Dave Taylor Headsteady

Status
Not open for further replies.
79x100 said:
RedRider1971 said:
79x100 said:
I must be one of the lucky ones because I don't detect any problems with the fit and alignment of the Taylor steady on my Andover replica frame.

Your situation then is a good one to ask about. When you refer to alignment, what are you aligning?

A good squint with the old Mk1 eyeball, a straight edge and a length of string.

With the Taylor clamp set in a neutral position, my motor seems to be upright and in line.

I am happier with the idea that the isos are not pre-loaded in one direction. Had that been so, I think that I would have tried to solve that rather than pushing or pulling with an adjustable cross-rod. It may well be that the quality control on these 1990s small batch Andover frames is better than when they were being thrown together in their thousands.

The proof for me is that I can now ride hands-off for the first time with this frame and can relax on Belgian rain-grooves (Ludwig will know the stretch between Brussel and Leuven).

Okay then, you are apparently "aligning" the motor in its vertical plane, no? If you then have left the motor (head steady) in that neutral position, and then determined that your ride is straight and true, then you certainly have achieved the "alignment" goal by virtue of your frame and isolastic mounts being accurately fabricated; your vertical motor connected to your vertical rear wheel that, evidently, is properly aligned with your front wheel. You win!

With regard to your good squint, you are in the admirable company of others who swear that they can properly align their rear wheel via their naked, trained eyeball. I count myself among the lesser mortals who rely on mechanical measuring methods, no matter how primative or sophisticated, so long as they enable me to check, check, and recheck the setting, and obtain repeatable results that satisfy my needs.

Cheers to you!
Mark
 
Mark
this might get me banned but here goes. your tripe with trying to sell your COPY of the Dave Taylor head steady is just rubbish. I have made a hiem joint of my own and have used the top tube holes for the frame mount, I also DO NOT use the tall stand off on the head part that can flex.I have also made a rod link front mount kit to stop the hassle of having to keep the front mount in proper adjustment. as for using the head steady to correct an alignment issue again more rubbish as you DO NOT want ANY preload on the isolastics. as easy as a commando swingarm is to flex along with the week pivot point in the cradle and the flexie flyer front end just who do you think you are fooling? A commando is what it is, an antiquated stop gap design that is well past it prime. yes I love mine BUT it is still over 35 years old and has been well out paced by modern technology, it is still a great bike by the standards of 35 years ago. A headsteady will not make a silk purse from a sow's ear !!!


windy
 
dave M said:
Red rider, All this talk about wishing to share technical knowledge in an open and frank manner doesn't convince me. Your first post was simply an advert for a product, subsequent posts seem merely an attempt to move the dialogue away from this demonstrable fact. You disparaged the original product from which it was copied telling readers to dump it in the bin and making disrespectful comments about others who made genuine comments - putting the words "with respect" at the end of a sentence doesn't mitigate any insult at all.

You seem to assume that you are the only one in the world who knows anything about the Commando isolastic system and frame geometry. Furthermore as justification for your activities you quote Jim Comstock and his open attitude to enthusiasts copying his work "for their own use", However you omit that Matt Rambow from CNW was particularly ticked off - quite rightly in my view - and at pains to point out that he wasn't happy about people copying for commercial gain something that CNW had spent time and money developing.

Your claim of expensive CAD CAM and CNC programs doesn't hold water as the head bracket and other parts of the assembly seem identical copies of the Dave Taylor unit.

If the Dave Taylor headsteady was patented I have no doubt that you would be in contravention of this patent. You are essentially selling someone else's intellectual property. No talk of cottage industry and keeping the home fires burning disguises this fact.

With respect.

Dave M

Okay Dave,
Your comments caused me to go back and read the entire string of both threads on this subject. In hindsight I can see how I did a poor job of introducing myself and my work. These threads went back a long time, and much discussion passed on amongst good friends. I apologize for butting in so abruptly. That said, I believe this is a forum that welcomes new arrivals; if not, just say so, and I'll be gone.

