Various Seeley Frames (Mks)

Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
2,668
Country flag
I know the Seeley Mk 2 frames and I am somewhat familiar with the Mk 3 & Mk 4 frames but cannot distinguish between the two; I am not sure which one has the crossing frame spars and which has the straight back frame spars.

The question I have for those knowledgeable about Seeleys is "what does a Seeley Mk 1 look like?" I vaguely remember seeing a picture of or read about a Mk 1 but then again I may be mistaken.

I have snooped around on line for pictures but clearly see misinformation and mis posts about the different frames.

It would be nice if someone knowledgeable could post and label picture examples of each of the Seeley frames on this thread. I am primarily interested in the British applications of his frames.

Let's keep this focused on the subject.

Thanks
 

Holmeslice

VIP MEMBER
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
470
Country flag
Dear DWS,

I have several MK2s, a MK3, and a couple of MK4 chassis in my shop. If you can wait until business hours Monday, I will gladly send detailed photos illustrating the differences.

Yours,
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
2,668
Country flag
Holmeslice said:
Dear DWS,

I have several MK2s, a MK3, and a couple of MK4 chassis in my shop. If you can wait until business hours Monday, I will gladly send detailed photos illustrating the differences.

Yours,
Sir,

You are a gentleman and a scholar. I would be more than happy to wait.

Any pictures, thoughts or comments on a Seeley Mk 1?

Maybe someone with a Colin Seeley book would be willing to read up and expound on this Mk 1 and its place in history?
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
639
From Colin Seeley's own book, photos and facts. Mk1 and Mk2 Seeley bikes were only ever for AMC single cylinder power, except for the prototype Fath four. Mk1 was prototyped in 1966, and raced mostly in 1967. Mk2 was least used, prototyped in 1967 and raced in 1968. The Mk3 came out in 1969. Gus Kuhn racing bought a AJS7r and G50 powered pair of Mk3 Seeley bikes to race for the 1969 season. This was the frame with no front down tubes. During 1969 Seeley and Kuhn worked on a prototype with a Commando twin engine, which got onto the track late in 1969.

First two photos are of the Mk1 Seeley. Notice it has a sheet gusset for the swingarm and a bend in the tube going to the upper shock mounting point.





Seeley Mk2. Notice the boxed swingarm mounting and straight tube for rear subframe shock-mounting.



And the last two photos of the Mk3 Seeley with the engine hanging out in space, bereft of front down tubes:





So I suppose if I was truly a scholar and a gentleman, maybe I would not try to pass a Mk2 Seeley Commando off as being a "1968" or having anything to do with actual history, or enter it in, and accept trophies from vintage racing classes meant for 1968 or earlier motorcycles..... Not that vintage racing anymore is vintage or historical at all anyway.......at least in the USA.

Are they allowed to hang 1969 Honda fours and Kawasaki triples etc. engines in Seeley Mk2 frames for vintage racing? I don't see why not if we are putting Norton engines in them that were never originally put in them either.
 
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
48
Country flag
For most vintage racring around the world the date cutoff date for the bigger bore classes is 1972, hence a lot more bikes are eligible compared with your rather narrow view.
Vintage racing has always comprised of hot rodded and modified bikes, The VMCC in UK is proabably the oldest vintage racing group in existence and they have a silhoette rule,ie its' got to look the same on the outside but you can do anyhting on the inside.. This is a practiacl way of coping with the need to replace old ,no longer obtainable fatigued metal. Since the 60s people have been vintage racing Rudges, Sunbeams, CS1s etc that have no original parts inside them. It's not a new phenomena. It is sad that original race bikes sit in collections gathering dust but it is really not practial to race them in their original state .
On the other hand,parading them or regularity runs as in Europe would be a good way to get them seen.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
2,668
Country flag
Nice example photographs, especially of the Mk 1 which looks like a natural lead in to the Mk 2 which has the thin wall plates to support the swing arm but employs a full loop frame. Anything on the Mk 4's? By deduction the Mk 4 main frame tubes must the the ones that do not cross since the Mk 3's are shown with the cross overs.

So what is this bit about vintage racing, Seeley Mk 2's etc?

