Posts: 6,345
Joined: August 2001
|
|
Forums35
Topics76,566
Posts784,685
Members12,395
|
Most Online204 Jul 10th, 2022
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5
Britbike forum member
|
OP
Britbike forum member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5 |
its only the front loop im bothered about, not the swingarm subframe, etc. as i plan to stick a rigid frame section on.
is there anything that will make it unsuitabe for my project?? ile be attaching a '68-ish a65 engine, tank and forks, and a rigid rear frame section.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,165 Likes: 1
In Remembrance
|
In Remembrance
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,165 Likes: 1 |
I don't think 68ish forks will work without some modifications on a 65 frame. seems to have been some discussions on this awhile ago, do a search if no one comments..
Good luck, I just modified a 69 tree to accept 71 fork bottoms, cool... as it bolts right on the 69 and has a better look (alloy bottoms)
Mike Carter
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5
Britbike forum member
|
OP
Britbike forum member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5 |
i think, but am not 100% sure, i can use early trees with the later fork legs?? i dont mind about modification, ive never owned a stock vehicle of any sort in my life!!! i just wanted to know if its going to be a shitload of work, or wether it will all just bolt up!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,165 Likes: 1
In Remembrance
|
In Remembrance
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,165 Likes: 1 |
Dez, not avoiding you it is I have only messed with 67 up on BSA's and only know for certain that the fork legs are a different mm than the newer ones and stem of tree is different as well. You will have to look at tree stem and mm of fork leg hole to see if it is a straight swap. It is easier to use the trees and adapt the legs by using a tapered bit to enlarge top and possibly bottom tree, I say bottom only because the bottom of tree is usually a split circle and you can open up to allow larger mm fork legs. Cheers man and sounds like a cool project, mine is taking forever but it keeps me out of the doghouse. Mike Carter
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5
Britbike forum member
|
OP
Britbike forum member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5 |
well, as i cant find any other frame, i may just have to go with this one, and 'make' it all fit!! betwwen the early and late trees i should eb able to get it all working!!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,344
In Remembrance
|
In Remembrance
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,344 |
I wasnt aware of the front fork issue. I have probably a dozen sets of trees for A-65 and never paid a lot of attention , but I dont notice much difference in the stem (fork locks are all overthe place , as well as some other details ?) .B-44 and a-65 are different for sure . Personally , I have a fondness for the Triumph forks of the period , I dont know why , I guess it is the ruber mounted bars and a similar look , and for the most part , grafting forks isnt terribly difficult , you might even want to add a set of tapered steering head bearings while you are there and the bike wont be stock anyway .
FWIW-BONZO
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 530
Britbike forum member
|
Britbike forum member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 530 |
Dez - When I bought my '66 A65 it had '70 BSA forks/ triple trees and as far as I can tell by looking (and I've had it completely apart to rebuild) they just bolted on without mod.
Will S. BSAs: '66 & '69 Lightning Triumphs: '68 TR6R, '68 Bonneville, '73 TR7, '55 6T '71 Norton Commando www.britironsd.com
|
|
|
|
|