covenant kit?

Worth installing on an 850 mk3, or is it redundant?

I fitted the kit, and considered it to be an improvement, however other members have other opinions! (if you do a search, then you should find some threads about it).

I agree with LAB if the kit is engineered correctly and the top bushes don't float.

Cash

I've been looking through them. The thing that confused me is this pic from dynodave's site



On older commandos the hole is below the taper of the damper tube (middle) so installing the mod would move it to where the mk3 hole is on the taper(left).

If that is where the mk3 hole already is (on the tapered section) would it benefit to plug it and move above the taper to the center section?

If I install it would medium loctite be strong enough to hold the alloy inserts or the strong permanent loctite?

pelican said:

On older commandos the hole is below the taper of the damper tube (middle) so installing the mod would move it to where the mk3 hole is on the taper(left).

If that is where the mk3 hole already is (on the tapered section) would it benefit to plug it and move above the taper to the center section?

Click to expand...

It's the later holes in the damper tube shown on the left of the photo that have to be blanked off (with the alloy dowels supplied) the holes are then re-drilled 3/4" higher through the actual tube itself.

I don't think the instructions were intended for the earlier damper tubes? Presumably (from the photo?) there are four holes in these early tubes therefore the blanking dowels supplied with the Covenant kit wouldn't work, as they would only blank two holes out of four?

pelican said:

If I install it would medium loctite be strong enough to hold the alloy inserts or the strong permanent loctite?

Click to expand...

Presumably you mean the blanking dowels? In which case no Loctite should be needed, as they are a fairly tight drive fit, so once they are installed they shouldn't move.

cash said:

if the kit is engineered correctly and the top bushes don't float.

Click to expand...

In the Covenant kit, as it is, the sleeves (the Covenant kit sleeves are not "bushes" and are not intended to act as such). In my opinion the system appears to work satisfactorily.

If one is buying new damper tubes wouldn't it be prudent to just purchase the Mk3 ones?

swooshdave said:

If one is buying new damper tubes wouldn't it be prudent to just purchase the Mk3 ones?

Click to expand...

They're not exclusively "MkIII" model damper tubes. They would be the (06-1888) damper tubes as fitted to all Commandos from 1971-on (or possibly slightly earlier?).

To be honest I junked the old worn out dampers and rods along with the Covenant kit a couple of years ago. I fitted a pair of RGM's alloy damper tubes, new rods and made up a long set of top bushes.

Best thing I ever did to the front end.

Cash

Would go the new alloy way, but I'm out of money. Already had this kit sitting around.

This is where I'm at... The kit I got from rockypoint says to insert collars below the top bush and above the bottom bush. Also says to loctite in place.




Where do I loctite to?... the instructions aren't really clear. I'm thinking you don't want the holes covered permanently so to the top bush, essentially making it longer?
As LAB suggests not using loctite and floating free.

What's the concensus? Loctite or no loctite?

I may be able to help here. I did this mod to my short raodholders on my Triton to good effect.
1) Top bushes: I used a pair of old flanged top bushes with the flange turned off. I then ensured they were a loose fit on the sliders so the sliders would not 'drag' on them. I locktited them in position to the aluminium cast sliders on their outside diameter directly below the top bushes. This mod should stop the forks 'topping out'. (RGM sell a longer top bush now, just for your info).
2) Block off the holes which are in or below the taper in the damper tubes. I counsetsunk the hole a bit and the tapped it out. I then locktited a screw in the hole, cut it off and filed it smooth. Redrill a similar diameter hole just above the taper.
This mod should stop your forks 'bottoming out'.
Stu.

pelican said:

As LAB suggests not using loctite and floating free.

What's the concensus? Loctite or no loctite?

Click to expand...

All I can say is that the original instructions I received with my RGM Covenant kit gave the following information:

Quote: "The alloy sleeve sits on the fork stanchion below the top bush, basically being free to float."

I've never encountered any trouble due to the sleeves being able to float, but Loctiting them in shouldn't cause any problems.

(It's worth noting that a considerable number of forks fitted to Triumphs during the late 50's & 60's had a similar type of shuttle valve damping sleeve, and I'm guessing it could have been what the idea for the Covenant conversion was originally based on?)

If you google 'norton roadholder covenant conversion you will come accross the actual article written by the man himself I believe, here is a quote from that article....

''Again, the extra collar should be about one and a half inches long, with the final adjustment best made by measuring up the various fork components to see -how far below the top bush the stanchion oil holes are kept by the damper assembly at full extension. Unlike an extra-long top bush, the collar will need to be prevented from falling down inside the slider and the best way of doing this is to make it a snug fit in the top of the slider and a looser fit over the stanchion. In this way the collar can be tapped down into place as the top bush is fitted. A drop of Loctite Bearing Fit could be smeared on the outer diameter if there is any suspicion of looseness further down inside the slider.''

L.A.B.
Isn't the idea of the additional top bush so that the hole in the stantion is blocked off just before full extension, therefore creating a 'hydraulic cushion'?
If the bush floated and dropped down it would be blocking the hole all the time, as it would be moving up and down with the stantion. This would slow down the forks when extending.
Stu

bigstu said:

Isn't the idea of the additional top bush so that the hole in the stantion is blocked off just before full extension, therefore creating a 'hydraulic cushion'?

Click to expand...