From Section 8.16 of the AHRMA Rule book states: Two-cylinder pushrod machines built up through 1968 and competing under Formula 750 specifications. See Section 10. 7. All the rules are available on line for anyone to peruse.


you state:
beng said:
Mk2 was least used, prototyped in 1967 and raced in 1968.
The rules in AHRMA mesh perfectly and make sense and are practical and do evolve. As an example there is some latitude in the use of materials of construction (based on what was available at the time) and there are other practical matters such as modern tires and brakes (in some instances) for safety reasons.

So where is the problem? Are you suggesting that it is documented absolutely nobody used a Mk2 Seeley with a twin in 1967/68 for competition, absolutely nobody? You know they do allow us to use modern race gas; not the old formulations from 1968 with the Tetra Ethyl Lead. It is more or less moot as AHRMA allows these combinations period frames, engines, materials and fuels and they have knowledgeable trustees and comittee members; for example Brian Slark of Barber Museum. I have been a member of AHRMA for some time and I doubt they are trying to mis lead anyone on these matters.

PM me to discuss as I am trying to understand and do not want to clutter this thread.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
2,668
Country flag
beng said:
Seeley Mk2. Notice the boxed swingarm mounting and straight tube for rear subframe shock-mounting.

This must be an early version of the Mk2.

Roger Titschmarsh is making them with a continuous loop whereas the one shown in this picture looks like at least two, possibly three tubes to make the wrap around the boxed swingarm mounting.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
4,942
Country flag
The front one is a 2 beer frame , whereas the one behind is 4 beer , with differant gussets , mounts shock angle . :D
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
639
In December 1965 Seeley ordered eight G50 engines and four AJS7r engines from AMC to build his Mk1 bikes around. This was before he bought out the AMC race department and took over making engines and parts for the AMC racers.

This gives you an idea of how many Mk1 Seeley's may have been built. Add to that the fact that Seeley was a full-time GP sidecar pilot on the World Championship circuit and that he bent up, hand filed and fitted and welded up all the Mk1 frames himself, and you can see how very busy a man he was.

The next year when he did buy out the AMC race department and had to move it and all it's parts stocks to a new location, along with continuing his sidecar racing and continuing to manufacture his own bikes he was even busier. Reynolds and Sprayson did not make all the Mk2 frames, but in his book Seeley does say that Sprayson made drawings for it and Reynolds produced one batch to help take the pressure off him. Besides a complete bike a racer who had a stock G50 or 7R could buy a kit to convert it to Seeley specs.

Derek Minter raced the prototype Mk1 Seeley racers in 1966 and did well enough that it got Seeley some business that year and got his manufacturing business off the ground.

So through 1968 the Seeley Mk1 and Mk2 was a very limited production racer for people who either wanted to upgrade their old AMC single, or wanted a new one that was maybe a little lighter and more competitive than a standard G50 or Manx.

The Mk3 came out in 1969, but it was still a single cylinder AMC engined bike, the only oddballs being a prototype 250cc single with a QUB prototype engine in it, and the single prototype Commando engined bike for Gus Kuhn that got on a track towards the end of the year. That is where Seeley's first book ends, at the end of 1969. The second volume which I do not have and do not really care to have, covers the later Seeley projects from 1970 and later.

So did someone take one of the rare Mk1 or Mk2 Seeley bikes, alter it and run it with a Norton engine before 1969? All you have to do to make any Wet Dream or Unicorn a reality is simply come up with the documentation for it. And "documentation" means a record from 1968 or earlier made of paper or film, not hot air and wishes....
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
2,668
Country flag
It sounds like a good solid background history. I need to purchase the book.

I see where you are coming from regarding elegibility but it is a very narrow opinion of what should and should not be raced in my view and I venture to say in the view of the vast majority of active participants in vintage racing. After all, this is only your opinion and personaly although I find the historical minutia interesting from time to time, I live in the here and now and only reflect on the past to learn. I think "SeeleyWeslake" summarized the reality and practicality of todays vintage racing very nicely; better than I could.

