Finally got done with the Magneto and ignition pickup remove and replace! Started up and ran fine after putting juice in the battery and charging it for 30 minutes. Looked to be bone dry on gas too, that always helps them run, so I got my mower gas can and filled up for a little test ride in the rain. Took a few pictures under the carport when I got home:





A whole file full of pictures if anyone is interested:

http://www.catoosatrading.com/images/vehicles/cycles/my_ls650/99_savage/

The bike ran out really well. At least as good as the old '87 with only 6.5k miles, and this one has 27k on the OD.

Kid (err young man) I got it from said the he "had the head done" whatever that meant to him and his mechanic. I'm hoping maybe they made sure the cam chain was in good order when they did that, but I'll check it soon just to make sure.

Lots of misc. notes:

First, the spots on the driveway are NOT leaks from this bike. Some are from my wife's car, but most is water from my having just returned from a ride in the rain. After riding it hard for 10-15 minutes, and letting it sit for 30, I didn't notice a single oil drip (yet).

Yes, those forks are 4" over, and  ~no~  the frame rake (steering head angle) wasn't changed from factory 35º.
However, the rear shocks seem to have been shortened by about an inch. By measuring with a level / plum and a carpenter's roof rise gauge (angle), and by mathmatic calculation, I've arrived at a new rake of 39º-40º and a trail figure of between 6.5"-7" (under 7" for certain).

Anything over 40º rake is considered "extreme" and street bike trail is normally between 4" and 6"...  So... by the math, this setup is pushing practicle limits, but it felt real good to me on my little 8-10 mile ride. No mountain twisties (yet) due to rain, just street corners and straightaways. Slow speed handling was really good too, considering the frame geometry. That is with the exception of having to zig-zag back and forth about 10 times in the driveway to turn it around.  

I think the five-speed gearbox is probably worthwile

Several small knit-picks: The 23" drag bars are WAY too narrow, and combined with the short stem mirrors, you don't get much of a rear view. Think I'll try my 26" flat drag bars on the super tall straight risers already on there first. Hope all the wires and cables will reach another 1-1/2" per side. If that doesn't work, it will just give me an excuse to try one of the pairs of Z-Bars I've been saving. And those really thick leather grip wraps? Those gotta go. The clutch cable needs adjusting.

Thinking I'll put the big loud turnout on this bike. But the short sportster muffler is louder than the too-quiet Dyna on my '87. I might put the Sporty muff on the '87.

Then there's the custom headlight and o-ring pegs still in the boxs; which have had to wait on the electrical repair. So many toys... so little time  8)

geo wrote on 12/31/69 at 16:00:04:


Be happy you don't have the 4-speed. First gear is even a bit higher on it than the 5-speed. To give you an idea of the difference in layman terms... a medium speed shift from first to second on the 4-speed feels right at about 25MPH.  The 5-speed feels ready to shift anywhere above 20MPH. I'm talking about speeds where the engine is telling me it is ready to shift. Not short shifting nor wringing it out, just shifting where it feels 'natural' to me.

However, I agree with you about the use of top gear on the 5-speed. In the short ride I took on it, I only shifted into high gear a couple of times, and that was only needed at 65-70MPH. I toped (backed) out at 80MPH due to the unfamiliar bike and road conditions.

Once I get the bars, levers, and throttle positioned to my liking, I'll be able to tell a lot more about my preference for the 5-speed. Between the big grips, narrow bars and ill-adjusted clutch, I would have been a bit uncomfortable riding the bike very far.

jrm8486 FSO X2 wrote on 12/31/69 at 16:00:04:


I took the bike for a second ride today, but first I removed the fat leather grip covers, and adjusted the clutch cable. That helped some... At least I could hold onto the bars better and shifting was easier, but still...Doing something about these 23" wide drag bars is an absolute necessity. Besides not seeing anything in the mirrors, they are just plain wrong. I'm going to try my 26" flat drag bars first, if the cables will reach (it looks like they will).

I might end up with something like those FLH bars on some short, or medium risers... OR... I've got a pair of 6" rise by 28" wide old-school Z-bars that I've been dying to try. But I think cable length will limit me to the shortest risers. They might work on some short sockets to give them an extra 1-1/2" rise, that might be cool.

The thought has crossed my mind to  intentionally go for the late 60s to early 70s 'all wrong' chopper look.

You know, when young bikers couldn't afford a Harley and the expensive 'real' chopper parts, so they did the best they could by putting Z-bars and a tall sissy bar on their Honda 305 Super Hawk! Extended fork tubes with no frame modification etc... I'm already half way there! Some people hate that look, and the chance to annoy some cycle snobs is a side benefit to that approach! But then it might be so ugly evey I could only stand it for a little while.

