Linked Commandos

There are a few people on here with linked Commandos or building them (all three links not just the head steady) but there doesnt seem to be a great deal of information about them....

What size joints are being used 5/16? 3/8?, has anyone broken a smaller joint?

What sort of clearances are being run on the ISOs? Would I be right in thinking that the clearances could be a lot larger as the lateral movement is controlled by the joints?

Oh and lots of pictures would be good!

I'm setting mine up with 3/8" rod ends. they have a tensile strength of 7500 Lbs. From evewrything that I have read and seen, this seems to be average. I've seen some larger and some smaller. As for pictures Jeandr and Hobot have posted pictures in the past. I'll post some as soon as I get around to mounting them, it will be a few weeks. I also have a few sets of spare rodends, in several flavors, LH, RH, Male and Female threads. Reasonably priced, If anyone is interested PM me.

I am using ½" rod ends which is probably overkill, these things are BIG, rated at over 12,000 lbs. See cafe-commando-build-thread-t8372.html for my build pictures.

Jean

Will you keep the PTFE thrust washers, I wondered if they would give a benificial damping effect ? I've got most of the bits just never got round to it.

Cash

Alas No One Yet But hobot On - Watt's like triple linked Ms Peel, has any idea what Bob Patton's rear link plus 2 helper links in Brian Tyree's breast and hobot's head rod does to TRANSFORM the handling of an isolastic Commando beyond anything I could of imagined possible on two or one tire. Brian was 1st to link the front, Patton the rear and hobot the head - then all 3 at once Ooo LA LA!!

Even lazy riding it makes a Commando feel so smooth and stable I doubt a fully loaded Goldwing is nicer, but sure can't flick and fly off surfaces on purpose like my Ms Peel. Taylor is the 1st to sell to vendors but not the 1st to test a top link didn't transmit vibration. With rods and fork brace I can ride a locked front tire down from ~30 mph trying to pull off a stoppie, if I don't ease into the lock up I get thrown over the bars on such harsh pull downs, rather better whoa than any modern i've tried to match and NOT just topple over. UGH>

Patton calculated there is over 300 lb side loads on a flung Cdo so used 1/2" rod size on rear and so did I going by the rated specs of the rod ends. No one yet knows how small they can get away with and still last w/o fracture or premature rod clearance wear.

The rod link business is new Cdo ground to explore as no one yet knows which arrangement works best or if it matters that much - as a bunch of ways and locations to place links, some to allow center stand and others to hide them.
Comstock's front link goes through the bottom of front iso mount plate, others have put a rearward-middle link on top of cradle/tranny. Some think best to mount links close to iso mounts, others like hobot and Patton think best to place as far away from iso mounts for the added leverage to stabilize chassis.

On Ms Peel I found it best to set front iso a bit looser than factory and rear a bit tigher for smoothest feel. If rods not set a full neutral slack I got vibed. But Patton and I used rubber cushioned rod ends, so don't know it that matters. Lord's stopped making Elastometric ends, I got the last from their vendors in '03 after global search. So far no one with ordinary ends has mentioned vibration issues, just pleasure of improvements, meager as that may be w/o the real work horse rump rod installed.

One other Peel link feature or fault, is the wimpy flexy head and breast mounts. Don't know if that allows more usable frame wrap up, energy store and sling shot release or is limiting winding up tighter or what? I have not been able to exceed Peel limits, she just changes phase and goes harder* * *!

What ya must realize is I have to ride in half crashing states routinely on THE Gravel, this causes many surprise skip outs and slides and drifts and maniac maneuvers from surprise crisis about once or twice a trip, INVOLUNTARY squeals and screams of close calls ok w/o any chance of braking just throttle forks and body English. It is not fun, it is hard work and scary - so much so I've taken off suit-helmet to take the car - after a soul search if I was up to it that day to decide >>> unable to face it or take another crash as well as on another day.

I must fairly creep about on regular Commandos and my spiffed up SV650 with rubber so soft pebbles don't get scrapped off by loud noises passing through fender gap - till I get back and tires so hot they release the pebbles after tire locked them in place on the surface for grip way beyond a knobbie on hard pack below the marbles and arrowheads. Yet on linked Peel I'm a maniac in glee to stay so loose its literally like water skiing and I don't have to slow down but for unseen hazards into blinds. I have little respect for my SV handling yet leave other sports bikers behind on it too in twisties, just not a full shift ahead like on Ms Peel. I do not like to slide Peel wider like flat tract, NO Sir I slide her to take more power to turn sharper tighter harsher while straight steering!!!!

