Kenny Dreer's 355 lb street tracker

marksterrtt said:
Jim, thanks for that info on tires & rims, ..... I need to order up a 19" front, it will also help fill the gap between front tire and frame down tubes better as frame was designed for 19" front and rear ......
Click to expand...
Visual appearance depends on which tires are fitted. Tire diameter for 18" and 19" varies by 30 mm approximately, the visual impact however is 15mm only. Apart from the mudguard gap, I doubt you will notice the difference at the front.
Many bikes at the time had 19" at the front and 18" at the rear, e.g., the Triumph Bonneville. For a high-speed road bike, it may be beneficial to have 19" at the rear, for several reasons. Nevertheless, at the 1967 Earls Court exhibition,
the Commando was presented with an 18" rear tire. Purchasing policies and logistics may have prompted NV to choose 19" tires front and rear.

- Knut
 
Last edited:
Matchless said:
Now I can finally post pictures easily here is my rear set gear linkage I promised to post. It's basically a copy of the works bikes, only in bolt on form. It means that the lever is at the perfect angle.
Click to expand...
Doesn't this arrangement still have the same issue as other reverse levers in that the arc of the lever is the reverse to the arc of the foot?
I'm not sure how the lowered pivot point and linkage would change things, maybe there is something helpful happening there. The overall length and operation of the lever looks very similar to my directly mounted reverse lever?.

Glen
 
worntorn said:
Doesn't this arrangement still have the same issue as other reverse levers in that the arc of the lever is the reverse to the arc of the foot?
I'm not sure how the lowered pivot point and linkage would change things, maybe there is something helpful happening there. The overall length and operation of the lever looks very similar to my directly mounted reverse lever?.

Glen
Click to expand...

It does help because part of the issue with the Norton is the gear change shaft is so high compared to most rearset footrests. That puts the pedal at a steep downward angle at rest, so when pressing it down you’re kinda pushing it forward, and when lifting it up you’re actually pulling it backwards.

Lowering the shaft point at least addresses this.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie said:
It does help because part of the issue with the Norton is the gear change shaft is so high compared to most rearset footrests. That puts the pedal at a steep downward angle at rest, so when pressing it down you’re kinda pushing in forward, and when lifting it up you’re actually pulling it backwards.

Lowering the shaft point at least addresses this.
Click to expand...
Thanks Nigel, you have it spot on. It makes a huge difference.
 
It occurs that now there is a linkage the total movement required can be adjusted by changing the point where the rod connects to the arm on the trans, in other words, the ratio of the 2 arms. It looks like Matchless's bike is about 1 to 1?
My reverse lever requires a lot of movement.
It would be good to reduce that, maybe cut it in half. It's an easy shifting gearbox. I suspect it would still be easy to operate with half the motion at the toe end.

Glen
 
worntorn said:
It occurs that now there is a linkage the total movement required can be adjusted by changing the point where the rod connects to the arm on the trans, in other words, the ratio of the 2 arms. It looks like Matchless's bike is about 1 to 1?
My reverse lever requires a lot of movement.
It would be good to reduce that, maybe cut it in half. It's an easy shifting gearbox. I suspect it would still be easy to operate with half the motion at the toe end.

Glen
Click to expand...
It is around 1to1 but the 'box is a TTi which has less lever travel than the AMC 'box. That said, I have the same set up on my 750 Commando, Atlas, & G45 replica, & the change is fine for me. The ratio could however be easily changed.
 
Back
Top