Britbike forum

Classic British Spares Klempf British PartsBaxter Cycle BritBike Sponsor SteadfastCyclesSRM Engineering Lucas Classic Motorcycle Industrial tec supply Hepolite Pistons The Bonneville ShopLowbrow Customs

Upgrade your membership to: Premium Membership | Gold Membership | Life Membership | Vendor Membership | Site Sponsor Membership
Member Spotlight
MikeG
MikeG
New Hampshier USA
Posts: 3,272
Joined: August 2001
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Top Posters(30 Days)
quinten 91
Rohan 65
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
quinten 13
Newest Members
makrph, vanGinneke, Gearhard, yornocT120R, robert wilby
11,840 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
5 members (bill50cal, Magnetoman, Gary Caines, Steve Erickson, GJVGC), 20 guests, and 83 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#851505 06/13/21 3:41 pm
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 143
Likes: 3
L
Lorenzo Offline OP
Britbike forum member
OP Offline
Britbike forum member
L
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 143
Likes: 3
I may be having a spot of bother balancing my rear wheel.
Wheel is totally standard, with original Dunlop chrome rim stamped 37-7030 and galvanised steel spokes, and I originally removed the tyre to replace a single undersized spoke that the p.o. had fitted.
At the same time I replaced the inner tube as the old one had been patched, and fitted a security bolt / rimlock which at the time was missing.
Security bolt is a moulded rubber type (Wassell ?) and weighs 160gm
.
Re-assembled, the wheel was obviously WAY out of balance, although I confess I had made the absent-minded mistake of fitting the tyre with the balance mark next to the valve, rather than next to the heaviest point i.e. the security bolt/rimlock.

I'd very much like to get the balance right this time.......
Does anyone have an average weight for a WM3 (215) sec. bolt ?

Thanks in advance for any help (but please don't suggest removing sec. bolt).


1978 T140E
1979 TR7V
1960 Royal Enfield Bullet 350
1973-81 (6x) Bultacos
Waste not, want not.........Thrift is a virtue.
Triumphs on eBay
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,780
Likes: 45
Born To Run
Offline
Born To Run
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,780
Likes: 45
Originally Posted by Lorenzo
Thanks in advance for any help (but please don't suggest removing sec. bolt).

Buy another one and weigh it??

Seriously, you could probably rig up a truing stand using some wood and the rear spindle to support the wheel...



Steve


'77 T140J
"Vintage Bike". What's in your garage?

"The paying customer is always right."

Fitting round pegs into square holes since 1961...
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 143
Likes: 3
L
Lorenzo Offline OP
Britbike forum member
OP Offline
Britbike forum member
L
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 143
Likes: 3
Thanks, Steve -
I'm using the bike's own swing arm as a wheel stand - that's how I found out how out-of-balance it was ......
However, even when I have the tyre fitted correctly, 160gm (5.65oz.) seems quite a lot to balance out - hence my question.


1978 T140E
1979 TR7V
1960 Royal Enfield Bullet 350
1973-81 (6x) Bultacos
Waste not, want not.........Thrift is a virtue.
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 77
T
Britbike forum member
Offline
Britbike forum member
T
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 77
Hi Lorenzo, I always balance rear wheel as well as the front. I have truing stand so do off bike. The stand comes have less friction than bearings but on bike will certainly be close enough.

Depending on how much it’s out, rear tire can make bike feel slightly twitchy or light. While good balance both wheels gives bike grounded solid feel. Really start notice oh this 70-75 mph with only a few oz out.

I always keep/use rim lock as it keeps tire on rim in a blow out. Hopefully preventing loss of control. So you are not wasting time.

I’ve been in your position several times. The rim locks are very heavy. Seems on older bikes locks were 180deg. Stem centered. That was easy. My ‘73 Tiger locks & stem is about in 3rds. Always needs weights.

I’ve mounted dozens of tires. I’ve been finding the weight dot is variable to what position takes less weights.

I’ll line it with stem & test. If needs too much weight I’ll spin tire on rim. Retest. As you know spinning tire not so easy. I keep at it until I think is about as good as it’ll be, no weights. Then add weights.

