DIY Headsteady

I currently have the Combat on the bench, mainly to see why the rear wheel moved a bit from side to side when pushed and pulled on the stand.
The swingarm was tightish in the bushings but a few days of oiling it seemed to get it nice and smooth with no slop. It's had some sort of pin conversion I'm thinking as there are two nuts welded on the rear of the swingarm with a pair of bolts wired together. Seems to do the job.
I started making a shopping list and you know how they grow....... hmmm the Boyer is looking sad..... bummer Pazon are sold out of the new units....
Lets look at head steadys on Ebay......$50 to post it to NZ..... :x
Google is your friend....so after a few minutes I had enough info to have a go at making one.
Picked up some rose joints in 1/2" ....took a while as we are a metric country ......$40 NZ ( US 32)
Same deal with bolts.....not readily available but...... found some $6NZ
My engineer mate gave me some box section as he had no angle..... so a bit of time needed with the grinder.
He reamed out the centrestand too and me me some new bushes too....top bloke.
Couple of nights later and have a fitting unit that just needs a bit of finishing and painting.
Probably old hat to you seasoned Norton guys but an enjoyable few shed hours and " cheap as chips"
Will it work.....remains to be seen, but it does not look like it has much option but to.

Much more satisfying than sitting in front of a PC at work all day.... :roll:

Add the MK3 spring and you'll get rid of the low rpm shakes too.

Dave
69S

When I purchased my Commando, it had a head steady by the previous owner. The bike also had 18" wheels/tires. I have forgotten the width but the rear was the thickness of a sheet of paper from rubbing on adjacent parts and the front had an overall dia that was nearly 2" less than the rear.

I took off the head stay and the bike was positively suicidal as for as oscillation. I went through the suspension and Isos and I purchased/installed oem 19" wheels/tires. The bike is perfectly stable now at all speeds up to the max I can ring out of my bike (indicated 120). So IMO, a head steady is not needed if the suspension/isos are sorted out and the oem diameter tires are used.

Here's a pic of the two wheels/tires that were on the bike plus a new 4.10/19 tire which, along with new wheels, replaced them. Note the different diameter of the front/rear.

Maybe you should have used ANY other side, besides the welded seam of the box tube...

Otherwise, it should work fine.

grandpaul said:

Maybe you should have used ANY other side, besides the welded seam of the box tube...

Otherwise, it should work fine.

Click to expand...

That's what happens when you take the Nike approach...

Hi 72 - I made one like yours and never looked back. You should notice more precise steering with your new head steady. It's important that the rod (connecting your two rod end bearings/rose joints) is parallel with the flat surface of the top of the cylinder head when the bike is off the stand and held vertical. I could be wrong, but just from looking at your pic, I'm not sure if that will be the case so I would check before you make the finishing touches to your work.

Can I also suggest that you check/adjust your front and rear isos first, with the bike off the stand, and then you can adjust the head steady, again off the stand, when the rose joints should be free to turn.

Keep us posted.

Dave

Yeah, on mine I dropped that frame mount down so the link is parallel with the ground.



Dave
69S

I've run hundreds of miles sans any head steady on rather bad tires to find that one does not notice lack of head steady at all UNTIL hitting paint strips at speed or trying to get a bit of zing going around on slightly lumpy tarmac - especially in gusty conditions, then I wasn't sure if I could control THE Hinge in time to recover wits and take it a lot easier. Its a real safety feature so best not risk leaving it off long as can really upset ya dodging stuff in public. The shorter the radius rod the more critical to align with head so no bind on the slight back/upwards arc motion there. Peel was first rod install with unknown of how long the link must be not to bind so made her's 5" long. One other possible detail that may or may not matter is my head steady allows some give in it, which I sense as advantage with the frame still able to twist to take up loads but does not rebound I can detect.

hobot

I know this is probably not relevant to a standard commando, but you will note that on my Seeley the head steady is only rigid in one direction to allow for flex. I use two short rods fitted with rose joints. The ends which are secured to the rockerbox have shoulder bolts holding them. :

Geez - I apologize, the thread was about Head steadys and I posted about a steering damper (and referred to it as a head steady)... sorry! :roll:

72Combat said:

grandpaul said:

Maybe you should have used ANY other side, besides the welded seam of the box tube...

Otherwise, it should work fine.

Click to expand...

That's what happens when you take the Nike approach...

Click to expand...

Nicely done 72Combat. Thanks for sharing. I'm no mechanic or fabricator or engineer but I enjoy tinkering and I get a buzz out of seeing others give it a go too.

I like the Nike approach. You learned something, we learned something.

These days you see a lot of people just go out and buy stuff instead of thinking around or working through a problem.

acotrel said:

I know this is probably not relevant to a standard commando, but you will note that on my Seeley the head steady is only rigid in one direction to allow for flex. I use two short rods fitted with rose joints. The ends which are secured to the rockerbox have shoulder bolts holding them. :

Click to expand...

When you say rigid in one direction you mean the engine can't try to rotate forward (or back)? It can vibrate left to right though.

That's a flash looking bike

I looked at that and I wondered. Seems to me the object is to not let it move side to side, rather front to back. Or am I missing something here?

Dave
69S

It depends on whether you are using isolastics or rigidly mounted motor. I cannot come t o grips with using the head steady as part of the way to stop the swinging arm from moving irrationally. Personally, I think that if I had a standard commando, I would replace the isolastics with solid mounts for racing. The design is pretty crappy. On the Seeley, I have a curved chrome-moly front tube which is intended to spring, so the frame doesn't crack. You will note that ends the two head steadies can vibrate upwards with the motor. The head steadies are not intended to cope with any sideways rocking couple on my bike.

