raked/unraked triple trees

[ratlsnkshk]

Having stumbled upon this site while looking for info about raked trees, I find that it may likely answer any question I may have, so I immediately registered here. Previous posts do not seem to address my situation fully, so I am posting a new (rather long) one.
Many years ago, I bought a set of Harley Glide trees, in a quest to change from the aftermarket narrowed trees I had been using with a rigid bowleg frame that had been raked about 7 degrees over stock. Upper trees got chromed, lower ones shaved, and then it was pointed out that this set was of the non-adjustable raked persuasion. Having heard the horror stories of the dangers of using raked trees, I abandoned this set, and purchased an aftermarket set of wide glide trees.
Now I am in the process of a rebuild, and want to try to use the raked trees again. Some research has indicated that the combination of raked frame and trees could actually improve handling, as the trees will reduce the trail that the rake created; although hopefully not creating a negative trail situation!
After dusting off the trees for an initial inspection, to estimate the actual rake on them, I discover what appears to actually be a set of unraked trees; that reduce the rake, and would seem to increase the trail. Now I am truly dazed and confused, not to mention paranoid, about using these things; and do more research to find out the what and why about them.
That leads me here, where I find several posts about raked trees, but nothing that addresses my situation specifically; so I register, in order to ask everyone here-- what's the deal? I assume these are from a servi-car, since they are not adjustable, but I don't get the un-raked issue. The reason that HD make these may be interesting, but not nearly as important to me as what do I do now? I wish I had discovered this problem 20 years ago, before I chromed and shaved them, and could exchange them for another set (a moot point now).
It would seem that using these with the raked frame would create quite a bit of trail; better than negative trail, but still not good. I don't think reversing them would work, as tank clearance and steering range would be limited. Assuming they can't be used as things are, could a machine shop remove the neck post from the lower tree, reposition it to a "raked" configuration, and line-bore the tube holes to align correctly? If so, what rake should I shoot for?
Am I wasting my time in an attempt to salvage use from these trees? Is it cost-effective, or even possible, to have them reworked? Should I forget using them altogether, and stick with the aftermarket ones I already have, or abandon my paranoia. and just use them as is? There appears to be about 9/16" forward offset from the upper fork tube holes in relation to the lower ones, however much rake that suggests; and if it will help any, the upper trees have the 7/8" holes spaced 3 1/2" apart center to center for the handlebar mounts. Any thoughts as to what I can do, what these came from, why HD used them, or any other relevant information, will be greatly appreciated. Sorry for the long initial post!

[RUBONE]

I believe you are still confused as to what you have! There are only two basic types of raked trees, the adjustable as used on a big twin, and the fixed as used on a Servi-Car. The difference is in the lower tree. An adjustable tree has a slot in it with an offset spacer to be used to hold it in either the standard position or the raked position. A fixed rake set is raked all the time. Be sure you have them assembled correctly, with the lugs on the bottom and not flipped over! The tabs for the cowbells are on the bottom of the tree. I say this because it is possible to assemble them incorrectly and the rake is reversed! Either type in the raked position are going to create a more raked situation with your frame. They are not going to fix the rake issue you already have. Re-machining them is a waste of time and destruction of good parts. You will achieve nothing other than supporting your friendly machinist. If fixing your handling issue is the question here and de-raking your frame is not an option perhaps a trailing ling fork will do it for you. But an adjustable rake wide glide won't help, it will just make things worse. And as for the paranoia issue, well I cannot address that either. It sounds like something you need to discuss with your therapist!
Oh, and pictures of what you have will help!
Robbie

[caschnd1]

I have no way of knowing what kind of triple trees you have. But choppers are something I have a lot of experience with. If you rake a frame and use standard non-raked trees, you will get a lot of extra trail. This makes your ride very solid but at low speed the front end will want to flop (it will feel very heavy). If you add raked trees to your raked frame it will reduce your trail and improve your low speed handling (less flop). You can achieve similar results using a springer fork. You never want to use raked trees on a stock frame. You will end up with very little trail and a bad wobble. The only time very little trail is good is with a trike or sidecar rig.

