Max HP with reliability?
- Thread starter Tony F
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,065
ludwig said
ludwig, what changes have you made to your front suspension (if any). The reason I ask is that compared to modern day bikes, the standard suspension on a Norton Commando is noticeably poor, and doesn't instill total confidence when pushing on (my usual style) on poorly surfaced back roads. I did read on a site a few weeks ago, that somebody in USA has modified some Honda CBR front fork internals so that they can be fitted straight into the Commando sliders, but I can't remember now where, or how to find the site.
I just wondered if you had done anything radical like this?
ludwig, what changes have you made to your front suspension (if any). The reason I ask is that compared to modern day bikes, the standard suspension on a Norton Commando is noticeably poor, and doesn't instill total confidence when pushing on (my usual style) on poorly surfaced back roads. I did read on a site a few weeks ago, that somebody in USA has modified some Honda CBR front fork internals so that they can be fitted straight into the Commando sliders, but I can't remember now where, or how to find the site.
I just wondered if you had done anything radical like this?
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,065
Cash, the internals on mine are newish. I do nearly always ride two-up but my wife only weighs about 8 stone, and I am about 11.5 stone, so not like we are two great hippos smothering the suspension.
Maybe I should try a slightly heavier oil? I accept the (inferior by todays standards) fork action goes hand in hand with owning a Norton, but just was wondering what Ludwig may have (or not as the case might be)done to imrove the front suspension
Maybe I should try a slightly heavier oil? I accept the (inferior by todays standards) fork action goes hand in hand with owning a Norton, but just was wondering what Ludwig may have (or not as the case might be)done to imrove the front suspension
The older Roadholders were discontinued at the same time as the Featherbed frame. Both the Commando and the AJS motocross bikes were fitted with forks that were based on the Italian (?) Ceriani, where the larger diameter section containing the valving, etc, was the slider and the smaller diameter tubes were fixed. Given the theories about unsprung weight being bad news, I never did understand the logic, but I suppose the fact that the main bits were cast aluminium rather than steel may have been significant.
It's possible that the prototypes actually had Cerianis, but the production versions were made (I think) by Girling. They did the rear dampers for both models.
We did have a hard time with the rear suspension on the works M-X bikes. Because of the frame (a Commando derivative) being so stiff, a lot more work was required of the rear shocks. It was mot uncommon to see the paint on the shocks blistered off at the end of a race. One of our mechanics got quite serious burns when he went to change a set of rear shocks on a bike that had been parked the best part of an hour.
Plans were in the works for a new rear end with a much bigger diameter monoshock with more complicated valving, but the company got into trouble before the development got very far. I don't know if that change made it into the bike after it was bought by Bombardier/KTM.
It's possible that the prototypes actually had Cerianis, but the production versions were made (I think) by Girling. They did the rear dampers for both models.
We did have a hard time with the rear suspension on the works M-X bikes. Because of the frame (a Commando derivative) being so stiff, a lot more work was required of the rear shocks. It was mot uncommon to see the paint on the shocks blistered off at the end of a race. One of our mechanics got quite serious burns when he went to change a set of rear shocks on a bike that had been parked the best part of an hour.
Plans were in the works for a new rear end with a much bigger diameter monoshock with more complicated valving, but the company got into trouble before the development got very far. I don't know if that change made it into the bike after it was bought by Bombardier/KTM.
Ludwig:
Although I'd be the last to claim that the original specs were perfect (it was Norton, after all), we did do quite a lot of dynamic testing to optimise fork geometry.
We found the relationship between fork angle and trail (from the extended line of the forks at the road surface to the tire contact patch) to be quite critical. Since you've changed the fork angle and the tire size (going down from the original 19" to 18"), it's possible that your directional stability and cornering have been adversely affected. More recent experimenters in this area will know better than I, but rhe tests showed that just a degree or so on fork angle made a noticeable difference.
Under heavy braking of course, the splaying of the front downtubes is an issue. We never found that while I was at N-V because that 2LS front brake was such a turkey!
Although I'd be the last to claim that the original specs were perfect (it was Norton, after all), we did do quite a lot of dynamic testing to optimise fork geometry.
We found the relationship between fork angle and trail (from the extended line of the forks at the road surface to the tire contact patch) to be quite critical. Since you've changed the fork angle and the tire size (going down from the original 19" to 18"), it's possible that your directional stability and cornering have been adversely affected. More recent experimenters in this area will know better than I, but rhe tests showed that just a degree or so on fork angle made a noticeable difference.
Under heavy braking of course, the splaying of the front downtubes is an issue. We never found that while I was at N-V because that 2LS front brake was such a turkey!
- Status