I can not practice Ms Peel lines on my SV nor 900 Ninja as they loose it long before Peel even begins to get loose. This looseness is the end of limits to other bikes, they then must cross up and slide wide like flat tracker to relieve loads, yet that's just the beginning of Ms Peel's real fun leaving plain jane ho hum two tire leaned counter steering behind to launch in to the other 3 phases of faster funner handling changing direction ACCELERATING. I seek out decreasing radius turns to power harder into, and can turn any turn into a faster sharper radius turn. Braking has no part in Peels handling beyond ordinary cycles, but to change direction or lean in a ballistic jerk. Peel excels on broken wavy lumpy pavement w/o a bit of upset to her line of drive, even though I feel and see chassis and forks twisting up or even disappear in blur of vibration - like ends of hobot modified RoadHolders do. Flabbergastingly Fabulous!

Call me crazy I do not care I pretty much know I've got the best handling motorcycle ever fielded - just awaiting about 3x's the power to explore more phase 5 handling, which if tire can't stay in grinding zone it hi sides horrible.
So simple to do anyone can have what I savor so much now, if ya have the forced on attitude and practiced skills to take it to known limits THEN NAIL IT out of There in Glee. Ms Peel gets easier to handle as loads go up, not harder and nil pilot strength or reflexes but on throttle action, I have to actually let go of bars in transitions not force em, like a sail boat in a tack the boom flys across the deck in a flash all by itself. No other bike in the world yet delivers the goods like smooth flying magic carpet Ms Peel.

Come on you hot shots catch up to what's possible on a rubber baby buggy Commando! No One but hobot yet knows what you are missing out on tri links.

http://www.brockeng.com/mechanism/Watt.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Watts_linkage.gif

I think these links are more like Panhard rods than Watts. All these rods on the Nortons do is limit the motion in a roughly vertical plane, through a very small arc. So far I have not seen any calculations on the placement of the links that would directly correlate to the Watt's formula. Nor is there any reason for a Watt's linkage, as the range of motion that is being controlled is so small.

Yeah yeah blab blab - it is sort of like a Panhead but more like Watt's because of my geometry and the tiny range of motion. if you can't expand that vertical red line wider in your mind to be the cradle and then picture extending the links across each others over lapped ends, then you will miss the facts and look at it like an automotive suspension.

Rods don't prevent the chassis twist, merely move the loads higher till it twists > But then allows chassis un-twist in one smooth fast action w/o rebound. There is NOTHING to recover from when I release the loads on Peel or one or both of her tire lift off because I'm not letting off. Then two things can happen, if only rear in grip it slings shots Peel into new line, if both tires lift off then Peel does a single .3 sec unwrap to fly outward at same lean angle to land softly on a smashed down rear patch that can take power like no other bike in peak of apex.

Ms Peel has TOTALLY SOLVED any and all handling issues on phase 2 cornering, which is what everyone and their little sisters does up to the most elite road racing examples with digital brains to AVOID pilot errors pressing cycles beyond their acceleration and turning tolerance, the poor dangerous corner cripples.

Only ice spiked speedway bikes and MX cycles, in deep dirt vertical ruts can hook up enough to pull off side ways wheelies and straight steering powered leans Ms Peel does on tarmac with tractor tread long wear non race tires!

It is counter productive for me to study ordinary racer lines and postures and its counter productive to go by any experience you may have UNless its on Ice spiked speedway or MX dirt racrs, as even I can not approach the energy levels it takes to enter phase 3 and beyond on ordinary bikes w/o them going out of control = by tank slap, total traction let go or by tip up sideways on CoG to lift both tires at once into a low side or rear slide fling skyward in hi sides.

I've said it before but would pass over my head too before tri-rods experience, I No Longer Consider elite cycles as any competition to corning, pashaw, my goal is taking on 4wd rally cars in loose stuff and drift cars on pavement, the 1000 hp kind up to 150 mph between the flings. i seriously wonder if Peel can take on F1 cars on technical tracks like Barber - they can't hit but 150 and don't think they can get much down force to matter in the tight turn speeds.

