Narrow glide vs wide glide handling differences

Started by SanB2013, October 25, 2019, 08:32:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

SanB2013

My 76 FXE had been converted to a FLH by the previous owner. The front end is a stock length 41 mm wide glide with a 16" wheel. The front end really feels heavy. I'm thinking about changing to a 35 mm front end with a 19" wheel. I'm wondering the difference in the handling characteristics of the narrow glide vs the wide glide?
1976 FXE

hbkeith


fbn ent

I'd put on a 21" and ditch the cat squasher.... :bike:
'02 FLTRI - 103" / '84 FLH - 88"<br />Hinton, Alberta

capn

Having had both the wide glide has less fork flexing.

tomfiii


JW113

I don't know how much heavier a 16" tire/wheel is than a 19", can't be that different though. I think the heavy feel is the frame/fork geometry. Between my FLH, my Softail, and Road King, all with same basic fork/fender/wheel, the FLH feels heavy, the softail less so, the RK the lightest. It's in the rake angle.

But your question about handling, I have never like the feel of bikes with larger/skinnier tires on the front compared to the rear. I put a 16" on my Ironhead for that reason, run same size tires on both ends. It handles better at speed in turns than with the 19". And it does not feel heavy at all, but Sportster frame has less rake than an FLH.

Just my worthless opinion, but I'd leave it as is.

-JW
2004 FLHRS   1977 FLH Shovelhead  1992 FLSTC
1945 Indian Chief   1978 XL Bobber

Burnout

First thing is a FXE came with 2" longer forks this changes the geometry significantly, so it is difficult to make a Apples to Apples comparison

In my eyes a 35mm front end is marginal for the bike it came on (XL).

Putting it on a BT is overloading it.
Another significant problem with a 35mm is shitty 10" brakes with dual disc, and the caliper on the 11.5" single leaves a lot to be desired.
I don't think good compounds are available for the riveted pads and it's another bolt_together caliper

Depends on what you expect from it.
If you just need it to hold up the front of the bike so it doesn't fall over when on the jiffy stand, it will work great.
But the harder you load it the more obvious it will become that the fork is too small.

A 39mm front end off an FXDX would be a really nice solution, adjustable damping takes it to a new level.

On a 41mm the 16" wheel by itself may make a significant difference by itself as it increases unsprung weight.

They don't call me Ironhead Rick just because I'm "hard headed"

JW113

Do you mean FXE came with longer or forks, of FXWG? I know the WG does, did not know the did.

Good point, if what he has truly is FXWG forks and not just the mis-used term "wide glide" for the regular FL 41" front end, then yes it's gonna steer heavy for sure, esp at low speed.

-JW
2004 FLHRS   1977 FLH Shovelhead  1992 FLSTC
1945 Indian Chief   1978 XL Bobber

SanB2013

Quote from: JW113 on October 26, 2019, 03:29:02 PM
Do you mean FXE came with longer or forks, of FXWG? I know the WG does, did not know the did.

Good point, if what he has truly is FXWG forks and not just the mis-used term "wide glide" for the regular FL 41" front end, then yes it's gonna steer heavy for sure, esp at low speed.

-JW

JW yes it is the older FL style 41mm.  It definitely steers heavy at low speeds and even just moving it around the garage.   I'm thinking about changing the rear fender to a Super-glide fender and maybe replace the front end with a 39mm if I can find one for a decent price.  Or at least cleaning up the front end and head light that's on it now.
[attach=0]
1976 FXE

SanB2013

Quote from: Burnout on October 26, 2019, 10:48:14 AM
First thing is a FXE came with 2" longer forks this changes the geometry significantly, so it is difficult to make a Apples to Apples comparison

In my eyes a 35mm front end is marginal for the bike it came on (XL).

Putting it on a BT is overloading it.
Another significant problem with a 35mm is shitty 10" brakes with dual disc, and the caliper on the 11.5" single leaves a lot to be desired.
I don't think good compounds are available for the riveted pads and it's another bolt_together caliper

Depends on what you expect from it.
If you just need it to hold up the front of the bike so it doesn't fall over when on the jiffy stand, it will work great.
But the harder you load it the more obvious it will become that the fork is too small.

A 39mm front end off an FXDX would be a really nice solution, adjustable damping takes it to a new level.

On a 41mm the 16" wheel by itself may make a significant difference by itself as it increases unsprung weight.

