Triumph Rat Motorcycle Forums banner

Wonky Front Fender

7K views 56 replies 10 participants last post by  o1marc 
#1 · (Edited)
Here are some pics I found of properly fitted fenders. The bottom pic is mine, why is my fender so wonky? I know the bike is original and the fender stays are not really adjustable.










And my wonky fender:

 
See less See more
5
#5 · (Edited)
Moving the brackets looks like it will rotate the fender forward and downward which might help. I've tried searching for a better close up pic of that area. I found these forks for a 68 model and the brackets are orientated upwards, like in my pic. I couldn't find anything in the repair manual on fitting fenders. I suspect Rod is probably right.



nala, I said the bike is original, except for the bars.
 
#6 · (Edited)
Wonky?


You need a pair of 97-1685 brackets. Triumph had a bracket that 'looked ' the same but the 'cutout' was different. Note the angle of your brackets vs. the other ones.


Chrome cups gauges as in are not stock. My condolences on you brothers passing.




K
 
#7 · (Edited)
Those will change as will all the chrome bits. I plan on doing a stealth scheme where everything chrome will be matte black. Just need to decide what color to do the wheels (Kimtabs)


Thanks for the condolences. It sucks because now that I have the bikes I have so many questions for him.
 
#8 ·
Quote-
nala, I said the bike is original, except for the bars. )

Ok mate !, it would make a difference , the earlier bikes like my 66 T Bird had 18" wheels front and back not 19" front like yours should have,so this could either be wrong wheel or wrong brackets for the size of wheel .
 
#11 ·
I see that now. It's weird that the west coast got different fenders, stays, and brackets. Why, what's the difference? How many of you knew that? It seems strange because my brother bought the bike when it was fairly new and with the exception of the handle bars and, as was pointed out to me, the gauge cans, this bike appears to be completely original.
 
#12 ·
The only difference in the mudguards for 66 TR6 and T120 models was painted or stainless. The stays them self stayed the same. The different egg shape bracket would have been to allow extra clearance for off road use.

Have you tried just taking them of and flipping them over, I find it hard to believe Triumph would fit a bracket that made the mudguard look that bad.

Regards
Rod
 
#13 ·
Well yeah, maybe, kind of, not really. In 1966 there were three sets of fenders used Stainless(T120R), Painted Steel(6T,TR6C,TR6R), and Aluminum (Western TR6C & T120TT). While two of the three stays were the same on all models the Western TRC and T120TT used a different one. They also used the 97-1688 bracket which did raise the fender. As you said to allow greater Fender/Tire clearance.


Trust me flipping the brackets will not work a looooong time ago I learned when I was sold the wrong brackets.




K
 
#16 ·
So today I had a few minutes and grabbed the wrenches and turned the front fender tabs overland it lowers the fender to where the front lip is putting pressure on the tire. So something is still not right. Could I possibly have the wrong tabs? Was there a shorter rear stay that would pull the back down and the front up?
 
#18 ·
Hi Marc,

Could I possibly have the wrong tabs?
Errrm ... after pictures and answers ...

You need a pair of 97-1685 brackets.
Note the angle of your brackets vs. the other ones.
There are at least two different teardrop-shaped brackets. The difference is the angle of the rectangular cut-out that fits over the corresponding boss on the fork sliders. When you get the advised 97-1685's, if they're correct, you'll see the rectangular cutouts are in a different position from the ones in the brackets on the bike now.

Reason for the different brackets is Triumph fitted 3.25x19 tyres to the front of 'R' models and 3.50x19 tyres to the front of 'C' models, and certain makes (all?) of 3.50 tyres rub on the fender when 97-1685 brackets are used.

I don't see any other bracket number that looks like these.
Beware of treating parts books on their own as gospel. They were produced as cheaply as possible to assist factory and dealer staff to locate parts, not as restoration guides half-a-century later. As people like "K", "johntioc" and others who were/worked for dealers have often posted, even new parts books came with typed pages of corrections and post-printing production changes, and more were received throughout a year. These latter pages are rarely reproduced with the parts books even on-line.

It's weird that the west coast got different fenders, stays, and brackets. Why,
Because Triumph was in the business of making and selling bikes. In the 1960's, the US was Triumph's biggest market. It had two - East Coast and West Coast - importers, who asked the factory to make modifications, made modifications themselves and supported dealers when a sale depended on a modification. If the ordered modification was on enough bikes, why wouldn't the factory make it?

And if you wonder about modifications made to US models, you should see the list available for bikes exported to countries other than the US, particularly for fleet buyers ...

