Aftermarket head steadys

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lawd! what difference do it make for folks like me who cruise backroads 55mph-ish?

Agreed, little. But those times you do want to accelerate through a tighter curve with exaggerated lean the handling is sharper. Less wallow.
There are many ways to improve an OEM Commando and spend a lot of money in the process. The head steady wouldn’t be at the top of my list after I have done most of the upgrades. That said, for the racing crowd, it would be a “must do”.
 
So in upgrading to one of these head steadies expect a handling improvement and no increase in vibration?

Glen
My bike vibrates a little more than stock with an extra iso under the gearbox
And a norvil style head steady
But the price of the extra vibration is well worth paying for me,just to attain the handling my bike has
I get a tingle through the handle bars (clipons) and through the rearsets but they are aluminium so will never be as smooth as foot pegs with rubber
 
Agreed, little. But those times you do want to accelerate through a tighter curve with exaggerated lean the handling is sharper. Less wallow.
There are many ways to improve an OEM Commando and spend a lot of money in the process. The head steady wouldn’t be at the top of my list after I have done most of the upgrades. That said, for the racing crowd, it would be a “must do”.
It's the sort of mod which you likely won't miss if you don't do it, but once installed you wouldn't go back.
 
[ But,... by using only 2 screws into the head, you're only using 2 points of contact which can define a weakness to resisting rotation along the line that defines those 2 contact points. Had you made the base plate to include the third non linear contact point already existing in the head, then the base plate attached to the head would be less susceptible to perpendicular force along the line of the 2 head bolts that you currently have in use. ]

That's theoretical bullshit.

I dont have a problem with my version of Ludwig's design. IT ONLY USES TWO OF THE BOLTS AS WELL. Who knows. Maybe that's why Ludwig didn't respond.
 
[ But,... by using only 2 screws into the head, you're only using 2 points of contact which can define a weakness to resisting rotation along the line that defines those 2 contact points. Had you made the base plate to include the third non linear contact point already existing in the head, then the base plate attached to the head would be less susceptible to perpendicular force along the line of the 2 head bolts that you currently have in use. ]

That's theoretical bullshit.

I dont have a problem with my version of Ludwig's design. IT ONLY USES TWO OF THE BOLTS AS WELL. Who knows. Maybe that's why Ludwig didn't respond.
 
Hmm, why not just use one bolt then :)
Seriously though, if you are going to do all the work to make your own headsteady, why not use all 3 bolts? It gives a more stable mounting and I dont see any disadvantages.

Each to their own though. If it was me who has one of these,then I doubt that I would remake it to use 3 bolts before I had to.
 
He's using the third threaded hole for a spring support, I assume this is in place of the standard spring mount which would obviously isn't compatible with his design
 
Having read quite a few of Ludwig's previous posts, I know he's a very inventive guy. I thought he might answer my observation, but knowing how inventive he is, I assume his design works well enough with 2 bolts or he would have changed it's design.... I supose some people see my comment as a "put down" of his design rather than me wondering why he didn't use the 3 holes that are already there.
 
Having read quite a few of Ludwig's previous posts, I know he's a very inventive guy. I thought he might answer my observation, but knowing how inventive he is, I assume his design works well enough with 2 bolts or he would have changed it's design.... I supose some people see my comment as a "put down" of his design rather than me wondering why he didn't use the 3 holes that are already there.

Because the extra weight from the added material to reach the third hole was unacceptable.
 
I would not be happy with a motorcycle where the type of head steady affects the handling. I would be into some serious re-engineering.
 
Hmm, why not just use one bolt then :)
Seriously though, if you are going to do all the work to make your own headsteady, why not use all 3 bolts? ..

Steve , did it ever occur to you that with a DT head steady , the load is taken up by only one bolt ?
Actually 2 x a single bolt :

Aftermarket head steadys


No matter with how many bolts that massive anchor plate is fixed ,
It comes down to the individual shear strength of those M8 bolts .
If one of them fails ..
Yet many use this type of HS without the slightest worry , and rightly so .
( but that clamp is an insult . Jim Comstock's HS , sold by CNW is a superior design ) .
So yes , one bolt would be enough , but then the correct position of the HS would no longer be asured .
Note that I do not use allongated holes for 'adjustment' , like the original HS .

If you do want to look for a 'weak ' point in my HS , it would be the nut that holds the top end together .
But it is tightened firmly against the end plates and the separating spacer .
An 8.8 grade M8 bolt and nut can easily take the weight of the entire bike ..
 
Last edited:
I used the 2 bolt method on my 850, but when i did the mod on my 750, I cut the original had steady, and welded the support bracket to that. So the 750 uses the 3 bolts. I hooked the spring under the edge of the original bracket and that worked. The later bracket is not so suitable for this mod. The 850 has done many miles around NZ with this mod.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top