Basket Cases

[Jools]

Look at that! - Kurt's a future legend... His workshop's in the kitchen and there's a few pretty good sections in his back garden!

See P-P-P-previous page for P-P-P-pics of K-K-K-Kurts K-K-K-krazy K-K-K-kitchen!
(Sorry, it's a Fish Called Wanda F-F-F-fixation!)
Don't call me stoopid!

[Rod]

Kurt, that blue looks pretty good particularly in that workshop/kitchen pic.
Is that a TY mono muffler?

[Kurt]

Yes on the money, an upside down TY Mono muffler.

Significantly lighter and it allows the engine to rev out.
The stock muffler really chokes the engine at high revs, only problem is it sounds a bit like a TY with the muffler.

[Greg Harding]

Hi Everyone,

Hi Greg,
I've got sprockets here in the same ratio as you've mentioned but they are 428. When I fit the motor I'll check chain clearance etc and probably use what I've got for now. I prefer 520 as it gives much more clearance around the swingarm pivot area. I may add a roller below the swingarm pivot and use a chain guide onto the rear sprocket rather than a spring loaded tensioner. I've done this on all my other project bikes (TT500's, PE250B) and never had a problem.
When I measured everything up I found I had the same rear axle to swingarm pivot height as your bike and the shock length will need to be the same ~365-360.

Brent, curiosity got the better of me, are you going to run 13T and 64T 428 sprockets?

1588242794342.jpg (43.81 KiB) Viewed 3736 times

Or do you have a way of making 12T working on the rather large output shaft and tab washer?

20200430_182718.jpg (1.43 MiB) Viewed 3736 times

After thinking about it for a while, it stands to reason that IF the ratio is the same in both 428 and 520 THEN the sprocket diameters will change the same amount. Therefore the swingarm pivot clearance will be the same.

Blue Frame, Baby's got a Blue frame

Greg - If we add 3Kg of Swingarm to the 7.7Kg of Frame we get 10.7Kg total bare frame weight.

Thank you Kurt, she sure is Beautiful! Do you have any photos of the other side?

1588029158499.jpg (300.25 KiB) Viewed 3730 times

Just wondering though if there's a reason you're not taking the opportunity to reduce the wheelbase somewhat given how long the RL is (53.5"/1345mm) compared to all other twinshocks. Just curious. John, I will reply inside your quote in BLUE so I don't fry my brain. The SQUEAMISH is slightly shorter than standard, things got shuffled and I liked the look of the swingarm. Short wheelbase bikes generally have short swingarms which generally means they are not so good on the long climbs we sometimes get in C grade. So it is a tradeoff between tight turning and climbing.

I do like the RLs even with all their faults. I enjoyed sampling Greg's Squeamish alongside a standard RL at his place a couple of years ago and it made the standard one feel very ordinary by comparison, to put it mildly.The standard RL (Town Bike) you are refering to has the lower shock mounts moved forward increasing rear wheel travel and steepening the steering so I will add a photo at the bottom:

But I could never understand why Suzuki manufactured the RL with that obvious design flaw in the gussets on the rear uprights; Word on the street is ignored Gordon Farley and were fairly arogant!
And Greg, I'm intrigued by what Squeamish 2 might be. How diff to #1 ??

John, it is all in my head and please don't ask me to translate as I am not too sure about how it works, the head that is!

1534206532698.jpg (217.04 KiB) Viewed 3730 times

Just my thoughts, I think Kurt has a thing for Cougars!

[whitehillbilly]

Did you find that nail in your front tyre Greg ?

[JC1]

Nice job on the SWM Kurt.

Here's a couple of shots of a Jay Lael modified RL from TC site

RL JLael mod'd, finito.jpg (71.99 KiB) Viewed 3576 times

RL JLael 52in, 25-26deg.jpg (106.36 KiB) Viewed 3576 times

And, for something different, a nice Greeves. Don't see many of these, even in UK

Greeve Scottish.jpg (154.98 KiB) Viewed 3576 times

[Kurt]

On the other side, everything is fine on the other side:

IMG_0994.jpg (1.24 MiB) Viewed 3537 times

And an onboard Photo so you can have a virtual ride:

IMG_0996.jpg (1.6 MiB) Viewed 3537 times

Being pointed at the Sherco Wave after 5mins on the Town bike was certainly an ambush, I don't think I've ridden a more strange feeling obstacle.
The only way to feel some sort of normal is to maintain forward movement with your head, hence the close inspection of the front tyre.

[Jools]

Ooooh I just want to MARRY that Greeves!

[JC1]

Here's another one to drool over, perhaps even nicer.
Subtle differences

Greeves, low res.jpg (406.42 KiB) Viewed 3498 times

[JC1]

Now before someone screams "Enough Greeves" (point taken)...
But have to admit, this one's nice looking too, tho I never thought much of them back in the day
The seat always looked very strange, like an afterthought on this model
For me the Greeves always look better with telescopics, but if you have to have the 'earls type', the earlier style look better
(Never did like the look of the later Anglians with the 'banana forks')

Greeves TES.jpg (124.77 KiB) Viewed 3283 times

Greeves TES, Lhs.jpg (126.68 KiB) Viewed 3283 times