BSA Bushman RoadTest
Motorcyclist Illustrated December 1970
The Bushman a tough little gentleman from Birmingham
were held for many miles. Over-revving proved
impossible; with a top limit of 8000 rpm, the
Bushman's engine was always many hundred away.
60 mph could be achieved with no trouble at
all, but the high engine revs brought about
overheating problems. Even with a tankful of
five-star petrol, shocking pre-ignition took
place, the situation demanding instant checking.
Maybe it should not be wondered at, for the
Bushman's top gear is approximately the same
as a Bantam's third ratio.
Fine though it was on the road, tarmac did
not seem to be the" kindest of places to
test a trail 'bike, so I took the machine over
to the Icknield Way, in the Chilterns. This
ancient highway was exactly what the Bushman
had been designed for. Too rough for roadsters
to cover without some difficulty, but not severe
enough to warrant a trialster. The going was
over rutted chalk, tree roots, flat grass and
mud, and the little BSA two-stroke romped in
it. Grip was provided by a couple of Dunlop
trials tyres. They proved themselves to be very
necessary in wet going, and on slippery leaf
mould in the woods invaluable; more so probably
because, unlike trials riding, trail riding,
because of its quickly varying nature of changing
surfaces, including tarmac, does not encourage
the use of ultra-low tyre pressures. I left
the BSA wheels at 10 Ib both.
In hard going, the "soft," but tenacious
power characteristics of the engine proved themselves
ideal. Providing the track was not of the one-day
trial type, second and third gears were adequate
to deal with anything that came along, including
mud and steep cambers. Carburation was always
clean, and pick-up from low revs under the worst
conditions unhesitating. As with all such riding
though, the engine's performance cannot be spelled
out in exact measures, for rider ability is
of equal importance to the machine's. For a
trail motorcycle, though, I was always satisfied
and often impressed by the machine's performance.
The riding position too was a compro- ONLY
ONE trail 'bike worthy of the name is currently
in quantity production in this country—the
Bushman. Its larger cousin the 250 Triumph Trophy,
cannot quite match up to the name, selling as
it does with roadster tyres. Green road rides,
organised by the Green Road Riders Fellowship
are obviously the coming thing among numbers
of clubmen previously unattracted to active
motorcycling. This is, or should be, the Bushman's
market.
Like any other trail motorcycle, the 175 two-stroke
will cause frustration if driven for long on
the road, and sweat if ridden on the rough as
a trials machine. To be completely honest, although
unkindly so, it does neither properly, so should
you want a roadster, get a Bantam, or a trialster,
one of Bob Gollner's Bantam specials. But this
is, after all, a trail machine; on its own ground,
no less specialised than any other class of
motorcycle. Nothing else will carry you along
tarmac roads and over mud and tree roots with
quite the same equanimity.
Cruising speed on the road was 50 mph, and
that on the top gear of 8.1:1 required the engine
to spin at 5500 rpm, only 250 rpm away from
the maximum bhp output, but 600 over optimum
torque. Altogether, a useful engine speed, for
it did allow further acceleration to be carried
out surprisingly briskly. Higher cruising speeds
could and mise. Not quite roadster, but comfortable
enough, and not quite trials, although near
enough to allow easy standing up when required.
Based on the Bantam it may be, but a Bantam
it is not. Forks are the same as its bigger,
four-stroke brothers, and'consequently
more than capable of handling anything the Bushman
is likely to dish out, but they were not faultless.
Following in the pattern of all BSA forks since
the early 1950s, they really needed more than
small bumps at low speeds to activate them,
so the Bushman's handling at path-picking walking
pace was not all that it might have been. Instead
of a grass clump or small branch being ignored,
it had to be ridden due to its effect on the
machine; not much, but enough to warrant notice.
Softer springs and 5 SAE damping oil might solve
the problem. Almost exactly the same comments
apply to the rear units as well. But do not
over-estimate my statements; the handling problems
are slight, and to a rider unused to trials
machine suspension, possibly nonexistent.