Saying all that, it doesn’t really matter if you use 1 or 4 oz. of weights. It’s the final result of no wheel movement that counts. But stagger spoke weights such they are in line with center of rim average overall so they have minimal effect on the dynamic balance. So stick on would half one side of spoke line, half the other.

Any weights will work. I like the original spoke type. 2 sizes only. I cut bottom off the small size to get more accurate, keeping all the weights on neighboring spokes. Just looks cleaner to me.

Balance is balance. Spinning tire just saves weights. To me 4 or 5 weights in a row looks funny. Sure it adds to overall rotating & unsparing mass, but I’ve ridden bikes with lots of weights & I can’t feel it.
Don


1973 Tiger 750
1 member likes this: Lorenzo
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,470
Likes: 41
S
Britbike forum member
Offline
Britbike forum member
S
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,470
Likes: 41
Hi,
Originally Posted by Lorenzo
having a spot of bother balancing my rear wheel.
Wheel is totally standard, with original Dunlop chrome rim stamped 37-7030 and galvanised steel spokes,
replaced the inner tube
and fitted a security bolt / rimlock which at the time was missing.
Security bolt is a moulded rubber type (Wassell ?) and weighs 160gm
Not clear from your first post - the wheel does have two security bolts, mounted opposite one another in the rim? If yes, they should both weigh similar amounts, so they shouldn't need much/any balancing themselves.

Hth.

Regards,

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,986
Likes: 48
L
Britbike forum member
Offline
Britbike forum member
L
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,986
Likes: 48
Originally Posted by Stuart
Hi,
Originally Posted by Lorenzo
having a spot of bother balancing my rear wheel.
Wheel is totally standard, with original Dunlop chrome rim stamped 37-7030 and galvanised steel spokes,
replaced the inner tube
and fitted a security bolt / rimlock which at the time was missing.
Security bolt is a moulded rubber type (Wassell ?) and weighs 160gm
Not clear from your first post - the wheel does have two security bolts, mounted opposite one another in the rim? If yes, they should both weigh similar amounts, so they shouldn't need much/any balancing themselves.

The '78 T140 parts book shows and lists two (another error carried over from what was the T160 rear wheel parts drawing).

My '78 T140 (37-7030 rim) has only one, opposite the valve.

My T160 has two but they are not directly opposite one another.

Edit: Further research shows the weaker thinner spoked '76-'77 T140 rear wheel assembly with 37-7018 rim had two security bolts (not directly opposite once again).

Last edited by L.A.B.; 06/13/21 8:46 pm.
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 11
Likes: 1
R
Britbike forum member
Offline
Britbike forum member
R
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 11
Likes: 1
not claiming any knowledge here, but i assumed that rimlocks were to stop the tyre spinning on the rim at low pressures - like on my dirt bikes -
i can't remember any of my road bikes (with tubed tyres) having rim locks and wonder why the safety issue wouldn't apply to tubeless tyres, that don't have rimlocks
very happy to have my assumptions shown to have made an ass out of you and me
rory

Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 143
Likes: 3
L
Lorenzo Offline OP
Britbike forum member
OP Offline
Britbike forum member
L
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 143
Likes: 3
Thanks for your responses, guys...

Don -
I'm quite familiar with the use of security bolts - all my off-roaders have one front and two rear bolts fitted. These are all WM1 / WM2 (1.65 / 1.85) size, and I was surprised at just how heavy/bulky the WM3 (2.15) version is.

Stuart -
I thought my post was perfectly clear; I quoted the rim part #, and any reference to security bolt(s) was in the singular, as my wheel has just two holes drilled - one for valve stem and one security bolt diametrically opposite, just like L.A.B.'s........
However, this failed to make allowance for Meriden's habit of changing parts and retaining the same part #;
'78 parts book does indeed list two bolts, '79 and later just one. (For example, '81 book lists one bolt and 37-7030 rim) It would appear that the change to a single bolt was made some time in '78.

L.A.B. -
Your bike seems to bear out my thoughts about this change point.
I found out about the 37-7018 rim and lighter gauge spokes by accident, when I tried to obtain a single spoke to replace the undersized one. I won't bore you with the details - it's a very long story.......!
Triumph parts books are so shot through with mistakes and misinformation, it's a wonder that anyone ever got anything right !
My '77 parts book lists 37-7018 rim as WM3 - 19 in. is one example.
In the later parts books '79 and on, the same part #'s are given for spoke weights for both front and rear wheels, despite different nipple diameters.......etc.