I notice I'm not the only one who "disparages" products. Just read the entries. Yes, I have an item to sell. Sorry for my efforts. At what point is news not about advertising? I freely admit that I improved on the Dave Taylor unit. I certainly do not think I am the only one in the world who knows anything about isolastics. On the contrary, I have a lot of catching up to do with respect to learning from the many who have shared so much via various groups, companies, products, etc. Don't know why you feel a need to attack on this, just read what I've said. I cannot find where I have quoted Jim Comstock. I don't even know the man. I do understand that he is an accomplished engineer, motorcycle, and particularly Norton authority. I understand that he works with Matt Rambo and CNW, and that he may even be developing his own version of a head steady. I did refer to Matt's comments about R&D costs, however. And I will reiterate; those costs are considerable. You seem to think that the DT unit was "taken" for the getting. In fact, in order to modify it and manufacture a new version, I produced the CAD program file that is required to drive the CNC production process. That is a process of studying, measuring, checking, testing, copying, and producing a unique new digital product and data file. The changes made from the DT version to my version are considerable, even though the finished item looks identical. To call them the same is like calling Megacycle Cams copies of Andover Cams, or Web Cams, or any other manufacturer that works from patterned parts. How many manufacturers do you suppose make identical brackets, bolts, springs, and other components that are standardized? Should Dave Taylor have had to pay the Rose or Heim company for use of their joints? This is component engineering, not invention. And if it were a new invention, then you would find that my version is sufficiently different from it to warrant its own patent. You seem to presume much about manufacturing, yet your comments belie that assertion. Whether or not any components "seem identical", they had to go through a unique manufacturing process - that is where the cost lies. Study the picture, see the differences. If anybody will appreciate the differences, it will be Mr. Taylor. I'd be pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the units under debate here with him. As a matter of fact, Mr. Rambo and I could have a good discussion of how one studies a given product and then develops a new way to improve on it! I would submit, sir, that your aspersions re copyright infringement are misinformed, at best.

Contrary to your negative appraisal, it looks to me like there has been an interesting, rounded, and informative discussion on this subject.
 
bill said:
Mark
this might get me banned but here goes. your tripe with trying to sell your COPY of the Dave Taylor head steady is just rubbish. I have made a hiem joint of my own and have used the top tube holes for the frame mount, I also DO NOT use the tall stand off on the head part that can flex.I have also made a rod link front mount kit to stop the hassle of having to keep the front mount in proper adjustment. as for using the head steady to correct an alignment issue again more rubbish as you DO NOT want ANY preload on the isolastics. as easy as a commando swingarm is to flex along with the week pivot point in the cradle and the flexie flyer front end just who do you think you are fooling? A commando is what it is, an antiquated stop gap design that is well past it prime. yes I love mine BUT it is still over 35 years old and has been well out paced by modern technology, it is still a great bike by the standards of 35 years ago. A headsteady will not make a silk purse from a sow's ear !!!


windy

Windy,
I sure hope you don't get banned, and certainly not on my account. You seem to be hung up on my trying to SELL a COPY of the DAVE TAYLOR Head Steady. I have seen your front iso heim kit. It works just like a good rod link should. Do you give those away as gifts? Why do you think I'm trying to fool anybody? The facts are the facts; there they are. You've summarized the story of the weaknesses in the system, and I am simply contributing to the process of trying ways of improving it, just like you, and many others. What's your beef? You use the term preload like its some magic evil force. The iso tube abutments are simply not vertically true to plane, so the variations in the gap between the tube and the end cap are known to all. If you want to make them perfect, then re-machine them and true-up the frame, just as others have done, and as I have referenced. If one doesn't want to go that far, then they can simply rotate the motor/frame/wheel assembly around to a true vertical position via an adjustable heim link at the head steady location. What's so controversial about that? If it doesn't work, then please tell my motorcycle that; I just took a 300 mile ride today through the twisty hills and dales of Virginia and the bike seems to do just great; precise, firm handling; hands-free tracking, and virtually zero vibration. If that's a sow's ear, then I'm glad I have another one in my shed awaiting the magic transformation!
Cheers to you too Windy,
Mark
 
RedRider1971 said:
I guess I'm a student of the Gus Grissom school of seat of the pants testing. Those I ride with have seen the results. Sorry, I don't have the facilities to test to the standards you seem to demand; must be a function of the data-over-experience times we live in. With several thousand miles logged on each of the five principle types of steadies out there, I'm rather comfortable with my findings. If I may, your understanding of the alignment issue may be incomplete. The fact is that ALL Commando frames are inherently misaligned. That's not my discovery; that is a known fact among those who've studied the subject, and many frames, ever since they were in original production. It's not a matter of you building your own steady and thus removing the misalignment; it is a matter of correcting for the misalignment that occurs in the assembly of subframe to frame. If you can construct your own steady and accommodate the particular misalignment on your particular frame, then you will have performed the entire frame reengineering process; more power to you. As I stated, the purpose of the adjustable steady is to provide a less intensive method for solving the problem; and one that can accommodate wear and future readjustment.

