Dave Taylor Headsteady

Redrider wrote..
Robert
I don't think the goal here is to make people feel bad.

Hi Mark, I'm sure it isn't , and I certainly don't! The point Iwas trying to make was that sometimes I think we can develop and add things which are maybe a bit too much for the job that is required, for instance putting 18" wide wheels on a Model T Ford would make it handle better but is it really necessary? , a wee bit over the top? I'm not taking a pop at yourself or anyone else who tries to improve their own machines, I don't have the skill or the equipment to do it myself and have an admiration for those that can. Also sometimes things can be seen as "must haves" when actually the standard part does it's job quite adequately! Before somebody jumps in and says "you don't want adequate, you want it better", well maybe it's true for some parts or some riders, but I'm sure a proportion of riders just do day to day running, and the fitting of high performance parts that isn't all that necessary.
You also wrote.."In the end, you find your own bliss and enjoy!"
I totally agree with that ....at the end of the day it is your bike, have it the way you want , but don't feel it necessary to buy every new piece of kit that is made available....... (remember the 8 track!!!!).


To daveh,
Hi Dave, how are you,? did you get your headsteady up and running?, you mentioned the isos in your post, obviously the side movement is dispensed with when fitting a DT or similar headsteady, how would you then adjust the isos if you can't lever the engine to the side?, by just adjusting until there was a gap?
The wheels are also mentioned, are the really going to be that far out of alignment on the vertical that a standard roadgoing bike would have it's handling drastically affected?

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 ...

Click to expand...

Because when you posted this you had not also posted the link of your headsteady design. Reading this without reference made it sound like you took a piece of steel and solid mounted the head to the frame. Your later clarification rectified the misunderstanding.

ludwig said:

Redrider :
4.Lateral control :
I can set it at any value I want .
Your Heim joints may have zero play , but you DO have lateral movement : When the engine moves in the vertical plane , your tie rod makes an arc movement , pushing the engine L-R . the shorter the rod , the more pronounced this is .
( Irelevant , I know , but it is there ...)

Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between "controlled lateral movement" and "uncontrolled lateral movement". Providing a gap to allow movement is uncontrolled.

The left/right movement within 2mm even with a short arc is minimal. Don't make me break out the math. Regardless, it's controlled movement, not rattling.

5. damping :
the original headsteady silentbocks provided some damping of the vibration of the head , this is lost with your system and mine .
It may well be that YOUR headers never cracked , but thousands of others have !
Are you denying the fact that cracked pipes are a typical Commando problem , while it hardly ever hapened on the Atlas ?

Click to expand...

Isn't cracked headers on the Commando due to the fact that the engine is fixed to the cradle and the exhaust to the frame, both of which are moving independently? Whereas on the Atlas it was all solidly mounted.

swooshdave: I, too, believe that the 2-part Commando is not the perfect design. The old jokes about Bonnevilles "having a hinge in the middle" is laughable when you look at the Commando's isolastic setup; it really IS a hinge in the middle.

I think simple, elegantly designed and manufactured exhaust mounting brackets that bolt to the tranny cradle and STILL employ rubber mounts, would be the ultimate solution to the exhaust component fatigue cracking issue.

...hmmmmmm... time for me to get out the torch and sledge hammer...

swooshdave said:

ludwig said:

Redrider :
4.Lateral control :
I can set it at any value I want .
Your Heim joints may have zero play , but you DO have lateral movement : When the engine moves in the vertical plane , your tie rod makes an arc movement , pushing the engine L-R . the shorter the rod , the more pronounced this is .
( Irelevant , I know , but it is there ...)

Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between "controlled lateral movement" and "uncontrolled lateral movement". Providing a gap to allow movement is uncontrolled.

The left/right movement within 2mm even with a short arc is minimal. Don't make me break out the math. Regardless, it's controlled movement, not rattling.

5. damping :
the original headsteady silentbocks provided some damping of the vibration of the head , this is lost with your system and mine .
It may well be that YOUR headers never cracked , but thousands of others have !
Are you denying the fact that cracked pipes are a typical Commando problem , while it hardly ever hapened on the Atlas ?

