classic motorcycle forum

Looks like the sliding tap is correct.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/9383961@N05/2829534285/in/album-72157607123448789/

Leon

Hi Mike,

A quick google shows most restored Cov Eagles of this type use a sliding push-pull (hexag-on) type tap, with a flat slide and cork seals in the body.

However I think I spy in some period photos and adverts an Ewarts-type push-pull tap - the one with the single-ended cylindrical slider with the cork seal attached.

If you want the bike to be very correct, perhaps contact the Cov Eagle marque specialist at the VMCC, or try John Hodson via https://www.coventryeaglemotorcycle.org.uk/index.html to get the real story.

In either case, instead of the tap screwing into the fitting, there is obviously a couple of brass pieces required to complement the tap: a top bit with a thread, and a bottom bit, to secure the tap in position.

Interesting detail - let us know if you come up with an illustration of the original.

Cheers

Leon

The rule of thumb is that the number of crosses should be less than the number of spokes divided by 9. Thus 4-cross is ok for 40-spoke wheels, possible for 36, but unstable for 32 or anything less.

If the wheel is asymmetric - different flange sizes or different offsets - the lacing pattern is sometimes different on each side.

If you follow the link in the post above to my spoke length calculator, you'll find suggestions there for how to deal with asymmetric wheels. Make the appropriate measurements, plug the numbers into the calculator, and it will tell you the spoke lengths required.

Have fun.

Leon

Ain't it all fun.

Yes, it is!

For the record, the last time I saw a Utility was in the early 1980s, in the hands of a chap called Fred Delfine (?), but that was a Utility-JAP. He lived up in the Dandenongs somewhere, and was burnt out in the bushfires. I don't know if that Utility survived, but I'm sure they're around, possibly not identified.

But back to Alex's dad's Villiers. Of course we're not guaranteed that it's in original condition in the photos, but some of the identifying points would be:

1. The heavily valanced front guard, and the heavily valanced front half of the rear guard

2. No rear axle stand visible, so it probably had a centre stand

3. The headlamp with ammeter and switch

4. The gear change gate up high on the tank, with a lever that looks straight-ish beyond the pivot

5. One-piece pressed steel tail-light and number-plate mount

6. Squarish-looking stuff under the saddle (battery/toolbox) where the round autolube tank goes on the vintage models

Anyway, I reckon most of this stuff adds up to late 1930s James, but I'm way short of an expert on such things. That tank has me a bit mystified - maybe they had some old ones to get rid of on the "colonial model"? I don't suppose Waratah bought a batch of bikes from James?

Cheers

Leon

OK - I don't get it. In the photo of the bike (and the photos of the internals of the cylinder, piston and motor) it looks like the transfer port is at the back and in the inlet port (the lowest port, that is uncovered and joins the carb to the crank case at the top of the stroke) is on the left (near) side of the bike. Viewed from this side, the steep part of the piston crown is to the rear, so the piston ring gap was always in line with the inlet port? Or is it an optical illusion? Or maybe the rings stay above the inlet port, in which case which port does the ring join line up with?

Maybe the piston in the bike when you got it was incorrect. When you peg the rings so the joins don't align with a port, make sure you fill the original peg holes. Or just use the dremel to remove the half of the original peg projecting into the ring groove.

[Edit: I just can't imagine you'd have to slide the ring gap across a port to assemble the motor!]

Cheers

Leon

Mmm... not often I doubt a 33d6 identification of a two stroke, but in this case the bike doesn't look quite "Jamesey" enough to convince me immediately. Yet it does some have some Baker-ish features, so maybe James but later than 1930?

I wonder if, given the Sydney location, we should be thinking another Australian brand: Waratah. In the early 1930s I'd expect a Waratah to be Sun based (either built from Sun bits, or supplied complete by Sun). I think later Williams may have sourced their bikes from elsewhere - Norman is often mentioned as a source of lightweights for rebadging. Or maybe Excelsior? The angular tank, with gear-change gate up on the side, should help with the identification.

Cheers

Leon

Often there's a recommended clearance from the piston manufacturer. If not, Villiers clearance would be a guide. If someone tells you less than 2.5 thou, or more than 4, I'd double check.

Leon

Hi Graham,

Terrot built tens of thousands of bikes, so let's assume the little bike worked fine when it was new, and worked OK until it stopped working. Most likely it wore out. Probably at the end the owner got sick of it not starting on the kick-starter and having to push it down the hill and jump on when it fired.

The idea of restoration is to measure and check everything, replace what needs replacing and fix what needs fixing, then enjoy the bike as it was when it was new. If you want the bike to run, you'll have to do these things - sadly no amount of forum chat will make it run if the thing is worn out. If the man at the engine shop tells you the bore is worn out, it's probably worn out. New rings won't help, because they are round, and the wear in two-stroke bore is not. How's the big end? The little end? Does it have any compression? If the engine is worn out, it will be very hard to start.

I'd be more than happy to have a look at it for you, but I suspect I'm on the other side of the planet. Perhaps you can hook up with someone experienced who lives locally? In the meantime, if you want it to run take the advice above and spin it over with a drill (or whatever), or just push it down a big hill. It will run, with the rattle and clank of a worn-out two stroke.

Cheers

Leon