Cosentino Roadholder Upgrade

Before ordering, I could find very little information or opinions on the Cosentino fork mod and figured I would post what I've learned so far for those that may be on the fence or just curious. I have several older British bikes (relative to this '73 850) and with all my efforts (stock & modified), the front ends are marginal, at best and that maybe overly optimistic. Although I would not admit it to most folks and especially, to my wife, it is rather disappointing to spend all that time, labor and money on a bike only to find that the handling is sub-standard. It detracts from the rest of the bike as just looking good isn't good enough. The '73 front end "appears" more modern than my older bikes but internally, not much, if any, better. With this Norton and the way I plan to ride it, I vowed to do whatever necessary to make it handle where I don't feel handi-capped when riding with others. Someone handily posted a link for Cosentino Engineering on the forum, so, I contacted Chris Cosentino and after discussing with him (fork length, instrument mounting, spring rates), I placed an order. It took a little longer to recieve than what I had hoped (and that's always the case) but in the scheme of things and for what I recieved, it wasn't that long and admittedly, I was anxious (still am). As it worked out, I'm still waiting on wheel parts. At any rate, this is what I have observed so far.

Top caps available long for standard instrument mounting or short for none.



Well packaged...included thermally stabile fork oil, installation tools and detailed installation instructions. ....I ordered two sets of different rate springs (inexpensive option). Cartridge unit with springs, caps etc. weigh 2 lbs, stock parts weigh 3 lbs., if it matters. The cartridges are modified versions for a modern, comparable-weight, sport bike.



Compression dampening adjustment incorporated into the lower cartridge bolt (sealing washers included).




Once the cartridge is installed in the fork and the 4-3/4 oz. of fork oil is loaded, the tubular installation tool is, also, used to prime the cartridges. Basically, you stroke the Damper Rod up & down until fork oil is pumped out of the weep hole of the installation tool. Once completely primed with oil, that's when I started to realize how nice these units really are. Extremely smooth action in both directions and no dampening "gap" or lag between the up & down transitions.



Due to the fact that I had a fork brace installed, I had to deviate from the instructions slightly whereas the instructions deal with each individual fork leg, I had to take each leg to the next step as a unit. The included "installation wrench" is, also, used to support the Damper Rod during installation. When the Damper Rod is at the top of the stroke (topping out)...it doesn't actually top out but instead, it goes up against an internal spring in the cartridge (another big plus). No metal to metal banging. With the firm "top out spring" compressed slightly, the wrench holds the Damper Rod for the next step.



This picture shows both units installed with the spring pre-load set on the timing side fork. I had to guess at the pre-load as I have no wheels built yet to check. Brass plugs are used to cover the rebound adjustment screws.



Everything nipped up.



Additional front-end enhancements.




As far as the kit, it is very complete and once you go through the installation steps, it is obviously well thought out. Coming from a machining/manufacturing background, I am qualified to say that the quality of the machined bits (especially the thread qualities) are spot on. I'm so used to buying new parts that come in like re-workable cores, that it was refreshing to have everything work straight out of the box. Based on what I've seen to date, would I do it again? Absolutely.

Once I have wheels built and installed, I'm going to pull the springs out of the forks to confirm slider travel due to the fork brace, re-install springs, adjust the static pre-load (sag with rider on-board), focus on wheel alignment. Once I'm to the point of tweaking out the compression/rebound/springs, I'll follow up with a riding report.


Z

Nice, I've been looking for more info, and here it is lol. Thanks for all the info and pics

Yes, thanks for the info and pictures. Very informative.

A couple of questions; I hope they do not come across as criticism. I am interested to learn your reasoning for upgrading the bike as much as you have. It's a question I am facing myself: How much is enough? Why have you chosen to put as much money and effort into the Norton rather than buying a newer bike (perhaps a Ducati??) that already has the features you are aiming for with your upgrades?

Next question is, why did you go for Cosentino vs others, such as Maxton? Racetech (located in the town where I live) make cartrridge emulators for conventional forks. I don't know if they fit Nortons; I intend to go talk to them and see. Did you investigate that option?

Again, I am not criticsing - just "inquiring minds want to know!"

My questions are:

1. What enhancements had you done prior to the Cosentino? Or were these bone-stock forks?
2. What was the cost of the kit?
3. How did you decided to go with this vs. RaceTech or another option. Perhaps something like this.

I'm not going to go out with the idea of keeping up with modern bikes. I'll probably stick with the simpler mods and just accept that it's a 40 yr old bike with forks that are even older.

Or perhaps try the RaceTech option.

Z, that's awesome. I've been holding off laying down the bread for one of those kits. Partly because I'm broke and the other reason is I spent soooo much time putzing around with my forks I'm going to use them as is for a while. I think that will be a present to my Commando next Spring. We'll see what the x-mas bonus is like this year.

Corona850 said:

A couple of questions; I hope they do not come across as criticism. I am interested to learn your reasoning for upgrading the bike as much as you have. It's a question I am facing myself: How much is enough? Why have you chosen to put as much money and effort into the Norton rather than buying a newer bike (perhaps a Ducati??) that already has the features you are aiming for with your upgrades?"

Click to expand...

A lot of Nortons turn into wallet vacuums, to borrow a phrase from Tom Sanders. When I see a newbie question whether a rusted pile of Norton parts that's posing as a complete bike is worth $XXX, I always advise that they are looking at five figures for any kind of completion. I know they don't believe me, but I'm certain they do once they get into it. Before anyone jumps on me, I'm not criticizing the Norton, just pointing out that Nortons are fairly expensive bikes to own and care for.

Corona850 said:

Yes, thanks for the info and pictures. Very informative.

A couple of questions; I hope they do not come across as criticism. I am interested to learn your reasoning for upgrading the bike as much as you have. It's a question I am facing myself: How much is enough? Why have you chosen to put as much money and effort into the Norton rather than buying a newer bike (perhaps a Ducati??) that already has the features you are aiming for with your upgrades?

Next question is, why did you go for Cosentino vs others, such as Maxton? Racetech (located in the town where I live) make cartrridge emulators for conventional forks. I don't know if they fit Nortons; I intend to go talk to them and see. Did you investigate that option?

Again, I am not criticsing - just "inquiring minds want to know!"

Click to expand...

My bike is upgraded beyond logic. New bikes have zero appeal to me as they all look the same and offer nothing to the imagination. Old bikes have a timeless and classic look and I feel better renweing or recycling an old bike by making it new again over simply buying a souless machine off the show room floor. Why are so many companies emulating old bikes with reissues or modernizations of older models? Because they look better. I think we strive to make the old machines better because we want to. It's not a matter of time or money I guess but more desire to drive an old machine with some history and also the fact we can look or be a bit different doing it.

Either way, when I get the extra scratch, I'm buying some Cosentino cartridges for my forks since front forks on mountain bikes are more advanced than these old Roadholders, which do work pretty good for an old fork design.

Corona850,

No offense taken and a good question, I might add. I've been asked that by others and have questioned it myself from time to time.

In effort to try to sum it up, the first thing I have to look at is where I'm at and where I was going with it. I built this one to ride. Although the color scheme on my bike is somewhat different from stock, for the most part, it's stock. Stock frame, head, cylinders, cams, carbs/air cleaner, transmission, shocks, Z-plates, pegs, +/-pipes/mufflers, UK handlebars, tank, oil bag, rear brakes, trees, etc.. I have done what is considered by many as "upgrades" (improved bearings, later model seals, improved head-steady, staked swingarm pivot, ignition, etc.). The items on this project that needed replacement or were "lacking" (primary drive, 520 X-ring, alternator, front disc, instruments, seat, rims, tires) were wide open for consideration.

As far as going for a Ducati, etc., I have modern bikes and like them for what I bought them for (and I've modified alot of them from stock) but building your own is just different. I like the character of older bikes but as painful as it is to admit, some of them had short-comings (some more than others). At the time, they may have been on the cutting edge but.... time rolls on. If I had built it to show or just look at....it wouldn't matter. But as I said, this one is to ride. It will never be a dragster and it would come up short on high-speed interstate travel state to state (although I wouldn't have to pit that often with that big Interstate tank) but if it handles good, I can off-set some of the lack of horsepower with nimble handling in the twisties (my favorite riding). I have some crotch-rocket buddies that can't keep up with me in the twisties with me on my 800+lb Goldwing (Traxxion front/rear upgrade...$2500....solid handling...priceless) although I was riding before most of them were born. I planned to give them hell on a 36 year old bike for the ultimate insult (in a friendly kind of way). I'm, also, restoring a 1982 Suzuki Katana GS1000SZ (the first crotch rocket) that I bought brand new back in the day. Once its complete, then they will have two different antique tags to follow into the corners. But that's just part of it. I enjoy riding first and wrenching is a close second. I love working on my old bikes and I hate working on my new ones (other than maintenance). It may have something to do with the re-capturing your youth thing, as well. As a side note, including the cost of the core bike, I've spent about the same as what a new Honda CBR600RR cost and there on every street corner around here. I'm out the cost of the parts as like many here, I have done all of the work myself (including powder coating).

As far as the Cosentino selection, I snooped around the other sites and Maxton looked to have merit but I really didn't want to re-invent the wheel, so to speak, and what little feedback I did find on the Cosention set-up was positive. Kenny Cummings uses the upgrade (AHRMA) and he runs at the front of the pack. Based on the quality of his bike, his performance and his attention to detail, I'm sure he would have ditched them if they were second rate. Using the logic of your question (and no offense to you intended), why do people race the AHRMA circuit when there are all these modern bike available?

Long story short....I can ride any kind of bike I want....it just happens that this Norton is what I want to ride.


Swoosh, I was typing while you were posting.

I was running bone stock. I looked into the covenent/Fauth modification and believe that these are good if you want to optimize what you already have while spending little to no money. I think that the decision needs to be based on your intent for the bike and what you want out of it. I want a reliable power plant in a bike that handles well. If you want to plunk around town or down to the pub you can easily get by with bone stock or less. If you grit your teeth when it tops or bottoms, you may want the covenent approach. If you want more travel to keep you further away from top & bottom, take the Fauth approach. I didn't feel like either one of these approachs would come close to producing what I want. I've been down the Progressive spring road twice on other bikes which turned out to be a waste of money, in my opinion (too mushy, firm up too late). Rather than optimize existing (been there, done that on others), I chose a replacement to optimize the bike as a whole rather than tweaking existing parts. Modern tires are great..... provided there in contact with the road. Although an older bike, you don't have to go that fast to be fast...you just have to be set in the corners and rolling on the throttle while others are nose-diving and afraid to use the side of their tires.

The cost...eight bills & some change. Compare that to the price of a good set of name-brand shocks.

Z

Gents,

I think we overlook some of the human benefits in the stock front end.

a) Under certain circumstances, its an excellent laxative and...

b) A medically justifed reason for strong drink.

As the great Ponsworth said "Character building m'boy, character building".

Cheers,
Mick

Please don't post a ride report when it's all together. If you do, I'll want to do this too and my wallet can't support another upgrade.

Nice pics.

zackybilly1 said:

This picture shows both units installed with the spring pre-load set on the timing side fork. I had to guess at the pre-load as I have no wheels built yet to check. Brass plugs are used to cover the rebound adjustment screws.

Click to expand...

Hi!

Thanks for that post, good to see some info on this kit. I know Chris Consentino from the mc-chassis ML which I follow briefly. Apart from some discussions there I only know the description from his website - and I must admit that I'm a bit disappointed by the look of the cap bolts. This unpolished aluminium and the rebound screws look far to modern for that bike. A little more gentle and curved externals and a hidden inhex for the rebound would look far better.

Just my €0.02....;-)

Tim

Tintin,

The picture does not do the part justice. If you could hold the part in your hand and thought about it for a minute, you may have a different opinion. The cap is not just a raw machined part. It has a uniform finish although not bead blasted (maybe walnut hulls in a tumbler? ...not sure). All three threads on each cap are as smooth as silk. As far as the rebound adjuster, look at it from this stand point, he doesn't build the cartridge and therefore, has no control over the "fixed" length of the unit and subsequently, it is recessed (a variable to accommodate the fixed length). With that in consideration, add the option of using the cap as a mount for the instruments, such as these, which adds additional length to the cap and deepens the recessed adjuster thread. Although the adjuster is O-ring sealed, the recessed thread isn't necessarily someplace you want water (rain or otherwise) and grit accumulating, hence, the brass "cover". As far as polished, he's not selling bling and I wasn't buying bling and honestly, looks never entered into the equation for me. However, I do, like most here, have a buffing wheel and am not afraid to use it... if I thought it needed it.

