The Keith1069 Headsteady

Not much uglier than mine. :mrgreen:

I dunno know but looks a lot like a Tagileri link in alloy instead of angle iron. Amazing to me that stubby a link don't bind d/t its short radius arc. Glad of it though as may shorten mine up for more tank tunnel clearance. Have ya nicked yourself on the sharp-ish corners yet?

Haven't tried the tank yet, but it doesn't stick out any more than the Taglieri one, maybe less. I always hit the corners with the file after the saw, so they're pretty dull. Now if anything interferes when it starts working? What I liked is I only have one nut separating the mount points from the joints and no tapping 3/16" aluminum. It's all bolted together. I should just have the frame mount welded together and get rid of the bolts.

Dave, have you inspected your joints yet? Are they wearing? I think they're plastic or carbon fibre of some sort?

Dave
69S

swooshdave said:

Not much uglier than mine. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

LOL
I got a laugh at that statement, but impressed with both your ingenuity and engineering trials.
I have two DT headsteadys and not looking back. But I am eating popcorn and watching the ramblings. Keep it up.
Cheers
CNN

I think it's much nicer than the DT, thank you very much. Not that I'm biased. Wait till I get it cleaned up.

Dave

Peel's over rev event cut testing her helm joints life time in hi grit conditions but likely just gets smoother with quite a bit of wear slack as any adjustment off of most slack in my set up gave feedback. If ya like a bit scary lessons try a ride w/o the link, will forget its off - until some bit extra loads hit, like paint lines or dodge crap in road or wind gusts while leaning nicely...

My quandary is all the other top links are robust but Peels is spindly compliant so don't know if it matters a whitworth or not.

BTW its a neat trim install so too bad tank covers it, but the curious may snoop closer, like us now.

I'll shake it out. But I don't ride like the devils heatwave.

Dave

I have been reluctant to comment for I am just one mans opinion. Dogt, keep the feel of your old ride close in your mind. Try to recall how it felt threw the gears, at speed and in the corners when testing your new DT type unit. Remember, they are hard to make wrong for they are what they are. Don't get me wrong, this is not to take away from your personal skills.

Setting them up is a simple matter of tweaking them so they are neutral when sitting on the bike off the stands.

The reason I comment is that I want you to give it a good honest trial, with a good honest setup so you can give a good honest report.

For me, I always ran a boxed 850 headsteady without the springs and stuff. When running the DT I got some erroneous vibes and a feeling of being unsettled, wishy washy if you will. When returning to the boxed headstedy I was comfortable again, with the vibrations predictable at all the normal RPMs. I have since gone with the PR headsteady and it is on another level. Both smooth and solid throughout a wider range of RPM's.

Please keep an open mind and be honest

pv,

thanks for the comments. But I may not be the best to comment on the results. I don't take this bike in tight corners at 60 or greater any more. Actually my desire is to get it to feel better in the shaking department. Since I rebuilt it, I have thought it shakes a lot more than I remember, but then the iso washers were powder, so the iso clearance was probably on the order of .05-.08" and there was no shaking at the bars. What got me on this project was when I got the Hemmings verniers, and realized how much the front isos were sagging because I took off the gaters and saw it. They were probably on the smaller donuts just sitting there. So I thought one night when I didn't have anything else to think about and had read about the spring thingie, maybe I could pull those front isos up with the spring and get the isos in a position that didn't start off compressed from the get go. Well the spring didn't work out to great, but actually I haven't tried it yet. The Tagleiri head steady design was just something I wanted to try. So now I've got them both, the Taglieri and the spring, but not tried them yet. I'll keep an open mind, but so far I haven't felt any difference in any adjustments I've made with the Hemmings adjusters, which is a bit disappointing.

I'll report, but don't use my results for anything you expect to use for definite information. I've learned that it's usually not that easy. As usual I'm expecting drastic results for not much input and it's not going to happen.

Now is the PR head steady the Norvil or similar one? Ludwig's is much like that one only much simpler and I think the Old Britts one is similar methodology.

Dave

I purchased some tooling and stock and have been making these. I have one on my combat now and an aluminum experimental version on the alloy bike. The design is used by at least a half a dozen people who make and sell them. I have only had the combat on the road for a block. But time will tell how well it works. I only have parts left to make 4 more then I will be out of the game for a while.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/150691726742?ss ... 408wt_1362

Since this is back in the news and my tank was off the other day to investigate a rattle I replaced mine with the old 850 steady. One of the rod ends had play in it and I think this was rattling badly as the engine revved up. No problem at speed. I noticed is that while it didn't change the feel of the bike cranked over it was smoother at high revs and much rougher in the 2200-3000 zone. The bike certainly didn't feel any less taut than with the solid steady, well that was my impression. :?

bwolfie said:

I purchased some tooling and stock and have been making these. http://www.ebay.com/itm/150691726742?ss ... 408wt_1362

Click to expand...

By the way, in one of my recent clean-up-the-shop sessions, i stumbled across a little unmarked box.

...it's marked now.

That's great news. i was really worried about that one. As I tracked it to your house. So I know it made it there. Now put it on something so it dosn't get lost again.

DogT said:

pv,

What got me on this project was when I got the Hemmings verniers, and realized how much the front isos were sagging because I took off the gaters and saw it. They were probably on the smaller donuts just sitting there. So I thought one night when I didn't have anything else to think about and had read about the spring thingie, maybe I could pull those front isos up with the spring and get the isos in a position that didn't start off compressed from the get go. Well the spring didn't work out to great, but actually I haven't tried it yet.
I'll report, but don't use my results for anything you expect to use for definite information. I've learned that it's usually not that easy. As usual I'm expecting drastic results for not much input and it's not going to happen.

