EARLES VS US FORK

[fastcar]

Dear All,

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...

[niall4473]

The Earles fork was dropped for a few reasons, it was expensive to make, quite heavy, and it's main advantages were for sidecar work, where it absolutely excels.
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.

[Seek]

You 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.

[Tinkertimejeff]

I 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.

[fastcar]

The Earles fork was dropped for a few reasons, it was expensive to make, quite heavy, and it's main advantages were for sidecar work, where it absolutely excels.

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.

[fastcar]

You 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.

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!!!

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==

[fastcar]

I 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.

Appreciate your input. Agree on the looks!

[johnlacko]

I’ve owned several of each type over the last 30+ years, and the only one parked in my garage for the last 12 years is my R69US. To me it’s much more nimble a ride. But to each his own. I saw some comments about the forks being too long, but I’m not sure if they mean ‘in use’, or parked on the center stand. I think there is close to 8” of travel in the telescopics, which I’d guess is at least double the travel on the Earles, so on the stand that will show more. I never measured it. But in the normal riding position, the forks don’t look any different to me than they do on a /5 or later. So unless I ever decide to have a sidecar bike again, I’m good. jl

[schrader7032]

the forks don’t look any different to me than they do on a /5 or later.

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.

[vechorik1373]

Another thing that no one mentioned, but is quite significant when it comes to telescopic vs the Earles 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.