It's interesting how the concept of sharing an idea, or questioning an established assumption, provokes such hostility. Don't believe me, just study the subject yourself and come to your own conclusions. I frankly couldn't care less if someone prefers to stick to their own beliefs. For those with an open, analytical mind, let's see what they have to offer on the subject.

Is Gus Grissom's ass or your own repeatedly measurable :lol:

Now, Nortons are reputed to have legendary handling, this has been touted from the onset of the Featherbed and carried over to the Commando, many have praised the good handling of Commandos and I have personnaly seen footpegs ground at crazy angles with period tires on Commandos in the seventies.

Years later some finicky person finds out the frames are not all aligned correctly, the engine cradle isn't either, the wheels are not in the same plane... which leads credence to the racer I mentioned saying the handling was fine even if the wheels were not aligned, but that is a single instance, what about all the other riders who didn't know their fine machines were all crooked and plowed them around corners with utter abandon, trusting the lengendary ride?

Now some dudes (Dave Taylor, Red Rider) come along and promise a revolutionary improvement in ride without any data to back it up, count me amongst the skeptics.

Jean

PS, no hostility meant and you being from NY should have skin thick enough to handle a few flames, keep the discussion open :wink:
 
daveh said:
Like Ludwig, I wonder about using the head steady to correct mis-alignment of the rear wheel. When I got my Commando, one of the legs of the swinging arm was higher than the other, which resulted in a cocked wheel. I straightened the arm and checked it with a bar through the rear wheel spindle slots and the swinging arm spindle mounted on vee blocks. I had to rebuild the wheel to the correct offset, which was 1/8" to the left. It is now vertical and the centre line of the rim is on the centre line of the frame. The ends of the rear isolastic tube are now flat. The old rear iso mount had deformed, which resulted in the engine/gearbox being canted in the horizontal plane. The new iso mount has corrected this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not a better way to solve alignment problems than using a DT-type head steady to align the rear wheel? I have used some of Dave Taylor's basic design for my own head steady, which mounts to the frame via the threaded cross tube and it works. That said, Redrider's head steady looks like a fine piece of machine work.

Jean — what do you mean when you say '"... Jim's idea for the lower isolastic"? And how exactly does HD do this? I've never looked at a modern HD close up.

I too think RedRider's product looks good. In another thread, Jim showed pictures of his fuel injected bike and in one picture he had the lower isolastic with only rubber bushings for up and down movement and he added a rose or heim joint to keep the front motor mount from moving sideways. Jim mentionned it was a product under developpement nd it would be sold by CNW, no price yet.

HDs have car type rubber biscuits to handle up and down movement (lots of movement) and links to keep the movement vertical, the whole system was developped by Eric Buell if I am not mistaken.

Jean
 
bill said:
Mark
this might get me banned but here goes. your tripe with trying to sell your COPY of the Dave Taylor head steady is just rubbish. I have made a hiem joint of my own and have used the top tube holes for the frame mount, I also DO NOT use the tall stand off on the head part that can flex.I have also made a rod link front mount kit to stop the hassle of having to keep the front mount in proper adjustment. as for using the head steady to correct an alignment issue again more rubbish as you DO NOT want ANY preload on the isolastics. as easy as a commando swingarm is to flex along with the week pivot point in the cradle and the flexie flyer front end just who do you think you are fooling? A commando is what it is, an antiquated stop gap design that is well past it prime. yes I love mine BUT it is still over 35 years old and has been well out paced by modern technology, it is still a great bike by the standards of 35 years ago. A headsteady will not make a silk purse from a sow's ear !!!


windy

:lol: :lol: :lol: totaly agree

Jean
 
ludwig said:
swooshdave said:
Ok, with the "simple strap of steel" how are you allowing for movement in the vertical plane?
i posted this link before :

http://www.britbike.com/forums/ubbthrea ... #Post73330
the pictures are not very clear , but I hope you get the idea .
the vertical ' fin' with the large hole ,, can move freely up and down with the engine .
It is held in check by the 2 thick washers with a clearence of 0.10 mm .
you can choose the clearence you want by using a different spacer between the washers ( or by using shims)
The polyurethane ring is of no importance .
It does not HAVE to look like this , many solutions are possible , but the principle is : 1 piece of steel parallel with the frame ,L-R movement controlled by the frame .
I am using this for a couple of years now , and it works perfect !
i think I'll send one to CNW . I suppose at least they will recognise a good thing when they see it .