Click to expand...

Isn't cracked headers on the Commando due to the fact that the engine is fixed to the cradle and the exhaust to the frame, both of which are moving independently? Whereas on the Atlas it was all solidly mounted.

Click to expand...

Boy, this quoting stuff is getting confusing.
Swoosh, if you are addressing me (RedRider), then I will attempt a response. If you are addressing Ludwig, please ignore the following:

1) A rod link with a heim joint each end will not rotate, or otherwise extend beyond the distance it is set between the two end fixed points; that's the whole point of its geometry, the fixed point is bound to an orbital center.

2) I believe the cracked headers are attributed to the balance pipe fitted to the 850's. That's why folks have reverted back to the unconnected version. Also some failures are attributed to loose or poorly aligned setups. If the header is fixed, and the muffler is properly attached to a properly aligned rubber mounting, there will be no failure due to the original engineering; more likely the failure is due to poor mechanical alignment and methods.

RR71: I respectfully disagree with your statement regarding exhaust system cracking, as I did a roadside repair on a cracked Viking system (one of the best built systems on the market), that was professionally mounted using nothing but the highest quality hardware, and high quality rubber mounts, with properly anchored exhaust lugs, with good quality gaskets, all in a very high-end norrton built by one of the most reputable builders, with NO crossover pipe.

Eventually, some of them fail due to induced stresses, period.

I believe you could carefully build 5 bikes, ride them around nose-to-tail with comparable riders, for a few thousand miles, and at least ONE of them would have a failure (probably 2 of them, and possibly multiple failures).

I think I may ask the wife to make some puddin and go out and take some pictures of the Buell, It has heim joints front and aft and is how it is all kept in alignment. Eric has made some GREAT inventions as far as motorcycles are concerned. All you guys make great points and I feel making the Commando a better handling bike is a true test in engineering, But it will never be as good as a modern bike right? What a fun thread to read, Thanks guys.

I'm just waiting to see the can of woms I'm uncorking putting the Kawasaki USD front end and one-off big-bearing monoshock setup on this unbraced OEM '74 chassis.

I think the 18" rear wheel, front & top steadies should mitigate the sloppiness in the "2-part" chassis, but the combo is quite likely to awaken the weak link(s)...

Hortons Norton said:

I think I may ask the wife to make some puddin and go out and take some pictures of the Buell, It has heim joints front and aft and is how it is all kept in alignment. Eric has made some GREAT inventions as far as motorcycles are concerned. All you guys make great points and I feel making the Commando a better handling bike is a true test in engineering, But it will never be as good as a modern bike right? What a fun thread to read, Thanks guys.

Click to expand...

Ahh, the question of our times Horton.

What, exactly, does "never as good as a modern bike" mean? In current parlence, just what are your "metrics" for bestowing such status?

RedRider1971 said:

Ahh, the question of our times Horton.

What, exactly, does "never as good as a modern bike" mean? In current parlence, just what are your "metrics" for bestowing such status?

Click to expand...

I'm guess it means exactly what is says, with the caveat that "modern bike" is meant to say the best of the modern bikes.

Unless you'd like to argue that the same rider on a R6 and a Commando will turn identical lap times.

I'm not saying that you won't, I'm just hoping you won't. :wink:

swooshdave said:

RedRider1971 said:

Ahh, the question of our times Horton.

What, exactly, does "never as good as a modern bike" mean? In current parlence, just what are your "metrics" for bestowing such status?

Click to expand...

I'm guess it means exactly what is says, with the caveat that "modern bike" is meant to say the best of the modern bikes.

Unless you'd like to argue that the same rider on a R6 and a Commando will turn identical lap times.

I'm not saying that you won't, I'm just hoping you won't. :wink:

Click to expand...

I'm thinking more of a zen thing. "Best" is a quantitative measure. Motorcycles and wrenching enables us to engage so much more that pure cold stats. I smile when I wrench my Norton. The ride is a reward, not a target.

