2012 Bicknell Chassis Serial Number
Chrystal Dueno
1) BICKNELL RACING PRODUCTS FACTORY- Located in St. Catharines Ontario Canada, this is where all of our cars are produced. If you are a dealer, in need of a chassis repair, set-up help or are looking to purchase a car, please contact our Factory at 905-685-4291
Bicknell Racing products Factory staff is available year round for set-up help. They can help with chassis set-up, shock advise, as well as specific track set-up assistance. Our staff is knowledge and friendly, and always willing to help you find your way to victory lane. 905-685-4291.
Bicknell Racing Products keeps an extensive record of every serial number produced. The Staff at Bicknell's can let you know when the car was produced, build specifications, and any information they may know of since it's production (chassis repairs, chassis changes..etc). Please have the serial number available when calling. All our documents are derived from the Serial number. For assistance, call the Factory and speak with any of our staff. 905-685- 4291
For more information on Bicknell Racing Products, visit their website at www.bicknellracingproducts.com. Make sure to follow them on Facebook at www.facebook.com/BicknellRacingProducts and on twitter at @BicknellRacing.
Symonds: During Super Dirt Week, I noticed the number of chassis in the field were mostly Bicknell. What are your thoughts on the number of Bicknell Chassis in the 2019 Super Dirt Week field?
Slack: If you look at our history, our numbers have been quite steady. Some years we will see a growth with a difference of 5-10 chassis coming out of our shop. But our numbers have been quite steady, even in the last 10 years.
Tom
I can provide a list of races ( dates, circuits, race titles, race numbers and results ) for nearly100 races that the Revis cars, JAP and Norton engined, participated in when driven by Reg Bicknell plus the couple of outings in the hands of Ken Gregory, the manager of Stirling Moss, and the young Dennis Taylor who went on to be a very competitive driver in Formula Junior before sadly losing his life at Monaco in 1962.
If you could E-mail me and supply your postal address I will send you photocopies ( xeroxes ). They are written in my fair hand which is marginally better than a doctor's. Unfortunately I have not the skill, time or patience to post them on the forum. Sorry.
John
Most importantly, Richard, is she going to out to play next season?
On the 1955 car, I tend towards it being a second Revis special. It seems to merge Revis Mk 1, Staride and Martin styles, without matching any one in particular. I don't think we know what happened to his 1953 Staride, and we have this gaping lack of reporting of the 1955 car so far.
But as a SWAG, I wonder if it might be a crashed & rebuilt Martin chassis?
- Chassis rails about right
- Swing arm mounts about right. But rather than rubber bands, Reg would logically have gone with the pushrod he knows so well?
- The front end proportions are very similar to the Roy Hunt/Mike Trackman car.
- But everything about the front suspension (wishbone angles, steering mount, damper mount/bulkhead) seems unique.
which might fit a theory of a front-end smash car. Take the Martin concept and upgrade it with the best of the Staride and '54 Revis. Conceivably, it could be sold on as a Martin and its history lost. The biggest question would be why - why not use the '54 chassis again in '55? Why was the '54 chassis not sold until '56? Why the complete lack of any reference to a new '55 chassis (when we are so sure it is not the '54 chassis with a new nosecone)?
For Martins, we could rule out the Hobart-Martin and Martin-Headland, and the John Brown and Noel Berrow-Johnson cars. But one story stands out - Dennis Taylor. Dennis drove the Revis once, which suggests a link. In 1953 he drove a Martin, but went to a Staride in 1954 - did he buy Reg's Staride and p/x his Martin. The only image I have of the Taylor Martin is very early, but we do know that it was heavily pranged and rebuilt in 1953.
It seems unlikely, and the evidence is negligible, but it might be worth considering.
I would be interested to know more. Everything I have seen has Noel, with a couple of references to Brian (BE).
Richard,
I agree with you totally. The 1955 chassis is something different from the 1954 (which has repeatedly been proven to be the 1954 car, born from the 1951 chassis). Whilst the history is messy, clearly the whole chassis front end would have to be cut off, replaced, and then refitted (nevermind changing chassis rail diameters). It didn't happen.
I know nothing about the Revis-Borgward sportscar, except that it too was built in 1955. Google knows even less. I wonder whether it has similarities - perhaps a very similar front suspension layout? Does anyone here have any information or images?