Rory -
Wheels specifically designed for tubeless tyre use normally have a safety lip for tyre retention in the event of a blowout.
Rimlocks/security bolts are very much old technology, anyway.....but then so are Meriden twins.......

Last edited by Lorenzo; 06/14/21 11:01 am. Reason: clarity

1978 T140E
1979 TR7V
1960 Royal Enfield Bullet 350
1973-81 (6x) Bultacos
Waste not, want not.........Thrift is a virtue.
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 49
D
Britbike forum member
Offline
Britbike forum member
D
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 49
Nothing useful to add re: balancing (I've never balanced spoked wheels: fit the tyres and ride, although rarely above 70mph), but Norfolk (UK) appears to be a hotbed for BritBikers.

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 11,355
Likes: 165
Britbike forum member
Offline
Britbike forum member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 11,355
Likes: 165
Originally Posted by rory brennan
not claiming any knowledge here, but i assumed that rimlocks were to stop the tyre spinning on the rim at low pressures - like on my dirt bikes -
i can't remember any of my road bikes (with tubed tyres) having rim locks and wonder why the safety issue wouldn't apply to tubeless tyres, that don't have rimlocks
very happy to have my assumptions shown to have made an ass out of you and me
rory
The problem is the chrome rims have no mechanism to stop the tyre creeping with low pressures, so if you get a puncture but do not notice the drop in pressure in time the tyre can creep around and pull the valve stem out of the inner tube, then the bead can drop into the spoke recess. If you look at modern alloy rims on the inside they have serrations where the tyre bead sits to provide resistance to bead creep and on MT profile rims a raised section to stop the bead dropping into the spoke area.

1 member likes this: Lorenzo
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 143
Likes: 3
L
Lorenzo Offline OP
Britbike forum member
OP Offline
Britbike forum member
L
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 143
Likes: 3
Originally Posted by Dibnah
Norfolk (UK) appears to be a hotbed for BritBikers.

Mentioning that you come from, or live in the county usually conjures up in others mental pictures of our living in mud huts in the middle of turnip fields.......
OK, we may well be sodbusters and shitkickers, in their eyes, but we do enjoy our old stuff !

Last edited by Lorenzo; 06/14/21 12:32 pm.

1978 T140E
1979 TR7V
1960 Royal Enfield Bullet 350
1973-81 (6x) Bultacos
Waste not, want not.........Thrift is a virtue.
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 8,194
Likes: 182
A
Britbike forum member
Offline
Britbike forum member
A
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 8,194
Likes: 182
Originally Posted by kommando
Originally Posted by rory brennan
not claiming any knowledge here, but i assumed that rimlocks were to stop the tyre spinning on the rim at low pressures - like on my dirt bikes -
i can't remember any of my road bikes (with tubed tyres) having rim locks and wonder why the safety issue wouldn't apply to tubeless tyres, that don't have rimlocks
very happy to have my assumptions shown to have made an ass out of you and me
rory
The problem is the chrome rims have no mechanism to stop the tyre creeping with low pressures, so if you get a puncture but do not notice the drop in pressure in time the tyre can creep around and pull the valve stem out of the inner tube, then the bead can drop into the spoke recess. If you look at modern alloy rims on the inside they have serrations where the tyre bead sits to provide resistance to bead creep and on MT profile rims a raised section to stop the bead dropping into the spoke area.

A good reason not to have the inner tube nut locking down against the rim. If you have the nut slack it will highlight any tyre creepage as soon as it starts. it can creep a little way before it strains the valve stem enough to rip it off. Providing you give your valves a visual check before riding you shouldn't have a problem (granted this doesn't help one bit in a blow out or puncture en-route) to add I've never seen a japanese bike that has had rim locks, not saying they didn't.... Just I havent seen any and the only time I have known someone have a ripped off stem was using the "original book pressure" of about 18-21psi and not 30psi.


