'56 G3LS Fork cover tube fouling mudguard

General purpose topics/chat goes in here
NickG58
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:17 pm
Location: Surrey UK

'56 G3LS Fork cover tube fouling mudguard

Post by NickG58 »

Hi Guys,
I have recently bought (last week) a '56 G3LS. Really like it so far. It has had an 'older restoration' at some point. Runs really well and the brakes are far better than I expected.There are a few issues with it that are primarily cosmetic.
One that is bothering me is the right hand fork cover (black bit) fouls/rubs against the front mudguard fork leg recess. This has rubbed the paint off to bare metal (around 3 inches or so). The guard looks very slightly off centre and the clearance between the lower fork legs and the mudguard is uneven.
I am wondering if the position of the chrome front brake stay (left side) is correct. I don't have an exploded diagram. The stay is currently fitted between the fork lower leg and the mudguard bracket. Is this correct or should the stay be positioned on the inside of the mudguard bracket? If it was then the clearance on the right side between the leg and guard bracket would improve.
If the stay set up is correct then I suppose the guard might be distorted.
I hope the above makes sense.
Any thoughts?
Cheers
Nick
SPRIDDLER
Member
Posts: 8542
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 1:00 am
Location: WEST SUSSEX UK

Re: '56 G3LS Fork cover tube fouling mudguard

Post by SPRIDDLER »

Mine has always rubbed in spite of several attempts to reposition it but I'm not sufficiently fussed to keep trying to cure it.
It is generally recommended to fit the torque arm against the alloy slider and before fitting the mudguard.
'There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which taken at the flood............'
NickG58
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:17 pm
Location: Surrey UK

Re: '56 G3LS Fork cover tube fouling mudguard

Post by NickG58 »

SPRIDDLER wrote:Mine has always rubbed in spite of several attempts to reposition it but I'm not sufficiently fussed to keep trying to cure it.
It is generally recommended to fit the torque arm against the alloy slider and before fitting the mudguard.
Thanks 'Spriddler' you've confirmed my torque arm is fitted correctly. I'll have a fiddle with the mudguard bracket etc. to see if I can improve things
P10
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:55 pm
Location: BATTLE UK

Re: '56 G3LS Fork cover tube fouling mudguard

Post by P10 »

This is a common mistake made by restorers of AMC bikes. Logic tells our engineering minds that the chrome brake anchor should be fitted adjacent to the aluminium slider to reduce the cantilever load on the studs but it should be fitted inside the mudguard bracket. I have seen nothing in any manual that shows how it should be assembled but this information came direct from assembly shop workers.
User avatar
Pharisee
Member
Posts: 1126
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2016 8:51 pm
Location: Lincolnshire UK
Contact:

Re: '56 G3LS Fork cover tube fouling mudguard

Post by Pharisee »

I'll go along with P10... My G3LS has the mudguard fitted against the fork slider both sides with the brake torque arm fitted inside the mudguard. The mudguard is perfectly central and doesn't rub the painted fork covers.
20190215_215959.jpg
20190215_220009.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
I'm from the Fens.... Gimme six.
SPRIDDLER
Member
Posts: 8542
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 1:00 am
Location: WEST SUSSEX UK

Re: '56 G3LS Fork cover tube fouling mudguard

Post by SPRIDDLER »

P10 wrote: Logic tells our engineering minds that the chrome brake anchor should be fitted adjacent to the aluminium slider to reduce the cantilever load on the studs but it should be fitted inside the mudguard bracket. I have seen nothing in any manual.........
Thanks Bill.
I've seen nothing in print either, only from posts read on here over the years. It's probably one reason why I've had so much trouble curing the scrapes. I'd have risked fitting it after the mudguard if I had known it didn't affect security of the torque arm.
Live and learn, eh?
'There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which taken at the flood............'
Mick D
Posts: 2886
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:44 pm
Location: Aberdeenshire

Re: '56 G3LS Fork cover tube fouling mudguard

Post by Mick D »

Hi

I prefer the more 'engineeringly' correct position, stay between slider and mudguard bridge - if I had any interference, (I don't), I'd 'tweak' the arms of the bridge to reposition the guard.

For what it's worth, my original stay and bridge show witness marks to have always been installed in this manner.

Regards Mick
Dave T_LAPSED
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 7:19 pm
Location: CALVADOS FRANCE

Re: '56 G3LS Fork cover tube fouling mudguard

Post by Dave T_LAPSED »

Hi guys, I think this problem is not rocket science, put the anchor arm where the mudguard doesn't catch! When it's all clamped up if the arm is wheel side it's the same shear forces on it as if it was clamped to the forkleg. Think about it.
All mixy same.
Lovely riding weather here in Normandie, 17°C yesterday and went out on my H***a 500 'cos the G80 is still in bits due to my hamfistedness in the piston ring dept. I'm really looking forward to riding it, the H makes you ride in it's manner whereas the Matchless adapts to you and is more relaxed.
Spring is just round the corner! Dave.
P10
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:55 pm
Location: BATTLE UK

Re: '56 G3LS Fork cover tube fouling mudguard

Post by P10 »

Agreed; same shear force but marginal (and barely significant) additional cantilever (bending) load on the studs. They didn't leave the factory with the paint being rubbed off!
bob121
Posts: 291
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 11:48 am
Location: WEST MIDLANDS UK

Re: '56 G3LS Fork cover tube fouling mudguard

Post by bob121 »

My m31 is doing the same on the lhs. It went back together as it came apart. Mudguard against the slider. Witness marks on the stay confirmed it also.
Locked