I have been meaning to ask this for some time but Ron has reminded me.
The front upper sidecar fitting "swan neck". The one which came with my outfit is the lower shorter one, which has been welded up, always a worry with sidecar fittings.
So when the other one appeared at a jumble I thought I had solved this problem, but its longer in the middle section as you can see.
So firstly which one is correct for the big4 please?
Rob a quick measure! Mine is about 13" from bottom to the joint where the solid bend emerges. if the short one turns out to be surplus, I'll buy it from you. Ron
The WD16H had increased ground clearance, gained by shortening front downtube and gearbox downtubes by about 1" when compared with standard civilian.
Did the swd Big 4 also have these shorter tubes and increased clearance or did they leave it standard in view of the taller engine ? The outfit sat higher due to its 100% aspect ratio 4.00" tyres anyway.
If the Big 4 frame is 'standard' then the shorter stay might well be for an RAF / WD 16H outfit...
Rob, only you know whether you have a copy or not...the late RAF books are not illustrated but the 'Sidecar front chassis attachment arm' has part number 4059 which seems to differ from the swd (2156 ?)
A useful step might be for Ron to measure both his front downtubes between the fuel tank and engine mount lugs. If there is a difference then this is likley to be the reason.
I can send you the 16H s/c spares list if you haven't got it.
Ron, there is some confusion here, the difference seems to be in the middle strait section, perhaps if everyone measures that bit all may become clear.
Yes sorry Rob. I measured mine to include the bottom lug. My straight part is 9 1/2" (241mm)
I also measured the down tubes which are identical (16H & B4) I don't think the down tube length would have any bearing on the side car position as it would only alter the position of the engine for ground clearance. The 16H & B4 forks are also the same length and the fitting of 18" wheels with wider tyres effectively makes the wheel hight's the same at 26".
As we know Norton made several pre war civvy side cars and chassis. There might have been various lengths of swan necks. Maybe your short one has been altered for some reason (you say it has been welded?).
Perhaps Sven could also measure the swan neck on this civvy chassis that I sold him
The rear lower fitting on that 16H outfit appears to have quite a drop compared to the Big4 rear lower fitting I have.
Was the Big4 chassis altered to give it greater ground clearance, the fittings could have been shortened but also the sidecar wheel spindle would have had to be repositioned lower down?
Yes Rob it's not a good idea to use my 16H chassis as any form of guide, as I had to make it up as I went along. I actually dropped that rear fitting myself, but I can't remember whether I had to alter the swan neck. It was all done by lining up the Swallow 8 chair by looking at pictures. Lots of trial and error till it looked right.
My B4 is all pretty standard.....I think. Oh the fun of lifting off the chair to work on the left side of the bike!!!
Hi,
Mine has definitely been worked on but hopefully these pictures can help you. I will have another chassis soon, if you want I can measure that one too
Hello Rob.On my big 4 that measurement is only 6 1/2 ".I think the measurement you need is the total length overall as the swan neck length determines the ground clearance at the front of the sidecar chassis.Hope this helps.
Thanks for the input everyone, but I think we still need more.
Sven, in order to see if the big4 chassis had more ground clearance than the 16H combo please could you measure the height of the sidecar wheel spindle centre above the chassis.
Sam, that is a very nice original looking big4 you have there.
Hello Rob.On my big 4 that measurement is only 6 1/2 ".I think the measurement you need is the total length overall as the swan neck length determines the ground clearance at the front of the sidecar chassis.Hope this helps.
Hi Sam, your big4 seems to have an extra plate on the front of the engine for the bottom front fitting, I haven't seen one like that before any chance of a closer picture please.
Rob some more for you to think about. I just measured my chassis from the floor to centre of side tubes. N/S in two paces = about 9" O/S (by bike) in two places = about 8 1/2". So a lean of the chair towards the bike of about 1/2". I set my outfit up with the correct amount of 'lean out' as per the book, and this might account for the lean of the chassis. My swan neck appears to be the same as your long one.
Regarding that plate on Sams outfit. It has been fitted with the banana shaped plate that holds the lower support bar, in a forward position and it looks like someone has had to make a plate to receive the other end of the support bar.
The more upright you put the front upper fitting the shorter it would need to be so perhaps both would fit but one would be incorrect by putting the sidecar wheel too far forward or back in relation to the back wheel?
On the front lower fitting I had to make the front banana shaped plate and the distance tube so I may not have them spot on, does anyone have originals that they could measure?
Rob I think I understand what you are saying. But I set mine up as near as possible to the book with the side car wheel slightly forward of the rear wheel on the bike. You can see this in the picture of my chassis, by the angle of the prop shaft. I created the correct amount of lean out. But I only towed the outfit in by about 1" instead of the ridiculous prescribed 2". (Probably correct for an outfit as heavy carrying three blokes with kit and ammo).
My banana plate is original and I just made the support tube to suit. Ron