Now let’s all have a beer beerchug

68’ A65 Lightning “clubman”
71’ A65 823 Thunderbolt (now rebuilt)
67’ D10 sportsman (undergoing restoration)
68’ D14 trials (undergoing transformation)

Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 49
D
Britbike forum member
Offline
Britbike forum member
D
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 49
Originally Posted by Lorenzo
Mentioning that you come from, or live in the county usually conjures up in others mental pictures of our living in mud huts in the middle of turnip fields.......
OK, we may well be sodbusters and shitkickers, in their eyes, but we do enjoy our old stuff !

Norfolk = space, particularly the hinterland.

I recently overheard a gobby Londoner poking fun at someone from Norfolk, the Norfolk man's response was "So what s**thole do you live in then?" Which was a conversation stopper - as intended.

Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,467
Likes: 26
R
Britbike forum member
Offline
Britbike forum member
R
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,467
Likes: 26
Hello TR7RVMan; I only know the truing stands that you can check the "side by side" play or wobbling but how do you check (precisely) the movement up and down? and that is the important movement to know what spoke you should adjust or what weight you need.

Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 20
A
Britbike forum member
Offline
Britbike forum member
A
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 20
Most ruling stands that I have seen are similar to swing arms, mounted vertically rather than horizontal.

Therefore the easy thing is to measure the movement of the rim up and down from a reference point at the bottom

Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 77
T
Britbike forum member
Offline
Britbike forum member
T
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 77
Hi All, My truing stand has a rectangular base that sets on bench. 2 uprights with horizontal tubes on top with clamp bolts. In these tubes are metal rods with cone shaped center points. These cones enter wheel bearings or the edge of inner hub bore as case may be. This takes the place of the axle.

Depending on wheel bearings, if they have rubber seals or not, a tad of grease with cones lightly holding wheel it has less rotating friction than many bearings. So it can repeatable measure 1/8 oz or less out of balance. I'll cut/trim the weights to even less than 1/8 oz. The heavy part of wheel will go to bottom & stop. If off an oz or more the wheel will very easily find bottom. Quite obvious. When you get close and are getting to 1/8 oz range you can move wheel lightly & soon get the feel where the remaining heavy spot is.

So the light spot is on top. I mark spoke on top with tape. Turn wheel 90 degrees. Put on 1 oz watch what it does. Add or subtract weight as needed. With a little practice very easy to get wheel balanced such it will not have a heavy spot.

When truing rim or checking tire run out the stand side uprights have to adjustable arms with pointed end. You bring close to rim or tire as case may be. rotate rim & observe runout. Adjust spoke nipples as needed to correct rim. Tires, some runout is normal. If excessive the tire will need to be replaced.

The base has a cross bar. Mounted to cross bar is an adjustable arm with point. You place this almost touching rim no tire to true up/down on rim adjusting spoke nipples. To measure tire up/down, or for humps you place pointer near tire & rotate.

When spin wheel you see the wobble & up/down by the pointers. You tighten spoke(s) near pointer. You can see rim move. Here's where skill comes in.... Tightening up/down effects wobble. Tightening for wobble has less effect often, but effects up/down. At the same time you have offset from hub, centered to hub. You use straight edge & ruler to keep rim correct right to left, Of course spoke tension is important. You want spokes to be similar for the most part. So you may loosen some spokes to move rim also. Finally you get it all correct. No up/down, no wobble. Oh... many rims are not even width.... So you find the best average.... Suppose you find rim needs to be moved 1/8" to left. You loosen all the spokes like 1/4-1/2 on right & tighten spokes on left. However.... front wheels centered in hub is easy. Rear wheels where one side spokes are closer to straight run to hub it's very uneven adjusting the spokes. With practice you get a feel for it. First time can take all day or more. At the dealership we got 1hr. to remove front wheel. Remove 19" rim & spokes. Lace & true 21" wheel. Install & take short road test. After doing several you could do it in an hour without much trouble. Rear wheel took longer with chain, brake plate & offset. I'd say most Sportster owners in '70 & '71 had us install 4" longer chrome fork legs & 21" front rim. 15% would have us install 16" rear rim on new bikes before delivery. That was the style back then.

When testing runout I tighten cones fairly firmly into wheel bearings or hub to keep hub stable as possible. For balancing a loose fit even with some wobble works fine. Your just looking for the heavy spot.

