For some extra information about navigating the forum you can go to Forum Tips
Spacing and Conections
Quote from Buckaroo on December 2, 2016, 8:07 amI have two more questions , I am new to sidecars
I am wondering how you determine the spacing between the side and sidecar. Do you try to get it as close as possible and still have all the controls work ,thus getting the smallest foot print of the whole rig or do you sometimes want to space the car wider to help to keep the weight as far from the bike as possible but within reason ? I realize this needs to be within reason, you would not want the car 24" away !
Also why do I see that some car are attached with a ball joint style connection at the lower rear and the other three are clevis style. And some use the clevis in all four locations ?
I have two more questions , I am new to sidecars
I am wondering how you determine the spacing between the side and sidecar. Do you try to get it as close as possible and still have all the controls work ,thus getting the smallest foot print of the whole rig or do you sometimes want to space the car wider to help to keep the weight as far from the bike as possible but within reason ? I realize this needs to be within reason, you would not want the car 24" away !
Also why do I see that some car are attached with a ball joint style connection at the lower rear and the other three are clevis style. And some use the clevis in all four locations ?
Quote from jaydmc on December 2, 2016, 10:43 amTrack width is effected by many different things, narrow is nice however you must be able to work the controls and if you have saddle bags you may need the sidecar mounted a bit wider in order to be able to use them. Some times the mounting hardware effects how narrow you can get things, kick starters effect things, Some times with really light sidecars you might want to go a bit wider then ideal, like pretty much everything on a sidecar rig it is a compromise. You just need to figure out what is best for your needs.
Attachment points. Traditionally the lowers were done with balls on the bike and clamps that go over the balls, This allows the toe to be adjusted and allows for some misalignment. Pretty much every modern sidecar manufacture (except for companies building really old designs) do not use the ball connectors. There are many reasons for this, one they would have to manufacture these parts where as the heim joints that we use we can buy. Also ball socket type mounts are a bit harder to take the sidecar on and off.
Some companies go with eye bolts to clevis or eye bolt to eye bolt for the lower mounts. We do not like this set up as unless the bolt going through them is parallel to the ground which is seldom the case once you set the toe when you go to lean them in or out you are forcing stress into the system. Some companies even go as far as having their upper struts turn buckle type so that they can force the stress into the system.
We like hiem joints on the lower mounts as we can buy them already made rather then having to machine our own design, they allow for misalignment and when you adjust for toe and lean out you are not forcing stress into the system. I have heard negative feed back on this set up from people who feel that they want some thing that does not have any play so that the connection is adding to the rigidity, I know of one company that even goes as far as telling you to have the connection bolts straight up and down to make things more ridged. We feel that rigidity should come from the design of the mounting system and that if you need to have the lower mounts attachment method adding to the rigidity then perhaps you should go back and rethink the design of your mounts.
For the upper mounts almost every company uses eye bolts and or eye bolts to clevis type mounts. We use eye bolt to eye bolts. Some will argue that eye bolt to clevis is stronger as the bolt that connects them is in double shear rather then single shear and they are correct however the bolt is not the weak point in the system, the threaded section of the strut is the weak point, We use 3/4 16 TPI rod for the struts as do many other USA manufactures. The 3/4 inch threaded section is no where near as strong as the connection and as such we run eye bolt to eye bolt which has some other advantages, one it means we have to make few different types of parts and also some times by putting the strut on one side of the eye bolt it will clear things like saddle bags that it would not if it were centered on the eye bolt. Like a chain it is only as strong as the weakest link and the weakest link is not the connection.
Also BTW, we like to have our struts with the threaded part down, not up like most other manufactures. The reason for this is a decade or two down the road when you go to adjust them, rain water has not been working its way down the threads and as such they tend to still adjust.
Jay G
DMC sidecars
www.dmcsidecars.com
866-638-1793
Track width is effected by many different things, narrow is nice however you must be able to work the controls and if you have saddle bags you may need the sidecar mounted a bit wider in order to be able to use them. Some times the mounting hardware effects how narrow you can get things, kick starters effect things, Some times with really light sidecars you might want to go a bit wider then ideal, like pretty much everything on a sidecar rig it is a compromise. You just need to figure out what is best for your needs.
Attachment points. Traditionally the lowers were done with balls on the bike and clamps that go over the balls, This allows the toe to be adjusted and allows for some misalignment. Pretty much every modern sidecar manufacture (except for companies building really old designs) do not use the ball connectors. There are many reasons for this, one they would have to manufacture these parts where as the heim joints that we use we can buy. Also ball socket type mounts are a bit harder to take the sidecar on and off.
Some companies go with eye bolts to clevis or eye bolt to eye bolt for the lower mounts. We do not like this set up as unless the bolt going through them is parallel to the ground which is seldom the case once you set the toe when you go to lean them in or out you are forcing stress into the system. Some companies even go as far as having their upper struts turn buckle type so that they can force the stress into the system.
We like hiem joints on the lower mounts as we can buy them already made rather then having to machine our own design, they allow for misalignment and when you adjust for toe and lean out you are not forcing stress into the system. I have heard negative feed back on this set up from people who feel that they want some thing that does not have any play so that the connection is adding to the rigidity, I know of one company that even goes as far as telling you to have the connection bolts straight up and down to make things more ridged. We feel that rigidity should come from the design of the mounting system and that if you need to have the lower mounts attachment method adding to the rigidity then perhaps you should go back and rethink the design of your mounts.
For the upper mounts almost every company uses eye bolts and or eye bolts to clevis type mounts. We use eye bolt to eye bolts. Some will argue that eye bolt to clevis is stronger as the bolt that connects them is in double shear rather then single shear and they are correct however the bolt is not the weak point in the system, the threaded section of the strut is the weak point, We use 3/4 16 TPI rod for the struts as do many other USA manufactures. The 3/4 inch threaded section is no where near as strong as the connection and as such we run eye bolt to eye bolt which has some other advantages, one it means we have to make few different types of parts and also some times by putting the strut on one side of the eye bolt it will clear things like saddle bags that it would not if it were centered on the eye bolt. Like a chain it is only as strong as the weakest link and the weakest link is not the connection.
Also BTW, we like to have our struts with the threaded part down, not up like most other manufactures. The reason for this is a decade or two down the road when you go to adjust them, rain water has not been working its way down the threads and as such they tend to still adjust.
Jay G
DMC sidecars
http://www.dmcsidecars.com
866-638-1793
Quote from CCjon on December 4, 2016, 12:55 pmAlso BTW, we like to have our struts with the threaded part down, not up like most other manufactures. The reason for this is a decade or two down the road when you go to adjust them, rain water has not been working its way down the threads and as such they tend to still adjust.
Good point Jay. At the USCA National rally I made it a point to inspect all the rigs to see which had the strut threads up and which were down. About two thirds were pointing down. Unless you live in the desert, pointing the strut threads down is a smart idea.
Also BTW, we like to have our struts with the threaded part down, not up like most other manufactures. The reason for this is a decade or two down the road when you go to adjust them, rain water has not been working its way down the threads and as such they tend to still adjust.
Good point Jay. At the USCA National rally I made it a point to inspect all the rigs to see which had the strut threads up and which were down. About two thirds were pointing down. Unless you live in the desert, pointing the strut threads down is a smart idea.
Quote from Mike Bodisch on December 4, 2016, 11:04 pmJay
Thanks for the input here. As usual, I find your posts very informative and enlightening.
Mike in MS
Jay
Thanks for the input here. As usual, I find your posts very informative and enlightening.
Mike in MS