Can anyone tell me the dimensions of a nc23 & nc29 swingarm
mainly just need width at rear wheel spindle part
and internal width further forward where the tyre runs
any help much aprechio
Cheers

ISTR the nc29 arm is 212mm wide from when I was fitting one in my CB-1. I imagine the nc23 one will be the same, as will the aero, as this dimension is defined in the first instance by the width of the crankcases, which are all the same. You can easily fit a 160/60-17 into the nc29 arm, no idea about the 23 but imagine similar as I know you can fit the 29 wheel with minimal mods - worth doing just for the 17" rear. You should also consider the linkages, as this could be your undoing. No real idea how to measure that as it's kind of a 3D-floating point. Best bet is just to give it a try I think. Either arm can often be picked up as low as £20, so maybe wait til one comes up on eBay locally, buy it and offer it up?

Also worth considering, will the "hump" of either arm clear your undertray and battery box? Sounds daft but it is seriously tight on the CB-1. The hugger does rub on the undertray a little at full compression and that's even though I have raised the rear quite a bit.

When buying, try to get one with the chain strip, chain guard etc. still fitted as these can be hard to find, and end up costing as much as the arm itself.

Thanks amorti,
twill be going in a cb-1
looking at fitting a swinger that will take a 5 or 5.5" wheel.
just need to see if there is room for the tyre
allready got a 4.5" rear in the standard arm.

seen your bike on another forum, hows it comming along?

Mike

aerohardy wrote:Thanks amorti,
twill be going in a cb-1
looking at fitting a swinger that will take a 5 or 5.5" wheel.
just need to see if there is room for the tyre
allready got a 4.5" rear in the standard arm.

seen your bike on another forum, hows it comming along?

Mike

Mine's going pretty well thanks. It might be up for grabs soon though as I might be emigrating.

http://www.therevcounter.com/uk-motorbi ... 1-a-4.html

I can check the tyre clearance for you later on if you like. I think you would struggle to get anything much bigger in there though. I think once you get past 160 you will have trouble with clearance from the chain to the tyre.

If I really wanted a 180 tyre, I might try to find a 250 hornet swingarm and wheel - you might well find the wheel is the same as e.g. a Firestorm, which if you wanted 6 spokes is the same fitment as an early blade, I think. That uses the CBR250 engine, which I believe has more or less the same engine architecture as the CBR400 (so the crankcases are the same width) and it's an alloy arm which takes a 180 rear as standard, with non-linkage shock.

That said, it is hurting my brain to think about how the chain then still has enough clearance. The sprocket doesn't seem to be offset, but it does use a 520 chain and you never know how tight it is until you see one and have a look.

I would also point out the nc29 arm will cause you problems with running the rear brake line.

It'll be tricky to find a hornet 250 arm, as there weren't many of them in the UK.

Parus,

Whose bike is that? That's a really neat job.

Matt

Hi,
I had a look at my nc29 swingarm. There is not much room from the 160 tyre to the chain - if it's as much as the 10mm you need then I would be surprised. I think you would struggle for clearance unless you went with a narrow chain (520 instead of 525 maybe). There is also quite tight clearance between tyre and swingarm on the LHS, though the RHS looks like it'd be OK. I can't get any meaningful pics for you without taking the chainguard and hugger off and since it's covered in scottoiler grease and one of the screws is threaded, I am not doing that I'm afraid.

Sorry, than main point I forget to mention about is this: http://www.sportrider.com/bikes/2003/14 ... index.html As you clearly see there is no shock mounting on the frame and that good, because you don't need to care about fitting shock. So, when I will measure the width of this part which mount to frame I will clear see the amount of modifications.

PARUS wrote:Sorry, than main point I forget to mention about is this: http://www.sportrider.com/bikes/2003/14 ... index.html As you clearly see there is no shock mounting on the frame and that good, because you don't need to care about fitting shock. So, when I will measure the width of this part which mount to frame I will clear see the amount of modifications.

Nice one...

hey parus, what rear sets are those??