Installed clutch height and fork pivot setting

[Pupp]

Can't see much on search on this for Rovers although it's clearly a black art in Chevy circles - comparing my new clutch cover with the one that's just come out reveals a relatively huge difference of 13mm or so less installed height at the release bearing face between the two (ie the release carrier will need to sit 13mm closer to the flywheel before commencing its release stroke with the new one (the cover spec is a max of 12.5mm release travel) - I'm hoping the slave will have enough capacity but imagine I'm going to need to also space the pivot out a tad and maybe even the release bearing on its carrier. Q is, better to have the slave working at the extended part of its range or the most compressed end (have a choice of slaves, one strokes 55mm the other 45)? - I'm guessing 'best' geometry for the fork will be when it sits parallel to the fly face at mid point in its stroke but happy to be put right if that's incorrect?

[Hoofa]

I had a similar issue fitting the twin plate McLeod , modified the bearing carrier by milling off enough on the back off the carrier just so the bearing wasn't resting on the fingers, havnt had a problem with the throw, I did actually think about using a hydraulic throw out bearing , I didn't modify the cyclinder stroke or fork

[macdeb]

Same as Nigel. Took 13mm off the back for same reasons. [also had internal diameter increased to suit the TKO600 box] Stayed with external slave as seals do fail and with a concentric, it's gearbox out job.