If wheel is in forks front or rear & bearing friction is minimal, it does the exact same thing as my truing stand. If you clamp pointers to fork legs front or rear you can true rim & measure tire runout no problem at all. I've balanced many motorcycle wheels in place on bike. Just make sure brakes aren't dragging & you don't have too much bearing friction. Chain must be removed from sprocket in every case. If you cannot get repeatable results on balancing on bike, you have too much friction for some reason. Friction or chain on, doesn't effect wheel truing on bike. I've trued dozens of wheels on bike.

The truing stand is just a nice tool to make the job a bit easier. Especially if wheel is off anyway.

On dry frame rear wheel or TLS front brake often you must remove brake plate to get the most accurate balance. If not just do it on bike making sure you don't hear or feel any brake drag. If your off 1/2 oz due to friction, that's a huge improvement over being off 1.5 or 2 oz.
Don


1973 Tiger 750
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,470
Likes: 41
S
Britbike forum member
Offline
Britbike forum member
S
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,470
Likes: 41
Hi,
Originally Posted by L.A.B.
My T160 has two but they are not directly opposite one another.
True. My early one's like that. Abberation by the man with the hole-making machine? Or there was belief that the valve and the heaviest bit of the TT100 tyre would weigh similar to an original rimlock? Assuming of course that the 1975 tyre fitters would spend time finding the heaviest part of each tyre to put by the valve?

My late T160 wasn't like that.

Originally Posted by L.A.B.
My '78 T140 (37-7030 rim) has only one, opposite the valve.
Curious. Unfortunately, without the weight of an original rimlock, it's difficult to know how easy it was to balance?

Originally Posted by rory brennan
not claiming any knowledge here, but i assumed that rimlocks were to stop the tyre spinning on the rim at low pressures
A common assumption that doesn't survive reality - the tyre pressure has to be so low for even a Triumph or BSA triple to be able to move the rim relative to the tyre that a rider has to a complete moron not to realise something's wrong already. For that reason, afaict they/it were fitted to keep the tyre on the rim in the event of a fast deflation (puncture). From personal first-hand experience of both with and without rimlocks, while either is a good laxative, without is a better laxative, particularly when combined with speed (of the mph variety) ...

Originally Posted by rory brennan
why the safety issue wouldn't apply to tubeless tyres, that don't have rimlocks
All tubeless rim sections are designed to hold the tyre bead much better.

Originally Posted by Lorenzo
I thought my post was perfectly clear;
It wasn't, because I had/have trouble believing anyone could think a single lump of mass concentrated at a single point on an object that can rotate at high speed is a good idea - it requires the belief that several basic physical laws somehow don't apply to "160gm" 18-odd inches from the wheel's COG. However, it seems someone at the Co-op did believe this, my flabber is duly gasted. However2, from your first post:-
Originally Posted by Lorenzo
having a spot of bother balancing my rear wheel

Originally Posted by Lorenzo
Rimlocks/security bolts are very much old technology, anyway
See above about punctures - one of those bits of technology you don't need 'til you need it.

Originally Posted by Allan G
Originally Posted by kommando
chrome rims have no mechanism to stop the tyre creeping with low pressures,
A good reason not to have the inner tube nut locking down against the rim.
+1. I haven't fitted inner tube nuts for years, for exactly this reason.

Regards,

Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 143
Likes: 3
L
Lorenzo Offline OP
Britbike forum member
OP Offline
Britbike forum member
L
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 143
Likes: 3
Originally Posted by Stuart
,

[quote=Lorenzo]Rimlocks/security bolts are very much old technology, anyway
See above about punctures - one of those bits of technology you don't need 'til you need it.

If you read my original post again, you will see that I asked NOT to have it suggested that I remove the security bolt -
for that very reason..........

The basis for that original post was to determine if anyone had any knowledge of the likely weight difference between the sec. bolt I am using (supplied to me by a Triumph parts dealer on the part # 37-3468, as I recall), and the original bolt, which I am assuming was a Dunlop item of the pressed steel type with a rubber flap fixed to it by two alloy rivets.I've weighed the bolt I have, but I don't have an original for comparison, as it was omitted by the p.o.

Last edited by Lorenzo; 06/15/21 12:28 pm.

