[Hubbarocks]

here is some photos of the triple primary on the 65 & cover that fits it.
maybe this will help answer any questions regarding "how"

cover has a stamp # of T1727 , after some googling , looks to be for 63-67 ?

 

[StuartMac]

Hi,

View attachment 781527
View attachment 781528

Appears to be a 3-phase stator - three separate wires emerging from the black sleeving outside the primary? If yes,

However, note the bottom photo. shows the sleeving inside the primary has already been hit by the primary chain. If you have some time to fiddle, and the stator cable isn't already hardened by heat, you could check if the cover has enough clearance for the stator to be fitted with the cable exit on the outside?

Btw, does the rotor have a date code on it? This'll be a group of only three or four stamped numbers with a space between the first number or first pair and the second pair - first number or first pair are a week number, second pair are the year.

Hth.

Regards,

 

[Hubbarocks]

let me check. assuming the numbers would be on the face ?

can you point out where you believe the chain made contact with the primary. i'm overlooking this, glade i have another set of eyes : D

 

[Hubbarocks]

These numbers i'm guessing ? let me take a better look

 

[StuartMac]

Hi.

can you point out where you believe the chain made contact with the primary.

Uh-uh, it's the black sleeving over the stator wires looks like it's been hit by the chain. If you look at:-
View attachment 781528
... note what appears to be some Green wire insulation showing through a hole in the black sleeving, just to the right of the stator itself?

View attachment 781579
These numbers i'm guessing ?

Regards,

 

[newsh]

Hi Hubba

This is how the stator wire is routed on my (‘76) bike with triple row chain.

 

[Hubbarocks]

i see what you guys are talking about. that's how it is on my 79 T120 (below)

i like this routing much better. you think i'd be able to route the 65 like this out the side ? my stator seems to have the wire on the 'inside' not the out side like the later models. it is correct ?

I.E.: drill a hole in that location and add grommet, etc. then plug off the hole where it came out of ? Looks hard to get at back there... from outside or inside the primary...

 

[Hubbarocks]

Uh-uh, it's the black sleeving over the stator wires looks like it's been hit by the chain. If you look at:-
... note what appears to be some Green wire insulation showing through a hole in the black sleeving, just to the right of the stator itself?

i see where you referring too. i thought you meant it hit the outer primary somewhere.

so i think that rubber insulation is just cracked due to age. that boot looks like it should go all the way to the left side of the wire ? i do not this the stator actually did the damage as this is "fixed" and doesn't move , correct ? The wire itself is very stiff and doesn't move around around at all.

i didn't want to start pushing / pulling on it just yet for fear of causing more damage. BUT it works so far. i'll prod a little more and if necessary re route it.

 

[Hubbarocks]

On another note. i think they had these double inlets mounted back wards on the Amal ??? they look wrong to me , when i rebuilt them i put it back together same way. Which doesn't mean it's right ...

 

[newsh]

On another note. i think they had these double inlets mounted back wards on the Amal ??? they look wrong to me , when i rebuilt them i put it back together same way. Which doesn't mean it's right ...

View attachment 781598

Yes they’re normally angled towards the float bowl.

BTW the stator wire is easier to move around if you warm it up with a hair dryer.

 

[StuartMac]

Hi,

View attachment 781595
i like this routing much better. you think i'd be able to route the 65 like this out the side ?
drill a hole in that location and add grommet, etc. then plug off the hole where it came out of ?

Uh-uh, you can't disconnect the wires from the stator. You would have to: unscrew the three nuts from the studs, pull the stator off the studs very carefully (because particularly the wires' black covering becomes brittle with age, heat and oil) while pulling the cable out of the oil seal, turn the stator around and refit it on the studs, while carefully feeding the cable back through the seal; secure the stator on the studs and hope you still have the minimum 0.008" clearance all round between stator and rotor (if you don't, you have to fix that too ...). Only then do you find out if the primary cover fits without squashing the stator cable in its new routing ... Is why I posted earlier, "If you have some time to fiddle" ...

my stator seems to have the wire on the 'inside' not the out side like the later models.

