Modified forks for an outfit

[breakwellmz]

Nice outfit front end. Adds rigidity and reduces trail, very neat -

[Puffs]

Following a biased and flawed moderator choice (someone posting aggressive personal attacks is rewarded, while my technical posts are removed - behind my back & without any justification!), I have withdrawn from this forum.

[breakwellmz]

Hence the title.
Yes, less trail is needed on an outfit.

[DAVID THOMPSON]

my 1960's BMW R50S has front like that and does very well..

i installed a tapered bearing set in the fork neck and it can be ridden at slow speed
around a parking lot with no hands on the bars the original loose ball set stinks


bike rides very smooth and with constant length wheel base.
I love the way it rides .

Dave

[Puffs]

Thank you for your kind explanation. Yes, I see why that sideways pull makes you want 0 trail. So commonly you see swingarms in combination with a sidecar:


So that's a normal shock absorber inside a swingarm, not telescopic forks with a brace added and a special swingarm contraption with 2 hinge points added. Anyway, it's your show.

David, I'd be slightly surprised if your 1960's BMW R50S has front like that, this would be more common:
Conventional, not telescopic with a brace.

To each his own.

[DAVID THOMPSON]

the angle of the telescope fork on a 1969 r60 us makes it want to fall over at very slow speeds
the later 1972 600 handles better

neither of the above frames have built in sidecar mounts
but i like the 1955 to 68 frames

the sidecar frames handle ugly if set in sidecar position and driven solo
DAVE

that outfit in picture above has a 55 to 68 frame and a mid 70's engine probably a 900

[breakwellmz]

Didn`t some of the 60s MZ250s have adjustable trail leading link forks for solo and sidecar use?

[DAVID THOMPSON]

a sidecar is a good way to KILL a motor fast
i have 2 500cc motors in the basement that are trash from pulling sidecars
around town

[Puffs]

Above I said 'to each his own', but before I edited it out, it read 'to each his own, but to me a sidecar has absolutely positively 0 appeal'.

I removed that because I thought it was a bit abrasive, but I really see no point in fitting a sidecar to what might otherwise be a decent bike. I never rode (drove?) a sidecar combination, and IMO that appendix removes everything that makes bike riding worthwhile. You cannot lean the bike. There are historic reasons for it, but nowadays, if you want to haul more, just take a car. Anyway, that's just my personal view, I know it's not shared by all, and up until not too long ago people were enthusiastically racing sidecars combinations (both on road & MX). I hated them because they ruined the track, making deep ruts & gullies.

Anyway, back to the technical. I do not know the answer to your question. The ESs had a swingarm, and that could easily be made adjustable (like at the rear), but I don't think it was, at least not standard:

22.jpg (16.54 KiB) Viewed 1910 times

But that looks quite different from the pic I showed earlier (which also has a nice & non-standard double leading shoe), so modification is possible.
I believe the BK had telescopic forks; upside-down avant la lettre.

For sidecar aficionados it would be useful if you could please explain in more detail what you did, why you wanted that, and how trail influences a bike's behaviour.

David, I understand earlier 60's models all had the swingarm front end (aka Earles forks), which was very suitable also for sidecar duty, but the '69 US model indeed got telescopic forks:

That looks like a pretty decent bike to me, and I bow to your BMW knowledge, recognising that frame from the earlier pic! I believe that was advertised as an early 60's R50, but I cannot find it back.