Hi
Bonnar Bloke,
Deejay, Rossf,and
ODK members,
BB, thanks for the comments mate. Very thoughtful
ODK would appreciate any comment on these points:-
The issue of the handle bar difference at the top is new and valuable information,
particularly when it goes to the ergonomics of each machine. I personally believe
that the SB 45 handle was one of its great features (though not its greatest).
The second difference you identified was the catcher rubber capture.
The Rover was a bolted-to-frame capture; the SB was a side-frame weldment.
[This is a cosmetic difference; it may be more important with Rovers
made to look like SBs.]
The third difference is of special significance, perhaps a greater issue
than the single versus twin-frame mount crack issues. It's the powder
coating issue on the R45s. You seem to be suggesting that this will impact on
the longevity of the R45s; that
hygroscopic corrosion is of serious concern.
The fourth difference is the manufacturer's plate.
You say the R45s were adhesive, rather than riveted to the frame.
I have seen pictures of the 'green' R45s that have a riveted plate.
I need help in clarifying these statements:-
- The first Rover 45s were powder-coated light green;
- After x years, they changed to powder-coated Rover Red;
- a riveted manufacturer's plates were used on the green R45s;
- adhesive plates were used on the Rover Red 45s;
- all Rover SBs used plastic output shaft bearing housings;
- forward-facing clutch levers were used on all green R45s;
- backward-facing clutch levers were used on later R45s.
All very interesting.
--------------------------------------
JACK. 