VERY interesting and innovative solution, bravo!

Jean
 
Jeandr said:
RedRider1971 said:
I guess I'm a student of the Gus Grissom school of seat of the pants testing. Those I ride with have seen the results. Sorry, I don't have the facilities to test to the standards you seem to demand; must be a function of the data-over-experience times we live in. With several thousand miles logged on each of the five principle types of steadies out there, I'm rather comfortable with my findings. If I may, your understanding of the alignment issue may be incomplete. The fact is that ALL Commando frames are inherently misaligned. That's not my discovery; that is a known fact among those who've studied the subject, and many frames, ever since they were in original production. It's not a matter of you building your own steady and thus removing the misalignment; it is a matter of correcting for the misalignment that occurs in the assembly of subframe to frame. If you can construct your own steady and accommodate the particular misalignment on your particular frame, then you will have performed the entire frame reengineering process; more power to you. As I stated, the purpose of the adjustable steady is to provide a less intensive method for solving the problem; and one that can accommodate wear and future readjustment.

It's interesting how the concept of sharing an idea, or questioning an established assumption, provokes such hostility. Don't believe me, just study the subject yourself and come to your own conclusions. I frankly couldn't care less if someone prefers to stick to their own beliefs. For those with an open, analytical mind, let's see what they have to offer on the subject.

Is Gus Grissom's ass or your own repeatedly measurable :lol:

Now, Nortons are reputed to have legendary handling, this has been touted from the onset of the Featherbed and carried over to the Commando, many have praised the good handling of Commandos and I have personnaly seen footpegs ground at crazy angles with period tires on Commandos in the seventies.

Years later some finicky person finds out the frames are not all aligned correctly, the engine cradle isn't either, the wheels are not in the same plane... which leads credence to the racer I mentioned saying the handling was fine even if the wheels were not aligned, but that is a single instance, what about all the other riders who didn't know their fine machines were all crooked and plowed them around corners with utter abandon, trusting the lengendary ride?

Now some dudes (Dave Taylor, Red Rider) come along and promise a revolutionary improvement in ride without any data to back it up, count me amongst the skeptics.

Jean

PS, no hostility meant and you being from NY should have skin thick enough to handle a few flames, keep the discussion open :wink:

Good comments Jean,

Gus Grissom does a pretty good job of explaining to anybody the measurability of his ass's experiences. As for my sorry ass, I can do a reasonably good, but far from comparable, job of accounting for it's whereabouts and its ability to measure a ride - repeatidly.

I wasn't there in the late sixties when the Commando Roadster showed up. It would be another year or so before I'd discover the appeal of the Commando first hand. Those who were there in California maybe could check in and tell us all the tales. Second hand chat and reading tells me that the Commandos that raced were a far cry from the Commandos in the show room. Those that rode pre Commando Nortons talk about "real" Nortons, free of rubber mounts and wobbly frames. The Commando was never reputed by racers to have legendary handling; to the contrary, it suffers the stigma of not being a legitimate offspring of the featherbed. Nortons were most successful in the short tracks of GB and the flat tracks of the USA. In the US, folks like Ron Wood modified the Norton beyond all recognition from the stock machine, keeping the motor and gearbox, and little else - torque was king; not isolastics. I have an acquaintance here in Virginia who recalls his local racing exploits, having outrun Freddy Spencer with his Commando in the late seventies. Isolastics were clamped down hard to virtual non-existence in order to get the handling under control. And yes, relative to the other stock bikes, and brakes of the day, they did well.

You needn't fast forward to today's finicky rider to find folks who understood the shortcomings. The story behind what Bob Trigg and his Norton USA group had to pull off to achieve a positive Cycle magazine road test in '71 is, indeed, legendary. There is much mythology behind the Commando, and god help those who dare to poke at the truth of it.