-Craig

[ratlsnkshk]

Thanks to all who share their knowledge! I do not presently have a problem with my bike; the problem is that I want to install a raked tree setup, but do not think this set will work! The pics shown here should illustrate what I have, and it seems pretty obvious that these are un-raked; and not what I want!
Caschnd, I understand, and agree with what you said, and although my bike doesn't handle badly with the raked frame alone, I feel a slight bit of rake in the trees will reduce the trail to improve things somewhat, as long as the rake doesn't create too little trail. Additionally, this will kick out the wheel a bit more, while keeping things low to the ground (I plan to add 7" extended tubes).
I don't really care much about what these trees came on originally, but it must be a servi-car, since they are non-adjustable. Rubone, there is no assembly, lugs, or tabs, as you mentioned, just an upper and lower. Weren't servi-cars all 45's? Any reason this set won't fit a 74? Preliminary assembly sort of looks as if the stem is a little short on available threads at the top, according to the spacing that my current setup has between the upper and lower trees.
So if, as it seems, these are un-raked trees, from a servi-car that needs the trail increased, I have no use for them at all; unless, as I mentioned in the first post, I am able to have a machinist rework them. I do not have, nor intend to have, a servi-car, and will never use these as they are. My options seem to be (1) have them modified, maybe with a longer stem; (2) use them as extreme paperweights; or (3) swap them out for some raked or (preferably) adjustable trees. With a current rake increase of about 7 degrees in my frame, I am guessing that I should shoot for something equal, or slightly less than that amount, to keep the trail somewhat close to what was stock. A bit of increased trail over stock isn't too bad, as near as I can figure.
Any additional thoughts from either of you, or someone else with suggestions, will be greatly appreciated; as well as any swapping proposals. The machinist idea is just a means of making do with what I have. I don't see it as a waste of time, if it accomplishes my desired result; and these parts would not be destroyed by doing so, just rendered usable (although not pristine, which they are not anyway-shaved and chromed) The cost would probably be less than another set of trees, even after chroming; so I am thinking this to be my best option, unless a swap appears! Thoughts and opinions, please!

view from back.JPG

upper tree from top.JPG

upper tree from bottom.JPG

top view.JPG

note offset of tube holes.JPG

note angle of stem.JPG

lower tree from top.JPG

lower tree from bottom.JPG

casting numbers 4-5-4-3-3_%281 or 7%29-9_%28box reads OIF%29_1-0.JPG

bottom view.JPG

[caschnd1]

Those are definitely negative raked trees. I'm not sure what those would have been used on. Part #45433-79 on the lower tree? I belive that's a lower tree from a late 70's shovel FLHT. Not sure why they would have put a tree with negative rake on it. Maybe they wanted the bike to have a bit more trail to make it more stable with the fairing?

-Craig

[Bosheff]

FLT was first introduced in 1980. The front end used on these units had the stem in front of the tubes which at the time was bassackwards to anything the factory had done with a telescopic fork. This may in fact be what you have. These trees won't work with a conventional frame. The FLT's had somewhat of a gooseneck frame, which is needed for clearance issues among other things. I believe this practice is still used today on certain models in the H-D lineup....bosheff

[caschnd1]

Boesheff, that completely makes sense. If the trees were flipped around, it's now a positive rake instead of negative. And the -79 part number makes sense for a 1980 model too. Good info!

[Scrap]

If you google "motorcycle rake and trail calculator" you will find a number of calculators you can download. Pick one that you seem to understand. The only parameter you will need to use you brain for is determining the actual angle of your raked neck. Get the bike leveled where you want it to be and use an angle finder on the neck tube. Here is an example of a calculator but you should check out a variety till your comfortable. You may be surprised at how rake and fork length can dramaticaly change the safe handling of your bike. It's not a matter of common sense, it's all about geometry. http://www.scootersperformance.com/tool ... trail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[cdndewey]

I have a set of NOS raked Allied triple trees from the 70's that I'd be willing to part with. PM me if you're interested.

[ratlsnkshk]

Bosheff, I wouldn't want to install these backwards except for the rake factor. Would they work if used in conventional manner, assuming I could modify the negative rake?

[ratlsnkshk]

I am thinking, at this point, that modification of these trees is my best option. It doesn't seem to be a difficult job for someone with the right equipment to do it. Hopefully, I would be able to find an unemployed machinist near me that could use the work. Does anybody out there have any suggestions along this line, or any better ideas? Am certainly open to suggestions at this point!