Commando suspension setup

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cheesy

Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
464
There have been a few threads recently about shock orientation, mono shocks and isolastics etc yet there does not seem to be much information about the setup of a more standard Commando.

With that said I think it would be interesting to hear peoples thoughts on the suspension sag that they run front and rear as well as wheel/tire sizes so trail can be calculated
 
Norton fork front springs are a "one fits all" from a single 350 to a 850 twin. so not a lot of factory developement there! I think the average "Joe" isnt that bothered, as long as the forks go up and down.

Rear like-wise.
 
No 350 ever used the same front forks as the 850, so that part isn't correct.
Commando forks were only used by Commandos, in fact.
All the featherbed models used short roadholders.
And the even earlier style of long roadholders had external springs, and next to no hydraulic damping, only a primitive type of bumpstop.

Nevertheless, interesting subject.

Be interesting to compare roadholding, and braking, with a standard Commando and something like the new 961 with state-of-the-art upsidedownies ??

P.S. Folks with the Norton hybrids with the Matchless Teledraulics swear by them, so what is different about the internals that makes them better ? Can any of that be adapted into Commandos - or has it been ..
 
Cheesy said:
There have been a few threads recently about shock orientation, mono shocks and isolastics etc yet there does not seem to be much information about the setup of a more standard Commando.

With that said I think it would be interesting to hear peoples thoughts on the suspension sag that they run front and rear as well as wheel/tire sizes so trail can be calculated
Click to expand...


The stock suspension is so crude that its likely to be pointless setting up sag or investigate altering the trail. If you are willing to spend a fair amount of money, then Maxton here in the UK can modify your stock front forks to cartridge damping system, and provide fully adjustable rear units, built to suit you perfectly.
 
yes, maybe so, but maxton will not ship to the US so good for some, useless for a lot...
 
Rohan said:
No 350 ever used the same front forks as the 850, so that part isn't correct.
Click to expand...

That isn't what John said.

He said: "Norton fork front springs are a "one fits all" from a single 350 to a 850 twin"....which appears to be correct (spring part NM18813) for the standard road models with Featherbed frames and internal spring short Roadholders, lightweight 350/400 twins, and all Commandos.

http://www.nortonmotors.de/ANIL/Norton% ... s-list.php
 
In that case, if that were true, then I would stand corrected.

However, having just looked at commando springs and short roadholder springs, the first thing noticeable was that the springs were wound in opposite directions !!

So are not entirely identical - not always anyway ? Will investigate further for length and strength (requires some unmantling.) Manxs had different length/strength springs too ?

This reminds me, in a past life, of buying some replacement BM fork springs. The first thing noticed was that, as a 'pair' they came with different colour coding and quite different wire diameters ! Nortons offered sidecar strength springs for some years too, although I don't believe they appear in the parts list either ? Likewise single-saddle spring pairs for heavier riders....
 
pelican said:
yes, maybe so, but maxton will not ship to the US so good for some, useless for a lot...
Click to expand...

I find that very hard to believe, as Maxton are heavily involved with suspension for road racing it seems strange that they would write off about 70% of their business by not being willing to ship overseas?
 
I had great results with a custom 3 rate progressive replacement length spring but then gave it a few more rates and extra couple inches to enjoy it via a valve spring spacers. This is not the regular available progressive spring set that is always said to be to soft by riders over 175 lb or so. Lucked on to get last of them but could measure rate/length to model a new batch from.

If one cuts a spring shorter it stiffens up the remaining lenght, so if stock spring seems to weak can slice and inch or more off then put in another rate spring to get more progressive or softer action.

At rear it seems everyone whose put in a longer shock or rasied the rear liked it better. I'll be trying out 2" longer shocks on my Peel someday with 80-120# progressive spring range. Other rates of rear springs are not that hard to source in factory lengths and dia. Rocky Point I think has a variety to fit Halgon shocks.
 
Watching this thread with interest, without going to the expense of Maxton, what in the forum members humble opinions (WITFMHO) would be the best upgrade for a bog standard set of Roadholders on my '73 850.
Progreesive springs, changing dampers, weight of oil, etc all without bursting the financial bubble!!!
Regards mike
 
I have messed around with a few sets of roadhandlers. they all seemed not right to me. The first set was harsh and clunky. There are many posts here about the fixes tho the stock setup. Relocating holes, blanking some, different weight oils, springs, slider bushings etc... But for me what turned the corner was installing a Lansdown kit. Night and day difference. I havent had it on the road yet, but just installing it and bouncing it up and down, there is allready a huge difference. ANd to top it all off with a small allen key I can easily adjust it. Modern style cartrige dampening in the roadhandler form.
 
If the front doesnt move , the oils a bit thick .

Rear , 110 Lb or 125 lb springs / gas girlings , solo .
o.k. for not overweight two up ( see 125 Lb ) without panniers & kitchen sink .
ISO's 2 1/2 to 4 1/2 gap , if its all in straight and frame isnt missaligned .

