G3l Matchless fork lowers.

[BrettyG3l]

Hello there! I am a new member to the club having bought a 1950 G3l (tele rigid) 18 months ago. This machine is a bit special to me as it was the very machine I bought in 1975 aged just 17.5 ! This bike may be well known within the club as it looks, from some documentation I have, that a previous owner was a member. It's original plate was AEN73 - unfortunatley it lost this number and now has an age related one.

Anyway, to the question I have. I've already ridden it a few thousand (joyous!) miles and all this time I have wondered why the front end of the front mudguard wags about so much on our rough old roads. Casting my mind back 43 years I recalled it having a forward mudguard stay, indeed I have a photograph of me sitting on it back then and yes, the mudguard has a forward stay. Indeed every photo of standard versions of this model shows one.

On investigation I discover that the fork lowers do not have the cast in forward stay boss (they do have the rear one). They appear correct in every other way bar this. There is no evidence of the bosses being ground off and polished out.

So I'm thinking that at some point in the last 43 years it's had the lowers replaced. Which model would these have come off? Ideally I would like to fit a front stay, so, as I don't want to replace the lowers, I may have to come up with something that maybe clamps around the fork lower or runs back to the top clamp - but I'm not keen on this as the angle would be wrong and I don't want to fix it to the same stud the brake torque arm is fastened to.

This isn't a serious problem, although I'm slightly concerned that the shaking may eventually crack the mudguard bracket between the forks.

Any thoughts/ideas gratefully received!

[clive]

Sounds like the later sliders. I wonder if the bike was in a front end accident and the forks replaced, the later ones are 1 1/4 rather than 1 1/8. This would also involve replacing the fork crown and triple tree. However I think the later sliders can be fitted to the earlier thinnerstanchions. Cannot help with how to secure your mudguard bought and I think you are right it may fracture. The later mudguards which only had a rear stay had greater reinforcement.

[Duncan]

So I'm thinking that at some point in the last 43 years it's had the lowers replaced. Which model would these have come off? Ideally I would like to fit a front stay, so, as I don't want to replace the lowers, I may have to come up with something that maybe clamps around the fork lower or runs back to the top clamp - but I'm not keen on this as the angle would be wrong and I don't want to fix it to the same stud the brake torque arm is fastened to.

This isn't a serious problem, although I'm slightly concerned that the shaking may eventually crack the mudguard bracket between the forks.

Any thoughts/ideas gratefully received!

I have seen a couple of bikes that have utilised the fork cap studs to to hold a bracket that in turn supports the mudguard stay, although a neater solution would be to make the stay in one piece rather than two. If you search the internet for (replica) CSR pictures these often have inventive solutions to the same problem.

[BrettyG3l]

Many thanks for the replies gentlemen. No doubt that after 43 years something has occured that required replacement of the forks. Looking at a few photos on the interweb I see a few models had just the one, rear, fixing boss. The fork cap stud/bracket idea is a possibility - I'll put my thinking hat on!

[Groily]

To add to what Duncan says, if the objective is to protect the mudguard until a better option comes along, then a couple of short brackets mounted on the forward axle cap stud each side, with a hoop of something suitable making the bridge, will do a semi-passable job. I've done it using 2 steel rods, threaded both ends (rather than a one-piece hoop I didn't have nor want to fabricate) and a bridge piece attached to the 'guard, and it's stopped it thrumming like a bass guitar at certain rpm, or cracking.
(But it's a far cry from how it should be, obviously. The next owner will no doubt sort it . . .)