Hydraulic steering damper

Please remind me on when the last time you road your Norton powered Seeley? let alone comment on the Commando frame.

o0norton0o said:

WRONG... You have never gotten the details of rake and trail correct in the few short years I've been here on this site. You clearly don't understand the physics. It's gotten to point of being annoying because you start all these "handling topics" in the forum and go on to try and sound knowledgable while getting the physics wrong every time...

The early commando's had LESS trail,.... and therefore had quicker handling, but because of less trail, they were inherently LESS stable... It's been explained to you numerous times...

Click to expand...

Are you talking about when you are braking into corners or accelerating out of corners ? As the trail decreases, the bike usually becomes more difficult to turn. As it increases the bike will usually tighten it's line. Try riding around a corner while holding the front brake on. Stability does not mean much to me. My bike feels unstable going into corners, but extremely stable coming out, however it is neutral steering going into corners but self-steers in the correct direction as I accelerate out of corners. With that much trail, it should wobble as I accelerate when cranked over. The steering damper stops that.
Some guys push the fork staunchions up through the yokes to get their bike to turn-in quicker as they approach corners. If the trail is reduced, they probably have more difficulty getting around, once they are in the corner.
I raced regularly, about once per month for about 12 years. I could not count the number of times I have been in corners too fast and have had to decide whether to brake or accelerate, to get around without crashing. If your bike oversteers as you accelerate, you are in a much better situation to ride aggressively. Stability is a minor consideration.

When you talk about physics, I studied third year physics at tertiary level. If you can rationalise motorcycle handling on the basis of physics, you are a better man than I am and better than most engineers.

In the videos about handling which Mike has produced, he describes something as 'more aggressive trail' - what does that mean ?

acotrel said:

it is often better to turn on more power than try to brake. As the front comes up the bike usually tightens it's line.

Click to expand...

if the predicament is running wide then the opposite is true, you'll straighten your line by accelerating, not tighten it, though I would suggest staying away from the brake unless absolutely necessary, there's plenty of pros who only work the throttle control through corners

As I said, The physics of the castor effect has been explained to you here previously in other threads that YOU started, and it took an entire week of people disagreeing with you, before you seemed to understand and change your tune. I'm not explaining it again, so you can start proposing stupid "Well then how come this or that?" questions to me for the next week and a half...

If you are posting this stuff to educate us, at least get the simple physics right...

He's our subject matter expert. A legend in his own mind.

I have a Duc with a steering damper, and riding on the same rough twisty roads with the Norton, I have noticed times when the steering damper would have been beneficial.

So, am considering going to the wrecker and getting a unit there and mounting it on the Norton.

To Al's original question, can folks who have one post some measurements of body, arm and any other details with pics and performance comments?

I’m 5’10” , with gear close to 185lbs , short legs 31” arms are 30” my ‘72 Roadster has the UK bars, JRB Landsdowne fork upgrade with hagon on rear ... bike is much more confidence inspiring since I added the hydraulic steering damper , especially noticeable on our poorly maintained secondary roads .... hope that what you after

Used to have the Norton steering damper kit on my bike for years and thought it was a necessary evil. My bike would shake its head if hitting a bump while leaned over or just shutting the throttle above 80mph. Once I got a link rod headsteady there was no longer any need for it. The bike is completely stable now. The cylinder is the same as used on Kawasaki at the time (70's). The factory kit uses an extra small bracket and bolt to stabilize the main bracket which connects to the flimsy downtubes.
I think It would be better to put the money into a decent headsteady.

My damper was there half season before the DT steady , so difficult to compare , should mention on the front end the sliders, yokes, caliper and rotor are all original all else has been upgraded with original sizes through out .....

Gentlemen, you are observing or participating in a classic Norton bunfight that can be simplistically summarized as follows:
Theory A
Norton Commandos frequently display weird head shaking behaviours that can be tamed by a head steady.
Theory B
If your Norton Commando has a tendency to shake its head, then something is clearly wrong and it should be rectified by solution V, W, X, Y, Z etc etc.

