So Nigel if your not after total originality then go with the one you think looks best.

[ncpierce]

That's my feeling as well.

I think we will go with the "older" type - just 'cos it looks better 

[tombeau]

I have to agree regarding looks over originality.
I'm also a big fan of the plunger style seats. They fit straight on, look the same except the pillion section is much narrower and doesnt overhang the mudguard as much. They can also be picked up quite cheaply as they were often fitted to such things as plunger Bantams, the owners of which invariably decide to replace them with a sprung saddle .
Cheers,
Iain

[trevinoz]

If you are carrying a pillion passenger, he or she may not agree with the early seat. My wife hates the seat on my '55 Flash but didn't mind the wide one on the RGS when it was on the road.
  Trev.

[Brian]

Good point Trev and one I hadnt considered. The later seat is broader and would be a lot more comfortable for a pillion.

[tombeau]

Whilst late model bikes have broader seats, the same can often be said of earlier model ladies.

My wife hates the seat on my bike, I always argued that there was nothing wrong with it, but a mate once took me for a simply terrifying spin on the back of my bike. didnt feel comfortable, didnt feel safe.