I know the Covenant "sleeve" is often referred to as a "bush" but it isn't supposed to act as a bush.

bigstu said:

If the bush floated and dropped down it would be blocking the hole all the time, as it would be moving up and down with the stantion. This would slow down the forks when extending.

Click to expand...

From experience that doesn't appear to happen, because as I see it, the sleeve can't just drop down and rest on the lower bush when the forks are "active". Also we need to remember that it's the slider that is "moving" and the stanchion that is (more or less) stationary during the fork action (and opposite to how it is drawn in the manuals which gives the impression that it's the stanchion and damper rod which is moving within the slider and damper tube, when of course it's the opposite way).


I've studied the fork diagrams quite closely in an effort to try to understand exactly how the damping fluid reacts during fork compression and extension, and unless the sleeve were to somehow become totally jammed at a position where it was blocking the holes under both compression and extension then I don't think there's likely to be any problem, as the fluid trapped between the sleeve and upper bush I think, acts as what I would describe as a "negative hydraulic lock" during fork compression, which if true, would prevent the sleeve from blocking off the stanchion holes as the forks compress?
Also the stanchion damper holes obviously have a limited affect on the rebound damping during fork extension, however, if the holes were to become partially or totally covered during fork compression, all that would appear to happen is that a small amount negative pressure would be generated between the two fork bushes as the fork compresses (as the bushes are then moving away from each other) but there would be no full or partial hydraulic lock causing the fork to stick, because if the fluid in the space between the inner stanchion wall and the ouside of the damper tube was prevented from passing through the holes, then that fluid would just rise into the fork air space as it is not trapped within the damper, although of course air pressure within the fork does normally increase as the forks compress, I doubt it would have much affect on the fluid?

L.A.B.
You are correct, it is not a bush, it is a sleeve.
The question is, why put it in the fork?
The answer is you put it there to block off the hole in the stantion when the slider moves down towards full extension, thereby creating a 'hydraulic cushion effect' by restricting the flow of oil near the end of the stroke.
So it makes sense to make sure it is in the correct position. If it is not it could block the hole off too early, restricting the flow too early. Of course the oil will find other paths to escape, but that is not the point.
You are right, of course, the fork system and study of where the oil is going at all times is not simple, and is not a precice thing, but if you buy the concept of putting it in the fork, then why not ensure it is in the right position?
You are also correct, in reality the fork action will constantly be returning the sleeve to the top if it falls down, but again, thats not the point, you want it to be there all the time, so it restricts the flow of oil at the right slider position, i.e. just before full extension.
RGM now sell a long fork bush instead of the additional 'sleeve'. Why? To make sure it stays at the top, I reckon.
Of course that is why this forum is so good, because we can all give opinions and advice.
But I am quoting the guy who came up with the theory, and originally started manufacturing the kit.
If you don't buy his theory, and take his advice, then why bother installing his modification in the first place?

LAB,
The only problem I can see/think is inertia.

I'm sure the sliders can pick up the sleeves at random and inertia does the rest. When I was having problems I would often hear an unexplainable click or clank and the fork action would change from OK to bloody scarey without warning, except that is on smooth roads when generally the fork action was acceptable.

All that stopped once I'd fixed the sleeves under the top bushes (I just very slightly belled the sleeves on one end). With that out of the way it was clear the damping wasn't all it should have been and the top hats were probably worn. I then decided it was time to sort it out and made the longer bushes, fitted RGM's modified damper tubes and new rods etc and never looked back.


In my case I'm sure all my problems were in the main caused by those sleeves floating about.

Cash

I do agree there's certainly an argument for fixing the sleeves in one position, as that would remove the possibility of them picking up against the slider and randomly covering the damper holes, although to date I've yet to experience any problems whatsoever with the sleeves left free to float as the original instructions say to, so I think I'm going to carry on with the kit as fitted, and see what, if anything, happens.

bigstu said:

RGM now sell a long fork bush instead of the additional 'sleeve'. Why? To make sure it stays at the top, I reckon.

Click to expand...

I know RGM have introduced a longer 067521M upper bush, however the Covenant kit appears to continue unchanged: http://www.rgmmotors.co.uk/images/full/full_67.jpg

The Covenant kit remains listed in their current paper and Internet catalogues, therefore the new extended bushes would be an alternative to the Covenant kit (and obviously you'd not be able to fit both) but isn't necessarily used "instead of" the sleeves, unless RGM has said otherwise?

bigstu said:

If you google 'norton roadholder covenant conversion you will come accross the actual article written by the man himself I believe, here is a quote from that article....

Click to expand...

The article also goes on to say that, quote: "This is an old article and Peter Crespin is no longer making the conversion kits."



I believe RGM are in the habit of manufacturing their own 'in house' versions of particular products (and they are certainly not alone in doing that), so the 'RGM Covenant kit' could include their own ideas and modifications, which could be why there's a difference in the sleeve arrangements?

Peter Crespin said, quote: "Unlike an extra-long top bush, the collar will need to be prevented from falling down inside the slider and the best way of doing this is to make it a snug fit in the top of the slider and a looser fit over the stanchion. In this way the collar can be tapped down into place as the top bush is fitted."

That information is totally different from the Covenant kit sleeve info as supplied by RGM. The RGM sleeves (or collars) are quite obviously machined to be a loose fit within the sliders. Which could mean a Covenant kit obtained elsewhere (other than the RGM one, if such a thing still exists?) have tighter fitting sleeves that follow the original Crespin design?