Box type head steady on 72

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you forget about the money the CNW headsteady excels the Dave Taylor headsteady: same design but much stronger and self lubricating joints (disadvantage very expensive!).


I have the CNW head steady for over a year now. I had a Dave Taylor with spring prior to that.

Yes, the CNW built more robust. However, it does not have the spring, don't know why not as supporting the head would seem in theory to be a good idea. For whatever reason, the CNW does not.

Now, how does the Dave Taylor and CNW head steadies compare, other than the CNW being more than double the cost of the DTHS?

In my view, about the same. In fact, I honestly could not tell them apart if a blind test.
Also, given that I had the DTHS for six years with no issues, I can't say if it matters that the CNW appears to be built "better", as in thicker metal pieces.

If I had to do it over again, I would have just kept the DTHS with the spring and not bothered with the CNW.
 
highdesert said:
If you forget about the money the CNW headsteady excels the Dave Taylor headsteady: same design but much stronger and self lubricating joints (disadvantage very expensive!).


I have the CNW head steady for over a year now. I had a Dave Taylor with spring prior to that.

Yes, the CNW built more robust. However, it does not have the spring, don't know why not as supporting the head would seem in theory to be a good idea. For whatever reason, the CNW does not.

Now, how does the Dave Taylor and CNW head steadies compare, other than the CNW being more than double the cost of the DTHS?

In my view, about the same. In fact, I honestly could not tell them apart if a blind test.
Also, given that I had the DTHS for six years with no issues, I can't say if it matters that the CNW appears to be built "better", as in thicker metal pieces.

If I had to do it over again, I would have just kept the DTHS with the spring and not bothered with the CNW.

Maybe you had the DTHS for 6 years and did not ride it enough to make a good compare?! I also used the DTHS after approx 2000mls the (small) ball joints were worn out. Then I mounted the CNW headsteady and did over 10000mls so far and the stronger/bigger self lubricating ball joint are still tight! I mounted this CNW headsteady without the spring set up but you certainly can mount one to it (thats were the two 1/4" threaded holes are for). Even though this CNW headsteady is twice the price of the DTHS I never had any regrets spending it.
 
Thanks highdesert, I was assuming that no matter which way you go, it's all about the same, especially the way I drive. That said, the current CNW setup has threaded holes for installation of the springy thing, but yeah, with delivery it's about $400. But I really did want to try the spring thing what ever I did. Looking at my front isos with the rubbers off, they droop by at least 1/4" if not more.

Otherwise, you guys are bugging me to death, so I made a trace of the old HS on a piece of graph paper. It looks like if you measure the center lines of the frame part and the center line of the center hole for the head, it's offset .125 or a bit less. But if you measure the outside dimensions of the head part, it's offset by .175, which is probably not a good way to measure. Also if I take the centers of the 2 outside holes, I get an offset of .275. So take your pick. It looks like it's really somewhere around 1/8" and there's enough slop in the holes to take care of any issues.

Box type head steady on 72


Corrected.

Dave
69S
 
DogT said:
Also if I take the centers of the 2 outside holes, I get an offset of .025. So take your pick.

From the photo it looks as if you took the 2.200" and 2.175" dimensions from the C/L of the central hole instead of the C/L of the plate? If so, then it's a dimensional variation between the holes but it isn't offset.

DogT said:
Corrected
Edit: it appears you corrected this as I was typing, so 0.275" must be divided by 2 to get the offset = 0.1375"

DogT said:
But if you measure the outside dimensions of the head part, it's offset by .175,


Your drawing shows the L/H outer plate measurement to be 2.7/8" which is 2.875" however your calculation appears to show this as: 2.750" - 2.575" = .175"

Therefore 2.875" - 2.575" is a difference of: = 0.30" which must be divided by 2 = 0.150"
 
Maybe you had the DTHS for 6 years and did not ride it enough to make a good compare?!

well maybe you are right

I average only about 2000 miles a year so in my six years with the DTHS that is only 12,000 miles of trying it out

know what? I think that is plenty good trial period

was my DTHS "worn" out after 12,000 miles, that why I replaced it with a CNW?

no

I just had some extra money to spend
 
Forget that last crap I measured. If I make center lines from the center hole, outside holes, or outside dimensions, they all turn out to be about 1/8" to the left of the frame part.

Anyhow, I'm going to try Mike Taglieri's write up with a few improvements and a spring holder.

Dave
 
highdesert said:
Maybe you had the DTHS for 6 years and did not ride it enough to make a good compare?!

well maybe you are right OBVIOUSLY NOT, YOU DIDN'T MENTION SO I WAS JUST ASKING.

I average only about 2000 miles a year so in my six years with the DTHS that is only 12,000 miles of trying it out I GUESS THAT IS CORRECT.

know what? I think that is plenty good trial period I AGREE.

was my DTHS "worn" out after 12,000 miles, that why I replaced it with a CNW?

no NO?

I just had some extra money to spend THAN I WOULD HAVE SPENT IT ON SOMETHING ELSE.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top