Burnout, how does the 16" wheel increase unsprung weight and how does that affect the handling on the 41mm front end vs a 35 or 39mm? 
Thanks in advance.
1976 FXE

Burnout

Any decrease in unsprung weight is a +++

The 16" wheel and tire weigh more than a 19"
They don't call me Ironhead Rick just because I'm "hard headed"

JW113

Yep, standard FL front end not wide glide. And I'm going to guess that the front end on that bike feels exactly like the one on mine. Feels like a load of concrete in a wheel barrow, right? At least til you get it up to 45mph or more? Perfectly normal FLH. I don't know that going to an FX front end is going to change it all that much, as again it's in the frame geometry (rake & trail). Yes, the wheel/tire/fender will be a bit lighter, but the heavy front end feel is due to the weight of the bike itself on the rake angle of the forks. Picture if the steering neck was at 0 degrees, straight up and down. That same front end would fell weightless. The more rake angle, the heavier steering feel.

If you're really dead set on it, one thing you can do is change the neck rake angle. I did this to an Ironhead that used to have. Cut/welded the steering head from 32 deg to 26 deg, and used a 39mm front end from a 1999 XL1200 Sport. Front end was light indeed, and cornered fast. But it comes at a cost, as this can be more prone to head shake at high speed. Best to know what you're doing when making mods like that.

[attach=0]

-JW
2004 FLHRS   1977 FLH Shovelhead  1992 FLSTC
1945 Indian Chief   1978 XL Bobber

capn

Sanbo2013, I got the same front end and headlight you have but using a 19 inch cast wheel .I like the way it handles but I am comparing it to a 97 rubber mount bagger. Much lighter feel.

76shuvlinoff

I added 3 degree bearing housings in the FLH front end. Pretty darn heavy at low speeds.
Critics are men who watch a battle from a high place, then come down and shoot the survivors.
 - Ernest Hemingway

SanB2013

October 28, 2019, 10:38:03 AM #14 Last Edit: October 28, 2019, 10:47:41 AM by SanB2013
Quote from: JW113 on October 26, 2019, 03:29:02 PM
Do you mean FXE came with longer or forks, of FXWG? I know the WG does, did not know the did.

Good point, if what he has truly is FXWG forks and not just the mis-used term "wide glide" for the regular FL 41" front end, then yes it's gonna steer heavy for sure, esp at low speed.

-JW

So do the FXWG forks have rake built into the forks and the FLH forks do not? Or is it the the other way around?

"Picture if the steering neck was at 0 degrees, straight up and down. That same front end would fell weightless. The more rake angle, the heavier steering feel."
1976 FXE

Burnout

Softail FXWG trees have trail taken out ("raked" trees), not sure about shovels.

You can tell by looking for a difference in angle between the stem and fork legs.
I think some 41mm FL trees are "de-raked" for increased trail.
They don't call me Ironhead Rick just because I'm "hard headed"

JW113

Yeah the Softail Custom and the Dyna Wide Glide use the same frame as their non-wide glide versions, but the fork clamps have some built in angle that give the appearance of "rake", but is not. It's called "offset", it puts the front wheel out a little further to make up for the 2" longer fork tubes, so the frame is still basically level and not hiked up in the front. Rake is defined as the angle of the steering axis to vertical. Angling the fork tubes does not do that, but using longer fork tubes only, which would raise the steering head upward, does. An old school Frisco style chopper, for example. Using offset fork clamps puts the rake back to normal. More or less. The other way to adjust the rake for longer fork tubes is to stretch the frame, i.e. raise the steering head higher. Hence the modern "choppers" with long forks and the frame stretched so high you don't need apehangers.

-JW
2004 FLHRS   1977 FLH Shovelhead  1992 FLSTC
1945 Indian Chief   1978 XL Bobber

JW113

A Frisco chopper:

[attach=0]

Note how the frame is angled, no offset in the fork clamps, no frame stretch, the gas tank mounted high on the top frame rail, and very narrow bars. Hey, it was a look. A dangerous one at that.
:SM:

-JW
2004 FLHRS   1977 FLH Shovelhead  1992 FLSTC
1945 Indian Chief   1978 XL Bobber

kd

KD

One4Tone

...you got a nice bike ..leave it alone...go to the gym ..work out...you'll find easy in the spring...