Hth.

Regards,
 
#19 ·
I was just at Classicbike.biz looking at the brochures and pictures posted there. Looked at the 70 Tiger and found 2 pics. Notice the ill fitting fender on the second one and not the first. Both bikes look as though they have similar size tires.



 
#21 · (Edited)
It seems strange because I can not think of a reason to change fender brackets from what came on the machine. But it seems it is a quite common mistake between Triumph owners who make this change and leave it looking stupid. Mine was not the first one that supposedly has the wrong brackets, yet I know my brother never took this bike apart, yet I keep being told I have the wrong brackets.
I know you mention a different bracket for the west coast, but this bike came from New England (Ct.), so that doesn't make sense that he changed to the early bracket, what his reason be for changing the old ones and replacing them with a different looking part? It isn't something he would do.
 
#22 · (Edited)
Okay, I concede. I pulled the brackets off and inspected them, with the bracket horizontal it looks like the slot on the 1685 is clocked at 1:00. Mine look to be clocked at 2:00, making them either too high or too low for the proper aesthetics. I'll post pics in a few. I believe what is on mine are 97-1688. Anyone need any 1688's wanna trade for some 1685's. Glad we got that issue out of the way.

97-1688 this is what is on mine. 2:00 clocking:

97-1685, 1:00 clocking:


 
#23 ·
Well somebody at some time has been changing parts on your bike. The chrome cups around the gauges are not factory bits. The tank badges have been blackened. The handle bars are not stock and you are missing the taillight extender that should be on a "BD" VIN bike. So why could not the bracket have been changed at some point. I don't think you have ever said how long the bike has been in the family.


My reference to a West Coast bracket was not in reference to the 1970 model. It was simply to point out how close another similar part was in the part number sequence. On a parts shelf the correct part and incorrect part would ALMOST be next to each other. There are many ways the wrong part could get into a customer hands.


You don't believe what I have been saying out here its no skin off my teeth. My '70 is also a BD 419xx VIN but my fender fits yours do not NUFF said. By the way I learned about the brackets when I got a set of the wrong ones.


K
 
#24 · (Edited)
Forgive me if I don't take your word as gospel. I don't know you well enough yet. Until I posted the pics of what I have we were all just speculating as usual. The bike was built in Feb. 1970, my brother purchased it Aug.14, 1973. The Calif tag on is from 1976. The gauge change to chrome cups I could understand as a cosmetic change he may have made, as were the drag bars he added. Still can't find a reason HE would have changed the fender brackets. With your comments about the factory it would not surprise me (yes it would) that the factory grabbed the wrong ones off the shelf and let it leave looking wonky. The badges were painted black with Gold lettering, I'll powder coat them back to stock colors. All you have mentioned that is not sock on the bike were merely cosmetic, still don't know why the fender was incorrect. I'll add that to the list of 100 questions I have for him I will never get the answer to.
What taillight extender am I missing, I see nothing in the parts diagram different that whats on the bike.



BTW, the black gauges are in the parts box, as well as the reflectors that go under the front of the tank.
 
#27 ·
Forgive me if I don't take your word as gospel. I don't know you well enough yet. Until I posted the pics of what I have we were all just speculating as usual. The bike was built in Feb. 1970, my brother purchased it Aug.14, 1973. The Calif tag on is from 1976. The gauge change to chrome cups I could understand as a cosmetic change he may have made, as were the drag bars he added. Still can't find a reason HE would have changed the fender brackets. With your comments about the factory it would not surprise me (yes it would) that the factory grabbed the wrong ones off the shelf and let it leave looking wonky. The badges were painted black with Gold lettering, I'll powder coat them back to stock colors. All you have mentioned that is not sock on the bike were merely cosmetic, still don't know why the fender was incorrect. I'll add that to the list of 100 questions I have for him I will never get the answer to.
What taillight extender am I missing, I see nothing in the parts diagram different that whats on the bike.



BTW, the black gauges are in the parts box, as well as the reflectors that go under the front of the tank.




With reference to something above What comments about the factory?


You figure out about the taillight extender. You are not going to believe me anyway.


