Pre-Unit Triumph question...

[SamIyam]

So I'm totally enjoying the Triumph in my garage... even though it's not mine. It has been talking to me, telling me about all the places it has been and all the people that have ridden it... kinda cool to be listening to a motorcycle tell you stories.

Anyway, I was looking at pics of it and pics of my bike when it was mocked up and noticed that my frame is a bit longer.

This bike is supposedly a '53ish Triumph... which has its original rigid rear section. My bike has an original swing arm front half frame (purchased off e-bay) and an original rigid rear rigid frame that I also purchased off the 'bay.

SO you would THINK that both rear rigid sections would be created equal... not so.

The one I purchased off of e-bay is 3" LONGER than the one that is on the completed bike. FWIW, BOTH of these rigid rear frames look identical in their construction... one's just 3" longer.

So, what is the story? Anyone know what years these are? Why is one longer?

Here are some pics of the longer rear frame as purchased off e-bay:

[SamIyam]

Here it is mocked up:
I am measuring from the bolt hole where the lower frame mounts to the first down tube to the rear where the axle goes. I also had my rear section media blasted and everything appears to be original, no grafts or anything.

[SamIyam]

And here is the shorter version... FWIW, All the original rigid rears that I have seen up until this point have been the shorter version...
Sam.

[SamIyam]

One more

[SamIyam]

Two more.

[SamIyam]

Three more

[SamIyam]

Four more

[SamIyam]

The orange one has been shortened an inch... and it too looks like it has a swing arm front frame.

[SamIyam]

Hope you're not getting sick of these...

[SamIyam]

This blue one is in England... guy makes Triumph parts... should get him to log on here and say hello.

[SamIyam]

Last one.

[Spitfire1776]

I'm willing to bet the longer one was an after-market bird, probably made for hill climbing or straight way racing. Triumph was offering a good deal of option packages as well during that period, so maybe it was an option for taller riders or something as well. It is rather unusual, I'm used to seeing the stubbier ones.

[SamIyam]

Wow!
The funny thing is... the longer frame is IDENTICAL in the way that it is constructed... so it has to be Triumph... I don't think anyone would go through the trouble of making one with Triumph parts on it and all...
Sam.

[Flat Ernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone would go through the trouble of making one with Triumph parts on it and all

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but ya never know. Remember the tech post with that cool chassis where everything was made to look like Ford did it?

Also, this month's Custom Car mag over here in the UK has a spread on the orange bobber - it's got the breakdown of what type of frame & all - I'll see if I can dig it up.

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[SamIyam]

The other thing I notcied is that it does not have the original lug on it where the kick stand went... which is odd. The original lug went around the lower frame tube and would be a bitch to take off... not to mention it would probably leave the frame all marked up.

If this is some sort of oddball or rare frame... I'm going to have to put a pre-unit motor in it! Ahhhhhhhhhh!!!
Sam.

[LIMEY]

Here's the deal, apparently Triumph had a shit load of long chains left over, so the answer was simple......make the frame a little longer to use them up!! http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[SamIyam]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the deal, apparently Triumph had a shit load of long chains left over, so the answer was simple......make the frame a little longer to use them up!! http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
That makes sense... and coming from someone from England... makes it a little more believable! http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Sam.

[johnnygringo]

no man im thinkin yours is likely a very well done aftermarket custom as its missing a load of lugs and mounts

the ONLY pu factory rigids ive ever seen are the stubby ones

check the link to one

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?MfcISAPICommand=ViewItem&item=248638 7182

the two following are a factory rigid 52 and a 51 w/ aftermarket hardtail
http://antonyl.brinkster.net/mahoney/DSC04924.JPG

http://antonyl.brinkster.net/mahoney/DSC04921.JPG

[Flat Ernie]

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/image_uploads/532808-Triumph17.jpg

Blatantly stolen from Custom Car mag (credits to Keith Harman):