Sorry if my comparing our Norton's to modern machines is not cool, But what I mean is the Commando in my opinion is great bike when ridden as it should be and not pushed like a modern bike. Ludwig brings up a great point, The frame itself is not nearly as ridged as a modern bike. This makes it a little less predictable in my opinion, My other bike may not be totally modern (98 S1 Buell) But just yesterday I was coming out of a corner and nailed the throttle and had the back end check out and this is fun on this bike as the bike is rock solid. You can do a whole lot more on a bike that has a solid platform than one that has so much going on. Once again sorry if this touches a nerve. But might I add I love riding my Commando as much as the Buell even more as the years go by. It is a incredible machine in so many ways (bike of the year 5 years running) I really mean this but it will never be as good as newer machines, Sorry.

Taking off on soemewhat of a bunny trail, how a Commando 750 (or even 850) stacks up to a modern 250 (in handling) is nearly laughable. Get your typically-sorted Commando out on any track or 5-mile section of twisty roads, lined up against your typical modern 250 Ninja, and have it. Compare the ease with which they maneuver at moderate speeds, then at the limits of thier abilities; You will find them similar in top speed, but quite dissimilar in handling.

Perform the same test with the most well-sorted Norton you can find (other than a full race-prepped example), and you won't find a really significant difference in the results. Trick out the Ninja with similar everyday upgrades offered for it, and you may find the bike with one third the capacity has more than outmatched the poor old Commando.

Am I going to go out and buy a Ninja 250 because of it's handling prowess? No. I don't buy any of my Commandos for that reason, either.

Modern chassis and suspension bits (not to mention brakes), are unbelievably superior to anything, up to the highest tech period racing bits, on a Commando. It is those bits that translate to handling. So, "best", as relates to handling, isn't really about anything but holding your line better with example "A" than you ever possibly could with example "B".

Hortons Norton said:

Sorry if my comparing our Norton's to modern machines is not cool, But what I mean is the Commando in my opinion is great bike when ridden as it should be and not pushed like a modern bike. Ludwig brings up a great point, The frame itself is not nearly as ridged as a modern bike. This makes it a little less predictable in my opinion, My other bike may not be totally modern (98 S1 Buell) But just yesterday I was coming out of a corner and nailed the throttle and had the back end check out and this is fun on this bike as the bike is rock solid. You can do a whole lot more on a bike that has a solid platform than one that has so much going on. Once again sorry if this touches a nerve. But might I add I love riding my Commando as much as the Buell even more as the years go by. It is a incredible machine in so many ways (bike of the year 5 years running) I really mean this but it will never be as good as newer machines, Sorry.

Click to expand...

No need for sorrys here, mate. The whole issue of flexing frames sounds like the old rivalry between Ford and Chevy truck owners - bolted versus welded assembly. Each have their problems - loose bolts, fractured welds. The Brit ship builders during WWII had similar feelings about how comfy they felt sailing a bolted-up British ship to the States, with all the creaking and flexing, they could sleep well knowing what was going on around them; only to have to return on welded-up rigid Victory ships built in the States; the silence was petrifying. Those early boats were known to have catastrophic welding failures that caused them to instantly break up in high seas, snapping, and sinking in three parts. Not that this is literally translated to our bike frames, but the concept of accommodating flexure versus rigid resistence is one that runs throughout engineering exercises of all sorts. In the architecture business this is seen in all the various inventions and techniques developed for tall buildings, bridges, even economical single family houses. I don't think there is a "best" method; just the one that works best for the particular user and circumstances. That said, it's always fun to watch an old-timer run the pants off a newbie, one with the latest technology, and the other with a trusted and known quantity, however frail they may appear. Now, about that slam - "not pushed like a modern bike" - now them's is fight'n words. The push is to the rider, not the machine. Putting a Commando head to head "against" a modern Ducati, R4, or 'Busa is no more objective than putting a cigarette boat against a Chris-Craft Super Sport - what's the point in that? Put another way, It's about adrenaline, not speed; unless, of course, we are about setting records and being "best". It's all good.

