Have the holes been moved?

For years after building up my former basket case 70 roadster, I thought that horrible clang as the forks topped out was my fault. Now I know what all you Nortoneers know, that despite what the Good Book (the manual) says, that is the way they were made. According to my preeecise calculations, the top bush in my particular forks need to be 43mm longer to close off the stanchion holes fully just as the damper valve hits the cap. I have added a Triumph - style nylon bush as an experimental expedient to determine where I need to drill holes for a proper fix. ( If the bush works it will probably stay there - you know how it is.)
Being a simple man, I have 2 simple questions.
Are newly manufactured replacement stanchions made with the holes in the correct position? If not, why not?

The more I read about this, the smaller my brain becomes and the larger the headache. http://www.members.shaw.ca/randell/roadholders.html

Otherwise, I have done nothing to my original 69 front suspension and it works fine for me, but I ride pretty easy. Even when I rode it in the 70's I don't remember having any trouble with it. I'm thinking unless you ride over a lot of railroad tracks it doesn't matter. Just my opinion, but what do I know?

Dave
69S

MFB said:

Are newly manufactured replacement stanchions made with the holes in the correct position?

Click to expand...

I don't think so.

MFB said:

If not, why not?

Click to expand...

Suppliers wouldn't be able to sell us the Covenant sleeve kits or extended top fork bush kits if the holes were in the correct position.

Here study this to see if the holes are in the wrong place as LAB states or that Norton cheaped out using up excess springs ordered so short changed fork travel by the damper cap slam-bam solution. The length of spring before coil bind is the hidden key issue only hobot and Greg Fauth kit users ever correct. Your call of course.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/randell/roadholders.html

Norton cheaped out using up excess springs ordered

Click to expand...

Yep and we all know how Norton did that so often with their mythical parts bins ~ then printed out parts lists which did a bigger cover up than the CIA in Vietnam to Afghanistan ~ successfully tricking many/ some self appointed authoritarians into believing the whole thing was the real deal !! :roll: :lol: :lol:

If they had just put in a longer spring and longer damper rod then the top hydraulic stop functions as designed plus gains 2" of shock absorbing. I can not believe this was just an over sight so why do you think Norton short changed Commando out of what may be the best fork ever in my meager opinion. Move the bottom damper holes to get silent indefinite reversals at limits. Play with the extra spring spacer for progressive action and vary the diameter of damper rod in tight fit damper cap for progressive dampening, then fluid grade for over all dampening.

hobot said:

If they had just put in a longer spring and longer damper rod then the top hydraulic stop functions as designed plus gains 2" of shock absorbing.

Click to expand...

The trouble with that is that the bushes would come very close to each other, which would place very high stress on the bushes and slider. Besides it would be bad for me as I suffer from duck's disease, my arse is too close to the ground. In fact, part of this rebuild involves shortening the damper tubes by 1/2" to LOWER the font end. I know an 18" wheel would do the same, but I'm on a shoestring budget and I already bought a new 19" tyre. Because I have not changed any other components, the "covenant " bush I made to go below the top bush is 1/2" longer than it would otherwise have been. I know I will also lose travel, this is experimental and reversible. Except for the shortened damper tubes, but I have new ones on standby if needed.
I haven't noticed any problems at the compression end of the travel, but then I haven't tried out the lowered forks yet. I think it was Dyno Dave who did the sums to show that the holes in the bottom section of the damper are far enough up the taper (just) to enable the bump stop to work. I hope he's right because when I made mine I just copied the originals.

And this is where i started 3.1/2 years ago!
www.lansdowne-engineering.com

Well there is pending a friendly show down on which fork mods are the best on a Cdo, my cheap ass or the involved engineered Landownes.

1. I've hard proven there is no issue of bending on off road impacts that put my teeth into the bars then bike bounce air borne at full bush to bush extension to land again hard but took it in stride even if I didn't. A total non issue and mis-understanding among the un-knowing un-experienced. i was really pensive this had damaged my long forks but nope nothing at all, whew.

1.a I have leaped up-over 8 foot high steep bank into tall grass at top that hid a deep rut the front landed in on full extension to stop bike immediately and throw my ass right over the bars, but nothing detectable happened to forks.
My real lesion here was look before I leap, duh.

2. If you want lower hobot'd Roadholders its easy as pie. I made mine stand 2" taller unloaded and 1" taller with me seated, If you want stock height just put in a weaker spring than factory and it will sag to factory stance and spring rate, if ya wnat to lower fork then clip a bit off factory spring, which make its rate go up and put in a bit longer weak spring to take up noise slack. With some trial and error in spring stacks you can get progressive rates to suit your mass and rideing conditions.

