classic motorcycle forum

Thanks Rex,
The comment about "too heavy" came from a fellow member of my classic bike club, who seems to infer that the problem is MY incompetence.
I too thought that I could perhaps have bought inferior cables, but four or five over a period of seven years and from different suppliers???
 I shy away from making my own cables because many years ago when I was an apprentice, an extremely competent motor mechanic (with high professional qualification) replaced a brake cable nipple on a Triumph 5T I had. I can vouch that everything was spotlessly clean and the cable end was flared in the nipple properly. In any case the lower Clutch Cable nipple on the 5TA is too small to solder and must be cast on.
Never the less the impossible happened according to wetdog - the cable pulled through - gave me the fright of my life! And could have killed me!!
Incidentally, I am a qualified motor mechanic myself, though not very experienced with motor bikes.
I used to be able to sign myself - J.C.B. W*****, M.I.M.I (plus C & G qualifications etc). But I stopped paying subscriptions to the I. M. I. when I retired and surrendered the right to the letters.
Jim.

Not even accidentally ?

Most of my 'moments' have been when i arrived in the middle of something faster than prudent - as judged in hindsight.

Like the road repair crew that had gravel (marbles !!) all over a corner, and hadn't put out the slow signs yet !!
Wonder how this bike handles if I put my foot down, and try and get around speedway style. ?
Yep, it worked.
Wonder if the designers tested for that......

Well......Yeah!
But never in the same situation twice with different bikes for a comparison! I do try to learn from my mistakes
Jim.

Yes Wetdog I am quite old and obviously old  does not mean stupid - it is more in line with experience.
So OK, I made another statement you can twist!
I probably should have said "sand yachts need AS MUCH STABILITY AS POSSIBLE". Knowing you woold milk it as much as possible. Of course I know they turn over AND I HAVE DRIVEN THEM TOO. Even with better steering I would hate to try a single rear wheel one!
Subject clised for me!
Jim.

is this where you have your conviction for the advantages of 3 wheelers from ? do you remember what it was called , was it a laural and hardey production

No it was not! It was a serious investigation into handling characteristics of road vehicles. Possibly by M.I.R.A. Who have a reputation of knowing about such things! Sorry, SCIENCE AGAIN - not an uninformed personal experience of a small selection of vehicles.
And I also know how to spell Laurel and Hardy!
Jim.

Without looking anything up I would think that talking millimetres for any dimensions except Bore x Stroke for a British bike this age is ridiculous. As far as I am aware all dimensions on British engineered machines were Imperial except that for some reason bore, stroke and capacity always seemed to be traditionally Metric worldwide except for the USA.
Certainly mixing 1/4 inches and 6 millimetre on the same item sounds rather strange.
I have a 1959 5TA which has no primary chain tensioner either. Because I have never been able to obtain a primary chain cover gasket to fit (which is different too) I have always had to make my own.
It has a three spring clutch which seems to be quite normal, though four spring clutches were also fitted on some.
By the way, that is the bike in my Avatar pretending (minus the bath-tub and plus a few 5T bits), to be a 5T!
Jim.

If you sling an engine BETWEEN a pair of wheels it is more difficult to turn it over, front or back. Keep it low and it gets more difficult. That sums up a Morgan! With admittedly startling cornering ability.

The Reliant has the engine at the "wrong end" for best stability of the wheel arrangement and the Cof G is much higher for passenger comfort, but all that just compromises the INHERENT STABILITY of the best wheel arrangement.
A Reliant with a rear engine between the two rear wheels and lower seating with less ground clearance would have proved a much more stable design.

Oh and the first Reliant I ever drove was an aluminium bodied open top two seater produced before the Robins etc. It was lighter, very nippy and a lot of fun to drive. It never felt in danger of turning over and I wanted one! Could not afford it though! 

anyone who thinks one wheel at the front is more stable than two has never driven a reliant , i dont care what science says

You are blaming wheel configuration when you should be considering  the centre of gravity dictated by engine position. Put the single wheel AND the engine at the back and handling can become frightening.
I had a smart looking three wheeler, I believe was called a Coronet ( though I may be wrong - it was over 50 years ago) with Anzani 3 cylinder engine at the rear. Almost new.
Yes I am that old and there were lots of 3 wheelers still being produced. of which I have driven many!
The Coronet looked fantastic and had a fair turn of speed, but using the speed on a corner was a different matter. "Sucking eggs" seems to fit here and to me science is more reliable than beliefs.
I can also vouch that a Reliant Robin is perhaps more stable on the water than on the road!

Yes that is me with a Robin!

Jim

TF not TC, which had separate headlamps.
 Although often called a "Kit Car" it is not really. It is almost totally Triumph Vitesse with a different body rather than a kit of parts sourced from different places.

 Perhaps this car could be called a "Kit Car" because only the chassis and running gear were made under the makers name it carries. The body was designed and made by Park Ward.
 By the way, the bloke holding the door open was my dad and when he did not drive it I generally did!

http://www.imageshack.com/i/0mcu1939rollsroycesilverwj

Jim.