Springer forks input - The Jockey Journal Board

Go Back   The Jockey Journal Board > General Discussion > The Board

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-24-2017, 01:16 PM   #1
Lester
Senior Member
 
Lester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,559
Default Springer forks input

Hey guys

A friend has an old springer and I've noticed that the top tree/yoke dobles as the spring retainer.
like the first picture
compared to the more often seen separate spring retainer in picture 2

What are the pros and cons of these two different setups???

Click image for larger version

Name:	BL springer.jpg
Views:	83
Size:	49.2 KB
ID:	244609


Click image for larger version

Name:	springer1.jpg
Views:	79
Size:	146.1 KB
ID:	244617



Lester
__________________
'62 DuoGlide Mine for 25yrs
'62 Triumph T-Bird in boxes
'83 BMW R100 commuter
'72 Triumph Bonneville Nothing special
'80's couple of Jap chops too
Lester is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-24-2017, 03:03 PM   #2
magnum45pete
Senior Member
 
magnum45pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Brighton England
Posts: 1,526
Default Re: Springer forks input

They both work the same, you wouldn't notice a difference... it's down to 3 things,... Style/Looks .................... the ability to take the forks off the bike without having to take half of them apart.... the need to make one part less saves time and money in production.

just think what ya want out of them then decide which way suits your needs....
magnum45pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2017, 03:04 PM   #3
VonWegener
Senior Member
 
VonWegener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Apple Valley
Posts: 3,285
Default Re: Springer forks input

Less parts, cheaper to make that's all.
__________________
*
Your friendly neighborhood W&W Cycle Germany, Paughco and V-Twin dealer

VonWegener is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 11-24-2017, 04:13 PM   #4
Lester
Senior Member
 
Lester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,559
Default Re: Springer forks input

Thanks guys..... anybody else?
__________________
'62 DuoGlide Mine for 25yrs
'62 Triumph T-Bird in boxes
'83 BMW R100 commuter
'72 Triumph Bonneville Nothing special
'80's couple of Jap chops too
Lester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2017, 06:50 PM   #5
Rem
Senior Member
 
Rem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 504
Default Re: Springer forks input

I agree with Pete on this - having the separate top yoke/tree means you can take the complete assembly off the bike by just removing that part. The top ones look like you'd be getting the spring clamps out and dismantling it all to drop them off the frame . . . unless the stem is removable and it is set up to drop out through the bottom yoke?
Rem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2017, 12:39 PM   #6
VonWegener
Senior Member
 
VonWegener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Apple Valley
Posts: 3,285
Default Re: Springer forks input

Back in the mid 1960s when Dick Allen and others modified stock Harley springers for that narrow look several people in Los Angeles looked at stream lining the elaborate process of using stock parts. As such they built narrow springers using stock Harley dimensions for the width of the spring bridge so that existing top clamps like Flanders with ears for dog bones could be used.
Springers then became THE must have chopper front end and easier to manufacture front ends popped up that eliminated the separate spring bridge.
The front end your friend has Lester uses the top clamp for the spring bridge which makes for a very nice looking bike especially when using a frisco mounted tank.
There is another version which uses the lower triple tree as the spring bridge and to me that does not look so right.
__________________
*
Your friendly neighborhood W&W Cycle Germany, Paughco and V-Twin dealer

VonWegener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2017, 01:16 PM   #7
BackPorchChoppers
Senior Member
 
BackPorchChoppers's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Arlington Texas
Posts: 964
Default

Ehhh I don't hate on either style of springer I've got both designs. Actually have an early ness springer that has the spring perch double as a top clamp. One bennifit I see to it is you can get more rake with less up and out and be able to clear the tank.
BackPorchChoppers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2017, 01:51 AM   #8
Lester
Senior Member
 
Lester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,559
Default Re: Springer forks input

Cheers guys, great input.
I like 'em both myself and we are looking to make a fresh new set and noticed this differanse compared to the "Chopper Handbook" designe which seems to have the "Bullet Proof" designe stamp on it.
My main concern is the technical side of things... function, handling and so on.

