Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:19 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 109 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: forks
PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:25 pm 
BoTY & PoTM Winner
BoTY & PoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:19 pm
Posts: 7056
Location: KEEPING THEM SAFE FROM HARM, ANYWAY I CAN....!
Mr duke, when you turn the forks do they hit the frame at all....?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:32 pm 
BoTY & PoTM Winner
BoTY & PoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:19 pm
Posts: 7056
Location: KEEPING THEM SAFE FROM HARM, ANYWAY I CAN....!
the overburys examples are of older frames. Both lgfs, example of the roberts and the dogs example, show head angles suspension ready....which is the same era as the rc30 etc, the head angle on the dogs is 71.


Attachments:
team colours 1993 columbus reynolds mix.JPG
team colours 1993 columbus reynolds mix.JPG [ 107.46 KiB | Viewed 3291 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:02 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 11:32 pm
Posts: 2151
Location: Bristol
Cheers Sinnerman, the similarities between the Roberts and my Overburys are there I think geometry wise, I guess because they are both mid 90's (mine being around 96 so a bit later again).

The fork issue was bugging me so I fettled the headset to make sure everything was flush and fitted correctly and took a couple more pics. I also added some straight lines to check the fork legs relating to the head tube.

Again, to my eye it all lines up well, ignoring the yummy fillet brazing.

2nd opinions would be gratefully received,



Image


Also a side on profile followed by a side on profile from the Roberts catalogue (thanks Sinnerman).

Image

Image



Note the distance between front tyre and down tube, and pedal to front tyre.

I checked a rough guide with a crank, spd, and shoe. I have to admit the shoe is closer to the tyre than anything I have ridden before, but no overlap :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:15 pm 
King of the Skip Monkeys
King of the Skip Monkeys
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:34 pm
Posts: 26178
Location: Moomin Valley
pics make it look a whole heap better.

few frames were 'suspension' corrected back then but many ran differing lengths of fork.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:02 am 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 6:15 pm
Posts: 526
Location: western sussexshire
I think that is looking good Duke. I prefer the straight legged forks to the curved Overbury's.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 1:26 pm 
King of the Skip Monkeys
King of the Skip Monkeys
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:34 pm
Posts: 26178
Location: Moomin Valley
Woodsman wrote:
I think that is looking good Duke. I prefer the straight legged forks to the curved Overbury's.


bendy forks are designed that way to soak up some of the trail buzz. Straight legged forks can make a bike feel very harsh in comparison


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:31 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 6:15 pm
Posts: 526
Location: western sussexshire
well I'm quite impressed with my '95 P2's in terms of trail buzz - I know where you're coming from though, but they also look a bit vulnerable with the curve. Just my opinion of course :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:03 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 11:32 pm
Posts: 2151
Location: Bristol
Forks have been an issue since getting the frame!

I love the original Overburys forks as seen on LGF's fine example (and others) BUT finding an original pair without a frame would be very difficult. Even similar ones are few and far between of the same quality.

I also have the problem that I have no other frame to refference from for fork style around this time. Like the black frame above in the frame they did use straight blades later on.

The RC30's (I think) look good, and are a period correct "upgrade" so they fit well in this project. . . . . .nothing is for definite of course until that paint is applied :lol:

My concern was the angles, this is now not an issue so its all good :D

All opinions are welcome here, good, or bad 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:04 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:37 am
Posts: 936
Location: Bristolcestershire
From this picture:

Image

It looks to me like the fork crown is the wrong way round.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:48 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 11:32 pm
Posts: 2151
Location: Bristol
I always thought that the rc30 / 35 crown of this era was symmetrical front to rear and left to right.

Besides, this one is on correctly as in the bolt heads face forwards. (that is correct right????)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 109 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: adrian, Elev12k, IHateRain, retroblunt and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group