3. The stanchion holes are proper placed for the way Roadholders were designed but not how Cdo's were issued - *If you allow them bush to bush travel, either by my way or by a sleeve or new holes in stanchion. Could fill and re-drill stancion holes and I'd highly respect that mod to get what you seek.

4. Your call. It twertn't DynoDave that first came up with all the detailed measure of scope of Roadholder measures to understand where Norton went wrong on Cdo's, it was Bob Davis in OZ and me in early 2000.

5. I've only been on this forum a couple years now so yo'all missed out on most of my Cdo inovations and errors too. I await yo'all catching up with me on this.
Greg Fauth called me a liar for 3 months claiming forks could not extend full 6"+, until lI told him he's got bad part somewhere, which he found and fixed then so impressed made a kit available and now causing a run on and price hike in Ford 8=9N tractor springs. Other springs could work as well or better.
Paul Geoff also thought I was off my Roadholders too, hehe.

Pual Geoff 3-8-2001 on my inquiry to buy last set of custom springs.

1. Yes, standard length.
2. The overall poundage is slightly higher otherwise the bike would sit lower
at the front due to the lower initial rate.
3. The high rate is higher than std.
4. My secret
5. I haven't tried this but the Commando fork hasn't got 6" of travel anyway
6. I'll ask but I doubt it.
7. They're great ,but then I am biased.
Regards.
Paul Goff http://www.norbsa02.freeuk.com/goffyelectrex.htm

Click to expand...

http://www.norbsa02.freeuk.com/goffyelectrex.htm

3-10-2001 I ordered the last set of custom 3 rate progressive springs.

With postage to the US the total cost for the fork springs comes to 90 US
Dollars (don't know where the Dollar sign is on this keyboard)
If you're sending cash it must be at your risk but US travellers cheques are
OK and would be preferred. Look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Paul Goff
62 Clare Rd.
Prestwood
Bucks.
HP16 ONU
England

Click to expand...

http://inlinethumb14.webshots.com/49741/1039951462037141179S500x500Q85.jpg

Why not just buy a pair of Yamaha 650 progressive rate springs and be done with it. I did for my MK3 many years ago.
But I would like to try the Lansdowne product some day..........

Tim_S

hobot said:

1.a I have leaped up-over 8 foot high steep bank into tall grass at top that hid a deep rut the front landed in on full extension to stop bike immediately and throw my ass right over the bars, but nothing detectable happened to forks.My real lesion here was look before I leap, duh.

Click to expand...

That's what this forum is all about: us latecomers get to live our lives vicariously through the experience and knowledge of those who have done it all before. The main thing is that we all continue to enjoy the unapproachable Norton even though we do it in different ways.

The design ...
Well the norton "good book" informs us that the stanchion holes are to restrict the oil ,[final rebound] with the small 3mm hole being the final act.
You can see that the holes infact never do get shut off! The damper prevents this well before the bush "close's" the holes.
Make's you think who was in charge of R&D? or more so ... who never spotted that in 25 years :!:
Anyway...good luck.

MFB, I'm always a bit pissed off life is too short to do it all, so taking little pokes at it with little flings that seem easy enough, at first. i was so amazed by the improvement in my fork mods I was testing it at every new opportunity. At home I've similar ledges I roar up but not much run off space at the top, so can't get much air, but sure did on my friends ledge that was mowed nice except at top with the rut I snagged nose down, Peel hit so hard it hurt me slamming chest on tank and helmet on bars, which pissed me off that I'd damaged my Peel with a stupid antic, but totally silent and uncanny indefinite actual stop point, just smooth instant rebound. This was more like surviving a crash than a fun experience. Oh yeah you bet I landed full on fully extended 2" beyond other Roadholders or Non Norton adaptations. This wasn't first time almost lost teeth on fork slam, a gropher hole I blasted through launched Peel and a shovel full of sod/dirt a few feet off ground before landing again, but no noise or damage. I can not take my stock Roadholder Trixie into these type flings no way Jose and she clanks on top outs and clunks on bottoming with 20-50 oll - as I've left her as is for comparison. Trixie is fine for normal on and off road flings, just not with much spirit and secure comfort as Ms Peel.

Regardless of what better experts seem to know about Roadholder, I hold that they are maybe the most perfect fork ever constructed, *if* put together as designed to get the full travel and silent stops of perfectly placed stanchion holes. I hold it was bean counters and bad payment history of Norton that caused them to use up old stock and keep using the same supplier production line, they could still drag into dealing with them.

Why the damper holes ended on wrong side of the taper, who knows?