Rod end links links
- Thread starter dero
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Messages
- 6,792
Just look below your post, there are some similar posts which always auto appear when a match to the subject line is already posted. A new feature.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 1,215
If you are searching on "helm" joint, you might not find much. They are called Heim joints, also called rose joints, or rod ends.
Stephen Hill
Stephen Hill
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2006
- Messages
- 33
I haven't been on this site for over 10 years. I am finally in the process of putting things back together after a detonation event several years ago and saw this post from last year. in response, here is a link to something I posted in 2006 or so discussing my "MonoPlane Commando" 3 point linkage system ala Buell that I built for my MkIII Commando. It is referenced in old Access Norton posts but the links (including INOA site) are toast, it appears. Here is a link:
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ajp0LHBjgmfvoSqvr_NSdPMyr8X4
The linkage setup is visually transparent and the design has (in my opinion) an OEM feel. It works very well and adds rigidity while maintaining the ISO functionality (minus the nylon washer side movement control which is rendered redundant). As designed, it pretty much requires a teardown to a bare frame and modifications (on the MkIII) to the air filter/battery carrier and oil tank lower mount. It can be constructed using a skill saw, angle cutoff/grinder, drill (preferably a drill press), LH/RH taps, & mig welder. Getting mounts laid out so the links are fully extended (midpoint, horizontal) in a static position is important. I stripped the frame first and blasted, phosphated and, recoated the frame afterward. The linkage components were blasted/treated and coated using KG Industries' GunKote. If I did it again I would have built a temporary oven and used Gunkote for the frame.
Is it worth it? I guess it is a "if you have to ask the price..." deals. It does significantly reduce/eliminate the inherent system "play" using washers with clearance gaps and the rod ends should maintain their precision without periodic adjustment. Handling is better (bike stays upright riding hands-off. It previously would fall off to one side fairly quickly without bar input) and handling is more precise. Vibrations are just as controlled as the stock setup. On the other hand, it is something of a commitment to implement the changes. The Most involved work involves the rear linkage. The head steady isn't that involved and you can substitute the Dave Taylor unit. The front linkage is a "plug-in"cartridge affair except for the frame mount bracket. I do think that the rear linkage is critical to making the whole system work however. And it is the link that takes the largest loads. The changes here included fabricating and installing an aluminum bulkhead and trucating the rear fender to attach to it (see photos).
I also reinforced the subframe. Probably worthwhile, but the size of the plate is a bit overkill IMHO. Plus you do not want to weld on the axle housing since it will have to be rebored to straighten.
Last comment regards adding linkage points. There had been some comments in the past. Any additional hardpoints above 3 only creates problems. A plane is defined by 3 points. Installing 4 points creates four possible planes so the system will be continually in conflict. Three points are good...
Dave Winship
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ajp0LHBjgmfvoSqvr_NSdPMyr8X4
The linkage setup is visually transparent and the design has (in my opinion) an OEM feel. It works very well and adds rigidity while maintaining the ISO functionality (minus the nylon washer side movement control which is rendered redundant). As designed, it pretty much requires a teardown to a bare frame and modifications (on the MkIII) to the air filter/battery carrier and oil tank lower mount. It can be constructed using a skill saw, angle cutoff/grinder, drill (preferably a drill press), LH/RH taps, & mig welder. Getting mounts laid out so the links are fully extended (midpoint, horizontal) in a static position is important. I stripped the frame first and blasted, phosphated and, recoated the frame afterward. The linkage components were blasted/treated and coated using KG Industries' GunKote. If I did it again I would have built a temporary oven and used Gunkote for the frame.
