Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1949 Vertical Scout Fenders

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1949 Vertical Scout Fenders

    I have recently spoken with someone who suggested that in my Scout 249 rebuild that I need a rear fender with an indentation to compensate for the chain guard. I thought I had the right one which has no indentation.
    Lo and behold I search the internet, my Hatfield and other texts, and there on page 170 of the New Restoration Manual is an Arrow with the indented type of rear fender. I thought I had solved the issue, then began comparing this with Scout online photos against alleged period correct restorations and found the same indented fender on the rear of Scout 249 motorcycles. I also found the regular, no indentation fender mounted on some 249s. The parts book only has two numbers listed and not other information on any variations; front 1,406001 and rear 1,407001. I assume this is for all interchangeable models; 149, 249, and Warrior models.

    Can anyone share a little knowledge about which type of fender is actually correct and why in photos of restorations, I see both fender types being used?

    -JR

  • #2
    Have you talked to Jim at Southwest Vintage cycle?

    https://www.southwestvintagecycle.com/
    Robbie Knight Amca #2736

    Comment


    • #3
      Robbie,
      I talk to Jim all the time, but I didn't want to bother him with the question. I asked Pete Sink. He offered correct photos. I thought there was something off about my fender in comparison; the originals have a very circular quality. one way you know you have a correct part. They usually don't have part numbers on them. I went to the barn for comparison and lo and behold, I notice the front section had been cut short of the original indented section. a whole 1/25 of the fender is actually missing. You can see the edge is not molded edged like the rest.
      Mystery solved, though there is still a running tendency in restorations to use fenders that are actually incorrect.
      Back to work.
      -John

      Comment

      Working...
      X