|
Post by davwat on Jan 23, 2021 20:41:03 GMT
Is there any published rhyme or reasoning to the Frame numbering (I have O MO and M), was there a finite number when RM1's finished and 2's started?
Engines appear to be date stamped then a 4 digit number, 606714 on a 1955 (declared manufacture) is confusing (not hard) me or is it a 60 6714 and the date is wrong?
|
|
|
Post by davwat on Jan 23, 2021 20:55:14 GMT
Is there any published rhyme or reasoning to the Frame numbering (I have O MO and M), was there a finite number when RM1's finished and 2's started?
Engines appear to be date stamped then a 4 digit number, 606714 on a 1955 declared manufacture is confusing (not hard) me or is it a 60 6714 and the manufacture date is wrong?
I can answer the last question: Manufacture 1955 is wrong "Raleigh eventually made its debut as a moped manufacturer in October of 1958"
|
|
|
Post by davwat on Jan 23, 2021 22:05:02 GMT
Clear as mud !
In the rush to get it on the Database in 1983 they got some details wrong
Year of manufacture wrong 1955, Raleigh didn't announce it till Oct 1958
They misspelt Raliegh, should be Raleigh
Got the CC wrong 38, should be 49
Got the frame number wrong 416096, should be M 6096 Got engine number wrong 606174, should be ?/60 6174 Now that will be an interesting one to convince Swansea the records are wrong
|
|
|
Post by JamesCentral on Jan 24, 2021 10:14:16 GMT
Is there any published rhyme or reasoning to the Frame numbering (I have O MO and M), was there a finite number when RM1's finished and 2's started? RM1 has an M prefix, RM2 has MA. The serial numbers start again when the prefix changes. There are examples of RM2s with late RM1 frame numbers; but that may not be how they left the factory. Engines appear to be date stamped then a 4 digit number, 606714 on a 1955 (declared manufacture) is confusing (not hard) me or is it a 60 6714 and the date is wrong? Engines have a month-year date and a serial, eg: 12-59 123. The serial can have fewer than 4 digits and it restarts with each month's batch, so the date part has to be included to ensure uniqueness. An RM2 engine will also have 'R2' stamped on it.
|
|
|
Post by JamesCentral on Jan 24, 2021 10:17:53 GMT
Clear as mud !
In the rush to get it on the Database in 1983 they got some details wrong
Year of manufacture wrong 1955, Raleigh didn't announce it till Oct 1958
They misspelt Raliegh, should be Raleigh
Got the CC wrong 38, should be 49
Got the frame number wrong 416096, should be M 6096 Got engine number wrong 606174, should be ?/60 6174 At least the colour is right!
|
|
|
Post by JamesCentral on Jan 24, 2021 10:23:33 GMT
Got the frame number wrong 416096, should be M 6096
Have you checked that against the bike? That would be a 1958 frame. M16095 would be 1959, M6096 x would be 1960.
|
|
|
Post by davwat on Jan 24, 2021 13:59:45 GMT
Clear as mud !
In the rush to get it on the Database in 1983 they got some details wrong
Year of manufacture wrong 1955, Raleigh didn't announce it till Oct 1958
They misspelt Raliegh, should be Raleigh
Got the CC wrong 38, should be 49
Got the frame number wrong 416096, should be M 6096 Got engine number wrong 606174, should be ?/60 6174 At least the colour is right! Thinking (hypothetically) that would be the reference for my cover letter !
|
|
|
Post by davwat on Jan 24, 2021 14:12:08 GMT
Got the frame number wrong 416096, should be M 6096
Have you checked that against the bike? That would be a 1958 frame. M19095 would be 1959, M6096 x would be 1960. Now that is never going to happen!
I have this document in my name with what would be an original transferable registration number but unfortunately the bike was cremated by Mr Arsonist.
Thanks for the replies Re the rhyme and reason to the Raleigh numbering.
|
|
|
Post by davwat on Jan 24, 2021 16:34:28 GMT
Right rewind
Remembering this is just a paper exercise the bike doesn't exist. Would it be right to assume Frame No 416096 = M 16096 = making it a late RM1
" Engine No 606714 = we don't know the month but it's a 60's batch 6714
|
|
|
Post by davwat on Jan 24, 2021 17:15:24 GMT
Another paper exercise, can't do much else in this weather/lockdown.
Another that went up in smoke (can't even remember it)
Looks like it would of been frame RM1 64817 Would that be approx mid 58 same as engine ? Engine No 1133 from the 6/58 batch (getting good at this)
The declared manufactured date on the document as 1960 obviously wrong!
|
|
|
Post by JamesCentral on Jan 24, 2021 19:29:53 GMT
Would it be right to assume Frame No 416096 = M 16096 = making it a late RM1 " Engine No 606714 = we don't know the month but it's a 60's batch 6714
Give how wrong all the info is, I don't think you can assume anything. M16096 would be a middling RM1: 1959. I don't think any of the 1960 engine batches got anywhere near the 6000 mark so, whatever's wrong with the engine number, it's not a simple as a missing month.
|
|
|
Post by JamesCentral on Jan 24, 2021 19:39:05 GMT
Another that went up in smoke (can't even remember it) Used to be Nick Ward's I think Looks like it would of been frame RM1 64817 Would that be approx mid 58 same as engine ? No, quite late in 1959 - and most with numbers as high as this weren't registered until 1960.
|
|
|
Post by davwat on Jan 24, 2021 20:07:52 GMT
Would it be right to assume Frame No 416096 = M 16096 = making it a late RM1 " Engine No 606714 = we don't know the month but it's a 60's batch 6714
Give how wrong all the info is, I don't think you can assume anything. M16096 would be a middling RM1: 1959. I don't think any of the 1960 engine batches got anywhere near the 6000 mark so, whatever's wrong with the engine number, it's not a simple as a missing month.
Yep I think this is definitely a closed case, (which it was anyway as the bike doesn't exist any more). I do remembering buying this, he sold it as having the transferable Cambridge registration that he got on the database in 1983.
Done up like a kipper springs to mind, before he emigrated to Australia. Some you win some you lose lose
|
|
|
Post by davwat on Jan 24, 2021 20:34:29 GMT
Another that went up in smoke (can't even remember it) Used to be Nick Ward's I think Looks like it would of been frame RM1 64817 Would that be approx mid 58 same as engine ? No, quite late in 1959 - and most with numbers as high as this weren't registered until 1960. Yep as several were in my early days. Looks like a late 59 bike registered in 1960 is correct then with a mid 58 engine. Academic anyway but thanks for the info.
|
|
|
Post by davwat on Jan 25, 2021 16:42:16 GMT
Moving on. I do have this one! another that came from Nick many moons ago (1996).
makes this date of first registration of 31/12/57 dodgy! and from a previous comment would it be correct to assume MA is missing from the frame number on record ?
|
|