Hi All, playing with bits of my A10 (1961 SR), I have been doing a dry run assembly prior to paint to show up any snags/damage etc .
On offering up the "ski slope" gearbox cover to the rear engine/gearbox mounts, I find that its way too tall for the hook at the top edge to engage with the battery tray slot(assuming that it is meant to?). In its lowest position, the hook is about 1/4-3/8" too high and the shoulders on the sides of the ski slope will not go under the front edge of the battery tray to allow the hook anywhere near the slot in the tray.If I undo the battery tray bolts, and tilt the battery tray up at the front at a silly angle, it just about engages, but no use like that.
I have read about battery tray brackets being higher on "true" RGS frames, and this puzzles me- why would battery brackets placed higher (which would alleviate my ski slope fit problem) be necessary for a RGS?
Looking at the parts lists, all models have the same ski slope as far as I can tell (42-4272) I know that the battery changed from PU7E (6&3/8" tall) to ML9ZE (5&1/4" tall) in about 1960-61? So possibly BSA wanted to lift the new smaller battery up by moving the battery tray brackets up a little??, but this would have applied to all late models, not just the RGS- perhaps if this is the case its just one way of identifying an RGS frame as , by definition they were all late frames thus an "RGS" with the lower brackets "must" be a fake.... My `61 frame has the lower brackets close (1/4-5/16") to the cross tube of the frame, but has the smaller battery...... Was it the cross tube that was lowered?, and not the battery brackets lifted on the frames with a bigger gap?
Anyone any ideas? Why does my ski slope not fit??
Thinking about all this, having the battery tray brackets higher, will lift the front oil tank mount also...... but i cannot find anything to suggest that the small oil tank bracket (42-8351) was ever changed , or the oil tank.....
Any ideas........ Cheers, Bob C.