Handlebar and seat comfort was fine and so,
after some while, was the high footrest mounting.
On the road, handling was excellent, and roadholding
above criticism. Whether a long fast bend, or
a series of them, the Bushman always came out
on top.
One thing above all else irritated, correction,
infuriated the Editor, on the numerous occasions
he rode it, and I to the point where only total
destruction of the machine would have satisfied
us-starting. On most occasions either one or
two easy prods at the crank brought about the
usual snappy exhaust crackle, but in the two
months we had it, towards the end of its time
with us something began to die. Whatever it
was I hope the death was a painful one, for
twice it caused me the agony of a broken toe.
Starting was a few times as impossible as only
an energy-transfer-ignitioned petroil two-stroke's
can be. A spark, fuel in the combustion chamber,
a new plug, good connections, no gas or air
leaks, but no life. As well as that, the relation
of the kick-start crank and footrests was a
poor one. Either the right foot had to be turned
sideways to kick downwards, or the movement
had to be carried out with the ball of the foot
to ensure that toe snagging of the footrest
did not happen. That is all very well when starting
is easy, but once, speaking for myself, tempers
become frayed because everything except the
firing stroke is perfect, then any kick goes.
Twice, on different occasions, my toes were
bent back to 90 degrees in ordinary shoes, and
then immediately subjected to a 180 degree return
journey following a backfire. And let nobody
tell me that I should not be wearing ordinary
shoes. On a little 'bike like the Bushman, it
should be possible to kick-start completely
naked without misery. We never discovered the
trouble.
Despite their old fashioned appearance, as
always, the Bantam/Bushman brakes showed themselves
to be fine little units, and despite reasonable
attempts to fault them, they always worked with
an efficiency that far belied their appearance.
Lighting, was no more than acceptable, but
without a battery, and on energy transfer ignition,
that is to be expected. The horn was, of course,
laughably, indescribably bad.
In spite of shortcomings, I seriously doubt
whether a better motorcycle exists for either
a novice who desires a touch of sport, or for
a lightweight enthusiast wanting the green roads
and unsurfaced byways of the country. Certainly
it proved to be the most popular machine amongst
a mixed half a dozen at a recent outing for
some of our most eminent motorcyclists in the
country. The more experienced riders like Sir
John Whitmore and Don Whillans enjoyed the "tweakier"
Bultaco, but those with an eye to a quieter
life like Sir Ralph Richardson displayed obvious
affection for the Bushman. It was dropped a
dozen times, stalled hundreds, and had gears
missed by the thousand. Its clutch was slipped
until I could watch no longer, while long conversations
were held, and so on. Until you see a handful
of people with no true expertise at handling
machines, the amount of mishandling they
can withstand just cannot be appreciated. Obviously
this is what the Bushman is designed for.
The engine and gears are identical to the Bantam's.
A rear sprocket, bigger by 10 teeth than the
Bantam's, provide the ratio drop. Although upswept,
the exhaust system is identical. A paper air
cleaner element replaces the felt one. The front
wheel diameter is larger by one inch, and the
rear tyre section by half. Fork trail has been
increased from 2% in to 3!4 in, and the frame
both lifted beneath and lowered above so increasing
ground clearance from seven to nine inches,
and lowering seat height by half an inch to
W/2 in. Somehow or other, all these variations
have resulted in a machine one inch longer than
a Bantam, at 79!/2 in.
Perhaps because the rear carrier had been
overloaded at some time or another, the rear
mudguard mounting bracket, also supporting
the seat and carrier, snapped, a few days before
it was returned to the factory. I was sorry
to see it go, for not only was I left without
transport (most important) but the machine was
a versatile one. Fast (for a trail 175)-over
60 mph; flexible-second gear starting; economical-over
70 mpg; and as good if not better, on the rough
than the smooth, and strong. The sort of machine
you could hurl over a slope too steep to ride
down, then climb down after it and ride away.
|