Looks and style..... What I like about the tree/bridge combo is that the forks look longer and narrower.
VW agree with you on the Frisco tank

The set with a separate bridge i like because it looks a bit more complex and has a bit more shape to it.

My friends springer with the top tree that dobles as a spring bridge is easy to take part with out dismantling the spring setup. I need to take a close look at it to grasp how this is done.

Lester
__________________
'62 DuoGlide Mine for 25yrs
'62 Triumph T-Bird in boxes
'83 BMW R100 commuter
'72 Triumph Bonneville Nothing special
'80's couple of Jap chops too

Last edited by Lester; 11-27-2017 at 03:23 AM.
Lester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2017, 10:24 AM   #9
bobscogin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lacombe, LA
Posts: 1,740
Default Re: Springer forks input

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester View Post
My main concern is the technical side of things... function, handling and so on.
There are certainly other type of forks that provide better function and handling, but if it has to be a springer, I'd go with the "traditional" style that doesn't use the top tree as spring retainer. Having the top tree serve that function has to really complicate installation of the fork on to the bike. Also, I think it looks odd with the rebound springs sticking up above the tree. The only advantage I see to it would be a slight weight savings from having the top tree also perform as a spring bridge.

Bob
bobscogin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2017, 05:24 AM   #10
Lester
Senior Member
 
Lester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,559
Default Re: Springer forks input

Yes Bob, I am well aware of better performing forks than springer forks, this is not my question.
My question was if there is a difference in performance/function ect between the two different springer forks I mentioned in the first post

My friends Springer I mentioned has two pinch bolts on the bottom tree which slips down the rear legs and is removed from the bike without removing the springs.

Lester
__________________
'62 DuoGlide Mine for 25yrs
'62 Triumph T-Bird in boxes
'83 BMW R100 commuter
'72 Triumph Bonneville Nothing special
'80's couple of Jap chops too
Lester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2017, 07:46 AM   #11
richbob
Senior Member
 
richbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Toscana
Posts: 2,275
Default

Surely you don’t have to remove forks that often ?
__________________
Rush Rush to the Yayo. Blondie

"Ultimately were all dead men"(Oliver Reed.Gladiator)
richbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2017, 09:21 AM   #12
Tulipultti
Junior Member
 
Tulipultti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: FI
Posts: 12
Default Re: Springer forks input

To me it looks like they are both "easy" to take off, the one with springs in top clamp maybe easier. You don't have to take springs off, rockers should move up and the whole front leg pivots from them when moving top clamp forward.

Hope you understand.
Tulipultti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2017, 09:43 AM   #13
bobscogin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lacombe, LA
Posts: 1,740
Default Re: Springer forks input

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester View Post
Yes Bob, I am well aware of better performing forks than springer forks, this is not my question.
My question was if there is a difference in performance/function ect between the two different springer forks I mentioned in the first post
Hopefully you read my entire post. I did answer the question in that I offered my opinion on each type. Like everything else, it's a matter of personal choice. Post some photos whichever way you go.

Bob
bobscogin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2017, 07:08 PM   #14
CookieMonster
Senior Member
 
CookieMonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: England
Posts: 773
Default Springer forks input

I agree with Bob that the springs protruding beyond the top yoke are an eyesore, unless that is (in my drunken opinion) they’re fitted to a purple or maybe gold metalflake IH Sportster or BSA digger. Or maybe you make some covers to be different.

Anyway.

What the fuck do I know.
CookieMonster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2017, 08:11 PM   #15
JAWS
Senior Member
 
JAWS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: la la land
Posts: 8,513
Default Re: Springer forks input

I love springers and choppers, the longer the better.

That said. I have a hard time accepting the top clamp retainer dual purpose setup as functional with form. A mouse trap has all the parts it needs.. taking away or combining some seems strange. Bare in mind beer is being drunk as I parouse the threads, so take this with that.

Truthfully I have passed on the former in favor of the latter for personal peace of mind.
__________________
60% of the time, it works every time...
JAWS is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:54 PM.