Progressive springs for Roadholder

Status
Not open for further replies.
laurentdom

laurentdom

Joined
Nov 30, 2012
Messages
245
Country flag
Hi All,

The current springs in my Roadholder (Dominator stanchions, Commando sliders, Lansdowne Engineering hydraulics) are of the correct length according to the manual, but they seem to weaken more and more.
They are the same age as the rest of the chassis i.e. 56 years!.

It's OK when cruising but a bit harsh at low speed on sleeping policemen for instance.
Oil quantity and viscosity is OK and it makes no change when adjusting the Compression and Reboung settings.

I think it's time to try new springs.

Has anyone experienced progressive springs?

If so, where could I get them (in Europe preferably)?

Many thanks!

Laurent
 
I think JRB suggested stock springs with his kit , when I asked a few years ago now .... good luck
Craig
 
I have Progressive springs in an otherwise-stock fork. They are initially softer than stock and then stiffen up as the fork compresses. I think you would have to ride identical bikes with the two types of springs back-to-back to be able to tell the difference. Still have the stock springs if you need a pair that aren't sacked.
 
I fitted Lansdowne internals with the progressive springs that were in my bike they just do not work together, they sagged a lot, ended up putting stock springs in and it was perfect.......just buy the proper new replacements they are not expensive..........
 
I fitted progressive springs when I first fitted JRB'S damper kit , tossed them out three weeks latter as they made the front end very harsh, I prefer a std spring and good dampening
 
My feeling is that progressive fork springs are a modern idea, and the bikes that have them usually have a lot of suspension travel, so accommodate them better. Using them on a Norton is like fitting fat tyres to an old British bike - they are unnecessary and can stuff the handling. 'Because I can' is never a good reason for doing anything. What happens in theory might be entirely different in practice. When you use Roadholder forks on an old British bike, they have been developed through trial and error during racing, on a frame configuration which is very different from that of a modern bike. If you find something which is an improvement, you are lucky.
 
acotrel said:
My feeling is that progressive fork springs are a modern idea, and the bikes that have them usually have a lot of suspension travel, so accommodate them better. Using them on a Norton is like fitting fat tyres to an old British bike - they are unnecessary and can stuff the handling. 'Because I can' is never a good reason for doing anything. What happens in theory might be entirely different in practice. When you use Roadholder forks on an old British bike, they have been developed through trial and error during racing, on a frame configuration which is very different from that of a modern bike. If you find something which is an improvement, you are lucky.
Click to expand...

I concur. You loose an additional 1/2 inch (or so) of fork travel with the static sag with the progressives. The remaining travel seems harsher to me. I tried a set on my `71 and didn't like them. I installed a new stock set in my `73 and they are quite nice. Stick with stock springs. They knew what they were doing.
 
I believe the after-market damper cartridges for Roadholders are an improvement, however I've never had the necessity. I use Cerianis off a Ducati 450, and it might be a matter of 'no sense, no feeling'.
 
I have progressives that I fit about 15 years ago, and they were great for me compared to the originals. I am a big guy, 6'1" and ~210lbs and they worked great.

I will give them a go when I put my bike back together with the Lansdowns I have, since it is what i have.
 
No I didn't have them made. I think I must have gotten them from British Cycle Supply or Pokes in Seattle.
 
I can understand how a heavy rider might need higher rate springs, however I don't think that Roadholders on a Commando have enough travel to accommodate progressive springs. If somebody is using them in a racer, I'd be interested to know what the advantages are. My feeling is that most race circuits are rough enough to make the progressive part of the fork springs redundant. Progressive springs on the rear shocks might be advantageous, especially if you a riding with hard compound tyres. However I use normal springs on the rear of the Seeley and to get the bike handling right, they compress until the bolt under the seat sometimes touches the tyre.
 
falling for the marketing hype I installed a new set of progressive fork springs, felt they were too stiff and replaced them with stockers after a four year trial
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Thomasa
Shock oil for old Mulholland/Boge shocks.
Replies
18
Views
904
Schwany
Schwany
AgentX
Roadholder operation/ G15-CS modified version
Replies
1
Views
1,269
AgentX
AgentX
Back
Top