Head Steady Install Question

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Dave Taylor Head Steady looks low production CNC / hand made. You can buy them all day long for under $200.
I imagine the maker of the DTHS has a lower overhead than CNW does.
 
It's no secret! CNW is a quality product at a premium price. No bargain basement here nor the junk you might find in a bargain basement.
Here's the thing. If you want it and can afford it you get it, it you don't or you can't, you don't.

I made my own DTHS also, nothing complicated here. It is truely a DIY kinda thing, after all, swooshdave made one. How hard can it be?

However, it is my opinion that whether you make it youself for $20 or buy a cnc machined polished unit around $400, give or take, they're all junk and not as good as the 850 stock boxed type.

There I said it!
P.S. Norvil PR HS
 
pete.v said:
However, it is my opinion that whether you make it youself for $20 or buy a cnc machined polished unit around $400, give or take, they're all junk and not as good as the 850 stock boxed type.
Click to expand...

Yes it's your opinion...most will disagree however.

First question is: If the stock one is so good why do you have something homemade on your bike?

Second, the rubber mounts are junk. They degrade and break. They also allow side to side movement which is not a good thing at the highest pivot point considering it can transfer to the rear wheel. But then again there are those who think rear wheel movement is hogwash...but then they probably don't actually ride their bikes.

That being said, to each his own.

I think the CNW design is the best one available. That's why I have one on my MKIII. And that is just my opinion.
 
mschmitz57 said:
The Dave Taylor Head Steady looks low production CNC / hand made. You can buy them all day long for under $200.
I imagine the maker of the DTHS has a lower overhead than CNW does.
Click to expand...

And yet you have to shim them with a beer can...
 
swooshdave said:
mschmitz57 said:
The Dave Taylor Head Steady looks low production CNC / hand made. You can buy them all day long for under $200.
I imagine the maker of the DTHS has a lower overhead than CNW does.
Click to expand...

And yet you have to shim them with a beer can...
Click to expand...

Ouch. Yeah, but it's a "British" beer can.
 
First question is: If the stock one is so good why do you have something homemade on your bike?
Click to expand...
I don't. I took it off shortly after exhaustive testing and sold it cheap. I put the stock box back on until the NORVIL PR headsteady arrived, which I have now used for many years.

Second, the rubber mounts are junk. They degrade and break. They also allow side to side movement which is not a good thing at the highest pivot point considering it can transfer to the rear wheel. But then again there are those who think rear wheel movement is hogwash...but then they probably don't actually ride their bikes.
Click to expand...
The rubber mounts are inexpensive and are easily replaceable every ten or so years. Any side to side movement comes mainly from the front ISO, a little from the rear and even less from the swingarm. What the stock headsteady does is allow for very slight movement in any direction as in to dampen. I suppose you have the MKIII spring in place? I hear they never fail......NOT!


I think the CNW design is the best one available. That's why I have one on my MKIII. And that is just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree, it is one of the nicest one out there. But, other than the finish and the booties over the joints, its function is identical to the $20 homemade unit. They are what they are, no more, no less.

That being said, to each his own.
Click to expand...
You got that right!
 
pete.v said:
Any side to side movement comes mainly from the front ISO, a little from the rear and even less from the swingarm. What the stock headsteady does is allow for very slight movement in any direction as in to dampen. I suppose you have the MKIII spring in place? I hear they never fail......NOT!
Click to expand...

I have no spring. It is not necessary. You probably have one on yours tho. :D

You are wrong about side to side movement from the stock head steady. The highest pivot point causes the most movement to the rear wheel. This is discussed all over this forum and the web. Most people understand this. This assumes the front and rear iso's are in good condition and adjusted correctly. This is the problem with this discussion and most of the ones on this board. Without proper set-up of the isolastic system any argument is valid.

Adjust your front and rear iso's and take your head steady off and report back. :D

The CNW head steady has lubricated joints that are more durable. None of the other's have this. When you ride your bike once a year you don't need any of this and your rubber mounts will never wear out...until they get old and deteriorate.

Again Pete...to each his own.
 
dennisgb said:
I have no spring. It is not necessary. You probably have one on yours tho. :D
Click to expand...
You are not running a spring? How do you account for vertical movement? Do you let the front and rear ios's take all the load? Don't you know that any up or down movement will cause the motor to twist with an unsupported DTHS? You should offer it some support. The PR head steady is self supported, no need for the spring.

You are wrong about side to side movement from the stock head steady. The highest pivot point causes the most movement to the rear wheel.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that, with the front and rear iso's are in good condition and adjusted correctly, wheel movement left and right primarily comes from the top of the head? To each his own.

