65 FL Triple Tree Dilemma

[JSB55]

John, did you get your sidecar mounted, if so, how does ride?

Got sidetracked on another project, so the bike is not yet fully assembled, and I'm missing the front tiebar for sidecar mounting, anyway, so it may be a while. You might know, that tiebar is the one part of the sidecar attachment that is not readily available either as decent shape OEM, NOS, or repop.

[ryan]

John, did you get your sidecar mounted, if so, how does ride?

[Rubone]

And, or course, you're right as usual, Robbie. This front end has been driving me nuts. Confusing enough that HD used casting numbers that, in this case, were in some cases one digit off from the part number (DUH!???) Palmer Ed 2, p 115 describes the 60-64 setup for an adjustable fork, then in one sentence says 65-68 is the same, which I guess I glossed over, since he started a new section for 65-68.

It did not make any sense to me they would have introduced that plate for a padlock without a spot on the neck to also engage it, which, sure enough, showed up in 69.

Back to Plan A, cutting off the welded on lock plate and drilling the stem to accept the lock plunger.

As it happens, I had a lock kit sitting in my parts box, and it has the welch plug for the hole in the front of the neck, so that mystery is solved for me, as well.

Sorry to have troubled you, but glad I asked!

John

Never be sorry! The unasked questions are the unanswered ones..

[JSB55]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. If your forks have a welded on padlock bracket they are '69 and later trees. No '65-'68 ever had a lower fork bracket with a padlock plate. And the hole in the frame for the neck lock from '69 up was never drilled, just still in the casting. You are misreading Palmer's info.
Your parts book will not show anything for a plug because no such parts existed.

And, or course, you're right as usual, Robbie. This front end has been driving me nuts. Confusing enough that HD used casting numbers that, in this case, were in some cases one digit off from the part number (DUH!???) Palmer Ed 2, p 115 describes the 60-64 setup for an adjustable fork, then in one sentence says 65-68 is the same, which I guess I glossed over, since he started a new section for 65-68.

It did not make any sense to me they would have introduced that plate for a padlock without a spot on the neck to also engage it, which, sure enough, showed up in 69.

Back to Plan A, cutting off the welded on lock plate and drilling the stem to accept the lock plunger.

As it happens, I had a lock kit sitting in my parts box, and it has the welch plug for the hole in the front of the neck, so that mystery is solved for me, as well.

Sorry to have troubled you, but glad I asked!

John

[Rubone]

So, thanks to Forum and AMCA Member Paddy, I now have a correct set of adjustable triple trees. As confirmed via the Palmer book, when these were used, the frame did not employ the neck lock, since the trees had an extra plate at the bottom, drilled for a padlock to be used to lock the front end. The neck lock boss was in fact blocked at the factory. For anyone who has done the modification, how did you plug the neck lock boss? A 3/4" cork or rubber plug can easily be driven in there, but how to hide it? I've thought about a thin coat of either JB Weld or Black RTV, then paint. OR ???

Same question re blocking the hole in the front of the neck that would normally be used to insert the lock "piston", then sealed. How was that done? My parts book doesn't show any sort of plug that might have been used.

Thanks!

Sorry, but you are incorrect. If your forks have a welded on padlock bracket they are '69 and later trees. No '65-'68 ever had a lower fork bracket with a padlock plate. And the hole in the frame for the neck lock from '69 up was never drilled, just still in the casting. You are misreading Palmer's info.
Your parts book will not show anything for a plug because no such parts existed.

[JSB55]

So, thanks to Forum and AMCA Member Paddy, I now have a correct set of adjustable triple trees. As confirmed via the Palmer book, when these were used, the frame did not employ the neck lock, since the trees had an extra plate at the bottom, drilled for a padlock to be used to lock the front end. The neck lock boss was in fact blocked at the factory. For anyone who has done the modification, how did you plug the neck lock boss? A 3/4" cork or rubber plug can easily be driven in there, but how to hide it? I've thought about a thin coat of either JB Weld or Black RTV, then paint. OR ???

Same question re blocking the hole in the front of the neck that would normally be used to insert the lock "piston", then sealed. How was that done? My parts book doesn't show any sort of plug that might have been used.

Thanks!

[JSB55]

Thanks to fellow Member Paddy, I now have a correct and nearly complete OEM adjustable front end! Sometimes, things just fall into place.

[JSB55]

PM sent, Paddy.

[paddy]

John, You are in luck. I have a origional correct casting coded OEM adjustable tree setup that I was going to use on my 65. At this point I will never get to setting up a side car rig. It is ready to go . drop me a message and we can make a deal. I paid $800. for it Paddy

[JSB55]

True dat. I'll take that as a vote for the adjustable trees, even if repop. You're one of 4 or 5 voices on here I always know I can get solid info/advice from. Thanks!

[Rubone]

Sure enough, you are correct, Robbie. Had to get my magnifying glass out and read it again *LOL*. Unfortunately, pictures of the Tedd's repop appear that it is fashioned after the later version, since it has the welded on lock tab at the back. Can't tell from photos if the hole in the stem is there or not.

So drill it and cut the plate off. Easy peasy...

[JSB55]

To clarify ... I plan on using this *strictly* as a sidecar bike, almost exclusively around town. Never having ridden one, I have no idea how much difference the (repop) adjustable trees make, vs just using the stock OEM parts I already have.

[JSB55]

Read it again...the fork lock hole was not deleted until '69 and later.

Sure enough, you are correct, Robbie. Had to get my magnifying glass out and read it again *LOL*. Unfortunately, pictures of the Tedd's repop appear that it is fashioned after the later version, since it has the welded on lock tab at the back. Can't tell from photos if the hole in the stem is there or not.

[kitabel]

The de-rake position reduces stability, the bike is safer with the std. fork at speed. The purpose of the rake is to reduce steering effort by reducing trail.

[Rubone]

Read it again...the fork lock hole was not deleted until '69 and later.