You bring up an ironic point between your two statements belows:

beng said:
So through 1968 the Seeley Mk1 and Mk2 was a very limited production racer for people who either wanted to upgrade their old AMC single, or wanted a new one that was maybe a little lighter and more competitive than a standard G50 or Manx.
and

beng said:
So did someone take one of the rare Mk1 or Mk2 Seeley bikes, alter it and run it with a Norton engine before 1969? All you have to do to make any Wet Dream or Unicorn a reality is simply come up with the documentation for it. And "documentation" means a record from 1968 or earlier made of paper or film, not hot air and wishes....
You have made the case, at least for AHRMA eligibility, in that the motors and frames were available at the time, the motors are elegible based on several criteria and the frames are elegible. Proving that somebody married the two is moot and unnecessary. So this may burn you to no end for whatever reason but riders are all competing to the same set of rules and they are having the time of their lives doing it. Read the rule books to understand the structuring of classes and criteria used; you may disagree but you will have a better understanding of the rationale and basis for the rules and classes. And remember that we are making history as we go, so we are historically correct. :lol:

If we were to use only original equipment then we might as well hang up the leathers and put on the Fez hats and start the parade in the streets.

Now about those pictures of the Seeley Mk 4, and that should about round out this thread.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
4,942
Country flag
WHERE were YOu at the Inagural C.M.R.R. meeting . ? there was the ' pukka components only ' Blah G.P. Blah . &R brigade
& the ' you could get a Manx Norton for 600 dollars 10 years ago ' Brigade . ( in 1981 )
Er , When was that ?
I got mine in 1968 for that .
Er , It Was pounds shillings and pence then .
:lol:
Such Larakinism was frowned on , but they were too busy with their petulant steads to interfere in the raceing . :lol:
The ' Post Classic ' for the Cowboys and Twins evolved . And latter the puritanism of the C.M.R.R. almost lead to its collapse .( Insufficent Genuine original works G.P. racers to go round , plus ' running costs ' . :lol: )
All the B.M.W. salesman & M3s and tents turned up one year .

Three people talked to them . Briefly . They seemed a bit lost . :lol:

Onward and Upward . Seely G-50s For All . ARTER Specification please .
Economy of scale will mean theyre cheap . Option road equipment Std .

:lol: :lol: :p
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
8,216
Why the obsession with 1968 ?

In most parts of the world, classic racing covers up to only 1963.
After that, its in Post Classic class.
Which is generally to 1972, although I don't know the history on that.
That would cover about any Norton 750cc twin in any Seeley frame ??

New Zealand has the strictest Classic Racing rules ?, what do they say ?
 

Holmeslice

VIP MEMBER
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
470
Country flag
My bike, a 1968 Seeley MK2 Commando, is legal for BEARS and F750 in AHRMA, without question. I have 4 championships in the BEARS class - 3 on this bike and one on a Featherbed - in the last 4 years.
I'm heading to the UK several times this season to race in the CRMC on an oft-campaigned 1968 Seeley MK2 Commando, alongside several others.

This guy Benji spends too much time trying point out how fake others to illustrate how "real" he is (which is its own transparent affectation). I say he gets out from behind his tough-talking keyboard and comes on out. I'll really beat him on his own bike.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
639
Dances with Shrapnel said:
And remember that we are making history as we go, so we are historically correct. :lol:
That is it right there. As long as spectators and everyone knows that the "H" in AHRMA does not refer to any history except that from the 1980's on up we are golden.

Rohan said:
» Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:45 am Why the obsession with 1968 ? In most parts of the world, classic racing covers up to only 1963. After that, its in Post Classic class. Which is generally to 1972, although I don't know the history on that. That would cover about any Norton 750cc twin in any Seeley frame ??
I like the vintage racing scene from "down under" the best, they seem to care about preserving the history of the 1960's and earlier the most. As DWS states above, AHRMA makes it's own history. If someone who is popular builds a bike and wins a few trophies or a championship with it, then after the fact finds out the bike was incorrect for the class, they simply change the rules the next year to fit the rider and bike.