Speaking of the  'all wrong' frame geometry of the 4" over forks and no rake change on this bike... Today's ride included a 10 mile section of narrow and sometimes rough  blacktop, with plenty of 20-50MPH second and third gear turns. Not a place for all-out riding, but a good little test that allows some playing around. While the bike is no knee dragger, it handles good. In fact, with the 1" dropped rear shocks, I'd say it handles as good or better than the stock setup on my '87. Hard to believe I know, but when I get the riser/bar situation sorted out on this bike, I think it will fly through tight mountain sections. I'd be willing to bet that few other crusier type bikes could keep up, except by playing catch-up on straights... and any peg dragging baggers can forget about it!

The stability is even good down to 10MPH or so, but right at the stop sign it gets a little wobbly. I had a very hard time doing my 'dead stop and go with no foot down' like I can easily do with the '87. Other than that, along with the dropped rear shocks, the extended forks don't just work good, they work great!

I'm keeping my eye out for some low buck Intruder shocks to jack the back of my old '87 Savage UP, with stock length fork tubes, to get a different effect. I'm really curious to see what that does with my low wide bars on that bike.

They 5-speed tranny is turning out to be a real joy too. Second and third are very good ratio for the vast majority of turns on mid speed cornering. Much better than the second and third combo in the 4-speed. Some of this might have to do with the big tall Dunlop 140/90-15 on the '99. (Which BTW only fits by 1/4" in a couple of places).

Gives me come incentive to get that other 140/90 sitting around here onto the '87. The higer gearing of the bigger tire is noticeable. So much so, that I'm going to wait a while to decide if I really want to do a sproket mod on either of these bikes.

Ahh... another advantage I've not mentioned of the 4" over fork tubes: The make you lean back considerably, and put more weight back on the wider padded part of the seat, and that helps with that 'squished against the tank' feeling from the stock seat tilting forward.

Please excuse my rambling on and on, but I was hoping some of this info might be of use to anyone considering the long tubes, high risers, or other mods on this bike.

smokey02 wrote on 12/31/69 at 16:00:04:


Yes it is just a block of aluminum that is adapted into an extension to raise the headlight. I think it was necessary to help redirect the beam of the headlight down to the road. The original headlights have no tilt adjustment.

I have a stretched metal shell and hooded aftermarket headlight that does have a tilt adjustment. I was going to put on the bike and remove that block. But who knows ??? The block may look better. Only one way to know for sure!  

If anyone wants me to post a close-up of that adapter block, just say the word.

Hey Hutch,

No, those Seeger rigs are more than I've paid for my bikes!

This bike came equipped with those extended tubes from a couple of owners back, so I don't know for sure where they came from. However, before happening across this bike, I was already on the hunt for extended tubes,

I remembered an old shop that everyone used to get thier tubes from called "Forking by Frank" It took some searching, but I finally found a web site for them. They now go by the name "Frank's Maintenence and Engineering Inc.":

http://www.frankmain.qpg.com/

I called the number on the page a few weeks ago (847-475-1003) and talked to an older lady who informed me that they would be glad to make me a pair of Savage tubes for around $225 + S&H.

Note: She informed me they don't do the old 6", 8", 12" over length tubes any more. I didn't ask, but I'm guessing because they're not safe. In fact, She said that "he" usually limited his tubes to 2" over on the 500+ pound bikes, and would only do the 4" over on the Savage because of it's very light weight.  

I personally wouldn't want anything over +4", probably even if the frame was raked. I only rode a few of the old-time choppers with the stupid long forks, but one I did ride scared the crap out of me at every very slow turn. It tried to circle in for a three point landing every time, and at 15yo I was barely strong enough to keep it from overpowering me.

I wasn't so scared of getting hurt dropping the bike, but the bad a$$ biker who owned it might have broke my neck for dropping his baby. You see, I'd assured him I could ride anything, even a jockey shift & suicide clutch rig. After all, I had ridden my friend's dad's similar equipped Cushman several years before, and only dropped it once!  

I would not say it looks all wrong.
The 650 already had good rake and the extra 4" looks good.
So much better than an old in-line four w/ similar treatment.

Rockin_John wrote on 12/31/69 at 16:00:04:

Mr 650 wrote on 12/31/69 at 16:00:04:


I have to agree with you on all points. The stock 35º rake looks okay to me with the dropped shocks and 4" tubes up front making it about 40º.

I never cared for a chopped bike with L4 engine either. In fact, I don't much care for any bike that has more than 3-cyl. in line. They're just too wide, and side heavy.

For anyone out there looking for shorter rear shocks, Here is what I found. Sportster shocks will work. You have to use the upper and lower bushings from the eyelets of your Savage shocks. Believe it or not the Harley bolts are smaller than the Savage. The bottom bolts need to be replaced with longer ones. The stock Harley sportster shocks are longer than the Savage, but  you can get 10" drop shocks for Sportsters from---lickscycles.com.  I know some people would not think a 1/2 " shorter shock would make that much difference, but the angle of the shock is the reason it lowers it that much. 1/2 " will drop the rear by about 1" or more at the fender .They are $199 +SH. I have bought other things from them and they are good people. I plan on buying a pair for L-VYRA, and a set of 2" over tubes from Franks.    Hutch