Bicker among yourselves on what Ms Peel is all about but I'm done with handling testing or any handling improvements, just need way more power to play harder and be more relaxed refreshed by using R wrist to steer while fully locked in one merged stable position on Ms Peel. Hanging off is for sissy's and cycle cripples as tends to lever tires off the surface and destabilize their power handling even more. Even race Commando will pogo off pegs in leans to need a knee down to lift back on tires, not the fastest funnest way around for me.

Hell I learned the 5 phases on moderns but in shear terror, even learning to hi sdie em in time to fly far enough outward the chassis crazies settle down before landing but they splish splash so many resonances together with road texture and wind eddies its too random to predict each and every reaction like I can on Ms Peel, so I've totally sworn off pressing modern anymore as not worth the risk for such little extra speed and G thrills I crave.

Road racing holds no challenge to Ms Peel, its the off road stuff I'm concerned with most now, on road race soft rubber of course.

hobot said:

Yeah yeah blab blab - it is sort of like a Panhead but more like Watt's because of my geometry and the tiny range of motion. if you can't expand that vertical red line wider in your mind to be the cradle and then picture extending the links across each others over lapped ends, then you will miss the facts and look at it like an automotive suspension.

Click to expand...

Strangely I see what you mean. As long as you insure that the front and rear links are equal length then you should have a Watts motion. Otherwise it's a couple Panhard rods. :mrgreen:

swooshdave said:

hobot said:

Yeah yeah blab blab - it is sort of like a Panhead but more like Watt's because of my geometry and the tiny range of motion. if you can't expand that vertical red line wider in your mind to be the cradle and then picture extending the links across each others over lapped ends, then you will miss the facts and look at it like an automotive suspension.

Click to expand...

Strangely I see what you mean. As long as you insure that the front and rear links are equal length then you should have a Watts motion. Otherwise it's a couple Panhard rods. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

That brings another question to mind, which end (side) of each link should be attached to the motor assembly? All three on the same side and same length to give a parallel movement, different front to back to give your watts link, although this will twist the motor assembly off centre.... On the other hand the motion is probably so small (possibly no more than the slop in worn rose joints) that it does not matter either way.

Cheesy said:

swooshdave said:

hobot said:

Yeah yeah blab blab - it is sort of like a Panhead but more like Watt's because of my geometry and the tiny range of motion. if you can't expand that vertical red line wider in your mind to be the cradle and then picture extending the links across each others over lapped ends, then you will miss the facts and look at it like an automotive suspension.

Click to expand...

Strangely I see what you mean. As long as you insure that the front and rear links are equal length then you should have a Watts motion. Otherwise it's a couple Panhard rods. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

That brings another question to mind, which end (side) of each link should be attached to the motor assembly? All three on the same side and same length to give a parallel movement, different front to back to give your watts link, although this will twist the motor assembly off centre.... On the other hand the motion is probably so small (possibly no more than the slop in worn rose joints) that it does not matter either way.

Click to expand...

That is interesting and something I've tried to think about. So with links on opposite sides it might look something like this:



This is obviously exaggerated but you're correct, there will be some twisting but the top link will counteract that, perhaps bind. So for those of you with Tri-Link™ Commandos, are the links all on the same side?

For a Watts link to work you need to pivot around a center point. This will give you the vertical motion. Otherwise it's just a mess.

Right?

Thanks for taking my report objectively. Your example is on scale of what happens in a suspension, but not on our Commandos. Trick with Watt's linkage is to make the radius rods long enough that the pure linear w/o the tipping action of center section is provided for. In the tiny motions of Commando power unit orbital and a 4-5 inch reach seems to be enough, not to bind in its normal range. Also matters that each rods motion is a mirror image of the other, so can't mount on same side of frame and crade. Ms Peels is not. Ms Peel rod links are not aligned to chassis vertical but in line with piston bores,
ie: canted 15% forward.

The cradle can be concieved as just a thicker plate that rods hook on far sides of. It flat works a treat in Ms Peel with 5 inch centers. Proven done deal.

BUT IT MUST BE DOING OR ALLOWING something other than just stiffening towards rigid as everyone else and their sister is doing in chassis development. I learn to our that piece on engineering mis-direction almost a decade ago.