Please don't count me, nor Dave Taylor, among the "dudes" who promise a revolutionary improvement. What you can do is count me and Taylor, and many others long before me, who understand the shortcomings in the production engineering, and the flaws in how it was marketed. I recall very vividly how "superior" the Commando was regarded in 1971, and I recall first hand how poorly it handled once the isolastics had a few thousand miles on them, and how difficult it was in the seventies to get the proper parts (shims) to keep them adjusted. There is truth to the stories of wild rides off country roads due to frames that felt "hinged" in the middle. The truth is, you can make a better Commando today than they ever were in the first place. But do not construe that statement to mean that Peter Williams, Dave Croxford, Norman White, Mick Hemmings, and all the rest didn't have superior setups back in the day. They just weren't the same setups as how they came out for sale to the masses. No news there.

Sorry if you can't be provided adequate data; you'll just have to do without. In the meantime, those with improved handling will simply enjoy the results of the applied improvements. If ever you're in Alexandria VA, look me up; I'll be glad to offer you a ride on my "skeptical flyer".

No need for flames; just honest chat!
Cheers,
Mark
 
ludwig said:
swooshdave said:
Ok, with the "simple strap of steel" how are you allowing for movement in the vertical plane?
i posted this link before :

http://www.britbike.com/forums/ubbthrea ... #Post73330
the pictures are not very clear , but I hope you get the idea .
the vertical ' fin' with the large hole ,, can move freely up and down with the engine .
It is held in check by the 2 thick washers with a clearence of 0.10 mm .

The reason any of these other solutions (aside from spherical bearings) seem less than ideal is that they have to be set up with some side play. As it has been mentioned, modern bikes with isolation technology use spherical bearings, not rubber ones with "clearance" dialed in.

Something to think about.
 
Mark
I am not the one that has come on here and touted my ware's as a magical device that will transform a commando into a true corner carving, peg dragging ride.as a matter of fact I do not advertise my stuff any where! as I posted to you a while back (in another post or forum) I would NOT use a headsteady to correct a misalignment issue and IF I remember you agreed with that assessment but I am getting older. as I posted before the commando frame assembly as a whole is not that ridged and also for that reason I feel that bigger wheel's and tires hurt a commando's handling. I spend 6-7 months in the mountains of NE Tn and I have touched down parts on my commando riding it hard but that is not the norm. I also do not make wild claim's of vastly improved handling and reduced vibration, the main thing about my front kit is the lack of maintenance and the headsteady is it is more ridged than stock. if you truly want to transform a commando than a total remake is in order. I would start at the spaghetti swingarm (have you seen how easy you can twist one) and work my way to the front fork's and yokes that you can twist with your hands.

Jim Comstock has a front link on his bike that is below the mount and uses ATV tie rod ends and was welded to the frame.mine is above the mount and is a bolt on affair. he also is working on a headsteady that uses the ATV ends.

you posted that you are in VA. where about's ? you missed out on a great ride that we do every year from blowing rock N C.

you should come over to my parts ( I have a campground ) and try out the roads here :mrgreen:


windy
 
Jeandr said:
In another thread, Jim showed pictures of his fuel injected bike and in one picture he had the lower isolastic with only rubber bushings for up and down movement and he added a rose or heim joint to keep the front motor mount from moving sideways. Jim mentionned it was a product under developpement nd it would be sold by CNW, no price yet.

HDs have car type rubber biscuits to handle up and down movement (lots of movement) and links to keep the movement vertical, the whole system was developped by Eric Buell if I am not mistaken.

Jean

Thanks, Jean. Yes, now I remember the thread of Jim's amazing fuel injected Commando. That lower link was very neatly executed. I also saw somewhere (maybe the Britbike Forum) a similar link fixed to the cradle and frame at the rear.
 
