Triple Tree Color

Clanger · Oct 8, 2016

illf8ed said:
I believe the differences in language started as a bit of rebellion. Australia and New Zealand may have had different views of colonialism. After a couple of world wars and the Cold War, we are politically aligned, but the damage to the language is our legacy...how's that for a geopolitical response

I think Noah Webster had quite a big hand in this, not so much in creating differences but more in terms of eliminating alternatives. eg He decided that he didn't like the spelling 'centre' and promoted 'center' instead. Both were and remain valid but we have different preferences either side of the pond. English is a living thing , and I say in French 'vive Le difference!

Madnorton · Oct 8, 2016

I just took my 850 yokes to the powder coaters and got the RAL chart and used that in good daylight - jobs's a good'in. As for the language, why do the US use an imperial system and an English Gallon and here we use the Imperial gallon - we must have short changed the original colonists that made the trip there!

Fullauto · Oct 8, 2016

Madnorton said:
I just took my 850 yokes to the powder coaters and got the RAL chart and used that in good daylight - jobs's a good'in. As for the language, why do the US use an imperial system and an English Gallon and here we use the Imperial gallon - we must have short changed the original colonists that made the trip there!

They're gullible. They can't even spell or pronounce aluminium!

L.A.B. · Oct 8, 2016

Madnorton said:
why do the US use an imperial system

The US doesn't actually use Imperial measures, they use customary units which are based on pre-Imperial 'English' units as the US went their own way well before the introduction of the Imperial system across The British Empire (thus, 'Imperial' system).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_units

The system of imperial units or the imperial system (also known as British Imperial[1] or Exchequer Standards of 1825) is the system of units first defined in the British Weights and Measures Act of 1824, which was later refined and reduced. The Imperial Units replaced the Winchester Standards, which were in effect from 1588 to 1825.[2] The system came into official use across the British Empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... mary_units

United States customary units are a system of measurements commonly used in the United States. The United States customary system (USCS or USC) developed from English units which were in use in the British Empire before America declared its independence. However, the British system of measures was overhauled in 1824 to create the imperial system, changing the definitions of some units. Therefore, while many U.S. units are essentially similar to their Imperial counterparts, there are significant differences between the systems.

Madnorton said:
and an English Gallon and here we use the Imperial gallon

There were various 'gallon' measures in use before the Imperial system settled on what became the Imperial gallon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallon

The English system gallons

There were more than a few systems of liquid measurements in the pre-1884 United Kingdom.[1]

Winchester or Corn Gallon was 272 in³ (157 fl oz) (1697 Act 8 & 9 Will III c22)
Henry VII (Winchester) corn gallon from 1497 onwards was 154.80 fl oz
Elizabeth I corn gallon from 1601 onwards was 155.70 fl oz
William III corn gallon from 1697 onwards was 156.90 fl oz
Old English (Elizabethan) Ale Gallon was 282 in³ (162 fl oz) (1700 Act 11 Will III c15)
Old English (Queen Anne) Wine Gallon was standardized as 231 in³ (133 fl oz) in the 1706 Act 5 Anne c27, but it differed before that:
London ‘Guildhall’ gallon (before 1688) was 129.19 fl oz
Jersey gallon (from 1562 onwards) was 139.20 fl oz
Guernsey gallon (17th century origins ‘til 1917) was 150.14 fl oz
Irish Gallon was 217 in³ (125 fl oz) (1495 Irish Act 10 Hen VII c22 confirmed by 1736 Act Geo II c9)

The Imperial gallon

The imperial (UK) gallon, now defined as exactly 4.54609 litres (about 277.42 cubic inches), is used in some Commonwealth countries and was originally based on the volume of 10 pounds (approximately 4.54 kg) of water at 62 °F (17 °C). The imperial fluid ounce is defined as 1⁄160 of an imperial gallon; there are four quarts in a gallon, two pints in a quart, and 20 Imperial fluid ounces in an imperial pint.

The US liquid gallon

The US gallon is legally defined as 231 cubic inches, which is exactly 3.785411784 liters.[2][3] A US liquid gallon of water weighs about 8.34 pounds or 3.78 kilograms at 62 °F (17 °C), making it about 16.6% lighter than the imperial gallon. There are four quarts in a gallon, two pints in a quart and 16 US fluid ounces in a US pint, which makes the US fluid ounce equal to 1⁄128 of a US gallon.

marshg246 · Oct 8, 2016

Madnorton said:
I just took my 850 yokes to the powder coaters and got the RAL chart and used that in good daylight - jobs's a good'in.

What RAL color did you choose?

lcrken · Oct 8, 2016

Fastbacks had black yokes, as did the Production Racers, at least all the ones I've seen. All the other models seem to have had silver yokes. Not sure about the police bikes or JPN replicas.

Ken

ILLF8ED · Oct 9, 2016

lcrken said:
Fastbacks had black yokes, as did the Production Racers, at least all the ones I've seen. All the other models seem to have had silver yokes. Not sure about the police bikes or JPN replicas.

Ken

Just looked at the '71 and '72 sales brochures. Fastback pictures showing silver. Also the Interpol is silver. Can't really see the triple clamps on the production racer photo. As a former JPN owner, mine had silver triple clamps and was very original.

lcrken · Oct 9, 2016

You're right, David. I only looked at the fastbacks in the '69 and '70 sales literature, and they had black yokes, where the roadsters and interstates all had silver in all the brochures from '70 through '75. The later fastbacks are shown with silver yokes. My bad.

On the PR, I owned an original one and the yokes were black. I've seen several others, and the yokes were all black. If you look very carefully at the PR in the 1971 Wild Bunch brochure, you can just barely see that the yokes are black.

Ken

ILLF8ED · Oct 9, 2016

Yea I looked at the wild bunch brochure. I think I need a magnifying glass to see. Couldn't tell even with my glasses on what the color is on the PR. This isn't a big point for me and I doubt I got the right silver shade on mine.

gortnipper · Oct 10, 2016

Well, no surprise, but LAB was right again. My 74 yokes have silver paint under the black that a PO must have done.

Good timing as.I would have just blacked them again.

Mark F · Oct 10, 2016

marshg246 said:
Mark F said:

Go to your local hardware and get some 'Rustguard' epoxy enamel in aluminium colour. Spray can but dries super hard. I've used it on Norton air filter cover and black on Norton oil tank, BSA fork legs, fork shrouds, oil tank and gauge cups. Been there nearly 10 years now and still very good.
Saves a few shekels on painting when you can do it yourself and not that difficult to get a good finish.

Click to expand...

I'll try it! If I don't like it a little sandblasting and I can try something else. Thanks!

Let us know how you get on. I usually go about 3 coats with a light sand between.

L.A.B. · Oct 10, 2016

lcrken said:
You're right, David. I only looked at the fastbacks in the '69 and '70 sales literature, and they had black yokes, where the roadsters and interstates all had silver in all the brochures from '70 through '75. The later fastbacks are shown with silver yokes. My bad.

On the PR, I owned an original one and the yokes were black. I've seen several others, and the yokes were all black. If you look very carefully at the PR in the 1971 Wild Bunch brochure, you can just barely see that the yokes are black.

PRs appear to be the exception to the rule having black yokes. Early Fastbacks and 'R' type yokes were black, all others from the 'S' type onward were normally silver.

JimNH · Oct 10, 2016

So, how come the fenders/mudguards on my MG TF are called wings? They either fend off or guard the mud but they don't fly.

As for triple clamps/trees, I always referred to or heard them called triple clamps or yokes until about 20 years ago when I started hearing the HD guys calling them triple trees. Must be a regional thing. In Boston we called soda, tonic and, it seems, in all of New England if something is really good it's wicked good!

L.A.B. · Oct 10, 2016

JimNH said:
So, how come the fenders/mudguards on my MG TF are called wings?

Because they were originally wing shaped panels on early cars.

B+Bogus · Oct 10, 2016

The original paint on my MkIIA yokes was more grey with a hint of silver, and certainly not the 'straight' silver I re-painted them.

Now we've got wings sorted what about bonnets and boots?
I've heard them referred to as hoods and trunks, but it conjures up images of gangsters in budgie smugglers :shock:

gortnipper · Oct 10, 2016

B+Bogus said:
The original paint on my MkIIA yokes was more grey with a hint of silver, and certainly not the 'straight' silver I re-painted them.

