Triumphrat

johnquinnell

Guys,
This little mystery has been bugging me for over 12 months now.
Whether the brake lever W4034 on the OIF models with the rear conical brakes should have the lever pointing down so that when you apply the foot brake it operates the lever in a clockwise direction or, pointing up so when the foot brake is applied the lever operates in an anti-clockwise direction?
I've seen them set up both ways. Mine points down but as a result I canot fully close my l/h pillion footrest.
Is this another Meriden mystery or is there a correct answer?
:???:
Thanks
John Quinnell
1971 TR6R 650 Tiger
Sydney Australia

peintremondain

i think you can put the lever up and it won't change anything in the braking power ..so you can close your footrest.
ben

__________________
when i ride i\'m always 17

peintremondain

after looking on the book it seems that the down is the original position but i maintain what i said before
ben

__________________
when i ride i\'m always 17

1Down_4Up

I've had my 72 from new and the rear brake arm was originally pointing up. It never occured to me that you could point it down!

Rod.
South Australia
72 T120V

CommandoRdster

I think you answered your own question johnquinell. In it's current position,it fouls the footrest,so it must be wrong. You don't think the factory would ever do anything contradictory,do you? :roflmoa2:

:chug:
Cheers,
Bruce

__________________
ANIMAL RESCUE SITE-Please go there and click on the purple button!

Seeker

I saw a chromed rear brake backing plate on eBay and was going to bid on it. But looking closely at the photo, I realized that it wasn't the same as mine.

This backing plate had the anchor bolt stud and the brake cam stud in a straight line with the axle opening. On my '69, they are distinctly behind the line of the axle.

Was this backing plate for a later (perhaps conical) Triumph? The seller wasn't sure of the year.

johnquinnell

I've pulled the arm off. You only get two options, pointing up or pointing down. When I tried to tighten the brake arm in the up position, the rear brake control rod clashed with the rear shock. Not an ideal situation to be in?
I guess the Meridan factory were attending to a lot of issues when their OIF model came out? Mine is an April 71 model. Guess I have to live with the rear brake arm pointing down until I eventually modify the rear footpeg bolts to make the pegs sit a little further out from the swing arm and then I wont have the problem anymore?
Thanks for your comments and suggestions though.
John Quinnell

rambo

right you lot,being the owner of a 71 bonnie since they built it.this is the story...early ones like my february one had the brake arm down,this fouls the pillion footrest.later in the year they moved it to the up position fouling the shock absorber.so,either way is a problem.i like the arm down as it is parallel with the swinging arm and looks nicer like that.how many of you have noticed that the early ones have a front mudguard 4 inches shorter at the front edge?

Seeker

Why not just put a couple bends in the brake rod to clear either the shock or the footpeg?

If it's too short to do that, simply buy some stainless steel 1/4" rod which is long enough and thread it yourself.

rambo

seeker,if you put bends in the brake rod,a lot of the pedal pressure would go into trying to straighten the rod.the rod has to be dead straight.mine rubs the footrest but the easy cure is to cut a slot in the rubber.