Is a Front Vernier Iso-lastic Upgrade Worth the Trouble?

I do a similar tighten, test, repeat until it’s right. But I don’t use any feelers, I pry the cradle gently against the frame to see if it moves nicely in the ISO’s. Basically I’m looking for free movement and zero play, or as close to as I can get.

This probably increases vibration a little, but I don’t really notice it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baz
There must be different versions of the Mk3 manual because my clip (#33 above) is from a manual, as is (I presume) yours in #34 above. Quite different instructions!

No, my Mk3 manual (I did mention) says exactly the same as yours at F13, 14/15/16, therefore, how are the instructions "With the main mounting nut still slack..." referring to adjustment after slackening the nut/bolt (at F13, 4) "quite different"? Doesn't mention 'levering' while doing so.

...found (on mine) that actually 2.5 holes from "snug" gives 6 thou, when torqued up - which would suggest that Ive been running on a bit under 4 thou (1.5 holes).

...Which seems to prove setting by 'holes' is unreliable.
 
No, my Mk3 manual (I did mention) says exactly the same as yours at F13, 14/15/16, therefore, how are the instructions "With the main mounting nut still slack..." referring to adjustment after slackening the nut/bolt (at F13, 4) "quite different"? Doesn't mention 'levering' while doing so.
Yes - I agree. I should only be doing the "levering" after torquing.
.. and your clip was on the checking method whereas mine was on the recommended adjustment procedure (which appears to be faulty)
Cheers
 
I just did that on the front - after a fair bit of mucking around (that RH bolt head on the front isn't easy to get to) found (on mine) that actually 2.5 holes from "snug" gives 6 thou, when torqued up - which would suggest that I've been running on a bit under 4 thou (1.5 holes).

There must be different versions of the Mk3 manual because my clip (#33 above) is from a manual, as is (I presume) yours in #34 above. Quite different instructions!

Anyway - next is a ride test and then maybe further adjustment (of the rear).
Cheers
Well, the test ride (40 miles mixed riding) showed a slight improvement so I decided to do the same job on the rear.
To get 6 thou I had to back the adjuster off by nearly 4 holes (from "snug"). The test ride showed it to be much worse, particularly at low revs (below 3000).
Went home and set it to 2.5 holes (same as front is now) and now it's at least as good as before(acceptable) and probably a bit better.
This isolastic stuff is a bit of a Pandora's Box.
"Onwards & Upwards!!"
Cheers
 
Last edited:
Well, the test ride (40 miles mixed riding) showed a slight improvement so I decided to do the same job on the rear.
To get 6 thou I had to back the adjuster off by nearly 4 holes. The test ride showed it to be much worse, particularly at low revs (below 3000).
Went home and set it to 2.5 holes (same as front is now) and now it's at least as good as before(acceptable) and probably a bit better.
This isolastic stuff is a bit of a Pandora's Box.
"Onwards & Upwards!!"
Cheers
I loosened mine up a bit and though vib management improved, felt a bit like rear wheel was steering the bike at times. Needs more fettling. I think my new iso rubbers are the harder ones.
 
Leave it stock. The vernier MKIII Isolastics are engineered for a heavier engine package due to the electric starter and all the extra parts in the primary. If you use them on a pre MKIII you will find the bike more "viby"
 
Leave it stock. The vernier MKIII Isolastics are engineered for a heavier engine package due to the electric starter and all the extra parts in the primary. If you use them on a pre MKIII you will find the bike more "viby"
Please speak more.
You say "engineered".
I searched for a long time to determine the durometer of isolastics, from various manufacturers, etc.
Please explain where this information comes from, regarding engineering differences for MKIII iso's.
Thank you.
 
Leave it stock. The vernier MKIII Isolastics are engineered for a heavier engine package due to the electric starter and all the extra parts in the primary. If you use them on a pre MKIII you will find the bike more "viby"
What about the Mark II vernier Isolastic conversions?

Besides, it's a moot point as I found that the bike had already been converted to the front vernier isolastic.

Works great, smooth as silk from 2,800 RPM on up.
 
Please speak more.
You say "engineered".
I searched for a long time to determine the durometer of isolastics, from various manufacturers, etc.
Please explain where this information comes from, regarding engineering differences for MKIII iso's.
Thank you.
I beleive what Charles is referring to hear is the added MKIII suspensory unit spring thingie. I recall having this discussion with him some years ago in his shop.
 
When I changed my front and rear ISO's to the adjustable ones the old front looked much worse than the old back and was easier to change. I agree with the alternate head steady comments, I changed to the Dave Taylor with spring like was used on the MK3's, much nicer! Luckily I bought the Dave Taylor head steady from someone on this sight for what I felt was a great price.
 
Back
Top