First Black Shadow - Stevenage workers

[Robert Watson]

No that is not JRO 102. Still owned I believe by Bob Culver.

That might be the bike that Somer owns/used to own?

Sorry My bad........ Simon has corrected me below.

 

[Graham Smith]

I hope VOC has the complete collection of Both magazines and additionally Moto-Revue and Moto Cylismo along with the Australian, German , Swedish , etc ....parallel magazines

No.

 

[Simon Dinsdale]

I came across some information that I hope some of you know more about:
JRO 102 is regarded as the first/prototype Black Shadow. However, in the 1975 book Vincent HRD Story by Roy Harper written with Phil Vincent, Roy specifically describes that TWO first Black Shadows were built. As the story continues, Roy talks only about one bike with no specific mention about a second bike. He states that "The first one (of two?) was lent to the late Charles Markham and road tested in the Isle of Man..." Later in the story, he further states that "The first black Shadow, incidentally, suffers an early mishap..." as it caught fire. The engine was was not irreparably damaged, and it was bought by the late Ted Hampshire. Ted restored it and later sold it to Alan Richmond, chairman and editor of HRD Owners Club. Alan sold it in 1974.... Is this JRO 102??
Is there a known "second~first" Black Shadow??
Thanks!

The ex Ted Hampshire / Alan Richmond bike is definitely JRO 102.

The only prototype Shadow in the factory records is JRO 102 which was started build and completed all in February 1948. The next Shadow which is the one that went to Canada and which Somer refers to wasn't started build until late March 1948 and finished mid April 1948.

What the Roy harper book is referring to I don't know.

Simon

 

[Flylow]

Thank you, Simon!!
This is the information I was hoping for.
Still a bit puzzling what Roy is writing about...
Best -Kurt

 

[davidd]

The Factory clearly built two Black Shadows at the same time. Both cases were machined at British Salmson and not the Factory. They had fully stamped mating numbers inside and out according to Irving. The parts were painted in the No. 2 Factory and then transferred to the Experimental Department at the No. 1 Factory to prevent any disclosure. However, Director Frank Walker did walk in and find the two new models being assembled, which he had specifically voted against.

Jack Williams took each one up the North Road on back-to-back runs. Irving seems to say that one of these was JRO102 and calls it "the prototype," but does not identify the other.

Vincent says the announcement of the Shadow was on February 24, 1948.

David

 

[Peter Holmes]

120 or 102?

 

[Flylow]

The Factory clearly built two Black Shadows at the same time. Both cases were machined at British Salmson and not the Factory. They had fully stamped mating numbers inside and out according to Irving. The parts were painted in the No. 2 Factory and then transferred to the Experimental Department at the No. 1 Factory to prevent any disclosure. However, Director Frank Walker did walk in and find the two new models being assembled, which he had specifically voted against.

Jack Williams took each one up the North Road on back-to-back runs. Irving seems to say that one of these was JRO102 and calls it "the prototype," but does not identify the other.

Vincent says the announcement of the Shadow was on February 24, 1948.

David

I love this stuff.
I guess it is possible that the factory records did not quite "keep up" with what was going on - or that the second bike somehow never made it (into the factory records). Could "Somers" bike be the second of the two? Is there really a first and second if they were built simultaneously? You could argue that the engine numbers/mating numbers should determine that. Today, JRO 102 and "Somers" bike do not have the same cam cover. Interesting difference but of course a lot can happen from then to now.

 

[Simon Dinsdale]

I love this stuff.
I guess it is possible that the factory records did not quite "keep up" with what was going on - or that the second bike somehow never made it (into the factory records). Could "Somers" bike be the second of the two? Is there really a first and second if they were built simultaneously? You could argue that the engine numbers/mating numbers should determine that. Today, JRO 102 and "Somers" bike do not have the same cam cover. Interesting difference but of course a lot can happen from then to now.

A few things to think about here so I have delve into the database.

The crankcases casting type and mating number for JRO are well out of sequence and are from a lot earlier batch / type of cases. The 2nd Shadow made that went to Canada has a later mating number and later type crankcase casting correct for when it was built so I doubt very much it was built side by side with JRO 102.

Consider this, the story is Philip Vincent when he initially proposed the Shadow he was told no by the rest of the board, so he went ahead and built it behind their backs in secret. Wether this is true or not I don't know, but that is what Roy Harper wrote in his books. If you are going to build a bike in secret you don't go to stores and draw out the latest parts as that attracts attention, you source parts from elsewhere such as the scrap bin and see what you can find. This goes with the story that Marcus Bowden tells that the first Shadows had reject porous cases, hence the early out of sequence crankcases on JRO 102. Using this info though I cannot find a 2nd bike in the records that is also out of sequence by a similar amount. Now if the fabled 2nd bike was never declared then what engine and frame numbers went on it as there are no missing numbers in the records for this period of time. If it was later declared then why doesn't it show in the records and why has it never surfaced since. The 3rd possibility is its just a good story and the 2nd protype never actually existed. Its probably one of those mysteries that will never be answered especially as the personnel involved are no longer with us.

 

[vibrac]

I suppose the first Black Shadow was actually "Gunga Din" if Grorge Brown had not built that out of the factory throw outs and raced it as scessfully as far as allowed by the anti brigade in the ACU (influenced as ever by the big firms in the industry ), the concept of a Sports Rapide wold never have taken root and be proven as reliable as it did. I guess that PCV coming back from USA could see the market for speed and with a weak board who never got their hands dirty the rest was easy, at what point it was named the Black Shadow however is conjecture

 

[davidd]

Phil Irving recalls a lot of rich details about these two Shadows. I would guess that the mating numbers British Salmson stamped on the cases might have been sequential, but they would not have stamped an engine number.

The "lab tested" Lucas mags would have been specially numbered, but they would be notable only as long as they were originally used on the bikes.

I am not sure that pulling parts from the scrap bin would have been necessary. Standard parts would not in any way announce their destination. Black crankcases would, so it would be the assembly that needed to be hidden. The special Shadow parts like the finned brake drums would have given away the secret in the machine shop.

Phil Vincent was pretty good at marketing. I suspect the use of the name "Sports Rapide" was done to fortify the notion of continuation and development of a known model. It would have been a temporary use as it was rather unwieldy as a name.

The use of British Salmson to machine the two cases is what surprised me. The Factory should have been the better choice to machine the cases. Until the cases were painted they were indistinguishable from Rapide cases. Irving does not mention any porosity issues. One would think the cases were examined closely prior to shipment to British Salmson. The delivery of the two cases to Vincent was clearly etched in Irving's mind. It is puzzling why the records are barren of references to the second bike.

David