"The frame was already a mix of a '59 front end and a '52 hard tail back end as bought...Cal noted that the gap between the fender and the oil tank didn't look right and so duly chopped and shortened the rear frame down tubes to close up the gap, this also having the effect of lowering the bike at the same time. The squeaky clean front end has been achieved by shortening the fork tubes some 2in, which hasn't cost Cal any suspension travel, but does have the effect of bringing the bottom of the frame down a tad, sitting it nicely parallel with the ground."


http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[SamIyam]

I'll try to get some more detailed pics of my frame up tonight, Johnny. But the lugs missing are the kick stand lugs/ holes in the rear axle plates, seat lugs and rear peg/ muffler lugs. The rest of what is there is decidedly Triumph. In fact, the lugs are pinned and brazed... just as they would be on a normal length rigid rear.

Oh, the other one missing is the one for the rear brake... I bought this rear frame out of Chicago... Why would they eliminate the rear brake lug??

Sam.

[ELpolacko]

Not entirely certain but,, The TR5 and Tiger frames were shorter, more of a dual sport bike if you will. The Speed Twin frames were longer, and thus the part I think you have there Sam.

I do know for sure the swing arm bikes had a shorter primary. A good friend of mine Ron Olmstead, (the picture of the one on a table with the BSA girder is also his) had used a swing arm 55 with a TR5 rear section to come up with a real stubby bike.

[ELpolacko]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would they eliminate the rear brake lug??


[/ QUOTE ]

Just a thought, if it came with a sprung rear hub they had a brake lever that attached like a big Schwinn bicycle. More than likely to find one on a SPEED TWIN than the other bikes.

[johnnygringo]

speed twin of my man Stuebes for reference..get some better pics and ill get him to compare em

http://www.southernfriedchoppers.net/4744/toas1.jpg

[hudsoncustom]

Sam, any chance that it is a stocker that has a REAL nice stretch job on it? My guess is that somebody did a good job of changing the stocker into what they needed...

[SamIyam]

[ QUOTE ]
Sam, any chance that it is a stocker that has a REAL nice stretch job on it? My guess is that somebody did a good job of changing the stocker into what they needed...

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. Just went out and gave it a seriuos look-see... this thing is EXACTLY the same as the '53... even down to the fender support/brace. It is longer after the tranny.

Incidentally, the lugs near the front all have a + sign after the part number... like T1620 +, T1610 +, T8F6 +, and so on.

Here's some pics...

[SamIyam]

The things is... if there was a splice... even if it was PERFECT, the axle support pieces would have to have different angles on them...

[SamIyam]

Reading my books... I saw pictures of the "shorter" trophy model... the ends of the lower tubes where they go to the front down tube are just tubing with the ends smashed...

Also, the earlier Speed Twin appears to be as short as the Thunderbirds... AND, they did not have those two hollow protrusions in the rear... one of which on mine has been cut off and filled in the braze.
Sam.

[SamIyam]

I know my frame looks shitty in the pics... but it is pretty nice... despite a few things filled (like fender tab holes and those lugs...

Sam.

[hatch]

Sam...instead of loosing valuable sleep, just package up the whole pile of crap and send it to me...you will owe me nothing for this service. It's the least I can do for a HAMB BRO....and my life will now have meaning. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[SamIyam]

I have a question for you guys... should I put a unit motor into my chassis or go with a pre unit? I have the Unit stuff... and nothing Pre-Unit... so factoring in Cost/Time/Cost///Time... which one would be better/cooler?
Sam.

[38Chevy454]

[ QUOTE ]
... which one would be better/cooler?
Sam.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="red"> The Triumph one would be better/cooler. </font> You can thank me later for all my help. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Seriously, I would use a pre-unit if you had one, but since what you have is the unit set-up, that is what you should use. The overall effect on the final product is not enough difference to take time and money to get a different engine/trans.

Either pre-unit or unit will make a cool bike.

[hatch]

It's always been my thoughts that "It's not what you start with...but what you end up with"....so Sam...you know what cool is...just build it "your way" with what ever you have layin around.....we trust ya!!!!