[ithinktherefore]

I guess it's just personal taste, but the meanstreak looks like such a big beefy bike that it would seem more aesthetically balanced to me with fat forks. While there seem to be very limited pictures online of the only ones I can find (kewlmetal), I can see that it does give the general look I like.

It also seems, though, that the ends seem mismatched in that they just stop, but don't seem to match the lower portion. To hide this, I see that they have the flame covers for the lower forks. I'm trying to go for an extremely stripped down, simple look, though, and don't want the flames.

Basically, what I like is the look of the front-end of the classics, except with a smaller front fender. Is it possible to use fork-covers from a 1600 classic, or in some other way get the same look on the meanstreak while retaining the meanstreak's actual forks for performance purposes?

Or... is there anybody out there that has fat-forks in one way or another on a meanstreak that can share what they did and how it turned out?

 

[woodchucks800]

I don't think anything on the 1600 front end will work on the meanie. The meanie has inverted forks like the crouch rockets. That might be why you think it looks different?

 

[ithinktherefore]

Yeah... everybody seems to love the performance of the meanie forks... I'm just not seeing anything but the kewlmetal kit to give it that classic Fatboy look.

 

[ipscshooter]

Yeah... everybody seems to love the performance of the meanie forks... I'm just not seeing anything but the kewlmetal kit to give it that classic Fatboy look.

Since you haven't bought the Meanie yet, perhaps a Fat Boy is what you should be looking at.

 

[bikeaholic]

re

a fat boy front end will fit a sportster :twisted: :wink: