The Keith1069 Headsteady

cash said:

I don't like the long bolts but I don't think there's enough force during cornering to overload them

Click to expand...

Use spacers to support the bolts to help put them in pure shear, it'll take a couple of ton to bust them.

Cash

Click to expand...

Spacers purchased. Pics later tonite.

Dave, lock the bolts in place with spacers,washers, and plain nuts above the ball joint,so even when you undo the joint the bolt is still tight, it is also stronger.
By having a long bolt only done up at the bottom is weak,it would be nice to only use the plain portion of the bolt through the rod end but really requires a steped bolt machined up.
Remember the do it your self motto..... DO IT TWICE FOR 3 TIMES THE PRICE :!:

splatt said:

Dave, lock the bolts in place with spacers,washers, and plain nuts above the ball joint,so even when you undo the joint the bolt is still tight, it is also stronger.
By having a long bolt only done up at the bottom is weak,it would be nice to only use the plain portion of the bolt through the rod end but really requires a steped bolt machined up.
Remember the do it your self motto..... DO IT TWICE FOR 3 TIMES THE PRICE :!:

Click to expand...

Even at 3 times the price it's still less than the cheapest rod end solution. And so far I've only done it once. :mrgreen:

With spacers. That sure looks secure and with the spacer I don't know where it could break very easily.

I was worried about where it mounted to the frame but then realized there shouldn't be any front/back forces. Just snug it up and go.

Jam nuts on both sides of your linkage mountings will offer a more rigid and secure mounting than those spacers which are just relying on linear pressure for stablization. A jam is also needed on that linkage thread. 3/8 links would have been better. It might have been 50 cents more?
Also, I see where you have a penciled line for cutting you engine bracket. You are dealing with aluminium here. SOFT. See Keiths unit. Leave as much meat as possible to minimize flex. If things start flexing, things will eventually give way.

Jam nuts on both sides of your linkage mountings will offer a more rigid and secure mounting than those spacers which are just relying on linear pressure for stablization.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but IHO spacers are stronger and safer in this situation. Bolt threads don't like side loads, fatigue will set in at the thread root, and if not done correctly locking nuts can increase the tensile stress on the bolt.

Cash

Dave,
Take a look at Carroll Smith's book on fasteners. It's part of a series that includes Engineer to Win, Prepare to Win, and others. It's informally known as Screw to Win. He covers mounting rodends in single shear and why it can a problem. Also there is the issue of asking bolts to do things they aren't capable of doing. I'm not saying that you can't make a single shear setup that's up to the task, but those bolts have to be as short and stout as possible. You can get a drop dead gorgeous finish on aluminum edges with a carbide bit on a router table. (The poorman's mill )
http://www.carrollsmith.com/main.html

Borrowed a bandsaw so I could clean up some angles and finish the main bracket.





This is the final mockup. I'll sandblast the brackets to make them nice and uniform and then be done. Everything lines up real nice. I'll have to wait until the rest of the bike is together before final alignment.

yes, the notch in the front is just so you can see the C on the head. :mrgreen:

Finally a shot from the other side.

Stuck the Roadster tank on just to double check clearances. Tank is sitting down on the frame so it'll actually get raised up a little.

Fascinating to see the variety of approaches to clever top links.
I'm the one who brought rod links to Commandoneers attention
by reporting my top link did not transmit vibration back in '04.
Dave Taylor had a pre-existing design not constructed till
my smoothness report made him bring his nice one to market.

Bryan Tryee was the very first in late 70's to try front link
for the rain groove hunting on his commutes and worked
a treat.

Bob Patton did figures and motion and load analysis to come up
with the most effective rod location of them all, in the rump area.

Besides mentioning linkage innovators history there is a deeper
issue for me posting here now there are riders with feedback.

No one else is reporting the amazing transformation Ms Peel
displays with her Watt's like triple linkage and wonder why?
So good of neutral handling I tease sports bikes to try to
keep up beyond 90 in laid over tights in glee no worry at
all but on coming blind hazards > so smooth its flying
carpet like > as bike simply disappears to pilot sensation
but for the breath taking G's! Flabbergastingly Fabulous!