Holmeslice said:
» Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:44 am This guy Benji spends too much time trying point out how fake others to illustrate how "real" he is (which is its own transparent affectation). I say he gets out from behind his tough-talking keyboard and comes on out. I'll really beat him on his own bike.
Uh, when did this thread become about anyone's riding ability? Last I looked it was a thread on the history of Seeley motorcycles.

I am just a long time fan of the history of British motorcycles and their racing, since my father was a Matchless dealer/racer in the late 1950s and early 1960's for Matchless/Indian Corporation and then Berliner from New Jersey. I grew up around guys racing pre-unit British bikes.

Racing is as much a spectator sport and a tuner's sport as it is a riders sport, and if some of it is advertised as "historical" to the public, then the public has a right to comment on what they are offered. If that does not suit you then maybe Daddy can buy you and your friends a track to race on in private?

If someone finds it interesting to compare actual history and facts to what is advertised as historic racing today, and that makes you uncomfortable it is for you to sort out.

Throw together any sort of bike you want to. But don't mind it if some people care to remember history and facts as a hobby........

I know a 70+ year old BSA dealer with a Norton Manx and Goldstar and he has been racing since the 1950's. This is probably going to be the first year he does not road race in decades as he is on social security and if he can not make a part on his own he probably can not afford it, and he certainly can not afford the hundreds of miles trip and lodging to make any vintage races. And he can not afford new tires, helmets and leathers nearly as often as the money-bags teams.

I would much rather go see one race with old racers on old bikes running around the best their old age will let them, than watch a bunch of rich snot-nosed kids run spaceships with $3000 gearboxes around a track while they award each other trophies and championships and then pat each others backs for it.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
10,195
Country flag
beng said:
While you guys are debating what is old, check out that friggin' side stand! Awesome!

And doubles a wrench when you need to change the wheel. :mrgreen:
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
639
That is creative, there must have been a mechanic somewhere around.....
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
2,668
Country flag
beng said:
Dances with Shrapnel said:
And remember that we are making history as we go, so we are historically correct. :lol:
That is it right there. As long as spectators and everyone knows that the "H" in AHRMA does not refer to any history except that from the 1980's on up we are golden.
I say again, read the rule book and the class structures; all readily available to the general public. Full public disclosure. I don't see the need for a person with a bull horn and sandwhich board at every race venue, do you? If you don't like what you see, then don't attend.


beng said:
Rohan said:
» Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:45 am Why the obsession with 1968 ? In most parts of the world, classic racing covers up to only 1963. After that, its in Post Classic class. Which is generally to 1972, although I don't know the history on that. That would cover about any Norton 750cc twin in any Seeley frame ??

I like the vintage racing scene from "down under" the best, they seem to care about preserving the history of the 1960's and earlier the most. As DWS states above, AHRMA makes it's own history. If someone who is popular builds a bike and wins a few trophies or a championship with it, then after the fact finds out the bike was incorrect for the class, they simply change the rules the next year to fit the rider and bike.
Based on your comments (very transparent jealousy) you should really consider spending time "down under". As it appears to me that you have a serious problem with your perceptions of the wealth that other racers may or may not have, you should seriously consider humble austerity measures and invest in a one way ticket.

beng said:
Holmeslice said:
» Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:44 am This guy Benji spends too much time trying point out how fake others to illustrate how "real" he is (which is its own transparent affectation). I say he gets out from behind his tough-talking keyboard and comes on out. I'll really beat him on his own bike.
Uh, when did this thread become about anyone's riding ability? Last I looked it was a thread on the history of Seeley motorcycles.
So this begs the question why are the following comments appropriate


beng said:
So I suppose if I was truly a scholar and a gentleman, maybe I would not try to pass a Mk2 Seeley Commando off as being a "1968" or having anything to do with actual history, or enter it in, and accept trophies from vintage racing classes meant for 1968 or earlier motorcycles..... Not that vintage racing anymore is vintage or historical at all anyway.......at least in the USA.