To coin a Glasgow phrase...."Mah heid's burstin' :?

I've been holding off posting because as usual my opinion is off the wall here. I think as long as you have a Commando adjusted so it tracks straight on the road, you don't get too much odd tire wear, and it feels fairly tight in a corner, you've done what this bike needs. Years ago I made a better head steady with a couple of what I recall were Monroe shock rubbers. Never wore out in my use and improved the handling a tiny bit. When she started to get a bit sloppy I'd tighten up the isos, sometimes adding a bit of pressure to one side or the other until I got her so she would track with hands off the bars. I know it's criminal but I think I had the swing arm pumped full of disc brake wheel bearing grease.
I think there are about a hundred ways to adjust a Commando that can work for you, right down to that guy who made his totally straight in Marin.
These bikes were the first, or at least one of the first, to isolate the engine vibes. No they aren't going to handle like a modern bike even if you pull out the isos and weld it up solid.
The fact is that when the Commando came out it was one of the best all around bikes to ride every day, do some sporting weekend riding, a bit of club racing, and a few folks even toured on them. In my case the reasonable price also entered into things too.
As far as the cracking exhaust goes that's not a problem I had on Commandos, I do have it on my current bike as it has a mix of Commando and feather bed exhaust mount I need to address. The main thing to me is that the exhaust has to have the same resilience all he way down and not flex constantly while being solid at the header mounting. On my Commandos I was able to get a working system with again, rubber shock bushings. This has been a problem on lots of vehicle types and is often addressed by spring mounting the header at the head.

rbt11548 said:

To coin a Glasgow phrase...."Mah heid's burstin' :?

Click to expand...

Don't let it Robert, if you've got a Commando that handles with your riding style then you've already achieved all you can ask for.

I think that one thing which we all agree on is that the lateral location of the cylinder head is of far greater importance than the publications of the time seemed to suggest. Add to this the fitting problems and added vibration of the Norvil type steady which put many people off and there seems little doubt that we could have been riding much more stable motorcycles for much longer.

Fighting words? LOL LOL Let me put it another way, There is no way I will go into a corner on my Norton the way I will on my Buell. Even under heavy braking the bike leaves a bit to be desired as far as how it feels, This does not mean I don't like it. There is a reason that people don't use the commando frame for serious racing, Some even change it for an earlier frame (featherbed) for a better feel. Or even use a totally different style frame for that use, You know this. I really don't want to get into a discussion on how good the frame is because some may think I am bashing the bike, Not true. I love the Commando and would part with the Buell long before the Norton's. Have a great day guys, Chuck.

79x100 said:

rbt11548 said:

To coin a Glasgow phrase...."Mah heid's burstin' :?

Click to expand...

Don't let it Robert, if you've got a Commando that handles with your riding style then you've already achieved all you can ask for.

I think that one thing which we all agree on is that the lateral location of the cylinder head is of far greater importance than the publications of the time seemed to suggest. Add to this the fitting problems and added vibration of the Norvil type steady which put many people off and there seems little doubt that we could have been riding much more stable motorcycles for much longer.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree wholeheartedly.....and what I was meaning with my comment was that I felt there was so much of the same stuff being repeatedly talked about that the thread was starting to disappear up it's own.........., you get the idea!

rbt11548 said:

Yes I agree wholeheartedly.....and what I was meaning with my comment was that I felt there was so much of the same stuff being repeatedly talked about that the thread was starting to disappear up it's own.........., you get the idea!

Click to expand...

Oh, don't get me started on the similarities between Commandos and Ouzelem birds

Ludwig is of course absolutely correct and the best way to make a motorcycle go fast through the bends is to put a faster rider in the saddle. For most of us mere mortals, much depends on confidence in the machine and much of my tinkering at least is the equivalent of fiddling with rosary beads or whatever the faithful do. :?