Trials Australia Forums

Another thought on a wet Saturday. I figure there is a logical reason you didn't use the whole 242 front end.
So far all I have thought of are:
Maybe the 242 fork tubes were not usable.
Maybe the 242 fork tubes or triples hit the 172 fuel tank.

David Lahey wrote:

Greg Harding wrote:Hi Everyone,

David Lahey wrote:Very nice Greg. How is the action on those forks?

That is a question I can't answer as I only had enough oil for assembly so I will have to get some more. The forks were pretty good with the round sliders so I assume they will be the same with square ones. My question is how much oil, I think I guestimated last time? The seals were so bad that at one point they must have been perfect like a dead clock that tells the right time twice a day?
The right amount would be a good starting point!

Are the square ones from a later model 172?
An oil quantity that is fail-safe in forks from that era is the top surface of the oil at 125mm below the top of the tubes with the sliders fully up and no air trapped in the bottom anywhere. Proof that this is enough oil is that when you then extend the sliders to the bottom, there is still oil covering the top end of the damper rod.

If this is what you mean by square

This has frame number 1851 out of a reported 1990 built.

Hi Everyone,

David Lahey wrote:Another thought on a wet Saturday. I figure there is a logical reason you didn't use the whole 242 front end.
So far all I have thought of are:
Maybe the 242 fork tubes were not usable.
Maybe the 242 fork tubes or triples hit the 172 fuel tank.

David, it is very Wet in Coffs Harbour as well! Interesting how you think, I agree that making a bike steer nicely makes riding them much more enjoyable. Kermit steers very nicely! The 242 forks are in pretty good condition, I have other plans for them :

As for using them on Kermit, 35 mm would have less flex than 31.75 mm and I think they would fit and clear the tank:

But there is too much Angular Offset, to give an analogy, it would be like fitting KT 250 forks to a TY 250, the geometry is designed for axle under forks. Easy to modify something but much harder to make it better!

Kermit Must have had a fairly hard life out in the weather, it shows in the faded tank and in the fork chrome:

Phil 850 wrote:

David Lahey wrote:Are the square ones from a later model 172?

If this is what you mean by square ?

1539467125128.jpg (139.18 KiB) Viewed 3965 times

This has frame number 1851 out of a reported 1990 built.

Phil and David, The square section fork are from the last model but not fitted to Kermit until now, the forks out of the older Red spare parts bike were fitted.
There is another theory as to how BLUE and GREEN models came to be. That is were chasing Foriegn $$$$ and marketed a British Racing Green model:

And a French Racing Blue model:

Greg Harding wrote:Hi Everyone,
The 242 forks are in pretty good condition, I have other plans for them :

Hmm....

This one was recently rescued from an uncertain future at a tip shop by a friend in Mackay, Queensland and is now nowhere near any rubbish tips.
It sure has some patina

There are witness marks on the driveway that explain how the KT was moved (sideways)

Greg
When you replaced the seals, what condition were the fork legs in regarding wear as mine are sloppy on the fork tubes and need to be sleeved (if that's possible)

Hi Everyone,

David Lahey wrote:There are witness marks on the driveway that explain how the KT was moved (sideways)

David, nice , love the patina! Perhaps you need some office chair bike stands? Move in any direction, swivel, up and down!

Bikestand on a hand trolley was how I moved this M49, the only thing that moved was the steering.

Phil 850 wrote:Greg
When you replaced the seals, what condition were the fork legs in regarding wear as mine are sloppy on the fork tubes and need to be sleeved (if that's possible)

Phil, the chrome and legs are pretty good, just how sloppy do you mean? Maybe slide feeler gauges between chrome and slider? I did not measure the clearance with the square legs and a little hard now but the round sliders only have about 0.1 mm clearance.

Something tells me that the top will be belled out and ovalling on the brake arm side? Also how good is the chrome, if it is pitted and then ridden, it will be like round file, also the chrome flakes off and sticks inside the slider.

So I can see a couple of remedies IF the chrome is good, linish the legs, check the clearance and machine up some bronze guides to go below the seals. I doubled up the seals on Kermit but one seal would work fine.
Some later model bikes use Teflon guides like these TLM ones:

Another way would be to find out if Benelli scooters that have 31.7 mm legs use guides and if so machine a rebate below the seals if there is enough material?

Forks with guides have a guide below the seal inside the leg and a guide on the bottom of chrome leg and chrome leg is NOT in contact with aluminum leg. In your case, I don't think you would need the bottom guide but I don't know the condition of any of the parts!
IF the chrome legs are NOT serviceable and clearance is too great, some small KTM use 32 mm forks, I am not familiar with them but might be an option to get the sliders and triple clamps bored if chrome legs are suitable?

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think my fork legs are less than perfect

They don't even look like they have ever been chromed .
Would KTM legs be long enough for my bike ?

Or, can mine be rechromed and ground.

Rad shock repairs in Brisbane rechrome tube. Could always look them up and give them a call