With regard to your comment about black gauges in the box:laughhard




K
 
#29 ·
a mate ( 2 actually) in the late 70's/early 80's bought 350 single Cossack bikes. (Planeta)

they were actually ok but spares were nonexistent, so Mr On, the shop owner regularly walked over to a bike on the shop floor and took a part off to give to a customer. Just as Stuart says.
given the problems, I wouldn't be surprised if he consumed a whole bike or two that way
 
#30 ·
Stuart, why would powder coating be difficult if not impossible. Before you answer, know that I do powder coating for a living.
The others, I know changes could have been made in it's first couple of years, the brackets are just a strange change I can't find a reason for doing, though I don't know the history of the 1st couple of years. I'm still new to the forum and while there is great info here not everything I read on the internet do I believe until I know the person giving the advice. I'm learning more about these Triumphs as quickly as I can. The speculation came from the talk of what bracket I had on the bike , but no one knew until I took one off and actually compared to stock photos.
Why do you find humor in the fact that I have a spare set of gauges that are correct for the bike? As far as the extender, as I understand it most people took them off their bikes because they were unsightly and not necessary for anything other Fed appeasement. What's the factory part# for one?
 
#31 ·
Hi Marc,

know that I do powder coating for a living.
Then why are you asking me? If you can do it, go ahead and do it.

the brackets are just a strange change I can't find a reason for doing,
As I say, could've been lack of correct parts at a given time. Or could've been your brother tried a different front tyre that wouldn't fit under the fender with the standard brackets? One of my T160's I've owned since it was brand-new; even I can't remember all the changes I've made ...

not everything I read on the internet do I believe until I know the person giving the advice.
While a degree of scepticism about information on the www is good, you also need to apply that same scepticism to printed information, appreciating that just because it's nicely-bound in a book doesn't make it any more correct than information on the www when the author doesn't/didn't do proper research. Reposting discredited information instead of asking more questions doesn't help anyone, particularly when you aren't a thread's starter.

And, with respect, in what way do you expect to "know" someone posting something on an internet forum? From your bio and your posts, you're in a place called Dawsonville, in the state of Georgia, in the US; according to Google, I'm nearly 4,000 miles from you with, amongst other things, the Atlantic in between. We aren't likely to bump into each other ...

The speculation came from the talk of what bracket I had on the bike , but no one knew until I took one off and actually compared to stock photos.
In the thread I'm reading, I see the information in post #6 by "Kadutz", the following day after your first post. Unfortunately, at the time of your first post, I didn't have internet access and didn't read it, or I'd have either posted the information before K or confirmed his information. What your photo. in your first post showed is common; only some posting on this Forum might not have known.

Why do you find humor in the fact that I have a spare set of gauges that are correct for the bike?
:confused: again.

The rear lamp extender.
K simply informed you that it was missing from your calendar-1970-built bike. If you'd asked, you'd have been advised that they stemmed from a legal requirement - although I don't know whether it was Federal or just certain states - that the lamp had to be the rearmost part of the bike on any bike built on or after 1st January 1970; before that extender, the license plate and part of the rear fender extend beyond the lamp.

Because it wasn't a requirement before 1970 is why you wont find it in the (1970 650) "parts diagram"; if you look at the first page, at the bottom is "Published September 1969". Remember I told you already about the typed updates that the factory (and the US importers) sent to dealers? The part numbers would've been in one of them.

However, the extender and its other associated parts are both illustrated and listed in the 1970 T150 parts book - pages 60 and 61 - because that parts book was published in January 1970. The extender part number is F12753 (aka 83-2753). Btw, if you go looking for one, they all originally looked like the picture, with the strip for the top edge of the licence plate; if that strip's missing, it's because vibration broke it off.

Hth.

Regards,
 
#32 ·
My reasoning for wanting to know your thoughts on powder are so I can maybe educate you on the subject just as you are me on Triumphs. Like you I go through the roof when bad info about my career is plastered on the web.

Did ALL the 70 Triumphs that came to the same have the extender? Or were possibly east coast models delivered without them?
 
#33 ·
Hi Marc,

Did ALL the 70 Triumphs that came to the same have the extender? Or were possibly east coast models delivered without them?
As I say, it'd depend on whether it was a Federal requirement, or only by/in certain states. Otoh, as you posted, there doesn't seem to have been any requirement on owners to maintain the original requirement, so many extenders were simply removed and discarded after the bikes left the dealers.

Regards,
 
#45 ·
01marc - just read through this whole thread. I started at page 1 (as you would), saw it was 5 pages long and skipped to the end. After reading what I found there, I had to go back and find what the hell had gone on in between.

My comment would be that you seem like a very patient man.

My advice would be: (a) I have very little knowledge of pre-OIF Triumphs, so I can't help there I'm afraid, and (b) just try to ignore the tiny minority of regular posters on this forum who seem to come here for no reason other than to tell everyone else how superior they are.

HTH!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top