The thorny topic of Head Steady choices

I've been researching the Norton Steady head issue and read the thread on the Norvil/Redrider and DT steady heads with great interest. Here is the dilemma:

I am a new Norton owner and have discovered some unfortunate flaws with the machine during the re-build. The pressing issue is that the steady head threads in the frame have been welded over and I cannot gauge the integrity of the weld. As such, the feasibility of a drill and tap repair through the weld area remains tricky and questionable. With this in mind, the clamp-type steady head assembly becomes a consideration. I recognize however, that a tube will loose structural integrity if crushed by clamping forces. Any manner of crimp, dent or sharp bend in a tube weakens it.

I'd like to hear your opinion on my belief (hope) that the support tube clamping technique may still be a viable option. In the case of my frame, the steady head plug situated in the frame tube has already been damaged and the subsequent welding repair process may have weakened the area surrounding the weld further (in the HAZ or heat affected zone). To me, the 5/16" hole through the tube has already compromised the tube integrity. But if the clamp used in some assemblies is carefully applied around the tube with no crushing forces, I think it may form an adequate load point.

The Old Britt Steady head (~$400) or the Dave Taylor version (~$200) seems my best options. The difference between the arm assemblies as opposed to the isolastic seem minimal. The problem I have with the Old Britt version is that it relies on a clamping force that must also allow shim clearances and I can't get my head around that. I think this is the key question for me: how can you adequately clamp the assembly on the frame tube while allowing 0.006 - 0.01" clearance for the shims?

http://www.oldbritts.com/ob_4179.html
http://commandospecialties.com/Prod_Det ... &ProdID=45

Please note that I'm not, nor ever will be an aggressive rider but I have to ensure that the machine will be safe to ride.

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

B Chamberlain
71 Norton (in rebuild)
68 TR6P
Toronto

simply put the dave taylor is a good way to get around your issue. it DOES NOT put enough clamping force in the tube to be an issue and with some frame's you will need to either shim the frame tube or file (machine) the split halves to get an enough clamping force for it to stay tight and not rotate. IMHO the only other way to fix this is to machine out the threaded tube, make a new one and weld it in with a proper weld.

Greetings Bill from a fellow Torontonian ,Ontario Norton Owners local rep. In a box beside me sits the new Dave Taylor headsteady with optional suspensory spring device. Very nice workmanship all in stainless. Let me know if you want to check it out or even help to install it in a couple of months when the snow flies. And yes it seems to clamp to the bracing tube ignoring where the old rubbers screwed in. Truly a nice unit and am wondering if the 2 arm joints will require a drop of oil periodically,does anyone know ? Peter.

You can add Jim Comstock's headstedy to the list. You might be surprised at the improvement at less than 10/10th's levels of enthusiasm. You don't have to be an aggressive rider to appreciate stable tracking.

http://coloradonortonworks.com/catalog/engine.asp#2301

Torontonian said:

In a box beside me sits the new Dave Taylor headsteady with optional suspensory spring device. Very nice workmanship all in stainless. Let me know if you want to check it out or even help to install it in a couple of months when the snow flies. And yes it seems to clamp to the bracing tube ignoring where the old rubbers screwed in. Truly a nice unit and am wondering if the 2 arm joints will require a drop of oil periodically,does anyone know ? Peter.

Click to expand...

Hey Peter:

I'd like to take a look at that some time. I'm out in the east end. Glad to hear there's a Norton Support group in Toronto. Where did you get it?

BC

Torontonian said:

Truly a nice unit and am wondering if the 2 arm joints will require a drop of oil periodically,does anyone know ? Peter.

Click to expand...

Yes they will require a drop of oil from time to time. I think this is mentioned in the instructions. I do it when I have the tank off for winter storage. Some of the other more expensive ones do use sealed rod ends.

bob it is a nice piece BUT he has the problem of the frame attaching point.

rpatton said:

You can add Jim Comstock's headstedy to the list. You might be surprised at the improvement at less than 10/10th's levels of enthusiasm. You don't have to be an aggressive rider to appreciate stable tracking.

http://coloradonortonworks.com/catalog/engine.asp#2301

Click to expand...

bill said:

bob it is a nice piece BUT he has the problem of the frame attaching point.

Click to expand...

Bill, I know what you mean, that would rule out the Old Britts part too. It would be nice to see a couple pictures of what's been done to the lugs in the frame. I don't see how a HAZ from that weld would compromise the part any more than the weld that was used to put the lug in there in the first place. The loads involved here are not very high and unless the welds are a total POS I don't see why they can't be drilled and tapped. What made them want to weld the lug shut in the first place is a lingering thought..

There ain't all that much side load on the under tube, mainly the compression/ tension loads from the stem. A single hole drilled through for a though bolt would work just fine, but I vote clamped on rod head steady over factory Lords rubber cushions or the isolastic type. My sense of testing with and w/o a head steady was it made ride more comfortable by dampening out the wiggle jiggles of wind eddies and forks following road texture, but did nothing to prevent hinged onset but actually help induce it by being more comfortable fooled to enter sweepers faster than can handle past point of no return. If head steady gets in a bind, like I've had form crash distortion on factory steady or by tightening out slack in rod link, buzz was felt in intervals from side loads of wind or holding mild sweeper loads. This was a high frequency buzz that felt more like valve train than engine orbital bounce. Tire pressure plays back into the isolation too, lower air = less isolation, higher air = more road texture transmission. If I didn't have THE G to cross I'd run like 50 PSI in Peel, but jars my teeth if over 30 PSI, ugh.

