You have to be very careful lowering the fender on the springer front end. The fender is mounted to the spring fork leg. The wheel attaches to the to the rocker. Being the axle is farther from the pivot than the spring fork leg, the wheel will travel farther than the fender. I'm not saying you can't do it. But, know the risks. Thinkof locking a front wheel even for a split second going around a high speed corner.

 

I find my springer rides smoother than a glide front end...especially on rough roads or potholes. It tracks straight, even in the twistys, and I have never had any flex or nose dive, even with hard braking. I've been riding for many years, and have had springers on all of them. Nothing has the look of a springer.

 

An idea for a custom..
I think a bobber with a short low-rider style rear fender would be rockin' on a 21" springer... Maybe with the no-chrome look and a cast engine and some apes and whitewalls. I think that would be a cool project.. Something ala Sucker Punch Sally's style.

Well looky here.. They've got a similar scoot on their site:



Oh man!!!!.......



Springers lend themselves to bobbers reeeeeally nicely.

 

Let me make a comment or two here.

First off is fork braces. You see people put them on hydraulic front ends all the time, and one presumes their origin had some reason, but have you ever seen anyone build a brace for the hind legs of a springer? I haven't and to be quite honest about it I haven't run across anyone who ever said they felt a need for one. So that's one sign that points to the adequacy of a springer front in comparison to slushytubes.

Then there is the hard cold reality of the universe in which we live. If you want a front wheel that responds well, which is to say quickly, to changing road conditions you need to lower its mass. As the suspension guys know full well, if you wantimproved handeling you have to reduce unsprung weight. In the case of the two motorcycle front suspensions in question the hydraulic tubes have the edge here. With a tube front end unsprung weight is confined to the wheel/tire combination, brake(s) and fender if fitted, and of course the lower legs. With a springer you exchangethe relatiely low weight of the lower legsfor the forward legs of the springer and half the springs (and some minoradditional inertial loads from the rockers). Its the heavier weight of the springer parts that are put in motion with every bump in the road that make it the less desirable when its all out handeling that is at stake. Its no accident that really go-fast bikes haven't had springers on them for decades.

So that's about it. I love springers myself. They look great and for the daily ride there's no great difference in handeling that would make them in any way less desirable than their squishy counterparts. However you have to admit that in the real world modern hydraulic motorcycle syspension systems outperform their asthetically pleasing ancestors.

 

Kong, great points.

Let's face it though, at least half the fun of riding a bike is how it looks, and springers win that battle hands down

 

Sing along.....
All I want for Christmas is a Springer and some Apes..
A Springer and some Apes..
A Springer and some Apes..

 

Now you're singing my language!

 

I've never had a secong thought about my Springer. Guess if you wanted all new technology you could get a metric. But I loved the 1948 Panhead and I get the looks in a new bike!

 

Can't beat a Springer!!!

 

Springers rule!