Ricor Intiminators? invisable fork upgrade

These chassis vs wheel sensing shocks are more a advertising claim and I've had them on my PU truck for 20 yrs, very good cornering and rough ride help but about like any good top end shock I think, having non sensing shocks on by ole Van that can take on sports bikes only second to Peel, after 80-90 mph when the barn door aero dynamics messes with handling. Van is qucker than any Combat and able to drift skewed at 90 in grass hwy medians w/o tumbling I found. Closest thing I've tasted to a Kart drifter. Rolls tires off before handling limits hit, so screws and glue needed to improve any further. It'd be perfect craft to haul to far away track days in bad conditions. I'm saving up for Ohlins on Peel rear.


Ugh i can see the problem of a rod though the cartridge or no rod end piston pumping to resist. Cost about $50. When caught up on Peel will look at stealing some of their mechanism to fit inside damper or a threaded plug in slider for a rod to pass with piston end and maybe external bypass path with another valve. Thank goodness Peel forks are no longer a limiting factor in any conditions a PU truck could enjoy but that gets so crazy fast on Peel I'd like to get my adrenalin hits closer to home. Peel don't dive bad like prior about 2" then hits the higher spring rates. I have ridden Peels full mass on almost locked front yet hobot forks behaved fine, which means delicate hi force stablizing and twitching to fight the rear end wanting to swap places about an 1" high off surface - it feels like on the rear bounce down once stopped. I'm flat amazed by the Commando potential and wonder why hardly anyone else is too.

For a period there on I was getting to be the fast gun to seek out known as the Norton Nut in Kingston, a ground zero for sports riders from surrounding states. There are at least 2 ways to get progressive damping, one by needle dia in a jet and the other by progressive spring valves. During that period with Code's school kicking out behind me I lost respect for moderns in Ozarks real life seeing them as just flashy bait fish whose only hope of escape was straight away so very easy to snap up when any leaning involved. ANY leaning, so could still be dominant over the ton in the milder bends labeled 50 mph that are relaxing straights to Peel. On these lean times Peel's forks are fully extended between lumps. Don't know how this last data point affects fork design.

Peels Roadholder use the needle/jet, rod/cap way, but only a few 1000th's tappered rod necking needed to ease the 2" of average road nuance motion then it get stiffer faster on the harsher bigger compressions. I don't know what to fiddle with on the damper plunger thingy, but considering reversing the valve action on one side. She's got 4+ wide spring progression rates, rather soft for 2" of normal road nuance and seemingly infinite just as they indefinitely bottom and reverse.

Still ain't found the neat-0 billet damper end valve nor looked for the email file but stumble on this site again to ponder further and inquire within.

Everything you wanted to know and more about Norton Roadholder Forks

Dimensions

Upgrades

Alternatives Look here for Consentino cartridge fork replacement!

Race Tech Cartridge Emulator Installation

UPDATE! Oct 09

I am currently using an asymmetrical fork set up- I have the emulator in one leg for compression damping, and the original internals in the other for rebound damping. I am happy with this setup and think it gives the best handling to date. Be aware that this can create an imbalance of forces between the fork legs (although many modern bikes use this) and I think would be best done with a good fork brace. Make sure you keep the fork oil level above the emulator on the compression side.

In order to increase the effectiveness of the single compression damper, I installed an O-ring on the outside of the emulator body. Unscrewing the lower part of the emulator will leave a shallow groove to seat the O-ring. I forget what size I used, but it is a common one and will almost seal the gap between the emulator and fork leg.

I have been running this setup for a year now and am happy with it, ymmv.

Click to expand...

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

As a current suffer of the placebo effect :lol: I have performed an experiment on a roadholder fork without the damper rod, valves, spring and top nut .

I assembled a fork leg with the damper body, seal, seal holder and bushes. All were std and not modified.

I tested the movement of the fork from fully extended to full compression and the movement was 153mm.

I filled up the full compression fork with oil so it was 10mm short of the top, pumped it several times to eliminate any air pockets and topped up again to 10mm short of the top.

I then extended the fork to the fully extended position, waited for the oil to drain from the sides and then dipped for the new oil level.

The new oil level was 280mm below the top of the fork giving a relative level of 270mm.

So taking 153mm from 270mm the oil level increased by 117mm over the full travel of the forks.

The ID of the stanchion is 26mm so a column of oil 26mm OD 117mm high is displaced by the full movement of the forks, so any valve with a good seal to the ID of the stanchion and still under the oil level at full extension will have this column of oil forced through it by a full movement of the forks.

So no placebo after all and I can carry on taking the pills and upgrade another set of forks knowing they will work :shock: .

ludwig said:

( ps : question for the native English speakers , is it 'damping ' or ' dampening' ? I see both used ..)

Click to expand...

Just two (or more) different versions of the same language. US English speakers often use "dampener". We sometimes see: "dampner" but that appears to be a misspelling.

Loving this! Is the next logical step . Pnuematic :!: No spring at all, i have just finnished fitting a damper kit into Scott forks..fully air sprung with hydraulic damper's.
Havent a clue how they will perform :idea: but the answer will be comming this way.

motorson said:

Here is the latest stuff I put in my forks. The seal retainers are Colorado Norton Works with a proper hex to tighten them with. The aluminum cartridges are from Clubman Racing and weigh less than stock. They also have a relocated hole at the bottom (moved to just above the taper) and are supposed to keep the Norton forks from bottoming as hard. $112 for the pair. The longer top bushings are from Clubman as well and they say they keep the fork from "topping out" by covering the hole in the fork tube just before it gets to the top. About $31. I put in 20w50 oil and we will see how it goes.