1978 T140E
1979 TR7V
1960 Royal Enfield Bullet 350
1973-81 (6x) Bultacos
Waste not, want not.........Thrift is a virtue.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,470
Likes: 41
S
Britbike forum member
Offline
Britbike forum member
S
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,470
Likes: 41
Hi Lorenzo,
Originally Posted by Lorenzo
Originally Posted by Lorenzo
Rimlocks/security bolts are very much old technology, anyway
Originally Posted by Stuart
See above about punctures - one of those bits of technology you don't need 'til you need it.
If you read my original post again, you will see that I asked NOT to have it suggested that I remove the security bolt
Please feel free to link any post in this thread where I suggest removing security bolt(s).

Originally Posted by Lorenzo
The basis for that original post was to determine if anyone had any knowledge of the likely weight difference between the sec. bolt I am using (supplied to me by a Triumph parts dealer on the part # 37-3468, as I recall), and the original bolt,
Whatever it weighs, you're going to have a problem balancing just one. As:-

Originally Posted by Lorenzo
my wheel has just two holes drilled - one for valve stem and one security bolt diametrically opposite,
... why not buy another rimlock - as already suggested - if it weighs similar to the one you have already, drill a third hole as close as possible to halfway between the existing two "diametrically opposite" each other, fit the two rimlocks in the two "diametrically opposite" holes, fit the tube valve in the new hole, balance from there?

Regards,

Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 296
Likes: 29
T
Britbike forum member
Offline
Britbike forum member
T
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 296
Likes: 29
You could "dummy" a weight about the same as the existing rimlock and tape it to the rim in the appropriate place - saves drilling the hole to find out if the balance will work?

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,168
Likes: 14
D
Britbike forum member
Offline
Britbike forum member
D
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,168
Likes: 14
I only balance my front wheel as I thought balancing the back wheel wasn't really necessary.

In my case the wheel bearings do a good enough job. when the wheel stops (it spends quite a while going back and forth I just keep adding some weight on the opposite side until it stops in any position. i don't weigh anything.

My back wheel has two security bolts that are fitted diametrically opposite each other and then the valve a bit away from one.

Someone mentioned a rim with only two holes. This seems odd.

Dave

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 11,355
Likes: 165
Britbike forum member
Offline
Britbike forum member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 11,355
Likes: 165
Quote
I only balance my front wheel as I thought balancing the back wheel wasn't really necessary.

An out of balance front will cause more issues than an out of balance rear, even then the rear can be so badly out of balance its needs balancing. A 70's roadtest of a Norton Commando was suffering from road holding issues until the rear wheel was balanced. You can get away without balancing a rear until you need to but I get them both balanced.

Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 143
Likes: 3
L
Lorenzo Offline OP
Britbike forum member
OP Offline
Britbike forum member
L
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 143
Likes: 3
[quote=Stuart]
Whatever it weighs, you're going to have a problem balancing just one.

I don't see that as a given. It obviously wasn't a problem for Meriden....... and this bike has survived 43 years with just the one (and for part of the time, none).
L.A.B.'s likewise...... and there must be many others

To get back to my original point : I just wanted to compare the weight of the rimlock I have with the weight of an original.

Last edited by Lorenzo; 06/16/21 2:53 pm.

1978 T140E
1979 TR7V
1960 Royal Enfield Bullet 350
1973-81 (6x) Bultacos
Waste not, want not.........Thrift is a virtue.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,760
Likes: 144
Life Member
Offline
Life Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,760
Likes: 144
I use rim locks and have even been known to ADD one from time to time.

Now nobody 😉 can say we don’t know.


Gordon

PS. You’ll have to do the conversion, sorry. The weight shown is in ounces and that’s with nut and washer attached.

IMG_7997.jpg
Last edited by Gordon Gray; 06/16/21 5:39 pm.

Gordon Gray in NC, USA.........as Lannis says “Gordon is either all in or all out.....there’s no in between”
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 79
K
Britbike forum member
Offline
Britbike forum member
K
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 79
Assuming US ounces are 28.4 grammes, Gordon’s is 103g, which is much less than your one at 160g.

Presumably there’s an extra 2 oz of steel in your one, for some reason.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  John Healy 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Job CycleBritish Cycle SupplyMorries PlaceKlempf British PartsPodtronicVintage MagazineBSA Unit SinglesBritBike SponsorBritish Tools & FastenersBritBike SponsorBritBike Sponsor






© 1996-2021 britbike.com
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5