Discovered - Sammy Millers Original Bultaco Sherpa 669Nho

[totalshell]

so back to this original bike been found..does this mean that a bike displayed in a prominant museum as the actual bike and displaying the registration number was not and is not and was infact a fake/replica?

[sparks2]

Always remember there was probably more than one 669 NHO

[laird387]

Hi sparks2,

 

You are, of course, absolutely right that in the case of factory machines there could be numerous bikes fitted with the same registration number - either as rider's bikes were replaced by later models each year or even in some cases to cover several machines with slightly varying states of tune.

 

Add to that, the fact that there are people who quite happily paint a number on a machine that they know will never need to be legally road registered - but to 'pretend' they have a famous machine.

 

However, in the case of 669 NHO, it was not a factory number..............and I'm afraid that to find the full story you will need to see a forthcoming copy of ORRe.

[twinnshock]

so back to this original bike been found..does this mean that a bike displayed in a prominant museum as the actual bike and displaying the registration number was not and is not and was infact a fake/replica?

 

I think it has been fairly well known for many years, well at least to me that the bike in the prominent museum  was not the original. If you asked anything about it you would not get a straight answer.

 

Stuart

[woody]

So when is someone going to discover EOR 2K

[trialsrfun]

Was EOR 2 K the prototype 325 Woody?

[woody]

Yes Sam's own development 325 before they went into production, which he probably used to prove most of his own aftermarket parts...  He also used a Mikuni on it.

[sparks2]

Yes Sam's own development 325 before they went into production, which he probably used to prove most of his own aftermarket parts...  He also used a Mikuni on it.

Also his last Bultaco before he went to Honda.

[sparks2]

Is registration 669 NHO 1962 or earlier because I believe 1963 was the first year of numbers issued with a year letter so A = 1963 and so on. 

If 669 NHO is a Model 4 Bultaco were they the first trials bike Bultaco produced or was the Model 10 the first, also the round shaped fuel tank was that fitted to the early models then changed to the squarer design?

AAH.......THE JOY OF REGISTRATION NUMBERS (or 'Should I have got out more?')

In those far off days UK vehicle registration numbers (or marks) were issued by the local authority motor tax office for the area in which the vehicle was to be registered. To avoid duplication each individual motor tax office had a 'block' or 'blocks' of registration marks from which to issue.

So, although the larger local authority motor tax offices had more blocks of numbers (thus more available registration marks) to serve a greater population, the number of registration marks available to any one authority was always finite.

By 1962 it was becoming clear that some local authorities were fast running out of available registration marks to issue. (The UK had just experienced the 'Never Had it So Good' era (according to Harold McMillan, the then Prime Minister) when unprecedented numbers of people were taking to the road in the new relatively cheap BMC minis, Morris Minors, Ford Cortinas, etc, etc.

So it was decided by the Ministry of Transport, the government body with overall responsibility for vehicle registration, that local authority motor tax offices could, as from January 1^st 1963, issue registration marks from their local 'block' or 'blocks' but with a suffix 'A'.

The suffix was to change to 'B' as from January 1^st 1964.

Thus many more individual marks were made available for issue.

Where these were available, local offices could carry on issuing 'non suffix' registration marks.

During these years (1963-1964) it was discovered that the new vehicle buying public prefered to have a 'suffix' registration mark on their new vehicle and were thus favouring dealers in those areas that were issuing the new style 'suffix' marks.

So, as from January 1^st 1965, ALL local authority motor tax offices were instructed to issue marks with a 'C' suffix.

So, quite unintentionally, the system had arrived at the 'age identifier' element of the vehicle registration mark.

Where 5 or 6  digit registration marks (with age identifier suffix) tended to be issued to motor cycles it was always an informal /casual arrangement or understanding between local office and dealers to help dealers fit a registration mark onto the limited space of a motor cycle number plate.

Not sure what a 'factory' number plate is or ever was. A registration mark was issued from the local 'block' or 'blocks' of numbers by the local authority motor tax office which initially registered the vehicle. Whether that application to register the vehicle was made by a dealer, manufacturer or private individual didn't matter. Even Sam the Man didn't get to choose his number.