It isn't the original stator; as I asked in an earlier post, it appears to a be an aftermarket 3-phase stator - are there three separate wires inside/out of the black sleeving? If it is aftermarket, whoever fitted it routed the cable how he thought it should be?

do not this the stator actually did the damage as this is "fixed"

But, as I posted earlier, I wondered if the chain had done the damage ...? Unfortunately, this type of damage is common to alternators on twins, because Edward Turner put 'em in the primary with a chain flying about ... when the bike's decelerating, all the chain slack's in the upper run; if a PO's been a bit lax about checking the chain slack ...?

The guy who succeeded ET as chief designer and designed the triple, put the alternator in the timing chest ...

Hth.

Regards,

 

[Hubbarocks]

i'm to 'fiddle" with it and get back to you on this subject. i started tearing down the back end. i'll get some pics of this rusty mess!

 

[Hubbarocks]

here is some photos of what i accomplished. i soaked everything down in PB Blaster and started disassembly of the rear. i found a hard tail at a swap for $100 bucks. it was in good shape and bolted straight on! i laid the seat and fender on to see what could be. i like it but ... either going to rake the front end or rebuild to factory specs. decisions TBD.

Motivated now , especially because i think we've had our second winter and possibly the final snow for the season. The temp here is above 35 degrees (F) consistently. So, i get to get out all my toys and hibernation is over!!! (finally !!)

love this pic of the uni-cycle LOL

 

[Turbo0317]

Fun to watch your progress. Reading the posts...some of these guys' knowledge blows my mind.

 

[StuartMac]

Hi,

either going to rake the front end or rebuild to factory specs.

Mmmm ...

... the difficulty with raking the standard Triumph frame is the steering head's a casting, with tubes pinned and brazed into it. You could take all that apart and bend tubes to hold the steering stem at a different angle?

... or rebuild to which factory specs.?

Your bike's stanchions are aftermarket (longer than standard) and intended at the earliest for a '71-on Triumph or BSA; if they aren't tapered into the top yoke, the yoke's been modified and the stanchions are still aftermarket but intended for a disc-braked Triumph.

If the stanchions aren't tapered into the top yoke, you can give yourself an idea of whether standard forks will work with the hardtail - slide the yokes down the stanchions 'til the bottom yoke's about 6" to 6-1/2" above the black dust covers (over the tops of the chromed seal holders screwed on to the sliders). That's about the distance between the bottom yoke and the tops of the seal holders on standard forks, although the standard springs are outside the stanchions in that gap but covered with rubber gaiters. If the stanchions are tapered into the top yoke, you can still give yourself an idea of whether standard forks will work with the hardtail but you'll need to remove the top yoke and slide just the bottom yoke down the standchions?

Horizontal distance between the centres of the two fork legs will tell you the age of the yokes - 6-1/2" is pre-'68, 6-3/4" is '68-on drum-brake; there are also disc-brake but your bike doesn't have them.

If the fork sliders on the bike at present are the same '65 as the engine (and frame?), the suspension internals are very crude - one-way damping ... also the SLS front brake wasn't great 57 years ago, 57 years later ...?

'68-on, Triumph made incremental improvements to the front end, many of which are backward-compatible - '68 TLS front brake, different suspension internals including two-way damping; '69 moved the legs 1/4"(!) further apart and changed the TLS brake plate, changed threadforms from British Standard to Unified; '71 changed the triples and 650 twins to 'Ceriani-lookalike' - internal springs, exposed stanchions, ally sliders, those black dust covers over the tops of the sliders; '71 they also changed the triples and 650 twins to the notorious 'conical hub' brakes ... '73 they changed them to front disc brake and, although the forks look similar to '71/'72 conical-hub, almost nothing's interchangeable. As a matter of possible interest, if you collect all the relevant bits, a Triumph disc-brake front-end fits straight into your bike's frame steering head ...

Or @Truckedup fitted '95 Honda VFR forks to a T140D he sold recently - My T140 in the UK

Hth.

Regards,

 

[Hubbarocks]

i had to google "stanchions" cuz i'm an American we're mostly idiots & have a 4th grade education - LOL
You're referring to the triple trees Im thinking in the aspect.

