Mk III head steady question

I just reassembled the head steady on my Mk III Commando and the side plates are now canted out at the top towards the mounting rubbers (06-0622) that mount to the frame. It's a simple job and I can't imagine how or if I screwed-up but it just doesn't look right. Should the mounting plates be parallel to each other? Thanks...

They SHOULD be parallel, but aren't always perfect.

Before tightening the 3 bolts at the head, and the two through-bolts, you should align everything else, making sure your main iso rubbers aren't worn, and that they're properly installed & adjusted.

Thanks for your posts GrandPaul and L.A.B. The mounting rubbers aren't worn, they're brand new The mounting plates bulge out so much where the mounting rubbers are that I thought that they should be the small mounting rubbers that are used for the oil tank but I was wrong.
I keep going over the parts explosion but it's such a simple re-installation, especially since I only removed the mounting rubbers, mounting plates, studs and spacers. The head steady and the associated parts (bracket, spring, trunion, etc.) weren't removed at all.

marctroy said:

I just reassembled the head steady on my Mk III Commando and the side plates are now canted out at the top towards the mounting rubbers (06-0622) that mount to the frame. It's a simple job and I can't imagine how or if I screwed-up but it just doesn't look right. Should the mounting plates be parallel to each other? Thanks...

Click to expand...

My Mk3's head steady measures 2.5" across the box section, however distance across the rubber mounts is 2.8". Fully tightening the lower side plate to steady fasteners will compress the rubbers and should straighten up the side plates, however I don't know if it was designed that way, or whether the rubber mountings are now wider than the originals?

Thanks for the measurements L.A.B. 0.3" doesn't sound like much but that could be the issue; I'll be able to get back to it this weekend and I'll post my findings...

marctroy said:

Thanks for the measurements L.A.B. 0.3" doesn't sound like much but that could be the issue; I'll be able to get back to it this weekend and I'll post my findings...

Click to expand...

Agreed, it doesn't sound much, but it is a significant amount.

I also noticed that with the bike upright, and the lower side plate mountings fully loosened, and the rubber mounting nuts tightened, the gaps between the side plates and box steady were unequal with the largest gap on the right. In this condition, tightening the lower mounts with the uneven gaps tended to pull the head and therefore tilt the complete engine/cradle assembly slightly over to the right, so I added shims (OK, washers) between the box steady and the R/H plate until the gaps were equal so the head would not be pulled to one side when the lower fasteners were tightened.

I had to use asymmetrical stack of spacers/washers on the lower side of plates to get them essentially both vertical and not adding strain load to the rubbers when all nipped up. Also have had to open the head plate slot holes to get better off centering of mount to equalize its rubber tension. On non-boxed mount had to bend its angle some to get the rest of shear loads off the rubbers too. if the this top steady gets in too much bind it can transmit waves of buzz to side loads of wind or turning leans. I've waist-ed a Combat's last set of cushions for a bit more nothing to feel.