Are they allowed to hang 1969 Honda fours and Kawasaki triples etc. engines in Seeley Mk2 frames for vintage racing? I don't see why not if we are putting Norton engines in them that were never originally put in them either.
and

beng said:
I would much rather go see one race with old racers on old bikes running around the best their old age will let them, than watch a bunch of rich snot-nosed kids run spaceships with $3000 gearboxes around a track while they award each other trophies and championships and then pat each others backs for it.
These all sound like lame and very transparent personal attacks on an individual. You are wearing this jealousy on your sleeve for everyone to see; have you no shame :oops:


beng said:
I am just a long time fan of the history of British motorcycles and their racing, since my father was a Matchless dealer/racer in the late 1950s and early 1960's for Matchless/Indian Corporation and then Berliner from New Jersey. I grew up around guys racing pre-unit British bikes.
Fair and balanced statement and should have stopped there.

beng said:
Racing is as much a spectator sport and a tuner's sport as it is a riders sport, and if some of it is advertised as "historical" to the public, then the public has a right to comment on what they are offered. If that does not suit you then maybe Daddy can buy you and your friends a track to race on in private?
See, this is what I mean. You have no idea what you are talking about with individuals circumstances yet you make these remarks. This undermines your credibility. When you state "you" that is a personal attack. You should really get to the root of your behaviour. How would you feel if I asked whether your daddy threw wrenches at you in his shop when you were young - think about what you are saying here.

beng said:
If someone finds it interesting to compare actual history and facts to what is advertised as historic racing today, and that makes you uncomfortable it is for you to sort out.
I say, if most people find it not that interesting to compare actual history and facts to what is advertised as historic racing today, and that makes you uncomfortable it is for you to sort out.

From what I can see through life experience as well as the tone of all responses, you appear to be an outlier on this whole bit.

beng said:
Throw together any sort of bike you want to. But don't mind it if some people care to remember history and facts as a hobby........
Have you been referred to as a snotty nose kid for this alone?

beng said:
I know a 70+ year old BSA dealer with a Norton Manx and Goldstar and he has been racing since the 1950's. This is probably going to be the first year he does not road race in decades as he is on social security and if he can not make a part on his own he probably can not afford it, and he certainly can not afford the hundreds of miles trip and lodging to make any vintage races. And he can not afford new tires, helmets and leathers nearly as often as the money-bags teams.
This really makes me laugh. "Oh the humanity"! Give me a break here, an arm, a leg, maybe a couple of fingers. Are you suggesting socialized vintage (Historic) motorcycle racing. :lol: The new "fair deal plan". This is plain sillyness. Yes, those damn snotty nosed kids keep the tracks hundreds of miles apart and keep the lodging
and fuel prices high just to make sure they keep out any competition. I bet these snotty nosed kids will eat their own offspring to win. Al Knapp was not a money-bags team memeber and raced until maybe his late 80's on an old HD or Indian. A slip on the ice and broken hip slowed him down where he does not race anymore.


beng said:
I would much rather go see one race with old racers on old bikes running around the best their old age will let them, than watch a bunch of rich snot-nosed kids run spaceships with $3000 gearboxes around a track while they award each other trophies and championships and then pat each others backs for it.
I do appreciate the pictures and some of the history repeated earlier in this thread. Neither I nor many others on this list appreciate the "comments from the peanut gallery"; for me it tends to invalidate any contribution you may have and the poorly vailed attacks invalidates you as a person. Please do not take this as a personal attack but as my observations. It is very transparent as to why you posted on this particular thread as I now know you have a personal vendetta. I speculate that this very negative and personal attack attitude, which has probably been with you throughout your life, has lead to the financial predicament you may be in as you repeatedly bring up the issue of wealth. To me it is not a winning attitude nor a positive attitude.

You claim the post is about Seeleys, then you go on to talk about your opinion on what someone should be racing as compared to what some "snot-nosers" are racing. Very transparent and a true pity. Jealousy at its worst. I invited this to a PM but it continued to show up here.

I say again, about those pictures of the Seeley Mk 4, that should about round out this thread.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
639
Dances with Shrapnel said:
beng said:
Uh, when did this thread become about anyone's riding ability? Last I looked it was a thread on the history of Seeley motorcycles.
So this begs the question why are the following comments appropriate
I apologize for not being......you. But if It is appropriate in a thread about Seeley motorcycle history to defend their history then:

If someone builds a motorcycle that is supposedly a replica of a "1968 Seeley Commando" and proceeds to parade it around the world as such, when in fact no such thing ever existed until they built it, then someone should have as much a right to point out history as others do to abuse it.