Adjust your front and rear iso's and take your head steady off and report back. :D
Click to expand...
You seem to think I have some sort of handling issue. I may not ride thousands of miles a season but I do get a couple thousand in and they are oh so smooth. I have gone into great details to master these setups to attain the best possible ride.
What I do have a problem with is when someone sells their soul to a certain idea or concept and someone elses opinion contradicts said idea or concept and the they get a bit irrate and offended and when they say "to each his own" they really mean "you're full of shit". I say to you, there denny, to each his own.
Try a PRHS and report back. Until you have, you can only speculate and/or assume. They are about $120. Does that cheese you even more?

The CNW head steady has lubricated joints that are more durable. None of the other's have this.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the function is identical to one without these attribute. Yes/No?

I've been setting ios's and the like successfully since 79, were you born yet? I can only speculate and/or assume not.

Again, I believe the CNW DT type headsteady is the best DT type headsteady money can buy "BAR NONE". But by my own experiences, I simply do not agree with the concept. Without some vertical support the motor is subject to twist, even if only very slightly will throw any fine tuning of the front and rear isolastics out the window. Simply sitting on the bike or rising and down over undulations will have a negitive effect on the iso setup with a DT type unsupported head steady. If a spring system is employed, then some vertical support is achived but there is no dampening with this system and in some respects can be concidered rigid at the head.
This is simple stuff and common sense and experience dictates what I say. Some people just get blinded by all the glitter.
To each his own.

Happy belated VD.
 
pete.v said:
Are you saying that, with the front and rear iso's are in good condition and adjusted correctly, wheel movement left and right primarily comes from the top of the head? To each his own.
Click to expand...

You obviously do not understand triangulation...or how the isolastic system works. :shock:

pete.v said:
I've been setting ios's and the like successfully since 79, were you born yet? I can only speculate and/or assume not.
Click to expand...

A typical Pete.v comment. Somehow superior to everyone else.

I am 64 years old and bought my first Norton new in 1976...before you ever started setting iso's sir. Come down from that mountain you are sitting on and show a little respect to others.
 
1) The isolastic concept is based on the mathematical idea that three points determine a plane; 2) The "moment" about any point (torque) is proportional to the distance between the forces. Wider spacing yields more resistance to the upsetting torque (side force).

In general, the front and rear isolastic mounts form the first two out of three points that determine the plane of the engine-gearbox-rear wheel unit. The upper motor mount is the third point defining this plane, but the stock mount is not adequate for this purpose because it compresses and allows the plane to rotate. When it flexes, it defaults its load bearing capacity down to the tops of the front and rear isolastics. This reduces the effective load bearing height of the triangle to about two inches (the diameter of the PTFE washer), which has to resist the input torque generated by the weight of the machine and rider, as well as the cornering forces leveraged in by the radius of the rear wheel assembly.

Specifically, the rubber mounts compress and allow the top of the motor unit to move sideways. This motion is across the axis of the wheel plane, which allows the suspended unit to deflect, causing the PTFE washers to wear unevenly and prematurely. The effect is more pronounced at the rear washers, but is a factor at the front ones as well. The end result is that the rear wheel deflects out-of-plane with the front wheel, which is not desirable for good handling.

Cornering forces, along with the leverage that the rear wheel has on that top mount, are considerably more than you might think. In fact, in this situation you can look at the stock isolastic mounts as being a fulcrum, the rear wheel as a lever to the fulcrum, and the top mount as the only limiting resistance to motion at the fulcrum. It would appear that whoever decided to use the exhaust system rubbers as the top motor-unit mount may have looked at the input lever (distance from the rear tire contact patch to the rear isolastic) as being roughly equal to the output lever (distance from the rear isolastic to the top motor mount) and decided that compressible rubber would be adequate to control side movement.

The rubbers do compress, and this makes the stock isolastic mounts the fulcrum of a teeter-totter, with one end in (limited) motion and with a lot of force coming in at the other. Your PTFE washers are in the middle, and bear the brunt of this. They were never designed to take this much pressure, which is evidenced by the way they wear: they all wear more at the outer edge because the outer edge gets loaded beyond its material strength. The greater the clearance (and wear) at the PTFE washers, the more accelerated further wear becomes.

You can continue to adjust the isolastics to compensate for the wear, or reduce the side to side movement with a proper head steady...without rubber that deflects.
 
A typical Pete.v comment. Somehow superior to everyone else.

I am 64 years old and bought my first Norton new in 1976...before you ever started setting iso's sir. Come down from that mountain you are sitting on and show a little respect to others.
Click to expand...

And you, you old fart, are obviously entitled to your opinions too.

God bless ya, D.
 
