I also recall the Hägglund army bike from 72-74, both versions were monoqoque with single-sided swingarms, shaft-drive, automatic gearboxes (Salisbury converters?) The original version even had a single-sided leading-link front fork. Due to various complaints about ‘you can’t build a bike like that!’ the original bike evolved into something looking more like a normal motorbike, hence the 2 types. I was to test the bike for an Australian magazine (during the effing winter – minus 20 degrees centigrade and snow up to me ar##! But try and tell that to the idiot sitting in sweltering Australian summer heat!! “But I need it for next months mag.”)

And when I got there, halfway up the country, a long way (to all but an Aussie, where a 1,000miles is ‘just up the road’) I find a completely different bike to the one he wanted a test of.

But it was very good. It coped with the snow and ice without problem, and I had asked for a bike without skis on it (I did have a short run with skis on another bike, but didn’t see the point, more likely to hurt yourself if you fell off). The big problem was that he rubber-belt in the transmission only lasted 100 miles in the hands of a conscript and the army wanted total reliability for 30,000 miles. The factory engineers got about 250 out of a belt, which was easily changed with a couple of simple tools in 2-3 minutes, several belts being carried in the built-in toolbox. The HVA auto that eventually got the contract was never that reliable either, and even if it was, cost a fortune to replace when it did need doing that, plus if it proved troublesome in the field nobody could fix it. The belt-drive, as noted, was easily fixed, albeit often. Which would YOU prefer, looking into the barrel of a Kalashnikov….

The bikes was light, handled very well, rode the wheels of it around an mx-track without a thought of it being shaft-drive or not an actual mx:er. In fact, I probably would not have gone faster on my HVA 250 mx.

The engineers told me the original bike was better….

But all (about 12, I think) were posted out to regiments, so I never even got to see one.

Hägglunds went bankrupt a while back, I believe. Hard times for a company only making military stuff. None of the bikes have even turned up on the market.

I was so mad I was into pressed-steel engines!

I still am, I still think a good design would be lighter and more reliable and much quicker and cheaper to make than a cast-alloy unit. I’d use a standard air-cooled alloy cylinder if not going water-cooled.

I sat during the cold winters and designed an MX bike with the entire rear-end in mono, frame/air filter/tank/seat/suspension, bolted to a normal, tube front, that (in theory) saved weight, and certainly made servicing and repairs easy – just undo 5 bolts and swap!

There has been an MX monocoque, but with a separate, normal engine. Back in the days of yor there was a competitor to the South Sweden-based Lindstrom company, in a place called Amal, up in mid-west Sweden, called Flink. The son was still racing sometimes when I started, though on a standard HVA, but I never met him – I did ask, interested in seeing the monocoque if it still existed (I think it does). Some recalled the bike. The monocoque contained the lot, including the expansion-chamber, to which the footrests were bolted. An earlier version used the internal volume of the solid footrests as PART of the expansion-chamber, but this was soon banned as they had now realised folding footrests avoided injury. With the Flink-modded HVA roadbike Guldpilen (Golden-Arrow) motor it was exceedingly light and was said to be a real go’er. I think money and lack of time stopped development.

There is always a trade-off in design, and, of course, rust and crash-damage would be a problem for a steel monocoque MX’er, but when it comes to winning races that doesn’t matter. A good design would not be so delicate, m’thinks, it’s lightness helping here, I never seriously damaged a bike in all the years I raced, just mudguards, handlebars, levers etc, but never a totalled fork, wheels or even a twisted frame. Believe me, I TRIED. I had some lovely crashes the first years. I’d love to turn time back and give making a more modern Flink copy a go, though the weight-limit the FIM introduced would negate some of the advantage (but this limit DIDN’T actually apply to local Swedish races, only international ones!) I would also use rubber-suspension at the back, there are much improved units now available for industrial purposes. This would negate some of the high forces otherwise put into the frame in the wrong place.

Isn’t getting old great!