On Ms Peel, Only the rump rod is robust 1/2" rods and stout
mounts. ala Patton's advice and his test surfing by body english
on rural rough tights > essentially hands off, before I tried it.

But her top and front links both have quick hick's cheap-easy
scabbed together, several inch long 3/8" steel bolts as one rod end
mount. This gives some silly mm of compliance for strain storing
delights in the front and top, side to side loads &/or chassis twist.
If I adjusted to take out the neutral slight slack of rods or I leave
lock nuts loose for them to seek own tension - I get vibe'd.

I think the compliance allows articulated chassis turns taking
out tire conflicts as well as wind buffet and road texture
influence on aim and attitude. Don't know yet and the links
give may not matter - just the triangulation.

There is one more mystery detail between what Patton and Peel
have - no one else does- is use of Lord's Elastometric rod ends.
Rubber cushioned - we got the last they ever made, so don't
know if that's over kill feature or last key for the funnest to
ride bikes ever created.

So teasing the real mechanics and manic riders to come up with
robust rear links and experiment with more complaint top and front
links and see what happens. Center stand will foul a rear link
like Peels location.


I judge linkage pecking order as
top link worth 5%
front worth 15^% -
rear 80%.
Combine all 3 > 110% as far as I've tested so far, as so far have not been
able to upset Peel or find limits to how sharp and fast
decreasing radius turns can be attacked.

http://rides.webshots.com/photo/2522397 ... 1179eOsGOP


http://rides.webshots.com/photo/1040309 ... 1179NBoCCa


http://rides.webshots.com/photo/1147697 ... 1179mmiFIK


http://rides.webshots.com/photo/1147693 ... 1179LNmGLD


http://rides.webshots.com/photo/2515864 ... 1179rvtCJF

hobot

hobot said:

triple linkage ...Only the rump rod is robust 1/2" rods and stout mounts. ..top and front links both have quick hick's cheap-easy scabbed together, several inch long 3/8" steel bolts as one rod end mount. ...the links "give" may not matter - just the triangulation.

Click to expand...

I agree, it seems so logical, I wonder why more of the folks developing top links aren't also doing front and especially rear units?

I suspect oil filter access and centerstand mounting conflicts are the biggest reason.

grandpaul said:

hobot said:

triple linkage ...Only the rump rod is robust 1/2" rods and stout mounts. ..top and front links both have quick hick's cheap-easy scabbed together, several inch long 3/8" steel bolts as one rod end mount. ...the links "give" may not matter - just the triangulation.

Click to expand...

I agree, it seems so logical, I wonder why more of the folks developing top links aren't also doing front and especially rear units?

I suspect oil filter access and centerstand mounting conflicts are the biggest reason.

Click to expand...

Although there are bolt on front links no one has developed (as far as I can tell) a bolt on rear link. And as you mention you will probably lose the centerstand.

Why only one tri-linked Commando so far?

First:
I know I would not bother with a rear link if all I'd experienced
was a front and top one, nice as those help tame isolastics-bike
wind buffets and wiggle jiggles road texture discomforts.

2nd
Is factory center stand will foul a rump rod placed
low enough to clear a factory oil filer.

3rd
Is making a frame safe, robust tube mount in the bend area
that projects far back or up enough to line up with opposite
side cradle mount.

4th
Unless flying beyond hinged onset and out of two tire traction
states in long held WOT laid down sweepers. who would
know they "Need" a 'rump rod to see what missing out on.


Beside the handling increase there is another wonder
to behold to me just Putt Putting along at speed limits,
feels like a Huge Stable Inertial Mass of non ruffled
steady smoothness that is uncanny to experience.
Until these nuance vibrations, wiggle jiggles and trembles
are missing, you'd think a Commando was a smooth
cruiser.

Besides the Neutral Handling, which I think Bob and I may
be the only ones so far to really really know what
that means - Nil Pilot effort for any set lean or aim.
Peel needs 3X the power to faster explore 3rd, 4th and 5th
steering modes or phase transitions of controls response .