Probably inadviseable to weld swing arm pivot to cradle . Just Kidding .

Take the weight on the legs at the knees , when landing . . . :mrgreen:
 
Here in the UK there are an awful lot of people using Roadholder forks on very serious off-road bikes. They are made to work properly by installing modern internal parts into machined Norton sliders. Nowhere near as expensive as Maxton as used modern forks can be obtained from Ebay, and then its simply a matter of having the machining carried out. Appearance remains as std, but operation of forks improved a great deal. This in conjunction with custom made rear units, will work very well indeed and work almost as well as fitting complete custom made set up.
 
L.A.B. said:
Rohan said:
No 350 ever used the same front forks as the 850, so that part isn't correct.
Click to expand...

That isn't what John said.

He said: "Norton fork front springs are a "one fits all" from a single 350 to a 850 twin"....which appears to be correct (spring part NM18813) for the standard road models with Featherbed frames and internal spring short Roadholders, lightweight 350/400 twins, and all Commandos.

http://www.nortonmotors.de/ANIL/Norton% ... s-list.php
Click to expand...
Thank you Lab, some of us read the posts...properly.
Having said that ,Rohan is correct in stating Commando Forks are differant.. 5mm Oval for starters, longer dampers, BUT just the same internaly...infact no better than they where post 1953,
Pre "cartridge" [ pre1953] have just a double taper bolt, with no damping between these tapers.

www.lansdowne-engineering.com
 
Carbonfibre said:
Here in the UK there are an awful lot of people using Roadholder forks on very serious off-road bikes. They are made to work properly by installing modern internal parts into machined Norton sliders. Nowhere near as expensive as Maxton as used modern forks can be obtained from Ebay, and then its simply a matter of having the machining carried out. Appearance remains as std, but operation of forks improved a great deal. This in conjunction with custom made rear units, will work very well indeed and work almost as well as fitting complete custom made set up.
Click to expand...
quote; " simply a matter of having the machining carried out"!
Be carefull here! cross sectional thickness of a short roadholder [not commando] is approx 5mm thick, and i know for a fact that these early sliders snapped on scramblers, they broke in the reduced section, thats why Norton made the Commando ones 5mm thicker in the fore/aft plane]

Plus , boreing out a slider aint "simple" BUT before you rant on it is, i have about 6 pairs that require re-machining, and i will send them to you if you think its that easy...dont get me wrong i have a Harrison centre lathe, and use it allmost every day. But to bore out a slider producing a H7 finnish ,without chatter and not tapered and true to the original axis. and to a set size plus/minus 1/2 thou!...anit simple! Possible yes! simple NO!
 
http://www.norvilmotorcycle.co.uk/forks.htm
067723 SPRING - FORK - INSIDE FORK STANCHION - 18.687" LONG - TWO REQUIRED C D L S
Click to expand...
C = Commando
D = Dominator
L = Lightweight
S = Single


Rohan said:
Nortons offered sidecar strength springs for some years too, although I don't believe they appear in the parts list either ?
Click to expand...


Randomly selecting a parts book ('61-'62), under the heading: "FRONT FORKS WITH SIDECAR TRAIL" I find: "19506A Fork spring.....2..."
 
john robert bould said:
Carbonfibre said:
Here in the UK there are an awful lot of people using Roadholder forks on very serious off-road bikes. They are made to work properly by installing modern internal parts into machined Norton sliders. Nowhere near as expensive as Maxton as used modern forks can be obtained from Ebay, and then its simply a matter of having the machining carried out. Appearance remains as std, but operation of forks improved a great deal. This in conjunction with custom made rear units, will work very well indeed and work almost as well as fitting complete custom made set up.
Click to expand...
quote; " simply a matter of having the machining carried out"!
Be carefull here! cross sectional thickness of a short roadholder [not commando] is approx 5mm thick, and i know for a fact that these early sliders snapped on scramblers, they broke in the reduced section, thats why Norton made the Commando ones 5mm thicker in the fore/aft plane]

Plus , boreing out a slider aint "simple" BUT before you rant on it is, i have about 6 pairs that require re-machining, and i will send them to you if you think its that easy...dont get me wrong i have a Harrison centre lathe, and use it allmost every day. But to bore out a slider producing a H7 finnish ,without chatter and not tapered and true to the original axis. and to a set size plus/minus 1/2 thou!...anit simple! Possible yes! simple NO!
Click to expand...

Not able to do the machining work myself, but cassette forks using modern internals and Norton sliders are really very common on P65 trials machines, and this seems a very good way to drastically improve fork action, without any need to pay Maxton type money (£600-700).
 
I dont think Maxton is bothering to much with older stuff, Chris {here on this forum} give up after 12months waiting,
Regarding the fitting of "other" internals in roadholders i did that 20 years ago, Bultaco internals in Norton sliders with gaiters to hide the tops. it was quite common.
I think Maxton fits CBR600 dampers in..but expensive...for good results at proper money...Lansdowne....... Luke Notton as won the Bonhams Lansdowne championship with them..well nuff said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top