By joining you will help ensure that we can continue to provide this service
JOIN HERE!
EARLES VS US FORK
EARLES VS US FORK
I'm restoring my dad's bike. He converted his '67 R69S to US soon after the forks came out in '68. But he always praised the Earle's anti-dive feature and never explained really why he switched or how the US fork was better. It was hard to tell if or why he preferred the US forks.
I felt it may have been just to have the latest - my dad was an engineer type and loved progress.
Those of you who have had the opportunity to compare, can you explain why you prefer the US or Earles forks?
Dad passed in November and we never got to finish the bike restoration. I'm in the process of having it completed now. He sustained a traumatic brain injury in 2008 and I never got to inquire on this topic before that. His memory was pretty much wiped and cognition off, so probably couldn't have answered well after the injury.
I'm tempted to go back to the Earle's configuration and make the bike original again, to match the early photographs we have. Dad sold the forks, likely to recoup the cost of the US parts, so it will involve considerable expense, but something about putting it original feels right. At the same time, if the Earles really suck, I'll stick with the US forks, lol. Honoring dad's vision to modernize certainly wouldn't be difficult, especially if the US forks perform a lot better.
Much appreciate your input!
Gratefully...
Re: EARLES VS US FORK
Sidecars were rapidly disappearing with the advent of cheaper cars in Europe, fleet buyers wanted something cheaper and the whole series were overbuilt and BMW struggled to make a profit on them, an electric start was desired and BMW could use some parts from their ultra-reliable car engines as a basis for a new engine, which became the /5 series.
The new forks were ready by 1966 and were tested on the then current bikes satisfactorily, the US models were then introduced as an interim stop-gap in 1968 to boost sales in the US and Canada until the /5s came through. A whole new factory was built to produce the new bikes, in Berlin, so the Munich factory had to be kept running as long as possible , until it could be re-tooled for car building.
So no, the Earles forks did not 'suck', they just became unfashionable and too expensive. As for what you should do, that is your choice, but the Earles forks were in no way inferior.
Re: EARLES VS US FORK
-
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:49 pm
- Been thanked: 9 times
Re: EARLES VS US FORK
Re: EARLES VS US FORK
Seems these were bound to disappear as telescoping became ubiquitous and BMW needed to keep up with what were probably more nimble forks on competitor's bikes or, at least, more modern (not always better). Appreciate your perspective and the history lesson, thanks.
Re: EARLES VS US FORK
Well, should certainly make anyone that is performance oriented and an Earles fork lover happy to hear. I agree with you about the US forks looking long on the /2s!!!Seek wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 5:49 amYou should also add why the Earles forks were introduced in the first place. They were all the rage on the race track, not for sidecars but solo bikes. BMW introduced them first on their racing machines. Only later they came on the normal bikes. The Earles fork is definitly stiffer sideways, what makes them so great for sidecar use. That probably also helped on the race track. But they also feel heavier, it is not the same feel as telescopics and you have to get used to it. The antidive is nice too. On the /2 they look way cooler, the US forks are a bit long and kind of look like they don't fit properly on the earlier bikes. That is of course just my opinion.
Speaking of Earles performance, I've seen several shots of hi-po Earles setups at Scottie Searle's instagram. I couldn't find the one I wanted to post, which had a trick shock and spring setup along with huge dual disks, but here's another example: https://www.instagram.com/p/C1iqN9hNRlh ... BiNWFlZA==
Re: EARLES VS US FORK
Appreciate your input. Agree on the looks!Tinkertimejeff wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 6:10 amI have and have compared both types and found the US fork can be a little finicky if it is not set up perfectly. You have a better feel for the road as well. The Earles fork can be a little stiff and sluggish and seems to absorb road imperfections better. They both have positives and negatives, I think a lot of it comes down to aesthetics. I like the look of the Earles and tolerate the look of the US fork.
-
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:40 am
- Location: Toms River, New Jersey
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
- Contact:
Re: EARLES VS US FORK
- schrader7032
- Posts: 9086
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:00 am
- Location: San Antonio, TX
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 40 times
Re: EARLES VS US FORK
I guess this is why I didn't want a US fork setup. Tons of them available with the /5 and on. I wanted something to represent the /2 era and for me, that's the Earles forks.
'78 R100/7 '69 R69S '52 R25/2
Fast. Neat. Average. Friendly. Good. Good.
- vechorik1373
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:00 am
- Been thanked: 28 times
Re: EARLES VS US FORK
With any telescopic front end, when you hit the brakes hard, the front end dives and the weight of the bike transfers forward, and the length from center line of axles front to rear becomes slightly shorter, and the effectiveness of the rear brake decreases due to weight transfer.
The Earles fork does not do this. When you hit the brakes hard, the front end comes up. it makes the rear brake remain more effective.
Technical Adviser, Former owner, Bench Mark Works
662 312 2838 cell 9 am to 4pm CST PLEASE!