Which of the several aftermarket or Andover Head Steadys are good for street riding?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The CNW steady is no doubt pretty, but it looks like it would limit not only perpendicular movement, but also parallel movement in line with the frame thereby transmitting vibration. Maybe i'm overthinking this too much and just need to rely on feedback of users.
 
The CNW steady is no doubt pretty, but it looks like it would limit not only perpendicular movement, but also parallel movement in line with the frame thereby transmitting vibration. Maybe i'm overthinking this too much and just need to rely on feedback of users.
The Heim joints allow up & down and front to back motion while eliminating side to side rocking motion of the head. That's the point. I've noticed no increase in vibration across the rpm range.
 
The CNW steady is no doubt pretty, but it looks like it would limit not only perpendicular movement, but also parallel movement in line with the frame thereby transmitting vibration. Maybe i'm overthinking this too much and just need to rely on feedback of users.

Think you’re over thinking in the wrong direction there TomU.

Like Maylar says, the ball joint set up allows virtually frictionless up / down and fore / aft movement. And virtually zero side to side movement. You’re right if you say it doesn’t allow a great amount of fore / aft movement, but only a small amount is needed (unless something is drastically wrong somewhere).

So, they stop the movement we want to avoid whilst allowing the ISO’s to function as intended.
 
Last edited:
The ball joint set up also has 2 heim joints to share the friction of the up and down motion of the engine, aided by leverage force due to the length of the lever arm of the "tie rod" mechanism to overcome friction... Sorry, it's lower friction than Ludwigs set up... by virtue of the lever arm distance
 
As an aside, I've noticed a new "sweet spot" in my iso characteristics after installing the cNw steady. At 2500 rpm/40 mph my mirrors become perfectly vibration free. I wish they'd stay that way up to redline, but oh well.
 
I use the later model OEM head steady on my '73 and, frankly, it has never given me any reason to "need" a better one. My Commando has the Fauth fork mod, Kegler clamps on the rear and OEM iso's on the front/vernier on the rear. Vibration is not an issue and bike handling is excellent - no 'odd' behavior at any speed, including speeds in excess of the ton.

But maybe I don't know what I'm missing; I'd love an excuse to buy the CNW head steady. :) So, what am I missing?
 
Just seen your comment. Ludwig did mention later that he ought to have used thicker steel to make his mount. Mine is made from 6mm plate [ because I wasn't so interested in making everything really light ] and wont get out of line.

Regarding the CNW head steady. If the ball joints on that last as long as the ones on my lANDCRUISER [300,000 km so far ] then they will never wear out on a Norton. Same with the starter motor supplied by CNW. Looks just like the one on my Landcruiser so must be good.
I liked the Ludwig design especially because of its simplicity, and because I could make it myself.

o0Norton0o wrote.. "Any friction at the slip joint with the 2 bolt base plate will apply force in the worst possible angle to his 2 bolt design... levering the base plate perpendicularly to the line of the 2 bolts. The rest of his design is sound and well reasoned. " No worse than the 1971 design. Ludwigs slipper pads are very slippery so your observation is not that accurate.
 
Last edited:
o0Norton0o wrote.. "Any friction at the slip joint with the 2 bolt base plate will apply force in the worst possible angle to his 2 bolt design... levering the base plate perpendicularly to the line of the 2 bolts. The rest of his design is sound and well reasoned. " No worse than the 1971 design. Ludwig's slipper pads are very slippery so your observation is not that accurate.

Leverage overcomes friction. The further apart the 2 ball joints of the headsteady are the less any friction is able to resist the up and down movement of the engine because of the length of the leverage arm of the headsteady. There's no leverage arm on the Ludwig, or the Norvil, style headsteadies, so they may work very well containing lateral movement of the head, while allowing vertical movement, but they do impart more vibration to the frame of the bike than the Comstock/Dave Taylor designs because they lack the leverage arm of the later design. It's physics... not "very slippery" speculation.

WTBS, I'm sure ludwig's design works well, because he would change it if it didn't. I'm just pointing out the physics, rather than be someone's "fanboy".
 
I left the ground lead off for a clearer photo.

Which of the several aftermarket or Andover Head Steadys are good for street riding?
 
ludwig's design needs a third non-linear bolt in the base plate where it attaches to the head, so that up and down engine motion can't lever force perpendicularly to the line of his "2" bolts. A third non-linear bolt in the base plate ensures all the force from the up and down motion of the engine is strictly focused at the "slip joint" as he designed it.
Any friction at the slip joint with the 2 bolt base plate will apply force in the worst possible angle to his 2 bolt design...
...

I have this headsteady on my Commando for several years now ( around 80000 km) and I still stand behind it.
It is compact, cheap , and has no moving parts ..

Which of the several aftermarket or Andover Head Steadys are good for street riding?


I don't think the up and down movement of the engine is a concern.
If it was, I believe the frame would crack first.
On twisty roads, when there is some side load on the steady, I do not notice any increase in vibration.
I am just back from France and a week riding in the Cévennes.
The bike tracks perfectly well:

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top