Now we've got wings sorted what about bonnets and boots?
I've heard them referred to as hoods and trunks, but it conjures up images of gangsters in budgie smugglers :shock:

Being a Yank who now lives in the Empire, this is what I have come to know:

Just as the word “trunk” is derived from the thing it is designed to carry or replace (most very early cars did not have "trunks/boots" - they had places to carry them), so too is the word “boot.” Before carriages were horseless, drivers sat on a large trunk that doubled as storage for their boots. Boots were an essential part of any carriage driver’s wardrobe, as the streets in London at the time were primarily composed of mud and horse manure.

“Bonnet” is from a bit later, in the early history of the automobile, and, like “hood,” its meaning is rather literal, both referring to a type of head covering. In many motor vehicles built in the 1930s and 1940s, the resemblance to an actual hood or bonnet is clear when open and viewed head-on; in modern vehicles it continues to serve the same purpose but no longer resembles a head covering.

baz · Oct 10, 2016

B+Bogus said:
The original paint on my MkIIA yokes was more grey with a hint of silver, and certainly not the 'straight' silver I re-painted them.

Now we've got wings sorted what about bonnets and boots?
I've heard them referred to as hoods and trunks, but it conjures up images of gangsters in budgie smugglers :shock:

Yes you are right my m11a yokes were more grey than silver

JimNH · Oct 11, 2016

gortnipper said:
B+Bogus said:

The original paint on my MkIIA yokes was more grey with a hint of silver, and certainly not the 'straight' silver I re-painted them.

Now we've got wings sorted what about bonnets and boots?
I've heard them referred to as hoods and trunks, but it conjures up images of gangsters in budgie smugglers :shock:

Click to expand...

Being a Yank who now lives in the Empire, this is what I have come to know:

Just as the word “trunk” is derived from the thing it is designed to carry or replace (most very early cars did not have "trunks/boots" - they had places to carry them), so too is the word “boot.” Before carriages were horseless, drivers sat on a large trunk that doubled as storage for their boots. Boots were an essential part of any carriage driver’s wardrobe, as the streets in London at the time were primarily composed of mud and horse manure.

“Bonnet” is from a bit later, in the early history of the automobile, and, like “hood,” its meaning is rather literal, both referring to a type of head covering. In many motor vehicles built in the 1930s and 1940s, the resemblance to an actual hood or bonnet is clear when open and viewed head-on; in modern vehicles it continues to serve the same purpose but no longer resembles a head covering.

My MG has both a bonnet and a hood as it has what I would call a convertible top, er, hood.

"One people separated by a common language"

marshg246 · Oct 11, 2016

baz said:
B+Bogus said:

The original paint on my MkIIA yokes was more grey with a hint of silver, and certainly not the 'straight' silver I re-painted them.

Now we've got wings sorted what about bonnets and boots?
I've heard them referred to as hoods and trunks, but it conjures up images of gangsters in budgie smugglers :shock:

Click to expand...

Yes you are right my m11a yokes were more grey than silver

I cleaned my yokes very carefully and they are a long way from "silver". Earlier, someone said they thought the silver was done to match the chrome headlight mounts (afraid to say fork ears!). Even shiny silver would be a terrible match for chrome so I don't agree with that. I've now blasted them and after doing the bottom, I compared to the top - the blasted metal and the paint are a very close match! If I just clear coated them, they would look original as far as I can tell. Don't worry, I'm not going to do that.

Also, the paint on them was extremely thin and there was no primer of any type. I'm the third owner and I called the second owner and he says he never had the yokes off. So, either they were factory or they were repainted before 1976 when he bought the bike (it only has 9600 actual miles). It's a 1974 MKIIa.

Mark F · Oct 11, 2016

If you use the epoxy enamel you don't need to prime it.

Triple Tree Color

Clanger

Madnorton

Fullauto

L.A.B.

Moderator

marshg246

lcrken

ILLF8ED

lcrken

ILLF8ED

gortnipper

Mark F

L.A.B.

Moderator

JimNH

L.A.B.

Moderator

B+Bogus

gortnipper

baz

JimNH

marshg246

Mark F

Similar threads