It could be a ground-up design, or it might be a based on an existing chassis. We can see several elements (fuel tank position, and especially the complete rear suspension) taken straight from the 1954 Revis, but we are really guessing what lies beneath (the images suggest more a twin-tube chassis like a Cooper Mk VI than the trapezium design that was born in the Moss-Kieft and continued through Staride, Martin and '54 Revis).
The real questions though are:
- Why did no one mention it? Somewhere in the late '54 and '55 press there must be some mention, however passing, that it was a new car
- What happened to it? Reg continued with it until May '56 (Goodwood). No mention of him crashing it. If he sold it (and it raced under a different name) I haven't seen it, and a car that good would probably stand out.
So let's take what we can get - one mystery is completely solved, two more take its place
This casting was used to make both Model A and Model B part number covers (having timing pin holes in different locations on the boss). This cover pictured above was for post-1931 service use, and was not used on original production Model A's.
Pictured above is the 1932 Model B cover B-6019. It is identical to the Model A (service) cover, except the B-6019 cover has the timing pin hole in the advanced position on the boss. The timing pin hole in the Model B cover corresponds to 19 crankshaft degrees (9-1/2 camshaft degrees) BTDC on the number one piston.
In some respects, the A-6019-BR service cover (middle one above) might be the most convenient to have on a Model A since it puts the generator up higher away from the lower water hose. I have seen a number of generator brackets cutting into the lower hose on Model A's, and it is also difficult to reach the generator mounting bolt for service with the original covers.
The thundering procession, which will include the Number One Speed Equipment, Finger Lakes Auto Machine powered and Bicknell chassis 49 of Billy Dunn, the JB Motorsports 9s FX Caprara Car Co./Xtreme Lubricants/Bicknell car of two-time defending Super DIRTcar Series champion Matt Sheppard, the 21a JBR Motorsports/Troyer of three-time Australian V8 Dirt Modified Series champion Pete Britten, and the Official Pace Car for NAPA Auto Parts Super DIRT Week XLI, continue on Solar, Clinton and West Jefferson Streets, past the Museum of Science and Technology. From there, the pace car will lead the Big-Block Modifieds along Adams Street, South State Street, Erie Boulevard, Oswego Street and James Street to return to Destiny USA.
Resnik et al. assessed the semantic relatedness of concepts by the information content [14]. Information content measures the frequency with which a concept occurs in a large number of contexts. If the value of information content is high, the concept is considered as a specific one. In contrast to a specific concept, a general concept has a low information content value. To calculate the semantic relatedness of concept P and concept Q, Resnik et al. have employed WordNet [15] and the Brown corpus to compute the maximum value of information content for all concepts. However, many concepts share the same information content, causing the concepts to be similar. Therefore, several studies used the different information content of concepts to approximate the semantic relatedness [16], [17].
The ReLPR algorithm is shown in Figure 11. ReLPR increases the number of lexical patterns by a strategy of learning known synonym datasets, and a reinforcing method is applied to estimate semantic relatedness based on the influence between lexical patterns and pages. First, the container matrix and the lexical pattern matrix are initialized to 1, and they are matched with each other. Next, the container matrix and the lexical pattern matrix are iteratively modified by their influence on the partner matrix. For the scores that are calculated using the lexical pattern-voting approach, the algorithm is convergent when the difference between the container matrix and the lexical pattern matrix is smaller than a threshold ε. That is, stronger synonymous relations co-occur in the more important containers, and these lexical patterns are capable of distinguishing synonymous relations.
We observed the number of lexical patterns in the training sets, and the distribution of lexical patterns in different container types is shown in the following tables. Table 5 presents the top 5 lexical patterns for each web page, and Table 6 indicates the top 5 lexical patterns for each website. Table 7 lists the top 5 lexical patterns for each synonym pair. The number of lexical patterns within each container type is different; thus, the ReLPR algorithm performs dissimilarly. That is, the lexical patterns influence the lexical-voting approach.
In this study, we used the ReLPR algorithm to evaluate the semantic relatedness of two biomedical terms. The ReLPR algorithm estimates semantic relatedness from the lexical patterns of sentence structures and the reinforcing activities between containers and lexical patterns. Our approach is different from previous methods of discovering semantic relations. The approach begins with the automatic identification of lexical patterns and their connections with containers. Then, we construct a synonym lexical pattern database from the snippets of synonym pairs, and we compare the lexical patterns of synonym pairs with those of the queried pairs. Queried pairs that include a higher number of lexical patterns from synonym pairs are more likely to be synonym pairs. Finally, we compared the ReLPR algorithm with previous studies, and the ReLPR algorithm outperformed them.
aa06259810