Dave

Click to expand...

Dave
I think that you need to replace the Iso rubber assembly in your front (and rear) for that matter. From the description that you quoted, this spring idea will not cure that problem. :roll: Thinking back to a previous thread you had this problem of vibration could have created tank support issue. :idea: I am wondering is it the Iso rubbers all along?
Andover Norton sells the nice soft Iso Rubbers. Once things get centered then your new top iso should work. The spring is adjusted in small increments to take out any slight vibs by either more or less tension by turning the nut. But this is tedious as it is hard to get at and make adjustments when road testing.
Just my thoughts.
Regards,
CNN

Keep in mind one can make any iso doughnut as soft as ya like and progressive as desired by beveling various angles and rim widths on bench grinder to what ever you think might work better as I've done on two Combat's vernier upgraded mounts. If spare large doughnuts left over they are best stored inside the rear mount.

All my donuts are new, at least 2 years ago and they looked fine when I pulled the front mount off. Got them from OB from the 71 parts list with the Andover name on the package, so they should be the soft type. I was reading in my old 68 workshop manual, and they recommend .020-.025 in the front and .010-.015 in the rear. Since I'm not racing this thing around the corners I may try that. I've got them pretty tight now at .010. I'm just remembering how smooth it used to be, but that was because the washers were dust and I never adjusted the clearance. I knew nothing then. Ignorance is bliss.

We'll see, I'm putting it all back together now. I checked the tank clearance with no pads and it's fine. I did whack a corner off the bracket that goes on the head. I just hope nothing interferes, it looks like it shouldn't unless I get more than 1/2" of movement at the head.

Dave
69S

DogT said:

I was reading in my old 68 workshop manual, and they recommend .020-.025 in the front and .010-.015 in the rear. Since I'm not racing this thing around the corners I may try that. I've got them pretty tight now at .010.
Dave
69S

Click to expand...

Dave,
I found that you can run looser iso's after you put on one of the aftermarket headsteadies without giving up anything in the handling department. You can have less vibes and better control too. It's interesting that the workshop manual recommends a tighter setting for the rear iso. I've always found that to be the case too.

This is kinda late since you've already buttoned it up, but you might want to think about putting on seals if you have the room. I put about 5000mi on a DT headsteady and it's wornout. I tried to lube it at one point but I think it's a matter of dirt. They might benefit from larger rodends too. It isn't a matter of load capacity, it's wear and longevity.

I just got a headsteady from Jim and it's pretty much what you would expect from him. Great design and oversized rodends with seals that will probably last a long time. But if one wanted to make their own they could probably get the same result by copying the important stuff. That would be at least 3/8" rodends with seals.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/a ... ealsit.php

Thanks for the info rp,

McMaster had seals for the ones I got, I forgot to get them. Yeah, I think if I did it again, I'd get the ones with the chromed steel balls and the grease fitting and also in 3/8" instead of the 5/16". I was surprised how small these things are. When you look at the drawing it looks like a handful. It's not like I couldn't replace them, but I don't know if the spacing would work in 3/8", but at most I'd have to make a new head bracket unless the 3/8 one interfered with the hardware.

I would have loved to have Jim's one, I have a hard time spending that kind of bucks on that item, not that I can't afford it, I'm a cheapskate, just ask my wife. Plus it was about 2-3 days of playing around with stuff I enjoy.

Out of curiosity, how does Jim's keep the frame bracket from rotating? Will tightening the bolts into the frame tighten it enough not to bang on the tube? I was trying to get mine tight against the tube, but I didn't so I may put a piece of something in there to take up the slop. I also should have gotten Allen sockets for the frame bracket, I still can.

We'll see what happens, at least it gave me a chance to mess around with things I wanted to improve, like get the exhaust system away from the primary, it's been hitting and change a few bolts that were short with the nylocs.

BTW, the exhaust valves are a nice tan color after 1K miles.

Dave
69S

the ones I have made I used the 3/8 ends with no trouble. you DON'T want to grease them as it will collect grit and make grinding compound.

DogT said:

Thanks for the info rp,

McMaster had seals for the ones I got, I forgot to get them. Yeah, I think if I did it again, I'd get the ones with the chromed steel balls and the grease fitting and also in 3/8" instead of the 5/16". I was surprised how small these things are. When you look at the drawing it looks like a handful. It's not like I couldn't replace them, but I don't know if the spacing would work in 3/8", but at most I'd have to make a new head bracket unless the 3/8 one interfered with the hardware.

Dave
69S

Click to expand...

DogT said:

I would have loved to have Jim's one, I have a hard time spending that kind of bucks on that item, not that I can't afford it, I'm a cheapskate, just ask my wife. Plus it was about 2-3 days of playing around with stuff I enjoy.

Click to expand...

I hear you. You wouldn't believe the stuff I fabricated on my bike for the enjoyment of doing it. If it turned out as good as stock then it was a success. If it was an improvement then it was a resounding triumph.

DogT said:

Out of curiosity, how does Jim's keep the frame bracket from rotating? Will tightening the bolts into the frame tighten it enough not to bang on the tube? I was trying to get mine tight against the tube, but I didn't so I may put a piece of something in there to take up the slop. I also should have gotten Allen sockets for the frame bracket, I still can.

Click to expand...

There is a rounded trough milled in the bottom of the bracket. It doesn't touch the tube, maybe 20thou, or less clearance. You have to remember that the front/back loading is nil. It's all side to side. There is no way you can tighten the bolts enough to keep the bracket from moving if there was any load, luckly there isn't.

BTW, the deal with nylocs is that they are not designed to be self-locking. They're only meant to keep things from falling off if they ever get loose. If you want to get lock nuts then get some of these. They look cool too.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/h ... S21042.php