Ok Guys, I have been reading this post and suddenly I have become a little concerned about my bike. Before I go on , I have the Dave Taylor steady fitted and as was mentioned previously in this post I "dialled it in", but then again you have to "dial in" lots of things on a motorbike, tyres, ignition, valve clearances etc. so it is no big deal to have to dial in another piece of engineering!
Right! , why am I concerned about my bike? well I'm reading the post and come across all this stuff about vertical alignment, horizontal alignment , alsorts of joints, (metal I hope , not the other kind , although looking at some comments I'm not so sure! :shock: ), so now I'm thinking "is my bike ok? , is it fit for the road?, should I dangle a bit of string at this bit to see if the frame is off by a few mm's? ". I didn't realise I had to have all these things done to the nth degree to have my Commando go round corners.
Most forums are great, especially this one, for helping with problems etc., but sometimes I wonder if they can intimidate people at times, by that I mean thinking " I must have this or that fitted, or I must tune it a certain way " because some other people have done it and it seems to work great!, yes I'm all for improvement, ( as I said I have a DT headsteady fitted also a Tri-spark, and a few other bits and bobs), but sometimes I just feel that things are changed just for the sake of change and sometimes there may not be a huge benefit. I always look forward to reading different posts on "how this may help, or I've tried this and it worked", but I have a 30+year old bike that does have it's flaws, some can be rectified easily and some do not warrant worrying about. As I said at the start, reading this post would have me believe that my bike is going to be all over the place when I ride it because I have not fitted the latest piece of equipment. Now I only speak for myself when I say that but I'm sure there may be one or two others out there are thinking the same!
I am more than happy to listen to others views, and I have taken on board, and adopted, more than a few good ideas, but please don't try and make me think that because I don't fit or can't afford a certain part that I don't know my bike, or my bike will not do what it has been doing for 30 years, it may not horse around a corner as steadily as a bike with hi- tech bits fitted but it does go round, and if I say so my self , pretty well.
Am I naive in thinking I am fairly happy with the way my bike is ? may be? but I'm happy just the same!

To Bill, I would like to know more about your idea regarding the different type of engine mounts as they sound interesting, is there anywhere I can read about them?
Thanks to all
Robert
President of the naivity section
 
bill said:
Mark
I am not the one that has come on here and touted my ware's as a magical device that will transform a commando into a true corner carving, peg dragging ride.as a matter of fact I do not advertise my stuff any where! as I posted to you a while back (in another post or forum) I would NOT use a headsteady to correct a misalignment issue and IF I remember you agreed with that assessment but I am getting older. as I posted before the commando frame assembly as a whole is not that ridged and also for that reason I feel that bigger wheel's and tires hurt a commando's handling. I spend 6-7 months in the mountains of NE Tn and I have touched down parts on my commando riding it hard but that is not the norm. I also do not make wild claim's of vastly improved handling and reduced vibration, the main thing about my front kit is the lack of maintenance and the headsteady is it is more ridged than stock. if you truly want to transform a commando than a total remake is in order. I would start at the spaghetti swingarm (have you seen how easy you can twist one) and work my way to the front fork's and yokes that you can twist with your hands.

Jim Comstock has a front link on his bike that is below the mount and uses ATV tie rod ends and was welded to the frame.mine is above the mount and is a bolt on affair. he also is working on a headsteady that uses the ATV ends.

you posted that you are in VA. where about's ? you missed out on a great ride that we do every year from blowing rock N C.

you should come over to my parts ( I have a campground ) and try out the roads here :mrgreen:


windy

Windy
Thanks for the invite. Most of my riding is limited to one day per week, so local is the norm. But, you are surely close to shouting distance, or have we now established that we're there?

Friend, I make no "wild claims" . I am simply reporting the facts about my bike and the improvements the heim link provides. My unit is SIMPLY ADJUSTABLE, and it looks nice. What's so irritating about that? You earlier indicated that you did not utilize the tall tower approach on your headsteady because of concerns about flexing, but now you attest to the need for such movement?

I couldn't agree with you more about resizing the wheels and such. These approaches at getting modern sensibilities bolted onto the bike are ill conceived and poorly defended. Yes. I did agree with your point about how to better correct for the misalignment. I did not, however, agree with your point about preload being something to be avoided. In fact my entire discussion of my unit points out that it is a compromise instead of rebuilding/remachining the frame from the tubes up. With careful assembly, I can dramatically reduce the gap in the front and rear isolastics, to nearly zero, thus they are not preloaded; that would require forced pressure between the end cap and the tube while at rest. This is not the case. You can disagree with my approach, but I don't see why you have to get all steamed up about it. I'll make a plan to come down and visit you. Like they say, taste the pudding before you criticize the process. By the way, if one heim is good, then three must be better. Well, maybe; but putting the one up front makes sense regarding lateral movement - it just DOES NOT AFFECT or REMEDY misalignment of the motor/subframe/wheel assembly. For that you need to rotate the misaligned assembly about its pivoting axis, which is the rear mounting point. If you disagree with that concept, then you are left with remachining the abutments true to the frame. I really can't believe you disagree with that.

