Lower fork spring seats for 1946 Chief

[Shane Briggs]

Hatfield's Restoration Guide says in Note #116 that Indian instructed dealers in a Service Shot to replace the lower spring seats with the longer upper spring seats to prevent the fork from bottoming out. The 1944-53 parts book shows (2) upper seats #764006 for 346-348 models, (2)
lower seats #764008 for 346 models, and (1) # 764009 lower seat for 347-348 models. Should I use the short or long seats for the bottom? Does anybody have a copy of the Service Shot referred to in Hatfield's book? And finally, what is the deal with only one lower spring seat being listed for 347 and 348 models? Is the (1) a misprint? And what is the difference between between #760008 and #760009? Thanks

[pisten-bully]

Shane, this would be the Service Shot. One more piece of information that I didn't know (and now I've got to check my Chief....I've been known to bottom out a few times on the big bumps!)

[Shane Briggs]

Shane, this would be the Service Shot. One more piece of information that I didn't know (and now I've got to check my Chief....I've been known to bottom out a few times on the big bumps!)

Harry,
Thanks for responding. I was aware of the Service Shot you posted. Starklite also has it posted on it's website. The confusing part is this Service Shot says to shorten the lower seats by cutting an additional 1/4" off the seat stem. Hatfield's book refers to a Service Shot that recommends just the opposite by swapping out the shorter lower seats with the longer upper seats. I'm guessing the fix to the problem was manifested in the new lower seats shown in the parts book as #764009 for 1947 and 1948 Chiefs. Do you know what the difference is between the 1946 lower seat #764008 and the 1947-8 lower seats, or what the stem height is for #764009 seat? Jerry Greer's site shows the dimensions of the upper and lower seats they use for all three years (346-348); 2.500" long bolt for both seats, 1.625" seat width for both, and 1.34" stem height for the longer top seats but no measurement provided for the lower seats. Thanks

[pisten-bully]

Shane, I thought I had a pretty complete set of Service Shots and I didn’t see another one talking about front springs (but I’ll look again!). Complicating the story is the fact that 1946 links were a different length than ‘47 or ‘48, and why did they issue the above Service Shot? ....to correct a problem with hitting the shock on rebound. So did the new length of the ‘47+ links fix that? ...or did it also require different spring perches? Or why else did they change the length of the links? I like this stuff, but I haven't taken geometry since the 10th grade!

[Shane Briggs]

Shane, I thought I had a pretty complete set of Service Shots and I didn’t see another one talking about front springs (but I’ll look again!). Complicating the story is the fact that 1946 links were a different length than ‘47 or ‘48, and why did they issue the above Service Shot? ....to correct a problem with hitting the shock on rebound. So did the new length of the ‘47+ links fix that? ...or did it also require different spring perches? Or why else did they change the length of the links? I like this stuff, but I haven't taken geometry since the 10th grade!

Harry,
All good questions. I am building my 1946 as factory correct as possible, so using the 4" links, but I thought if there was a period factory recommended part change to remedy a design problem I would make the changes to the lower spring seats. I have both long and short seats, the long ones are the same dimensions as Greer's site shows and the short seat stem I have is 1.090" tall. Maybe somebody out there can provide some clarification as to what the correct lower spring seats should be and what the difference is between 1946 and 1947-8 lower seats. Thanks