When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
What is the price of a stock angle 41mm Road King top and bottom triple tree?
I figure you have to use 1.5" or 2" longer fork tubes.
Thanks.
I do not sell 41mm fork applications, just made for 49mm or the inverted fork selection. I use stock length 49mm FLT forks with modified NIX 30mm cartridges inside of them for many years now.
gartec81, I totally disagree with your ape hanger comments. I run a 120 built motor, have Howard's 49mm forks and 30mm Ohlin Cartridges up front, plus we made them 1 1/2 longer for more stroke, cut a hole in my nacelle you say we don't need so I can adjust them without removing anything. I run the remote reservoir Ohlins in the rear. I go to North Carolina regularly, spent 3 weeks last summer touring the Canadian Rockies. I will show you my rear tire, no chicken strip on the left, a small one on the right because that's where I drag my 2-1 pipe. I'll spent 3 weeks this coming summer in Colorado. You are welcome to put your theory to test and join me.
I want the chain drive set up. looks outstanding. check out the semi mid control floor boards he has going on that bike.
[i]
I am sorry but after my post did this picture show up. The gas separated fork is not my choice for functions on a bagger. These forks were originally on Sport bikes and were changes to an oblong triple tree mounting. The reason why is because Valentino Rossi was braking so hard that the forks we bending and crashing into the radiator. The flutes (looking) is for the forks to bend sideways into a turn so the tire has more traction and he goes faster. In thinking about it I feel I am of not that skill level going into the grocery store parking lot to pick up milk and zucchini. On a bagger I personally do not think it would benefit me.
The bike that claims to weigh 400#, I would have to see & weigh that myself to be believed. My bike frame is made of 4140 Chrome Moly, Aluminum swing arm, Hollow 4140 front axle, 17" C/F HD wheels (only set in existence), composite fenders, many hand made aluminum components, and a TP motor w/6 speed. This bike is fuel of fuel and oil when I weighed my FXR. I believe the only way to loose more weight is by removing the battery and replacing it with those light weight. 400 pounds claimed weight compared to this bike of mine. Where would the weight reduction come from. I build a bike for the street, not one for imagination.
585# wet
Where can you loose 185# to get down to 400#? I am not going to dwell anymore on this subject.
On my own 2000 FLT I have my trees (forks are irreverent but inverted), a stock Road Glide Nacelle and very low T-bars. If I need access to the fork caps for adjustment I will make a pair of removable covers, and no, I do not need apes or clip-ons to do the job. This nacelle is already bolted on my trees. At present I have the 49mm forks with 30mm cartridges. I also have the aforementioned inverted Ohlins forks. Yes, I can use a ABS stock front wheel. The picture of the fork is a hastily made picture when development of the fender mount was being designed. It is much different but those ugly fender mounts did locate the fender so new mounts can be made.
440# as I am in the process of building it. It is a long way off from actually running. How can a running bike loose an additional 40 pounds?
T-Bars on my trees with open access to the fork caps.
T-Bars with stock Road King nacelle and open access to fork cap adjusters.
Dude. I said usually.... Is not the pick of canyon Carver's. That doesn't mean people can't ride who run apes. Did I ever say you need to prove your chicken strips to me? No. I said people "usually" don't pick those bars when it comes.es to a California styled performance bagger
i also said guys are running no nacelle. This is particularly to 2017 and up when the cluster is in direct way of the riser location. Did I ever say you don't need a nacelle.Lots.of people cut holes into there nacelle. But guys over here that pay big bucks for inverted front end like showing off there trick triple trees too.
So they ditch the nacelle and then can mount any bar type the want. They also usually run gauges up top of bars so there nacelle would just be blanks anyways where gauges were. So why would you want that.
If you want to run a nacelle,. More power to you .
again, ypur running apes so this whole nacelle removal thing does not pertain to you
The whole claimed weight savings on that one bike is just that..... Claimed . Its a cool looking performance bagger build. That's the point of this thread . Posting up people's take on performance baggers
How about just post up pics and stats on your current or favorite performance bagger. I did not see in any of my verbiage or anyone else's language any reason anyone should feel attacked or need to prove themselves
Just post up some cool bikes. It's not that deep
=tj316;16844169]gartec81, I totally disagree with your ape hanger comments. I run a 120 built motor, have Howard's 49mm forks and 30mm Ohlin Cartridges up front, plus we made them 1 1/2 longer for more stroke, cut a hole in my nacelle you say we don't need so I can adjust them without removing anything. I run the remote reservoir Ohlins in the rear. I go to North Carolina regularly, spent 3 weeks last summer touring the Canadian Rockies. I will show you my rear tire, no chicken strip on the left, a small one on the right because that's where I drag my 2-1 pipe. I'll spent 3 weeks this coming summer in Colorado. You are welcome to put your theory to test and join me.[/QUOTE]
Last edited by gartec81; Nov 20, 2017 at 08:14 PM.
Let me see, could you please qualify your answer? I guess I am missing the part of understanding what you are talking about?
There is no previsions for a Road Glide Nacelle to work because they will not fit with what they have that I can see. I already know of the pit falls. A Road King on the second bike is not proofed that it will fit unlike mine. I can change the trail when manufacturing it in the milling machine designed into the product conception before it was ever made.
I chose not top use an aluminum bottom tree because I wanted to weld in the steering stem and not press it into aluminum (can not weld into aluminum) for rigidity. I use 17-4 PH stainless for it's extra excellent fatigue properties needed in the aerospace industry. Due to its inherent properties it can be designed structurally to far outperform aluminum with a few holes milled into it.
Since I designed it to fit all HD applications from 1986~Current in two different models (1986~2016 & 2014~Current) all with handlebar isolators (forgot about that?) & it to bolt right up to any stock fairing or nacelle. I also required that there is as much clearance between the steering neck and wheel. Having a few holes cut into a 1 1/2" aluminum slab is not the same a structurally designed product that has 5/8" protrusion down from the neck. I make my suspension work for actual road conditions and with the customers approval, increase the stroke for more rebound. This means that there is more room between the fender and the bottom of the triple tree. All thought up before the first line was struck on the drawing.
Bottom 17-4 PH Stainless
Much more strength in an engineered product without the excess weight of a solid slab.
70-71 Aluminum top tree set up for a Road King lock. 17-4 PH Billet 3 piece steering stem.
Not only a far superior design than anything on the market, it is also also was engineered to to not be a hack job so it fits right of the box. There are many running around. Oh, another thing who do you think will re-Valve your Ohlins forks so they will work? No, they do not work correctly out of the box.
can you clarify when you run those triple trees what is difference from stock one ?
