Forum

[Dennis C]

Caboose. I think that is a pattern part problem,

[Rogerw113]

Thank you all for your comments. Dennis C kindly sent me some photos which show clearly how they are fitted. So thanks again.

Roger

[Mark M]

Gentlemen, I apologise, I found the relevant page. It would appear that this stand was indeed an option. Interestingly the later models fitted with it appear to have a full loop mudguard stay up the back of the forks to clip the stand stay into, (certainly my 1959 Connie has this,) this earlier version has the brackets that fit over the existing stays complete with longer studs to suit, therefore suggesting it was an option. Finally, I stick with what I said about never having seen one fitted but they do say every day is a school day!

REgards, Mark

[Dennis C]

Mark, Most people on here know you have a vast knowledge of Royal Enfield bikes, if you could remember every detail about a 1954 model you would be super human, we all live and learn and I for one have a very long way to go before my Enfield knowledge would be anywhere near yours.

[Scalyback]

It's a joy to unravel RE mysteries and get to the truth!, Only the other day we found out that Meteor Minor airflows have twin pipes, not the siamese usually found on the non airflow models.




Now as far as these meteors go, we know where they stand!



I just hope the REOC notices and writes all these golden exploration results down for posterity.

[Caboose]

Dennis C,
No, not a pattern part but the exhaust pipe clamp bolt(which was longer than standard) was protruding toward the front.
All I had to do to rectify the fault was turn it through 45 degrees which took it away from the stand nut/spring.
I believe that the forks compressed more than normal owing to the weight of the Airflow fairing!
At least the twin front brake was effective when set up well.
REgards Dick.