Tri linkage untangles all the influences
that otherwise clash and slash against each other
so you can't really tell what is doing what to handling.
You can tell wind hum from tire hum, wind buffet
from road roughness, vital fork surface following form
the tire's pressure differentials springing into chassis.

I know at least 3 others taking the hint - and either placing
a Patton link like Peel or one of their own mounted
above the gearbox. None roadworthy yet.

Keep in mind that Norton kept cutting iso rubbers in half
area >>>> 4 times till they got it down to 2300 isolation.
Any rubber area added that is not super soft will increase the
rpm isolation begins.

hobot

Postby hobot » Fri Jun 04, 2010 12:25 pm
Fascinating to see the variety of approaches to clever top links.
I'm the one who brought rod links to Commandoneers attention
by reporting my top link did not transmit vibration back in '04.
Dave Taylor had a pre-existing design not constructed till
my smoothness report made him bring his nice one to market.

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly it was Bob Patton who first brought the link to everyones attention, I think in late 2002, with his very neat rear link and reported no increase in vibration.

My head link design and mount was indeed pre-existing, I would reckon before 2001 and at the time the cost of a pair spherical rod ends was £20. A lump of money back then and I couldn't commit the £20 on what was just an idea. (You can get them for £5 a pair now). Bob's report was all I needed to hear and two days later the first Norton Commando Head Steady was fitted and in use, a fortnight later a second was fitted to a mate's Commando with the same results.

My records show by May 2003 I'd hand made a dozen and got them all over the Commando world with positive reports coming back form all.

Sorry to say Hobot you weren't the first to fit a top link.

Dave Taylor

Hey David,
I always alert in my posts that your top steady pre-exited mine.
I only thought I was first to report top rod could be vibe free
and got impression from our posts my report was a factor in you
going to market, with the bench mark in top linkage kits.

Bryan Tryee was the first pioneer to solve rain groove following
with a front link back in late '70's.

My interest in stirring the pot on head steady - is if its
better, same as or worse - to make them non-compliant like
all the others beauties I've seen or
with some spring give to it like my expedient slapped together
versions.
Also do not know if rear link needs cushioned rod ends or not.

My only claim to fame in roddage is experience of a triplex
link combo that delivers uncanny inertial massiveness sense
that makes a Commando flat disappear to pilot attention
and is essentially un limited in corner and sweeper attacking.
Nothing so timid cornering as a neck and neck contest
with elite sports bikes, poor dangerous corner crippled things.

Let me know when any one can discuss with me their adventures
into the further 3 phases of faster cornering beyond two tire contact
counter steering. I'll even spot ya Peel's top and front linkage
sorta like tying a pistola experts non shooting hand behind
them, just centers their turning mass better.

hobot

I'm going to resurrect this thread. I was thinking what if instead of just a flat plate on the frame mount bottoms, I put a piece of angle there that hung down, kind of like the head mount points up? That way, I could put some heim joints in there and not use long bolts to catch the mounts, it would be more like the CNW version.



Now if I did that is there any reason to use the link rods since I probably wouldn't need those long bolts? I notice it looks like CNW uses the link rods. I thought about splatt's idea of using offset angle, but I don't want to drive back to Culpeper for a 2" piece of 2x3x.250. Actually I found the 6061, $8 for 2'.

Dave
69S

Think that they look like tie rod ends? The rest
no doubt can be run up in angle. Prelubricated
the tie rod ends should be silent and long lived.

McMaster calls the ones with the threaded part in the ball joint, 'Lube free heavy duty ball joint linkage', and the ones with the hole in the ball 'Self lube ball joint rod ends'. But they don't specify any load capacity for the 'ball joint linkage', I wonder why. I'm going to try to mock up some parts less the joints to see if I can get the spacing within what I think the joints will tolerate. I think I can make a better version of the frame mounting than what has been done. I don't like the button head bolts threaded into the angle. I'm going to see if I can bolt it together with an arm protruding to the bottom to catch the link.

Dave
69S

Here's my version. Let the critique begin. Of course I have more holes to drill and shaping to finish. But I'm done for today.



Dave
69S