Note:- One unique registration mark or number to one vehicle. (A requirement that seems to have been widely abused).

Note:- One unique (as far as practically possible) frame number or Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) to one vehicle.

(Also a  requirement that seems to have been widely abused).

Was it like queue jumping, one law if you were famous, and another if you weren't??

Many more registration mark issue changes were to follow in the years to come, however I hope the above will go some way to the understanding of how 669 NHO came to be issued in November 1964.

It would seem that 669 NHO, initially at least, was a (heavily) modified M4, and this would make perfect sense.

I actually knew someone who bought an early M10 and it came with an M4 owners handbook (I still have the handbook somewhere), I don't suppose Barcelona had had time to produce a specific M10 book.

There would seem to be two series of production M10, the initial series with the more rounded tank and a slightly later second series with a flat bottomed tank, borrowed from the M4, with different hubs fitted at some stages and maybe a few other minor changes (which is where SM's second Bultaco EAA 60D started life and then morphed into something completely different).

Yours

Sparks

PS The above is only my interpretation but what would I know? You will no doubt be reading the actualitae elsewhere of course.

Apoligies for spelling mistakes, factual and grammatical errors (what do you expect from someone who failed their 11 plus and with a current reading age of 7).

 

Edited November 30, 2015 by sparks2

[laird387]

Hi sparks2,

 

The answer is that it was not a factory' number, but a number issued in Dorset to a local company in the early Autumn of 1964, in other words, as you correctly surmised, before the 'final' suffix deadline of 1st Jan 1965.  Interestingly the first production Sherpa that was available for Sam to sell, was given the number as it was prepared for sale in his shop,  BHO 40C, and that was early in 1965.

[laird387]

Always remember there was probably more than one 669 NHO

 

Hi sparks,

 

As usual, you are correct.  The first one to bear the number was described as a 196cc,  but shortly after became a 244cc.

[sherpa325]

I may be naive, but I would have assumed that Miller would have had several bikes and just swapped the rego plate onto the bike he was competing on that weekend. EOR 2K from all the photos I have seen was a miller highboy framed bike, so i am not sure how the frame and engine numbers would correspond if at all. It would be interesting to know where this bike sits in the evolution of the 325 engines as it appears to have all the model 92 upgrades, whereas some other photos I have seen have 325 engines in Model 80 frames.

Cheers Greg

[nigel dabster]

Just one thing Sparks are you saying Dorset or whoever issued 669NHO and NHO 669 A would be issued in the same year?

[sparks2]

Hi Dabster
I'm not saying 669 NHO and NHO 669 A were issued in the same year.

What I'm saying is that 669 NHO and NHO 669 A could have been issued in the same year, as they are each distinct registration marks.
In 1963 / 1964 it was left to the discretion of the local authority office whether they issued the new style suffix marks or carried on issuing non suffix marks, where available, or a combination of the two. (sorry, if that wasn't initially clear).

And NHO 669 B and NHO 669 C could have been issued in 1964 and 1965 respectively.

My record shows that the suffix 'HO' was issued by Southampton County Council, so where Dorset's  got involved, heaven knows.

Don't draw too many parallels with today, as we've had the dead hand of DVLA centralisation since 1974.

Thanks for showing an interest.
Kind Regards
Sparks

 

Edited December 2, 2015 by sparks2

[laird387]

Hi Dabster

I'm not saying 669 NHO and NHO 669 A were issued in the same year.

What I'm saying is that 669 NHO and NHO 669 A could have been issued in the same year, as they are each distinct registration marks.

And NHO 669 B and NHO 669 C could have been issued in 1964 and 1965 respectively.

My record shows that the suffix 'HO' was issued by Southampton County Council, so where Dorset's  got involved, heaven knows.

Thanks for showing an interest.

Kind Regards

Sparks

 

Sorry sparks,

 

I assumed Dorset because Sam's shop was in Dorset, but Southampton would certainly have been geographically much closer!

 

This whole registration number discussion is because I was clumsily trying to correct the impression that Sam's Bultacos were ever owned by the factory (remember somebody suggested there would be several 'factory' bikes with numbers swopped willy-nilly).

 

Sam was not employed by Bultaco.

 

Cheers

Deryk