side on shots

The problem with all the side on views is no 2 are the same as mine. BUT. Generally I am thinking the pace just don't have the rake needed to push the front wheel forward like the others.

Maybe. . .

I have seen a Roberts with rc30's on where the geometry is similar to this mind.

the pace look a little tall for the frame - if thats actually possible

That's the Roberts thanks LGF. Is similar to my eye, other than being a smaller frame. The front wheel is a similar distance from the downtube.

As for the fork length, the headset and crown race aren't properly installed yet so that may make 2-3mm of difference.

I have installed the legs so they are flush with the top of the crown. Is this correct?

Mr duke, when you turn the forks do they hit the frame at all....?

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.

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,






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







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

pics make it look a whole heap better.

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

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

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

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

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

All opinions are welcome here, good, or bad

From this picture:



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

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????)