The springs are Progressive and are about 1/2" longer than some new ones I just got as well as a bit thicker stock. The longer top bushings are pictured next to a pair of stock bushings. Also, the stantions are Andover units. I had bought a set of new ones from a US supplier on eBay and they rusted out without being used!!!

A lot cheaper than the Lansdown set up but I still think I will get that set up someday.

Click to expand...

I just bought almost the same setup except I kept my stock steel damper tubes instead of the aluminum ones, went with the brass caps and new steel rods. Did you go with the aluminum or stock damper rods? I'm a few days away from installing so let me know how your setup works. Why did you choose 20/50 weight oil? I was thinking about using Bel-Ray 20w fork oil. I heard if If you replace your stock springs with Progressive Suspension springs, there is a big difference . Bel-Ray is recommended?

Al rods seem only to come in mm sizes so 10 mm is closest to the Norton steel rod but a bit more OD for a closer fit though the damper cap, which definitely helps damping action. Factory gap is so wide its almost a free passage while 10 mm so tight allows sanding narrow waist to get progressive damping un and down. Just a few strokes worth is all it takes to relieve the oil flow resistance over how ever much travel length you try.

Beware Roadholders can not seal air pressure long and pump out air pocket after say 1/4 mile of normal unnoticed bounces so can hydro lock if over filling w/o knowing it like I've done. Once locked it tosses bike opposite to steering inputs even going so slow one is dragging feet in horror to creep back to drain some out. I measure 175 ml max in each leg now.

I just bought almost the same setup except I kept my stock steel damper tubes instead of the aluminum ones, went with the brass caps and new steel rods. Did you go with the aluminum or stock damper rods? I'm a few days away from installing so let me know how your setup works. Why did you choose 20/50 weight oil? I was thinking about using Bel-Ray 20w fork oil. I heard if If you replace your stock springs with Progressive Suspension springs, there is a big difference . Bel-Ray is recommended?

Click to expand...

I went with the aluminum cartridge bodies since they already had the hole moved to just above the tapered part and they are lighter. This is supposed to give more of a hydraulic stop at the bottom. One site described the method of blocking the old holes so you can drill the new ones. I used the stock steel rods. I am tracking a listing of .375 titanium rod on ebay so I may offer some for sale out of titanium at some point. The brass cap/slider on the top of the cartridge makes sense to me. I think Hobot is right about the damping properties of a closer fit to the rod. I chose 20w50 oil because just pushing them down with body weight one at a time didn't feel right with lighter oil. I also think it is near genius to use multi viscosity oil so that they don't fade when hot! Why aren't all forks doing that?? The springs are progressive but are a little thicker and 1/2 inch longer than the new ones I just got from progressive.

captwk & motorson,

I hope you get the results you are looking for with your new fork parts? I can tell you I tried the same route as you us, made my own extended top bushes, did the so called covenant conversion on repositioning the damper holes, fitted the norbsa bronze top damper caps and experimented with progressive springs. Result NADA!
The progressive spring in std 30 year old forks = bottoming out & topping out.
The covenant conversion and first time I use sleeves below standard top bushes, same as above.
Still with the progressive spring, the new long top bushes, same as above. :cry:
Next making new damper pistons, with a closer tolerance to the damper cylinder, I achieved stronger compression damping, but the handling was scary. :roll:
I then played with the endfloat of the piston, this is part of how the oil travels to give rebound damping. Still scary and very uncomfortable ride.
The forks sure felt damped, I think too much?
Oh and all the above was conducted with a myriad of oil combinations.
Look I would say I learnt quite a bit about the characteristic's of roadholders, but in the end I really had nothing better than the standard 30 year old set up, maybe worse.

Maybe I did miss something with my fork experiments, and the stuff you bought will improve the action, I would be ken on your feedback.

I succumed and just bought the Landsdowne kit, I really like experimenting and doing it myself, but this product is impressive, both in build quality and action!
John Bold was on this site, most probably reading with amusment my fork tribulations, but no problem I ordered, I paid and received great fork innards.

I still have some home brewed innovation in there, I have made up teflon top and bottom slider bushes and am using Honda fork seals to reduce the stiction and increase fork reaction to undulations and sharp bumps. And the result now is a very comfortable and fast fork set up. :wink:

Cheers richard

Hehe I really don't mean to rub experts fur the wrong way but something is working out better in Ms Peel than I hear about so far. So much so I don't see road racing as exciting enough compared to the off road weirdness and upset recovering antics surprises. Even w/o the piston or rod in place there is slider compression pumping to tap and with rod and piston in tube there is significant flow-motion resistance in the rod cap gap. In Trixies pure factory forks i like 20/50 as thinner AFT to power steering fluid to 15-20 grade fork lube was jarring and bouncing to get to pavement and on pavement magnified old hard front tire bounce into THE Hinge. In Ms Peels forks which a number of experts told me was impossible, till found out otherwise, AFT was too thin damping, 15-20 grade to harsh so in frustration tired funny sounding power steering fluid for a treat. I take that as proof positive I've lost all touch with reality or Ms Peel's impossibly wrong forks have tighter clearances than rest of ya are used to or can appreciate.

I was pretty surprised trading off on 350 lifted range MX bike and Gas Gas trail bike in the woods to find the first too bouncy stiff and the other too loosey goosey. They could hop up on taller objects like logs and tractor tires or dug out dips than Peel d/t hi centering but they didn't strike out into raw woods bored with their trails like Peel invited me into. That how I got the photo of Peel laid on side, only one frame rail hit a stump while not going fast enough over roots and rocks and brush and branch to bust though it. Ran the MX bike across lumpy pasture to get scared by its lifts and bouncing even standing on pegs, while Peel flew across it even faster with me seated.

I'm just tickled pink on the flight envelope of my wrong way against the grain Commando.
Dare ya to try it and see who's missing out most.