RM370 progress

[Maico31]

That original '77 HL looks so much better than the jacked up ridiculous looking repro things that are getting around now. They would be competitive if built to fit in pre '78 era like Firko said.

[Marc.com]

like you said Firko, I wanna believe. Nice photo by the way, look great blown up on my shed wall.

We all have our own logical motives for owning a particular bike, mine was to build the best hot rod TT500 to guzump my mates TT. Have big valve high port head and WB swing arm stacked up for the next one.

[suzuki43]

Marc,
I have just sent you a PM re airbox.Can you please respond.
Cheers
Craig

[Marc.com]

HL looks so much better than the jacked up ridiculous looking repro things that are getting around now.

If you look at RJs bike or the bike Gall was riding in the HL Racers thread they all had plenty of suspension in the late 70s. I am running Fox forks and Ohlins and have the same suspension travel +/- as NVT Yamaha bikes.

[Maico31]

There is no way those HL's have the 13 or 14'' travel equal to the gap between the tyre and rear guard. The geometry wouldn't allow that much, they would've been designed in '77 for around 9 or 10'' wheel travel. Just because they have long shocks fitted doesn't mean they have 13'' rear wheel travel.

[Marc.com]

never measured mine but it is definitely not 13", sounds like the shocks are wrong. My seat height is about the same as my RM500. Anyway i built my bike because I think it looks cool and didn't really think too much about how competitive it is.

[Graeme M]

It's an interesting thing. My HL wasn't quite as jacked up as some, but given the space between tyre and guard I always assumed about 10-11" of rear wheel movement. Imagine my surprise when I sat down and measured the actual movement - just over 8.5". Possiby my shocks (Falcons) had less shaft travel than other brands, but I was still surprised at how little wheel travel there was. I reckon you'd be hard pressed to get more than 10-11" at the rear of an HL, even when jacked waaay up. I'd suggest the Aberg bike probably never had more than 8-9" at the rear. Anyone know for sure?

[LWC82PE]

ok apologies for continuing the HL talk in RM 370 topic, but were there perhaps 2 versions of genuine HL's? the early low travel ones and then some longer travel ones in about 1979?

i sort of agree with some about the really jacked up high HL's, im not sure ive seen other twin shock bikes that high or that at least have that jacked up high look. in one of the VMX mags there is actually specifications of max travel limits for HL's to comply with the rule books.

[oldyzman]

Great photos,
NICE FOX....

[Marc.com]

this is original race bike circa 79. later versions (NVT/Profab) kind of mirrored whatever the YZ of the time had as far as suspension travel.



or race teams added after market suspension, remember it was back in the days when each years YZ had an inch more travel and more was better.

[Marc.com]

or Nicks HL compared to 250RZ, all look pretty jacked up and pretty good to me.

[Maico31]

That's a good lookin HL (the clean one).. always liked the red Hallman/Eneqvist colour scheme.

[Phil]

Here's the original Husky framed HL prototype, circa 1976. I love its stance. A mate was building a replica of this bike but has bought a GMC frame so I may get the frame/swingarm/forks from him and build it myself. I need another project!
                             

[Marc.com]

I really like that bike as well, I have White Brothers TT under construction that will be about there some place

Just scored high port SR Daytona head for my TT.

[firko]

Here's the "Honda HL", A Curtis Honda
                                   
This is a shot of the original constructor of the Norton Villiers HL frames, Brian Curtis with my pom friend Bens new Curtis Honda frame. Curtis Honda frames are almost identical to HLs.