If I'm not mistaken, an ATV (all terrain vehicle) end is no different than a heim or rose joint. But, looking into those, the aviation quality heim joints are more to my taste as to what looks good, performs well, and provides the size and adjustability I'm looking for in this application. The space under the tank is very limited, and I like the simplicity and durability of something that is precision machined. Just my opinion.

Now, I will stick my neck WAAAAY out. I think a lot of the problem with bending swing arms and flexing forks, and weak suspension damping has more to do with changing times, than newly discovered weaknesses and flaws in the design. Is it just me, or has the entire world, no longer just the good ol' U.S. of A, become super-sized? What do you reckon was the weight of the test riders for the old Norton Dominator or Commando? And what would you guess the average weight of today's Commando rider to be? When I was twenty I weighted 145 pounds. I'll guess that the typical Commando rider, and probably more importantly, the one who has experienced swing arm failure, is more towards the two hundred mark. But I could be wildly incorrect. What's the average weight of a racer these days? I think a lot of folks feel offended by this idea. And a lot of folks feel offended by somebody else making a little bit of an extra effort to accomplish something that they didn't do, perhaps due to shop resources. I engineered the improvements to the DT headsteady, and paid a professional machine shop to CNC-manufacture it by way of my, yes unique, computer data. I then hand finish and assemble them in my shop. In that process, I've discovered little tweeks and improvements that are hand made, and will be added to the next machine run. Sorry if that process is irritating to those who prefer to bend, weld, file, and powder coat. Anybody in the manufacturing business would see that all this to-do about a simple machined pattern part is all just hooey.

Well, this is all fun and stuff, but whatta ya say we just get together and have a ride and tip a few. I'm really not a bad guy, and on weekends I work out of an old shed. My pride and joy is my Handy Lift and a real hardwood topped work bench I finally bought for myself last year - no more plywood! I do things the old fashioned way mostly, until I discover that today's technology can make a significant impact on old gems. The Norton needs to be understood and kept true to its origins. Amazingly, I think you and I can actually agree on that point.

Tell ya what, let's meet halfway somewhere where neither of us will have an advantage with knowing the roads!
Cheers,
Mark
 
ludwig said:
Redrider :
"Your suggestion for using a simple strap of steel bolted to the head seems contrary to all the points you've raised, such as damping, stress, torsional load, and so on." (quote )
Sorry , I red this five times , but I don't get it .
Maybe my knowledge of the english language is insufficient ...

Maybe I was confused by reading your statement. My only language skill, such as it is, is American English. Let's just drop it. The thing does what the thing does.
 
rbt11548 said:
Ok Guys, I have been reading this post and suddenly I have become a little concerned about my bike. Before I go on , I have the Dave Taylor steady fitted and as was mentioned previously in this post I "dialled it in", but then again you have to "dial in" lots of things on a motorbike, tyres, ignition, valve clearances etc. so it is no big deal to have to dial in another piece of engineering!
Right! , why am I concerned about my bike? well I'm reading the post and come across all this stuff about vertical alignment, horizontal alignment , alsorts of joints, (metal I hope , not the other kind , although looking at some comments I'm not so sure! :shock: ), so now I'm thinking "is my bike ok? , is it fit for the road?, should I dangle a bit of string at this bit to see if the frame is off by a few mm's? ". I didn't realise I had to have all these things done to the nth degree to have my Commando go round corners.
Most forums are great, especially this one, for helping with problems etc., but sometimes I wonder if they can intimidate people at times, by that I mean thinking " I must have this or that fitted, or I must tune it a certain way " because some other people have done it and it seems to work great!, yes I'm all for improvement, ( as I said I have a DT headsteady fitted also a Tri-spark, and a few other bits and bobs), but sometimes I just feel that things are changed just for the sake of change and sometimes there may not be a huge benefit. I always look forward to reading different posts on "how this may help, or I've tried this and it worked", but I have a 30+year old bike that does have it's flaws, some can be rectified easily and some do not warrant worrying about. As I said at the start, reading this post would have me believe that my bike is going to be all over the place when I ride it because I have not fitted the latest piece of equipment. Now I only speak for myself when I say that but I'm sure there may be one or two others out there are thinking the same!
I am more than happy to listen to others views, and I have taken on board, and adopted, more than a few good ideas, but please don't try and make me think that because I don't fit or can't afford a certain part that I don't know my bike, or my bike will not do what it has been doing for 30 years, it may not horse around a corner as steadily as a bike with hi- tech bits fitted but it does go round, and if I say so my self , pretty well.
Am I naive in thinking I am fairly happy with the way my bike is ? may be? but I'm happy just the same!