For OZziE :

acrotrel, I enjoy reading your posts and usually learn a thing or two in the process, But I gotta say ......that safety wire job in the second photo leaves a lot to be desired ......If you were to start off of the allen head screw that goes into the frame lug and go aft then down and round towards the front it would stop that screw from backing out. That said, I'd love to have your bike :wink: Cj

acotrel said:

It depends on whether you are using isolastics or rigidly mounted motor. I cannot come t o grips with using the head steady as part of the way to stop the swinging arm from moving irrationally. Personally, I think that if I had a standard commando, I would replace the isolastics with solid mounts for racing.

Click to expand...

But have a look at this: race-commando-handling-secrets-revealed-t9553.html?hilit=handling

The consensus seems to be that a standard Commando frame is likely to fail if the engine/gearbox is solidly mounted.

In the solid lower mounted frames the head steady is another structural *fixing* point like say an old Harley to help back up the lower solid mounts strain on the frame vibration. Its very common to use rod links in aricraft and race cars to construct solid struts -because they are easy to remove for service. Solid Seeley's are known to break - I think Kenny Cummings had his fracture twice now. So it might be better if acotrel bolted on struts w/o helm joints to stifle any engine motion on the lower mounts leverage into rest of fracture prone frame. Isolastic frames are long known to fracture if engine not rubber mounted. IIRC the Seeleys fracture near the rear meeting of struts and iso-frames at the front down tubes. Herb Becker's isolastic frame has robust swash plates that allow engine isolation in vertical plane but tie frame and power unit together for as secure handling as the solid buzzing non complaint frames.

I follow very closely every word on magazine interviews with racers and builders trying to understand why they behave so crazy so suddenly on their balloon tires at times, to point I am scared of em now too. I'd already come up with my own reasoning jumping from my isolastic compliant tri-link to my solid modern on same day d/t flat, to almost crash a number of ways just going by the sense of G's I got on mere commuting road loads on Peel. The most recent revelation that ageees with my own experience was interview with Casey Stoner, saying that when they try to make a frame component compliant enough to handle the frame kick backs of powered corner loads, then its too 'soft' to handle the loads and breaks.

I'm betting that someday the fastest GP's will sport a version of rod linked Norton compliant isolastic frame as do the best Harleys nowadays.

I thought the only reason Isolastics were used was a 'work around' by Norton to try and eliminate the vibration that you get from parallel twins. I would have thought that the motor as a stressed member with the frame would be far better.

I

Hobot, what the best Harleys do these days is probably not much recommendation.

Daveh, thanks for the link to Doug MacRae's - he told me in an email that it was on this forum, but I didn't find it. Kenny Cumming's Seeley is a Mk2 with the tubes that go right under the motor. Mine is a Mk3 which has a bolted in front down tube pair under normal circumstances. When I made the single front down tube that I use , I purposely offset the mount under the tank, and curved the tube to allow a bit of spring. Also to get the head off more easily. It means that the fatigue stresses end up back around the swing arm area instead of destroying the front down tube or anything near the steering head.
In the past, my main racer had a featherbed frame - the Seeley is so far ahead that it is a joke. I have enough motor and gearbox bits to build a second commando, and I've looked at the standard frame. I would use a BSA twin frame before that.

Doug MacRae, 'Seeleys are for sissies' - I have a severe psychological problem - soon as my bum (ass) hits the seat of the Seeley, I am never going t o crash again. These days it is very difficult to get me on the deck, however the Seeley is a danger to me - it inspires too much confidence. As we get older, the most difficult thing about racing is to keep the urge going. Just thinking about my Seeley generates that urge in heaps. It is a bloody nice motorbike. I built it in 1978 and never believed in it, so it didn't get used until about 2003. But when I eventually raced it, I was amazed just how good it is. I still cannot believe that long stroke motor can be raced successfully without exploding, and go so hard with so little modification.

Yes 72Combat, [great handle] iso Commandos were stop gap design for big enough engines to stay in league with the other makes of the era, til rotary issued. I suspect the genius developers may have been un-aware of just what a potent solution they actually created - when "tamed" to still comply to road and wind and fork and power loads yet not rebound resonate or transmit engine or bike sense under you at all. For all we know they make have intended rod links as well as the adjustable isolastics that apparently bean counters eliminated till later models.

To me the cycle world can be divided up in too floppy or too rigid handling. The magazines articles are full of the attempts to get some chassis compliance in swing arm or forks but then the area gets too weak not to break or stay in control they say. I now know what Neutral handling feels and looks like across the whole scope of handling conditions and rarely see it done except in cases they label amazing saves and amazing feats to catch air in a turn or wheelie out of them while straightening up. We can scratch off un-tamed iso Commandos as anything to look up to in elite racing levels, yet I don't see Becker's swash plate doing anything different that the Seeleys, a damn great accomplishment, but not a transformation of handling I'm now so spoiled on I'm impossible to live with.

My suggestion to DIY experimenters is come up with a slightly compliant top and front linkage that allow about 1/16" give each side with progressive resistance and see what happens. I did mine by a few inches of steel bolts a rod end attaches too but maybe rubber inserts might work as well. At speed the forks are very sensitive to a few silly mm's of motion off center from frame and two tires conflicting feed backs.