Is it worth it? I guess it is a "if you have to ask the price..." deals. It does significantly reduce/eliminate the inherent system "play" using washers with clearance gaps and the rod ends should maintain their precision without periodic adjustment. Handling is better (bike stays upright riding hands-off. It previously would fall off to one side fairly quickly without bar input) and handling is more precise. Vibrations are just as controlled as the stock setup. On the other hand, it is something of a commitment to implement the changes. The Most involved work involves the rear linkage. The head steady isn't that involved and you can substitute the Dave Taylor unit. The front linkage is a "plug-in"cartridge affair except for the frame mount bracket. I do think that the rear linkage is critical to making the whole system work however. And it is the link that takes the largest loads. The changes here included fabricating and installing an aluminum bulkhead and trucating the rear fender to attach to it (see photos).
I also reinforced the subframe. Probably worthwhile, but the size of the plate is a bit overkill IMHO. Plus you do not want to weld on the axle housing since it will have to be rebored to straighten.
Last comment regards adding linkage points. There had been some comments in the past. Any additional hardpoints above 3 only creates problems. A plane is defined by 3 points. Installing 4 points creates four possible planes so the system will be continually in conflict. Three points are good...
Dave Winship
lcrken
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 4,974
Nice system, Dave, and a good writeup of it. I remember when you first posted the info. I downloaded pretty much all the pictures and descriptions you made available. I'd still like to try it on a bike one day, but, as you've pointed out, it is not a simple mod, but requires pretty much a complete disassembly of the bike. If I'd remembered it, I might have tried it on my current build, but too late now. Maybe on the next one
Ken
Ken
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2006
- Messages
- 33
Agreed regarding project ROI. Even if incorporated in teardown.
I purchased my MkIII in 1977 (second Commando. First was a 1970). But work, children and moves beginning in 1981 left it setting in the garage for 23 years... mostly next to the bag of rock salt. When I decided to put it back on the road I figured it would be simple enough... not. So I pulled EVERYTHING apart and took the the entire rebuild on as a bit of a ($$) science project. The linkage setup was something I had thought about since I first looked into the Buell. Took one for a ride. Nice enough bike, but boy did the rear cylinder broadcast heat. And that was in April. Thought it would be pretty unbearable in August heat in central TX.
After considering various design options, I could not ID a more elegant ISO solution that seemed effective. Still can't. Like I said, it does work, but the degree of improvement demonstrates that the std ISO's with washers is pretty effective (albeit prone to wear/degradation depending on climate). It may also indicate the limits to the Commando frame rigidity (vs, say a Featherbed). The rebuild/upgrade, like most, incorporated lots of elements that would be impossible to justify time or finance-wise (sort of exemplifies the classic Brit motorcycle ownership experience). But sometimes you paint something just to paint something well. And it feels good.
Heck, if I just wanted to go fast I'd hop on the Tuono. Regards.
Dave
I purchased my MkIII in 1977 (second Commando. First was a 1970). But work, children and moves beginning in 1981 left it setting in the garage for 23 years... mostly next to the bag of rock salt
. When I decided to put it back on the road I figured it would be simple enough... not. So I pulled EVERYTHING apart and took the the entire rebuild on as a bit of a ($$) science project. The linkage setup was something I had thought about since I first looked into the Buell. Took one for a ride. Nice enough bike, but boy did the rear cylinder broadcast heat. And that was in April. Thought it would be pretty unbearable in August heat in central TX. After considering various design options, I could not ID a more elegant ISO solution that seemed effective. Still can't. Like I said, it does work, but the degree of improvement demonstrates that the std ISO's with washers is pretty effective (albeit prone to wear/degradation depending on climate). It may also indicate the limits to the Commando frame rigidity (vs, say a Featherbed). The rebuild/upgrade, like most, incorporated lots of elements that would be impossible to justify time or finance-wise (sort of exemplifies the classic Brit motorcycle ownership experience). But sometimes you paint something just to paint something well. And it feels good.
Heck, if I just wanted to go fast I'd hop on the Tuono
. Regards.Dave
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2016
- Messages
- 275
For further use, perhaps should you modify the title to make it easier to find here in AN.
- Status