Craven rack fitment

Bushy

New Forum User
Non-VOC Member
Well done Bob. It looks great. Glad I could help. As for my sketches I am happy to pass them on to anyone who wants them but as for putting them on the main website. I don't think I would dare. I am no technical artist and the idea of close scrutiny (humiliation) by the knowledgeable members is terrifying.

Hi Hugo,

I am trying to fit a set of frames to my Comet and would very much appreciate a copy of your drawings.

Bushy.
 

minivin

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
Some photo's of my Comet Craven set-up from ten years ago. I made my own bushes that were larger and used stainless top-hat bushings. It served me well for a few years and then I got Phil Primmer to make me one of his sledges. I've now purchased another Craven set and will more than likely be selling the sledge.

Form.jpg


Form_0001.jpg


Form_0002.jpg
 

Oldhaven

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
image.jpg
Hi Bob,
It seems that the design changed over the years and became more crudely made. According to my late Craven catalogue the set up in Original Vincent p24 tallies. The Rapide PAE 48 appears to be modified with lugs brazed or welded on to the mudguard/lifting stay for the rear carrier stays. This is a much neater and more secure arrangement than the standard Craven clamps, which can slip down. The seat nose spindle bolt needs to be longer as the carrier arms are fitted outboard of the spindle nuts and secured by a second nut and washer. Without this spacing the arms may foul the springboxes.
The long arm from the seat nose goes inside the seat stays using the cranked mounting plate which is attached to the seat stay top pivot using a longer 1 5/8" bolt (963) and then on to the front pivot on the carrier. On PAE 48 it is mounted on the outer side of the pivot plate. Mine has to be mounted on the inner side. This seems to depend on the vagaries of the the dual seat mountings and seat stays. The rear carrier stay has a bend with a long and a short side. As with PAE 48 the long side uppermost seems to suit the twin whereas the short side uppermost seems better on the Comet. On some bikes the hinge tommy bar is likely to be wiped off on the first big bump and is best swapped for the long 'D' nut (which is shorter). This rear stay is mounted to the outside of the carrier pivot plate. The pivots on late versions comprised of a fully threaded bolt, 2 plain nuts, washers to taste, bush and locknut. Early bushes were Oilite, later bushes were bronze some flanged, some not. All of them wear quite rapidly and need frequent lubrication. Unfortunately as they are such a hassle to set up and need dismantling to lubricate this is often neglected. Setting up the pivots is this - Bolt, washer, pivot plate (or clamp), washer, nut, nut as locknut, washer(s), bush, Stay over bush, washer(s), Nylocknut and there are six of the B-----s.


I am setting up my carrier for the first time and here is my entry in the fitment poll. This seems to work on my machine, and should prevent contact with the tommy bar. I guess these are all different, and I am sure the B RFM changes how things go together.

Ron
 

Old Bill

Well Known and Active Forum User
Non-VOC Member
The rear rack supports are fitted wrong, they should run to rear of the lifting handle as shown on page 139 of David Wrights book; Vincent The Complete Story. The Tommy Bar should be replaced by either two nuts locked together or another suitable alternative. The original lower clamps had a pointed grub screw fitted in the centre which when nipped up bit into the lifting handle in an attempt to prevent the clamp sliding downwards under load. Another solution is to fit a jubilee clip under the clamp. The reason for fitting the rear supports this way is about spreading the load in a more even manner. My personal opinion is that the best place for a Craven rack is in the scrap metal bin! Picture of rack fitting in Original Vincent page 24 is also wrong. The sledge rack design which gives a fully sprung seat and far less scope for frame failure ( something l have witnessed many times with Craven equipment, probably overloaded however ). However, it is your machine and your choice, good luck!
 

Hugo Myatt

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
The rear rack supports are fitted wrong, they should run to rear of the lifting handle as shown on page 139 of David Wrights book; Vincent The Complete Story. The Tommy Bar should be replaced by either two nuts locked together or another suitable alternative. The original lower clamps had a pointed grub screw fitted in the centre which when nipped up bit into the lifting handle in an attempt to prevent the clamp sliding downwards under load. Another solution is to fit a jubilee clip under the clamp. The reason for fitting the rear supports this way is about spreading the load in a more even manner. My personal opinion is that the best place for a Craven rack is in the scrap metal bin! Picture of rack fitting in Original Vincent page 24 is also wrong. The sledge rack design which gives a fully sprung seat and far less scope for frame failure ( something l have witnessed many times with Craven equipment, probably overloaded however ). However, it is your machine and your choice, good luck!

Old Bill is quite right in reference to the twin, however, because the lifting handle/mudguard stay is fitted in the reverse position on the Comet it is approximately 2 inches to the rear of the position on the twin and makes it nigh on impossible to fit it as in David Wright book.
 

Old Bill

Well Known and Active Forum User
Non-VOC Member
Thank you Hugo, on Comets you fit the rear struts to the outside of the Rack rails which gives a tad more clearance, however due to variations in lifting handle bends ( ie pattern parts, old handles that have been bent back to shape etc ) it may still be possible to fit as above but as we all know no two bikes are the same, deep joy!!
 

Oldhaven

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
The rear rack supports are fitted wrong, they should run to rear of the lifting handle as shown on page 139 of David Wrights book; Vincent The Complete Story.

I don't have this book in my library, so Old Bill or Hugo, for a twin does the short end of the dog leg go at the top as I show in my picture (post 14) or bottom, and do I have it the right way round, or should the stay be reversed 180 around its long axis ( < or >) after moving it to the rear of the lifting handle? Most pictures I see have the top parts of the stays nearly parallel, but as you say, most may be wrong. I don't intend to carry a lot of weight, just a place to strap a tank bag or duffel, so maybe it doesn't matter much, and I too may get tired of another moving articulated assemblage that will wear out. (though it might be fun to watch). I can see that it could even interfere with the Thornton damping and nice rear springs I willt to use if it is too stiff. I appreciate the voices of experience, so we'll see this next spring. I did have a fully sprung rear rack and seat on my touring C. It was very comfortable.

thanks,

Ron
 

Oldhaven

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
Thanks Martyn, that's very clear, and even shows a bit of a star wheel type knob instead of a tommy bar.

Ron
 
Top