Testing

 

 Pre testing period: 

From March through June 1963, the Royal (Dutch) Army has executed comparative testing of five brands of light motor cycles (200cc), viz. Triumph, BSA, Puch, Maico and Zündapp. The latter two were mounted with two stroke engines and because this resulted in the use of  two stroke petrol, which was not available with the Army owned   petrol stations,  these two light motor cycles were reported to be inferior in an intermediate report in 1963. As a result of this report, testing of Maico and Zündapp motor bikes were stopped.

 

Because test series of Puch bikes were delivered to the Royal Army much later than Triumph and BSA bikes, and hence had not yet been sufficiently tested to draw justified conclusions concerning reliability during military use, testing of Puch bikes were continued. Testing of  Triumph and BSA was continued as well despite of the fact that the conclusion was drawn that these bikes did not meet the requirements. There were however reasons to believe that after some minor modifications an acceptable life time could be achieved for both Triumph and BSA. This was the reason for continued testing of these Triumph and BSA machines.

 

In October 1963 the decision was made to discontinue testing of Puch, BSA and Triumph as well because:

- After about 7,000 km Puch had run into serious piston damage.

- the new air filters which were mounted on the BSA did not appear  to be a  sufficient improvement.

- Triumph, besides damaged big ends, ran into piston damage, like BSA did, although with Triumph, piston damage occurred as early as after 8,000 km.

 

 

The table below shows the relative score, drafted after testing was completed.

 

Running capabilties

Construction

Maintenance

Longevity

 

 

 

 

 

1)

Triumph

Triumph

Puch

Puch

2)

BSA

BSA

BSA

Triumph

3)

Puch

Puch

Triumph

BSA

4)

Maico

Zündapp

Zündapp

Zündapp

5)

Zündapp

Maico

Maico

Maico

 

Triumph had won this round, but this did not help much as the conclusion of the Vehicle Test Department was convincing, viz.:

 

1. all tested motor cycles showed:

a. many minor deficiencies

b. serious wear and tear with main parts, even after a relatively short runs  (less than 10,000 km), requiring repairs to be executed by a higher echelon.

2. that achieving a sufficient longevity could not be realised through simple modifications.

 

 

************************************************************************

 This lead to the decision that the Royal Army started comparative testing of heavier motor cycles in July1965 which ultimately resulted in purchasing 1,100 Triumph’s Model 3TA.

************************************************************************

 

 

Testing:

As mentioned before, the Vehicle Testing Department started in 1965 with the comparison of three brands,  the models Triumph 3TA, Matchless G3 and BSA B40.

All mentioned motor cycles had a cylinder volume of 350 cc.

Testing was done through a protocol, consisting of:

  1. Comparing technical running capabilities of the three brands of motor cycles, both, comparative, as well as related to the temporary T.M.T. (Tactical and Military Technical) requirements for motor cycles to be used by the fighting units as well as the supporting units.

  2. the execution of a durability test over a distance of at least 12,000 km of which 5,000 km off the road, to assess the expected life time in military use.

  3. The assessment of the aspects of maintenance, the mounted accessories, the supplied workshop manuals and maintenance guides and the tools that came with the bike.

 

 Testing took place in the workshop of the D.B.V. [Vehicle Testing Department] in The Hague, on the road and off the road, from March through July 1965 and has been carried out by D.B.V. personnel in cooperation with motor riders of the Military Police, lead by a Commanding Officer.

 

Tested motor bikes.

  1. Three BSA army motor cycles Model B40, 350 cc, registration number KZ-99-52, KZ-99-53 and KZ-99-54.

  2. One BSA civil motor cycle, 350 cc, registration number KZ-99-70.

  3. Three Matchless army motor cycles Model G3, 350 cc, registration number KZ-99-58, KZ-99-59 and KZ-99-60.

  4. Three Triumph army motor cycles Model 3TA, 350 cc, registration number KZ-99-55, KZ-99-56 and KZ-99-57.

 

It is beyond the content of this website to quote the complete report, but the outcome of the tests carried out by the D.B.V. was the following:

  opsommingsteken

Of the tested brands the Triumph 3TA meets the requirements best.

  opsommingsteken

The Matchless G3 motor cycles do have some major disadvantages over the Triumph 3TA.

  opsommingsteken

The BSA B40 motor cycles do not meet the requirements.

 

Some of the advantages of the Triumph 3TA compared to the other brands were:

-          Larger ground clearance

-          Provided with steering damper, so the machine was easy to handle and  very manoeuvrable in off the road situations.

-          Two cylinders, hence smooth running (BSA and Matchless were mounted with single cylinder engines)

-          Ease of maintenance

-          Longevity

-          Less weight.

 

A disadvantage of the 3TA, like the BSA, was, that a closed chain box was mounted, resulting in a chain box full with mud in case of off road use, leading to a reduced longevity of chain and chain wheels.

Initial specifications required the weight of the bikes not to exceed 150 kilograms, but none of the machines met that requirement. Matchless even weighed 205 kilograms.

An additional requirement was that the bikes were capable of achieving a speed of at least 140 km/h, but BSA, Matchless and Triumph were fare from meeting this requirement. They achieved a speed of 105, 115 and 118 km/h respectively, the 3TA being the fastest.

The 3TA still had some minor things to be adapted but these were relatively easy so solve. It was proposed amongst others to replace the closed chain box of the Triumph 3TA by an open type. Matchless could meet the requirements after some modifications as well but BSA could not be turned into a suitable machine by the implementation of minor modifications.

 

Velocity testing in 1966

 

Meanwhile the Dutch Army had placed an order on December 14, 1965, with the importer of Triumph, R.S.Stokvis, and the first series was delivered in November 1966. Receiving inspection test results of the first regular series of improved motor bikes showed that the bikes had a “problem” in achieving the maximum obtained speed. Speed testing with the first bike of this series, done on October 19, 1966, resulted in a maximum speed of 103 km/h.

As a result of this unexpected outcome and the big difference with the reported speed of prototypes in July 1965, it was found necessary to repeat  the speed test with at least one bike.

In addition Triumph Engineering Company Ltd was asked, in case the outcome of the test resulted in a speed of less than 118 km/h, to report the possible cause of this deficiency.

Testing was repeated against elaborate protocols with the KS-01-63 (former KZ-99-55) on the landing strip of airport “Valkenburg”in Leiden.

Achieved test results of an average speed of 110 km/h did not satisfy the D.B.V.

It was decided to measure the compression ratio and to inspect the engine for wear and tear, which did not give satisfactory answers. It was decided to again execute additional testing, this time on air port “De Peel”, on December 6th, 1966.

Results were disappointing: an average speed of 107.1 km/h.

At the time the KS-01-63 was tested, an additional 16 3TA’s were tested for maximum speed.

 

It was ultimately concluded that 1965 and 1966 test results were hardly comparable, one of the reasons being the absence of 1965 data on test conditions, boundary conditions, variance, etc. The results of the 1965 test were assumed to be interpreted at the optimistic side at that time.

 

The reports clearly show that the speedometers of the 3TA read approximately 10 to 15 km/h too much at top speed and show furthermore that the maximum speed of 118 km/h, as specified in the technical specifications, is on the high side.

 

 

Sources:

Royal Dutch Army

Inspection Technical Department

Vehicle Department

Detachment Vehicle Testing

Report DB nr. 186-05/B,January 1964

Report DB nr. 186-07,  August 3, 1965

Report DB nr. 66.11.22-062, December 29, 1966

Foto's: LFFD

 

Copyright: Section Military History Royal Dutch Army

 

translation: Ben Geutskens