To Bill, I would like to know more about your idea regarding the different type of engine mounts as they sound interesting, is there anywhere I can read about them?
Thanks to all
Robert
President of the naivity section

Robert
I don't think the goal here is to make people feel bad. On the other hand, I didn't grow up in an age where every child was special, and all kids got trophies just for entering or participating, in the interest of making sure the kid's self-esteem wasn't bruised if they didn't win first prize.

The entire subject has to do with "improved" handling and performance. The old Commando was a last ditch effort to make an old dog run with the new ones. There's a certain tradition and challenge that comes with that, and that's what the Norton mystique is about, I believe. For many of us, the fun is in the discovery and the process. In the end, you find your own bliss and enjoy!

There's a great piece in yesterday's Sunday New York Times - The Case for Working with Your Hands. It's to this idea of why we do things.
Mark
 
Hi Robert — you have brought us back to reality. Development engineers strive to be precise, hence their attention to technical detail. If they are making something that will be fitted not just to their own bikes, but also for customers, they have that responsibility, not to mention pride in their workmanship. I applaud this and I love reading about their innovations.

Then, there is practical reality. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I've spent some time over the years getting 70s and 80s bikes to handle. I have been lucky enough to ride almost every superbike (the Commando was in that category) from the 70s. I am impressed by how well a properly set up Commando handles, in comparison with other machines of the period. Most large Japanese bikes were very heavy and had soggy suspension and flexible frames. Italian bikes like Ducatis had stiff frames but slow steering and rock-hard suspension that gave a horrible ride and tank-slapped on anything other than smooth roads. Seventies Nortons and Triumphs, in good nick, had quite a nice blend of responsive, neutral steering and straight-line stability. To answer your concerns, I think the following is what is needed to make our Commandos handle as well as can be realistically expected:

Decent modern tyres, such as Avon Roadriders
Wheels that are properly centred and aligned
Isolastics in good nick and correctly adjusted
Good steering head bearings
Straight frame and swinging arm
No play in swinging arm bushes or in the cradle tube
Standard forks in good nick and any rear shocks that damp
And any head steady that limits movement of the engine/gearbox to the vertical plane only

Beyond these basic requirements, one is then into Commando-based specials. Even a well set up Commando with all the above boxes ticked has its limits. What are those limits? Just from my experience, say you are having fun and keeping up with modern bikes on the twisties, and you have to brake or change direction suddenly, or you aviate off a jump, modern bikes will have that much more of a safety margin because their chassis are stiffer and their suspension reacts better under hard braking.
 
daveh said:
Jeandr said:
In another thread, Jim showed pictures of his fuel injected bike and in one picture he had the lower isolastic with only rubber bushings for up and down movement and he added a rose or heim joint to keep the front motor mount from moving sideways. Jim mentionned it was a product under developpement nd it would be sold by CNW, no price yet.

HDs have car type rubber biscuits to handle up and down movement (lots of movement) and links to keep the movement vertical, the whole system was developped by Eric Buell if I am not mistaken.

Jean

Thanks, Jean. Yes, now I remember the thread of Jim's amazing fuel injected Commando. That lower link was very neatly executed. I also saw somewhere (maybe the Britbike Forum) a similar link fixed to the cradle and frame at the rear.

A friend made one similar as well a few years back. I should try to get a snap shot of his set up and post it.
 
ludwig - I agree with your item 5 on the list.

LIMITING movement is good, DAMPING it (while limiting it) is better.

Since I have all the stock damping spring stuff, I'm going to be using it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top