Still on the road? Dang!
Hate problems like this while on the road.
That lower subframe plate indeed appears bent.
Another poster (either here or on ADV - or maybe gary from Motorvation) cautioned about rotating the clevis's horizontal. Too high a force applied may indeed crack and shear off the clevis - which would be worse. Significantly.
I'd make sure nothing is broken, make minor adjustments, and take it easy going home.
If your avatar is indeed correct (from Houston), I would not hurry back unless you know you have an emergency to deal with. Lots of water and woe there right now.
Good luck.
I would suggest that you go with a better lower sub frame that mounts to the bike, and then the sidecar mounts to it. The lower mounts need to be much more rigid, and form the pictures I see, yours they are going to pivot and throw the car/bike out of alighment. The upper mounts should be more of a 45 degree angle, as again in the pictures they seem to be too parallel to the ground. Screwing in the end of the connector that attaches to the sidecar, and then making the portion that goes between the bike and the sidecar longer, will change your angle.
The lower mounts need to be really strong and rigid as they carry the stress of the sidecar, and the upper mounts just keep it from folding in on itself. You have a big heavy bike and looks like a good size car, so your need to beef up the mounts. My 2 cents for what its worth.
Thanks all.
I also posted this over on ADVrider, and got some interesting comments as well - but as yet, no real solutions without re-engineering everything...
Cycleman - that, in a nutshell, is what I am trying to accomplish.
Although I believe you meant to write "...they seem too vertical". Indeed - they are about 30 degrees off vertical. In the XR1200 pic I posted they are also 30 degrees - off horizontal!
But even trimming the clevis mounts by half their length, I can only pick up about 5 degrees more horizontal angle.
The only way I can get the mounts anywhere near a 45 degree angle is to make the track width wider.
I am currently at 59.5". Have done a bit of searching on both here and ADVRider, and cannot find much info on maximum track width.
I did find on the Hannigan site that their recommended track width for their "Classic Twin Sidecar" is 58"-62".
So I guess today I will give that a try. 62" it is.
Between shortening the clevis's and the additional track width, should be able to get the top mounts real close to a 45 degree angle.
Would appreciate any comments on this (to me) not-really-ideal solution of making this wide body wider... coincidently, my 2008 Jeep Liberty track is also 62"...
We have a trip coming up next weekend, so will not have time to re-engineer the lowers - but I have some 4" x 1.5" diameter tubing clamps coming to re-engineer the lowers to be similar to the Concours 14 over in the thread on ADVRider. They are cheaper to purchase than my local welder(s) can make them.
Yes I mean more vertical, whatever the angle. From what I have read on sidecars, some try and keep the track width in the 50-52 " range. I've never measured my rig but when I asked DMC on the width, they told me, just wide enough to get the right saddlebag off the bike, bike is a BMW R100RT with a Kenna sidecar. Saddlebags are removable. So I'm going to suggest that wider is not always better and that the wider you go the more the upper mounts goes towards horizontal, also more stress on the lower mounts. I have a 98 Shadlow VT1100T in the garage with the factory bags ( similar to your Valk ) in rear width and from your pictures you have room to move the car in several inches. I've simplified my toe in and lean out to 1/2 inch toe in and 3/4 inch lean out measured at the handlebars, with weight on the bike and in the car. Works well for my rig and unit handles well. No steering stabilizer but does have a unit leading link front end. So I would suggest moving the car in closer to the bike. Good luck.