I dismantled the forks. Found out one was locked up solid and no oil in it. Some research leads me to these being 6" over tubes. the lower fork tubes seem to be stock. But the internals do not match up, aftermarket or late model 70's stuff as Stuart pointed out. either way , it's junk to me.

by "factory specs" i mean what came originally on it as a TS6. going thru my parts manual i'm going to order everything but the cup seals and lower units. My plan is buying everything to rebuild the forks New fork tubes and all the internals along with everything to rebuild the triple tree & steering dampener adjuster (seems to be missing some peices)

the other option was to swap the front end with a 77 Harley sporter's i have in my garage that's basically a parts bike. BUT those are pretty heavy for this light bike. So I've decided to put it back to factory and see how it sits. if the frame sits level then I'm not going to rake it. Drives me nuts when i see frames not leveled out , looks lazy to me. Just my opinion ...

Regarding raking it. There is few different ways to go at it.
More then one way to skin a cat is what we say around here...

 

[Hubbarocks]

got all the below on order , almost 500$ , that should push my "low buck budget bike" out some ... oh well, i wasn't planning on completely rebuilding the front end , but here we go!

also need one of the axel nut bolts for $25 (lol ! ) it was all jacked up & no one in America has a whitworth tap/ die set (j/k) and i cannot pick up locally obviously ! my other option would be to retap to a standard fine thread and get all new hardware. i thought that's not worth the time and might as well buy the expensive bolt.

you guys across the pond can probably get that for 50cents and the local hardware store huh

 

[StuartMac]

Hi,

axel nut bolts
no one in America has a whitworth tap/ die set (j/k)

Don't be confused by your countrymen whose education didn't even make it to 4th grade ...

Know the difference between a real Whitworth thread (very similar to Unified Coarse) and a British Standard thread, which many of your countrymen have a terrible habit of calling "Whitworth" ...

Your bike has very few real Whitworth threads - iirc, the barrel base studs into the crankcase.

Otoh, Triumph's standard was by-and-large British Standard Cycle thread into iron and steel components, so including bolts into nuts, and British Standard Fine into aluminium components. For a reason I won't bore you with right now, Triumph called "Cycle" fasteners "CEI".

So your "axel nut bolt" screwing into a steel fork slider, its thread is BSC/Cycle/CEI, 5/16" nominal diameter, you'll find a tap at British Tools & Fasteners.

you guys across the pond can probably get that for 50cents and the local hardware store

We wish! The whole British automotive industry swapped away from British Standard threadforms in the mid-to-late 1960's, first to Unified and then to metric. I buy British Standard-threaded stuff from a stainless supplier who turns 'em from bar.

Hth.

Regards,

 

[StuartMac]

Hi,

got all the below on order
View attachment 782445

When you receive the bits, I strongly advise checking the dimensions of some of them against the dimensions in the Triumph workshop manual:-

. the OD of the "Stanchions" (#31) with the ID of the "Top bearings" (#29), the "Bottom bearings" (#32) and the "Damping sleeves" (#32);

. the OD of the "Top bearings" (#29) with the ID of the sliders (Left and Right "bottom members", #35 and #36));

... reason is, clearances between these components affect both suspension movement and how much total lateral 'slop' there is between stanchions and sliders; regrettably, not all makers of new spares are as fastidious about dimensions and quality-control as they should be ...

had to google "stanchions"
You're referring to the triple trees

Uh-uh, US "triple trees" are commonly known as "yokes" outside the US, not because they look like the yellow part of a chicken's egg but because particularly the bottom yoke and steering stem look rather like the pole on the front of a heavy wagon and the harness used to "yoke" pairs of (usually) oxen one each side of the pole. In the parts book illustration you copied, they're parts #2 and #8; note Triumph called 'em "lugs" ...

Otoh, stanchions are the hard-chromed tubes (parts #31 in the parts book illustration) reaching from the top yoke ("top lug", #8) through the bottom yoke ("middle lug", #2) and disappearing into the tops of the sliders (#35, #36).

Hth.

Regards,

 

[Hubbarocks]

We both speak / write in English , but yet still a world away!
We'll you write in English & i guess i speak 'merican (lol)
never the less; it amazes me sometimes. but we're on the same page.

triple trees n' fork tubes
or
yokes n' stanchions