Need Help I'd-ing my swing arm

Stefan001

Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
6
Country flag
I have a swing arm that came with a wideline frame I have purchased,
but am suspecting it may be for a slimline frame.
There is a part number that looks to be 2264 and a marking that is hard to read.
The width for a shock absorber mount measures 3/4 inch.
I have posted a photo of the frame and swing arm here before in an earlier post,
but have trouble loading photos using a photo hosting site.
Thanks for any help.
 
Part numbers are not cast or stamped into parts. Those are casting numbers. SOMETIMES they can be cross-referenced.

Swingarms for featherbeds are interchangeable.
 
You posted a pic of this last time, and we identified the swingarm shown as being slimline.
Its certainly not the swingarm it would have had originally....
 
grandpaul said:
Swingarms for featherbeds are interchangeable.
Click to expand...

If you ignore that the wideline/slimline axle adjustment system and the brake anchor are not remotely the same,
and the shock anchors are diffferent widths.

And they look different, although not that different....
 
Rohan said:
grandpaul said:
Swingarms for featherbeds are interchangeable.
Click to expand...

If you ignore that the wideline/slimline axle adjustment system and the brake anchor are not remotely the same,
and the shock anchors are diffferent widths.

And they look different, although not that different....
Click to expand...

Then apparently I've been mislead. I have what was purported to be a wideline swingarm on my slimline and it fits perfectly.
 
How is the brake anchored ?
Are the shock mounts too wide for wideline shocks ?
How is the axle adjusted....

It might fit perfectly, but its all the ancillary bits that tell the full story....
 
I'll look for the swing arm that came with this frame and not use the slimline swingarm.
Andover Norton has the wideline swingarm.
Can anyone confirm what the width is for the bottom bush spacing for the shocks
on the early wideline swingarm?
When I order shocks for this frame/swing I want to make sure they'll be correct.
Thanks everyone.
 
The early Munroe units were more like 11/16 ths wide in the mounts, and the shock eye itself was about 5/8,
before they went to the Girling units. I'd have to get the verniers for more precise measurements.

There is not much in it.
Everyone back then seemed to use quite narrow or unusual fittings,
take a look at the jampots on AMC machines...

View of the early featherbed swingarm, although this happens to be an Inter.
http://ridermagazine.wpengine.com/wp-co ... ctor_G.jpg
 
Rohan said:
The early Munroe units were more like 11/16 ths wide in the mounts, and the shock eye itself was about 5/8,
before they went to the Girling units. I'd have to get the verniers for more precise measurements.

There is not much in it.
Everyone back then seemed to use quite narrow or unusual fittings,
take a look at the jampots on AMC machines...

View of the early featherbed swingarm, although this happens to be an Inter.
http://ridermagazine.wpengine.com/wp-co ... ctor_G.jpg
Click to expand...

That's a Manx type swinging arm. I thought 'normal' wideline bikes like Dominators had the cast lugs...
 
Thats exactly the same swingarm as in my 54 wideline dommie.
And the same as in the parts book.....
 
Rohan said:
Thats exactly the same swingarm as in my 54 wideline dommie.
And the same as in the parts book.....
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right there, I'm not clued up enough to know for sure, but I think 54' was the cut off for this wasn't it? Didn't they change the swinging arm when they changed to a welded on sub frame?

The up to 54' frame is the most coveted as it has a Manx style radius to the top rear fame loops. And a bolt on sub frame. I didn't realise it also had a Manx type swinging arm too. Even more desirable!

It does, I bleieve, still leave the fact that the majority of widelines had cast lugs on the arms though.

Hopefully LAB will chime in shortly with the year / month / day / frame number at which the change was made...
 
Fast Eddie said:
Hopefully LAB will chime in shortly with the year / month / day / frame number at which the change was made...
Click to expand...

Well we'll watch with interest and see if he can then...

Hint - 1955 was still the same.

Weren't the manx swing arms oval, reinforced - and hi-tensile steel...
 
Rohan said:
Fast Eddie said:
Hopefully LAB will chime in shortly with the year / month / day / frame number at which the change was made...
Click to expand...

Well we'll watch with interest and see if he can then...

Hint - 1955 was still the same.

Weren't the manx swing arms oval, reinforced - and hi-tensile steel...
Click to expand...

Manx's changed a lot over the years too, I don't know whether the early ones were oval or not to be honest.
 
Rohan said:
Thats exactly the same swingarm as in my 54 wideline dommie.
And the same as in the parts book.....
Click to expand...

And the same as my slimline race bike. Obviously not original.

But had to cut and move the lower suspension mounts to get the shocks vertical and parallel. (looking from the rear)
 
Rohan said:
Fast Eddie said:
Hopefully LAB will chime in shortly with the year / month / day / frame number at which the change was made...
Click to expand...

Well we'll watch with interest and see if he can then...

Hint - 1955 was still the same.

Weren't the manx swing arms oval, reinforced - and hi-tensile steel...
Click to expand...

Hint taken. 'twas '56 if this is as original as it looks... http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/111849050087? ... EBIDX%3AIT

And I meant 'Manx style' rather than 'Manx type' re the early arms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top