From RGM in Britain. Ordered it and belt kit and stuff when our dollar peaked out high this summer. Have the glossy catalogue here for you to drool over too. Someone told me once not to put your e-mail out in cyberworld but most good folk over here at Artscape Wychwood Barns know me. Google Ontario Norton Owners ,under staff is Manse James who recently moved up to Prez.,he is a good friend who can help.

Hey Stillreel, while I'm partial to the Jim Comstock one offered by CNW, the Dave Taylor one sounds like the one that will work best for your situation. Cj

Not really that thorny. Fix the threads in the head, and fix the threads in the frame. Then you are left with lots of choices, and an infinity of opinions.

Stephen Hill
Victoria, BC

You could probably just drill a clearance hole through the lug in the frame and bolt it through. From what I have read the frames are what would be called mild steel, 1020ish type thing which means that welding it isnt going to require any special preheating/postheating of special filler wire so I wouldnt worry too much about that bit of it

I went over your post over a second time.

Stillreel said:

The difference between the arm assemblies as opposed to the isolastic seem minimal.

Click to expand...

I have lived with both types for a long time and nothing could be further from the truth, they are very different. The installation of the link type headsteady is very simple and nearly foolproof. They don't require any attention other than lubrication and replacement of the rod ends when they wear out. My experience with the iso type headsteady is with the Norvil type where I had to shim the sideplates to get them square to the iso body with uniform clearance all the way around. I had to make a heavier set of sideplates because the bent easily. They seemed to require regular attention. They transmitted much more vibration than the link type with no difference in the handling.

Stillreel said:

The problem I have with the Old Britt version is that it relies on a clamping force that must also allow shim clearances and I can't get my head around that. I think this is the key question for me: how can you adequately clamp the assembly on the frame tube while allowing 0.006 - 0.01" clearance for the shims?

Click to expand...

You do realize that this is mounted to the lugs. It is not clamped in the same way as the Dave Taylor headsteady. The bolts thread into the tube lug from each side, but they are not connected. There are no shims, it is a vernier adjustable iso. The link you provided is for the vernier unit, did you mean to link to the production racer type (Norvil)? They both use the lugs for mounting.

http://www.oldbritts.com/13_067263.html

The Dave Taylor headsteady sounds like it might be they way to go, all things considered.

Well, I know what I use on road and track: http://www.andover-norton.co.uk/images/Headsteady.jpg
Technically speaking and from a frame geometry point of view in my opinion still the best solution. But you are welcome to disagree.
Joe S.

ZFD said:

Well, I know what I use on road and track: http://www.andover-norton.co.uk/images/Headsteady.jpg
Technically speaking and from a frame geometry point of view in my opinion still the best solution. But you are welcome to disagree.
Joe S.

Click to expand...

I put around 40,000mi on the Production Racer headsteady and it wound up working OK but I had a lot of problems at first.The problem on my bike was that when the lug was welded into the frame it came up short on one side and long on the other. The design relies on the width of the clamp, the collars of the rubber bushes, and the spacers along with the lug in the frame to be exactly the same and come up square with the centerline of the frame. That way, the sideplates can be bolted up square to the iso body and you can shim out the endcaps just like the regular iso's. On my bike the sideplates were pushed out on one side and pulled in on the other in the back. I couldn't get even clearance all the way around on the endcaps because the plates were tilted, actually in my case they bent. In the end I made new spacers that compensated for the lug, shimmed the clamp to match the buffers, and made a set of sideplates out of thicker stainless. Once it was set up I put a lot of miles on it and it was OK.

If you stiffen up the head steady, and this appears to be what happens with the aftermarket ones, does it affect the operation of the Iso's?

General Patton, Sir,
You are correct about the inflexibility of the design in its original form. My son Tim therefore took our original drawing of a certain Peter J. Williams dated 1969 and modified it. Our headsteady can be adjusted sideways and in height, as we found three different positions on three of our own Commandos (including the original 1970 Produchtion Racer fiited with the original headsteady, by the way!). We also made it slimmer but maintained the two rubber elements. Others rely on just one, but the original has two, turned off to make them narrower, as does ours. We made the whole assembly narrower than the original, because the original will not fit under production Roadster or Interstate tanks.
So whilst we kept to the original and, in my opinion, still most logic design, we modified it for use on all Commandos, high comp, low comp, different years, skimmed heads etc. I also fitted one to my short-stroke 750 Roadster which, in order to use standard production conrods, had its barrels shortened considerably- easy by shimming it higher, to which purpose you get a collection of shims with our headsteady.
Hope that answers your question.

Why is there any need to spend money on something for what it actually does is overcomplicated and over priced? Ludwigs very simple and inexpensive head steady does exactly the same job, and can be made at home by anyone with a reasonably well equipped workshop.

The Production Racer headstedy that I screwed around with for so long is in a box on a shelf. It was replaced by a Dave Taylor headsteady. I have another link under the transmission. I left the front and rear iso's as they are only because the loads on them are now low enough that they are actually able to cope. The flaw in the isolastic system is in trying to control side movement with broad flat surfaces that require exact alignment with each other, front, rear, and now top in order for them to work. It's nearly impossible to set up and when you add frame flex and wear then it's impossible to maintain that alignment and clearances. Rod ends don't need to be aligned, clearances don't need to maintained, and when they wear you just replace them. What's not to like?