Newby with G5 1960

cbranni · Post by **cbranni** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:15 pm

I have a 250 and a 350 lightweight, I have a soft spot for them, maybe because my dad bought me one in 1966 for £70 secondhand (which he couldn't afford). I was about to start my toolmaking apprenticeship so I needed something tidy (as we welsh say) to get to work. Out of the six apprenticeships I was offered (those were the days) I picked Bowden the only one not on a direct bus route, 20 mins by bike, 90 mins by 2 busses.
Ok I have model 16 which is a delight to ride, good brakes and handling and goes very well, but for the money a lightweight is a cheaper option and can give you lots of fun and enjoyment.
I keep the 250 in the hallway, handy if I need to nip to the shop, I also have enough bits stashed away to build a couple more 250s.
I can't see that the lightweights are any different to work on than the heavyweights, the electrics are suspect but an AREG6 from Goffy sorts the charging out, fasten the sockets to the switches, mechanically theres not much difference, plunger oil pump, valve gear the same, gearbox keep it filled with good oil, and change engine oil every 1000 miles. I will say the James forks are not up to the job, but thats what the AMC designers decided on, well I dare say the accountants had more of a say.
Colin

itma · Post by **itma** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:36 pm

quote: toolmaking apprenticeshipt

that, Colin, is exactly my point.

When I did my apprenticeship the toolmaking section regarded themselves as gods in the making.
A serious lot, not given to mixing with the rabble.

It was not until later as I learnt my mechanicing the hard and expensive way, why that was.

I can still remember the bollocking I got from the instructor for daring to use one of their grinding wheels.
and I never learnt to file up a dead square cube either.

Rob Harknett · Post by **Rob Harknett** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:39 pm

Land beyond the ridge, on Amazon now for £75/95, now searching for my copy I may had cleared out. Must also try a get one of my little lightweights on the road again. Great fun and look quite sporty fitted with Ace bars. And I can get by those little 50 cc scooters if I get a run run at them.

RAY BOWMAN · Post by **RAY BOWMAN** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:12 pm

The G3 and G80s evolved over 30+ years perhaps
if the Lightweights had done the same we might
have seen a different animal.

Ian5913 · Post by **Ian5913** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:36 pm

I think you are right Ray and I like your thinking, however I would add that I would see the LW range as a culmination of all the singles that had gone before. What ever the die hard funder-mentalists may think.

Surely from a company perspective each new model was a progression of what went before + strategic thinking of how AMC wanted to travel with the company in the late 50's

By today's standard Isn't the new Range Rover Evoque just a progression of the Range Rover itself a move on from the series 3 which came from the 2a that improved the series 2 which was a step forward from a land rover series 1. All very good British designs for a useful vehicle I doubt I would get many bales in an Evoque but it shares the same heritage.

Do we really have so little in common between a 62 G3 and a 62 G5. I am sure someone will chip in but I may take some convincing they are that different when it comes to heritage. I would agree that the design may have what we see as flaws now but realistically don't other models have flaws, chain case leaks, crank shaft failures, vibration, locking speedo drives or have I not been following these forums correctly for all these years.

I hope the others can like what they ride and let others do likewise.
Best wishes
Ian

itma · Post by **itma** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:08 am

quote: Surely from a company perspective each new model was a progression of what went before + strategic thinking

From what I remember thats wishful thinking, AMC management was hardly forward looking, generally responding to demand when it was over, think James scooters, and the use of a weak frame, feeble brakes, por primary drive just because it was there was just Accountants interfering.

You need to read some stuff from the guys that were there such as Bill Cakebread to realise how decisions were made.
It is not good to have a motorcycle factory owned by people who hate them or who have no interest in them.

Most of the flaws you quote are the fault of the owner poor technical skills and abuse, the difference between the heavyweights and the lightweights is that the heavyweights absorbed more abuse and kept going longer.

your last sentence appears to give the impression that you think you are being told what to ride, that is not the case, any bike is better than no bike.

[As for Range Rovers and the types that own them around here there are not enough cusswords in my vocabulary for those things.}

Ian5913 · Post by **Ian5913** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:59 pm

[Quote] RE From what I remember thats wishful thinking, AMC management was hardly forward looking, generally responding to demand when it was over, think James scooters, and the use of a weak frame, feeble brakes, por primary drive just because it was there was just Accountants interfering.

I understand this and have heard about the final years at the Plumstead works. What I was trying to get at was that I understood from the press of the time that the Model 16 and its G3 counterpart where seen as plodding, dower and out dated. (There words not mine) BSA had been chipping away at the 250 markets and so AMC went with a new design 250 and 350. Most would agree the 250CSR is a good looking bike, the 350 has some good features both run well quite a few critics have never tried one. AMC clearly had issues but I doubt they could have hung on even if things had been planned better. The time and tide where changing. Ian

RAY BOWMAN · Post by **RAY BOWMAN** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:00 pm

Surely the 250 was aimed at the teenage market of
the day, also commuting and short trips.I don't
think I would want to do a tour of Scotland or the
Lake District on one. Or even a Wrong Way Down
lol.

itma · Post by **itma** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:15 pm

quote: plodding, dower and out dated

quite but thats why I like them

quote: Surely the 250 was aimed at the teenage market of the day

not in 1959, teenagers wouldn't be seen dead on an early one; far too staid and dull looking.
the later CSR version, went well enough, as per Thruxton track, but it was still a half hearted effort, look at the styling of the Royal Enfield 250's, ok they were even more fragile, I know I had one, but as always yoof are seduced by style, which is why so many get all fussed over chines chopper freaks, they buy image.

But, as for long distance, RK Battson did very respectable mileages on his [and its in the club somewhere wonder who has it] he thought it the best bike he ever had.

A decent frame and brakes would have made them a far better bike, lots of other 250 survived a weak transmission.

for the record I have owned both 250 and 350 at various times. don't hate them, would think hard before buying another though.

cbranni · Post by **cbranni** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:59 pm

I had a lovely "plod" today, on the 16, about 40 miles through the lanes of Gower, smell of wild garlic, new mown hay, even the sun shone, at times, thats what motorcycling is all about. doesn't matter what weight the bike is.....................just enjoy.
Colin

£1-80 for a plastic cup of coffee at Port Eynon was bit pricey