On the other hand, I guess your right...it doesn't have the classic lines and looks more like something off of a "works" bike. I hate it when that happens.

Z

zackybilly1 said:

The picture does not do the part justice. ...

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong - I like the stuff Chris is doing and the whole approach behind this kit is really good. It's just that his website says "To comply with the rules of most US vintage racing organizations (AHRMA, WERA, USCRA) all adjustments are hidden from view" - and IMHO the caps are just too modern looking to justify this quote. That doesn't mean they're not good looking in itself. I really appreciate what Chris does and have followed his projects with quite some interest. In terms of craftsmenship I'd expect this kit to be second to none but even if I want my Norton to be as modernized and sophisticated as possible I still want it to be classic looking - and these caps are well visible while driving...;-)


Tim

Tintin said:

zackybilly1 said:

The picture does not do the part justice. ...

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong - I like the stuff Chris is doing and the whole approach behind this kit is really good. It's just that his website says "To comply with the rules of most US vintage racing organizations (AHRMA, WERA, USCRA) all adjustments are hidden from view" - and IMHO the caps are just too modern looking to justify this quote. That doesn't mean they're not good looking in itself. I really appreciate what Chris does and have followed his projects with quite some interest. In terms of craftsmenship I'd expect this kit to be second to none but even if I want my Norton to be as modernized and sophisticated as possible I still want it to be classic looking - and these caps are well visible while driving...;-)


Tim

Click to expand...

Considering all the other crap hanging off those "vintage" bikes, I'm sure no one will get their panties in a knot over some fork caps.

Tintin,

I guess the brass cover satisfies the statement and I understand your point. If I put myself in Chris's shoes, I would have to wonder how many people with purist-tendencies are going to gut their forks to run modern bits. Unlike the cafe/racing folks who would run them or any other go-fast mods that they can get away with. As you well know, it could easily be converted to accommodate what would look like a standard cap but it would be a PIA to adjust rebound. I'm sure if that was the only thing standing in the way of developing the market, he would build them.

On the GP bike on Chris's site, I like the way the front-end was built to prevent the steering angle from changing during suspension deflection. Neat stuff. It's intriging to me when people take a bike with limited HP and improve it through design/weight reduction to make up the difference. On a 500 GP bike, you can corner slower, stand it up and make up the difference with HP. On a small displacement bike, you've got to carry the speed with you in the corners to offset the lack of grunt on the exit. I've seen pictures of Norton's where they went with the light-weight approach without compromising the ridability or reliability of the bike (Ludwig's for one).

Z

swooshdave said:

Considering all the other crap hanging off those "vintage" bikes, I'm sure no one will get their panties in a knot over some fork caps.

Click to expand...

I'd use something like this on my bike and don't care about "vintage racing" on another continent - that was never the point....;-)


Tim

zackybilly1 said:

If I put myself in Chris's shoes, I would have to wonder how many people with purist-tendencies are going to gut their forks to run modern bits.

Click to expand...

Me! Here! :mrgreen:

I might be a purist on the looks but definetly the internals are my prime concern.

As you well know, it could easily be converted to accommodate what would look like a standard cap but it would be a PIA to adjust rebound.

Click to expand...

That was my thought: I'd have designed the nut a bit more rounded of at the top face and instead of the outer hex brass bolt I'd have gone for a inhex bolt which is otherwise flush with the cap - much closer to the original nut.

Re your thoughts about the tolerances in length: I'd consider this a design issue which most likely can be dealt with - if you see a need. I'd see it for my personal taste wheras Chris and his customers don't - perfectly fine for me.

And to be perfectly honest: Off course I wish you a lot of fun riding this thing while I'm stuck with my *censored* internals and wasting hours on the lathe getting something done which I like.....;-)


Tim

What kind of lathes do you operate, Tim?

Z

I'd jump at a set of those if the budget allowed. Having said which, those fork caps look, certainly not poorly manufactured, but a bit "unfinished" to my eye. Why not put a little cover over those hollowed out tops? Would look a lot better. (I am addressing the manufacturer, not any user.)

But again, if I had the bucks, it wouldn't stop me from ordering a set in a heartbeat.

I'd urge spending another $20 on fork gaiters. I think they look good, but reasonable minds can differ on that point. However, I think we can all agree that replacing fork seals is a PITA.