I'm 68 years old and bought my first Norton in 1970. I'm going to hazard a guess that Dr. Stephan Bauer, from Rolls Royce, knew a good deal about what he was doing when he engineered the isolastic system for the Commando. I would also expect he knew enough to calculate the forces involved on the bike and to do significant testing of the design. Like most aftermarket gizmo's that are sold for racing and or engineering "improvement", most are marginally better than the original design and at worst upset the apple cart. However, machine owners by nature want to upgrade, improve, go faster, etc., and so provide a market for all the gizmo's that come out.

When I look at the system utilized, I conclude that the two big iso's do the brunt of the job and are designed to reach a limit of travel. It is fairly obvious that the head steady is doing a minimal amount of dampening work. Rubber pucks work better than springs do to dampen movement. If you continue to tighten up the head steady to the point of rigidity you are now upsetting the apple cart. You are also placing undue stress and torque on the cylinder barrels probably to the point of pulling studs out.

My current 71 rides on original iso's but newer head steady pucks. I now have a touch of movement in the swing arm. However, the bike is dead smooth and vibration free. Just like I imagine it is supposed to be. All the Commando's I have owned performed the same. I would hazard a guess that if you are getting any buzz in your bike, you have upset the apple cart.

I am a self taught unskilled rider. However, no other bike has ever been able to stay with my Norton in the turns. I get so far ahead of my pals that I have to stop and let them catch up. All you have to do is ride any other bike of the era to see how lacking they are in handling compared to a Commando. Bottom line: leave the frigging thing alone and ride like the wind.
 
I would also expect he knew enough to calculate the forces involved on the bike and to do significant testing of the design.
Click to expand...

some of the surviving riders and families of the early "widow maker" Commando frames may well disagree with your assessment of Dr Bauer's competency
 
1up3down said:
I would also expect he knew enough to calculate the forces involved on the bike and to do significant testing of the design.
Click to expand...

some of the surviving riders and families of the early "widow maker" Commando frames may well disagree with your assessment of Dr Bauer's competency
Click to expand...

+1 :D

Along with tight pockets in a failing company.

That's why they took an old engine design and tried to figure out how to stop it from shaking your teeth loose instead of design a new one. :shock:
 
Please provide data re the number of people killed or injured by the bikes built with the widow maker frame.

Almost all novel engineering design ideas require a teething period to work out defects.

Are you are merely parroting mis truths?
 
aceaceca said:
I'm going to hazard a guess that Dr. Stephan Bauer, from Rolls Royce, knew a good deal about what he was doing when he engineered the isolastic system for the Commando. I would also expect he knew enough to calculate the forces involved on the bike and to do significant testing of the design.
Click to expand...

I think Bob Trigg and Bernard Hooper were responsible for most of the Isolastic development.
According to Trigg, speaking on the Duke Norton video, after doing some rough calculations, it was found that during testing, the rubbers they'd selected isolated vibration above 6,000 RPM, Dr Stefan Bauer then said "cut the bushes in half", this reduced the vibration to below 4,000 RPM, they then cut them in half again, which lowered the vibration to under 2,300 RPM. :wink:
 
The "engineering" process was not what would be considered good engineering today. Not that it was their fault. They were pushing to keep up with the Japanese threat and trying to salvage an old design. They didn't have the technology or the money to do it right. By the time the Commando was designed it was too late.

If the stock head steady was so good, then why do most people get rid of it? Because it is a weak point in the design not because there are fancier head steady's out there. The entire isolastic system is a bit of a folly considering the engine and drive system can move relative to the frame and front wheel due to the forces in use.

The decisions that were made are quite astounding in retrospect. Ditch one of the best frame designs ever (the featherbed) and build a weaker, maintenance prone floating system that at it's best is only adequate. They knew the potential for problems could be devastating, but they had no choice...trying to keep up with the buyer's who expected better products...then came the Combat and electric start. Both engineering marvels. This is what happens when you are chasing your tail. Not good engineering by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Head Steady Install Question


:D
 
Please provide data re the number of people killed or injured by the bikes built with the widow maker frame.
Click to expand...

now, you know that the dead don't file law suits

do you really believe the early frames were called "widow makers" by that era's Commando riders for some comedy relief?

your question is like saying that if one can't state how many children died before automotive child seat belt laws were passed that seatbelt law was suspect, ineffective
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

alan hodge
  • Locked
dave taylor head steady install
2
Replies
21
Views
4,932
Craig
Craig
nomadwarmachine
  • Locked
Norvil Belt Drive Install Questions
2
Replies
22
Views
3,611
nomadwarmachine
nomadwarmachine
lazyeye6
  • Locked
Dave Taylor head steady install problem
Replies
8
Views
1,525
Esmerela
Esmerela
nortriubuell
  • Locked
Commando 850 Cylinder Allen bolts install question
Replies
7
Views
1,573
robs ss
robs ss
Sport75073
  • Locked
DT Head Steady Install problems
Replies
12
Views
1,268
The Buckeye Rider
T
Back
Top