For something to be a replica, vintage or historical, doesn't it have to be a copy of something that existed, it would have to have a precedent right?

And it was just an innocent coincidence that calling the bike/unicorn a "1968" model just happened to let it compete in a class for 1968 motorcycles........

History is important, all history. I do not think it is unnatural for history buffs to not like people who perform a disservice to it and to express that dislike, nothing shameful there.

I admire and respect history and those people and objects that are part of it, I have no admiration or respect for those who abuse or use it to manufacture the farcical, pretty simple motivations for my actions, and no I am not jealous of the farce or those who rally behind and support it.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
2,668
Country flag
Oh the drama.

beng said:
But if It is appropriate in a thread about Seeley motorcycle history to defend their history then
As I see it, this was not appropriate right from the start - get it? It was about showcasing various Seeley frames and my curiosity about the Mk 1 which you nicely responded to. It goes down hill in some sort of unprompted slippery slope of a gray matter "do loop"; can you explain it any better than that. Go back and see my first post on this thread and then read your first post which was spot on and informative until after the last picture where you explain how the Seeley Mk 2 purity and virtue becomes some sort of point of contention, uttered out of thin air in some sort of Tourette Syndrome manner. This was not appropriate right from the start - get it?

If the feelings are so strong about this matter, start a new topic and see who really cares. But we all know this will not happen as I see this as your avenue to attempt to belittle and punish a few who do not see things exactly as you do.

You are correct, those poor people who are not missing out on life and having the times of their lives with friends, acquaintances and general public; totally unencumbered by some now obscure potential technicality which is truely of no consequence. And oh my, how can they not be hung up by these potential historical nuances of no consequences. They all really need the pity. I truely see your point now. :roll: For anyone who has been to just about any vintage event (including AHRMA) you can see the despair in all the smilling faces :D

If you feel so strongly about AHRMA mis representing itself as Historic and you want the "H" removed then find the state that AHRMA is organized in, gather your like minded masses, take up a collection for a legal challenge and go to court. Don't go away mad, just get the H out! :p

Just because you cannot find an instance of a Seeley Mk2 mated up to a Norton twin in 1968 does not mean that it did not happen? As I see it, you are making these assertions yet the riders have met the burden of proof for racing a particular bike configuration in accordance with AHRMA rules. Since you are making the claims, as I see it, the burden of proof is clearly on you. Just because you cannot find it does not mean it did not happen. So go forth and bring me back that bucket of steam! My honest hunch is you may well be correct in your assertion about 1968.

beng said:
If someone builds a motorcycle that is supposedly a replica of a "1968 Seeley Commando" and proceeds to parade it around the world as such, ...
So where is this instance of "a replica of a 1968 Seeley Commando being paraded as such?" Please inform us of what shadows these demons lurk in. We really should have specifics here as you have been very specific and deliberate all through this thread. As I see it, and paraphrasing your statement from your earlier post, this is your Wet Dream or Unicorn, all you have to do to make any Wet Dream or Unicorn a reality is simply come up with the documentation for it. And "documentation" means a records made of paper or film, not hot air and wishes....There must be URL's, pdf's, flyers, letters, photographs. You have made these assertions so it is fair to say the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders. Go for it and back it up.

I for one do not represent my Seeley bikes as a whole as nothing other than my doings with credit due to the skilled people who helped put them together. I will state it is a Seeley replica frame and whether it was made by Roger T.

Please, please after all this please show us who or what is doing this wrong here. Is there any evidence of it?

And if you do have an instance, can you demonstrate that there was intent or malice as opposed to difference of opinion?

So do you have that bucket of steam for me mate?

Poof!!.......I did not think so.

So how about that photo of a Seeley Mk 4. Is it monday yet? Was the Mk 4 the basis for the Condor and was the Condor strictly a G50 or was there a 7R version? Is Larry Poons still racing his Condor?
 
Top