The solutions offered by Theory B converts frequently include:
-worn tires
-too much clearance in your isolastics
-an incorrectly adjusted head steady
-worn steering bearings
-worn wheel bearings
-swing arm bushed
-the wrong brand of tires
-not matching brands or patterns of tires
-clapped out rear shocks
-incorrect alignment or rear wheel
-bent frame
-Removing your hands from the bars. Don't remove even one hand from the bars!

Give me a break. And let's call a spade a spade. Many Commandos tend to shake their heads. If it was a modern bike, the manufacturer would have their ass sued off for selling something that is frequently problematic and occasionally dangerous. If you have a Commando that doesn't shake its head, good on you.
If your Commando shakes its head, good luck. You are fighting an uphill battle, because the bikes have a design flaw that many people are in denial about.
Any problem that has this many suggested solutions is a flawed technology. If a steering dampener works for you, good enough. It is noteworthy that the factory sold them as a factory option.
Let the bun tossing continue.

Craig said:

I’m 5’10” , with gear close to 185lbs , short legs 31” arms are 30” my ‘72 Roadster has the UK bars, JRB Landsdowne fork upgrade with hagon on rear ... bike is much more confidence inspiring since I added the hydraulic steering damper , especially noticeable on our poorly maintained secondary roads .... hope that what you afterView attachment 17596View attachment 17596

Click to expand...

Sorry I hit the like button but it should be the opposite. Your tires look like k81's which are notorious for squirrel Behavior. Drive over tar snakes or grated bridges lately??? this tire shows you how a norton will hunt back to front tire. Quite un-nerving.

Get a better tire.. try Avon Road Riders.

gortnipper said:

To Al's original question, can folks who have one post some measurements of body, arm and any other details with pics and performance comments?

Click to expand...

Craig said:

I’m 5’10” , with gear close to 185lbs , short legs 31” arms are 30” my ‘72 Roadster has the UK bars, JRB Landsdowne fork upgrade with hagon on rear ... bike is much more confidence inspiring since I added the hydraulic steering damper , especially noticeable on our poorly maintained secondary roads .... hope that what you after

Click to expand...

LOL! I meant the body and arm of the steering damper!

I fitted a steering damper to mine a little while ago. It has never given me a tank slapped or even a head shake, but it sometimes ‘felt’ like it might, like it could at any moment. This only happened when on track days, and in certain circumstances, it’s never felt like that on the road.

I fully confess that this could be all in my mind. But even if it is, the damper works!

I forget if it was Steve Harris (Harris Performance) or Ron Williams (Maxton), who, when posed with the question of whether bikes should need a damper or if it was just fixing a poor chassis design, basically said that ALL bikes should have one. His point was that ALL motorcycle chassis design is a compromise, and the causes of a tank slapper are many and varied, and whilst you may never have one, if you do they can be fatal. Of course, he was probably thinking of modern bikes with modern power and performance at the time.

Fast Eddie said:

he was probably thinking of modern bikes with modern power and performance.

Click to expand...

You bike is almost there!

Fast Eddie said:

I fitted a steering damper to mine a little while ago. It has never given me a tank slapped or even a head shake, but it sometimes ‘felt’ like it might, like it could at any moment. This only happened when on track days, it’s never felt like that on the road.

Click to expand...

What type did you fit.

gortnipper said:

You bike is almost there!

Click to expand...

Yeah it’s getting there, I just need to squeeze out another 120bhp or so...!

gortnipper said:

What type did you fit.

Click to expand...

I fitted the NYC Norton kit. I couldn’t bring myself to bolt on a piece of angle iron bracket, and his machined alloy brackets and fittings are the dogs... I also wanted a damper that’s easy to adjust and give a wide adjustability, although I tend to have it on a very low setting.

Ahh... the Ohlin$ wont fit, since I have standard dual coils.

Fast Eddie said:

I fitted the NYC Norton kit. I couldn’t bring myself to bolt on a piece of angle iron bracket, and his machined alloy brackets and fittings are the dogs... I also wanted a damper that’s easy to adjust and give a wide adjustability, although I tend to have it on a very low setting.

Click to expand...

I really like that Nigel - may get one of those! (much to Ken's disgust - oh well, I suppose we all have to disgust someone - may as well be him)

Edit: I see you have the "frame bracket" facing forward where NYC shows it facing rearward. What's your reasoning?