Personally I think most benefit, is links still allow chassis to twist to take up tire conflicts but prevent over twisting and Any resonating rebounds-ringing I get into horrifically on rigid moderns. In some conditions of powered lean the chassis-forks can resonate at tire squeal freg so tires let go instantly. Before I gave up on pressing moderns - I'd be sliding the front tire with rear still in grip but frame going nutzo and turn going way wider than desired. No more for me thankyou. I used to think steering damper would help but in horror found it just made fast recovery impossible, so gave up on them too, even on wigglely moderns. If you still think best moderns are stable rides, you ain't felt a triple linked Commando yet. It sure surprised me no end, still not over it, may never be, its so uncanny not having anything to worry about or work for but sudden hazards in blinds, slowing up or not being always able to turn even sharper aint a concern. I do have to use breath control to keep vision darkening beyond just going tunnel vision from the G's. i have great vision but have trouble to stay in focus the surrounds zoom in and change so fast eye lens can't keep up.

Put your clever mind on this and see what happens to you too!

If the Colt 45 was old west size equalizer then the rump rod is the same for hi hp cycles, Nay even better - as a fanned single action pistola is faster to aim and hit than a modern semi auto pistol.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN-Tm9HSKdg[/video]

Im really going to have to get motivated and draw up a frame, ISOs, cradle and swingarm etc and see what sort of impact any of these variables have. Time permitting I want to have a go at linking my bike, at the moment I am planning on making a new front and rear ISO cap (the big screw on bit) with an integrated mounting for the rod end. For the frame mount this is probably one of the strongest points due to the thru bolt and the ISO tube (and it would be taking this load if the link wasnt there anyway), the other end of the link will be to a welded on bracket on the cradle and front mount

I picture the Commando as two long over lapping parts, a center plate inside a split fork. Stick R index finer in the valley between L index and mid finger to get the idea.

The isolastic vertical and horizontal motions all pivot on the rear mount, so a rod in line near rear iso would not be able to resist the rear patch slapping the front iso gap silly into the forks and back again. The least important to control is the tipping action at head steady. My top link only takes out the wind buffet of forks and nuance level road un-eveness, not much to do with control in turns but puts icing on the smoothness cake as if a Goldwing in N with engine killed.

Personally I'm of opinion to make the ends as stiff as possible but let the twist happen in the center zone.

hobot said:

I picture the Commando as two long over lapping parts, a center plate inside a split fork. Stick R index finer in the valley between L index and mid finger to get the idea.

The isolastic vertical and horizontal motions all pivot on the rear mount, so a rod in line near rear iso would not be able to resist the rear patch slapping the front iso gap silly into the forks and back again. The least important to control is the tipping action at head steady. My top link only takes out the wind buffet of forks and nuance level road un-eveness, not much to do with control in turns but puts icing on the smoothness cake as if a Goldwing in N with engine killed.

Personally I'm of opinion to make the ends as stiff as possible but let the twist happen in the center zone.

Click to expand...

Would the front link in line with the front ISO not stop this happening though?

I'm still of the opinion that coupled with the isolatics all the rod ends do is prevent any measurable side movement due to the isolatic gap. Basically that .10in gap isn't allowed to slop around because it's controlled.

swooshdave said:

I'm still of the opinion that coupled with the isolatics all the rod ends do is prevent any measurable side movement due to the isolatic gap. Basically that .10in gap isn't allowed to slop around because it's controlled.

Click to expand...

Thats kind of what I was thinking, the links give a frictionless (I hate using that word) restraint only allowing forward-backward and up-down movement. Maybe there is more too it than this though?

Delete

Strangely I see what you mean. As long as you insure that the front and rear links are equal length then you should have a Watts motion. Otherwise it's a couple Panhard rods. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Video Dave, this adds greatly to my understanding between the two link styles.
I'll have to measure but Peel rump and breast and head links are pretty darn close to equal length. I over looked that your animation indeed shows the wide center section and over lapped equal length links.

I did indeed strain the frame to fully load Peel rods but got no binding vibration as I did on testing rods set at no slack and slack in combination. Any tight rod transmitted vibes, even my Elslastometric rubber cushioned ones. implies rubberized rod ends not needed, cool.