TAS or TCS

[Robinson87]

Would anyone be able to tell me what the difference between a TAS and a TCS.
32A engined 1959 Scottish have original documents with TAS and on others TCS. ?

[johnrunnacles]

The TAS models were 1959. Strictly speaking the 1959 250 (24TAS) had the 31A unit fitted.
The TCS is from 1960 and the engine unit in the 250 model for that year was the 32A.
Depending on the frame number/configuration, you may find that you have a hybrid, a 1959 rolling chassis with a 1960 unit installed.
Hope this helps?

[Colin Sparrow]

What John says above is spot on. Other differences are few. The TC's used the same frame as the TA's, but the alloy beam was altered to give a slightly steeper steering head angle, so a half-inch shorter wheelbase. This, coupled with modified lock stops, gave a tighter turning circle. The forks were strengthened by the use of Reynolds 531 tubing. The TCS had a shorter rear chain case.

[dave higgins]

Thats interesting, was the actual alloy beam cast different or was the angle changed at the fork yokes or steel frame section, just interested. dave.

[johnrunnacles]

Some jiggery-pokery was available on the later bike by the fitting of an angled top plate to the forks, Dave, which could be set one way for a trials set-up and turned round through 180 degrees for scrambles geometry, and I seem to remember the bottom plate was off-set toward the rear, presumably to give extra length to the wheel-base and/or to enable a tighter steering lock. I scrambled a modified TCS for three years up to 2003 and I was repeatedly criticised by scrutineers for using a top plate in the trials setting .................. but the bike handled OK (for me) and was the most reliable of the several similar ones (including "pukka" Hawkstones) I have used now for the past 12 years. Colin took a photo of it for publication in Leading Link at the close of the 2003 season. My very first Hawkstone purchased secondhand on apprentice wages in 1962 was similarly endowed, so I had probably become used to the handling (?)

[Colin Sparrow]

To quote the 1960 sales brochure:

Substantial improvements... "They comprise a new main beam casting with modified head angle to improve the low speed handling. Modified front forks giving much greater steering lock with an up grading in tube specification to Renold 531 as on our Scrambler"

Dave, Greeves had their own foundry, they could easily modify the 'beam casting. My original answer was sourced from the book draft. I'm glad I wasn't making it up when I wrote it, back around Christmas last year...

[dave higgins]

I believe you colin!, its john thats causing trouble...

[johnrunnacles]

I'm not questioning anything that Colin has said, either (I wouldn't dare!). Only adding from my perspective just what those fork modifications may have entailed .......... ??

[dave higgins]

The reason i asked, was because, i had heard this before, so tried a ta frame section against a known scramble unit & they were the same, so i guess its only the tas that was modified. i only did this was because i had them both to hand & secondley to make sure that i was using the correct section on what was later to become the thumper/hybrid. dave.

[Robinson87]

Thank you

Many thanks to everyone's reply. I have rock solid history on my bike as I'm the second owner. Frame and engine all confirm 1960 model. But Comerfords first registered the bike in June 1959, I can only assume they got a new model early.