Skip to main content
English French German Italian Spanish

Roadholder short forks

I am rebuilding a  ES2 - Roadholder forks.

I have found that the bike came with long Roadholder forks.

The Featherbed takes the short forks.

Is it possible to convert the long to the short?

Besides new stanchions, what else must be replaced?

 

Permalink

Richard,

The long Roadholders have external springs whilst the short ones have internal springs, so the fork leg seals are different.  Also the oil dampers in the bottom of the fork legs are different. 

In the photo "A", "B" and "D" are long Roadholder legs and have the top machined for the lower fork shroud to fit onto and fixed in place with two small screws.  You can also see there are different positions for the mudguard fixing bracket.

"E" may be misleading as it seems to have an external spring place, I cannot remember why this there as I took the photo a couple of years ago.

Permalink

Hi Richard,

   Except the bushes and seals, nearly all the parts are different, so you will be best looking for a full set of short Roadholders. You could then offset the cost by selling your long set. Check the yokes are correct for your year if you want originality as they changed over the years.

Permalink

Did you say that your ES2 was a pre-featherbed type, a featherbed type or a post-featherbed type ?  The forks for all these models were "Roadholder" variations.   As Philip said the pre-featherded models were longer than the featherbed types but the later ES2 Mk2 (Matchless model) also had longer RH forks than the featherbed ones.  It seems as if you are suggesting that you have a feathered framed model with long RH fork legs and sliders ?  You are unlikely to have pre-featherbed long RH yokes on a featherbed frame because they don't fit without major surgery.  Does your front-end not point upwards indicating huge acceleration permanently ? If not they may have already been shortened - an easy task.... Also does your centre-stand touch the floor when required to ?   There are lots of possibilities to successfully modify your Bitsa but you probably need to take more images and define what you've actually got.  Chin up regards, howard

Permalink

Thank you all for your comments.

I should have said that the bike is a slimline Featherbed, 1961.

The yokes are original I think.

The forks it has, measured from the top of the top steering yoke to the center of the axle hole, are about 740mm. The spring is inside the stanchion. Long Roadholders? Before I realised that the forks were wrong, I had them totally overhauled and rebuilt - stanchions ground down, re hard chromed, new internals. Now, on the stand with the correct tire sizes, both wheels are firmly on the ground.

The 1957 Dominator 99 I have (wideline) the same measurement is about 710mm. Spring also inside the stanchion. Short roadholders?

I also have an old 19S pre-featherbed, single downtube, about 1957, not yet rebuilt. The forks are a mixture of anything. I think they should be long Roadholders. I notice that on this, the locating shank which holds the hub from turning with the wheel, is too short and the hub doesn't seem wide enough for the forks - a gap of about 5mm.

My major concern at present is getting the ES2 usable. It will be used for short casual riding, a few shows, nothing long or fast(!). I think the easiest solution is to weld 15mm pads under the stand.

  Any suggestions?

Richard

 

 

Permalink

My long roadholders are approx 780mm from spindle to top of the yoke. My Short roadholders measure 700mm - both under their own weight. 

I’ll leave you to work out exactly what you’ve got but it doesn’t match my long or short roadholders!

The long and short roadholder sliders are pretty much the same as each other, the main difference between the long and short forks is in the length of the stanchions and the internals. 

You can fit later dampers into long roadholder  sliders although this is usually done using commando stanchions which are almost the same length (a couple of mm shorter) as the long roadholders but have a circlip holding the lower bush in place instead of the nut. This is what I have on my pre featherbed ES2.  

Assuming everything else is correct, if you want to lower the ride height at the front the easiest way may be to fit short roadholder stanchions, they are not particularly expensive but you may have to replace/shorten the damping rod that screws into the fork top nuts.

But I’d suggest you post a picture here so we can confirm exactly what you have!  

Dan 

Permalink

I can recommend the 'Forks, Wheels & Brakes' DVD by Mick Hemmings, through the Club shop. It has lots of useful information for identifying various Roadholder forks.

Kevin

Permalink

Thank you all for your help.

Dan, I don't understand these measurements. My long roadholder is definitely about 740 mm, the short is about 710 top of yoke to axle hole, at full stretch.

Attached photo shows the bike up on its stand, it can be seen that the stanchions are too long.

Maybe I will just add pads under the stand - the simplest solution!

Thank you again

Richard

Attachments
Permalink

Richard our short road holders are the same length mine wasn’t measured at full stretch. However I can confirm the my stanchions came from Andover Norton. They are correct !   

Without taking them apart I don’t think you are going to get to the bottom of your longer forks. Long road holders normally have external springs and just a damping tube in the bottom of the slider, I think they can only have an internal spring if the damper is replaced with the internals from short road holders or commando forks. If the damping rod is too short it may stop the forks extending fully, or you may have modified stanchions. Your forks do look like long road holders but you say you replaced all the internals, what exactly did you replace? Can you remember how the bush is attached to the bottom of the stanchion?   

The mystery continues! 

Permalink

Hi Dan, ,

The bush is attached by a circlip.

I replaced top hat bush, oil seals, and both damper tubes (someone had cleverly (!) welded two halves together to make one!). I did not replace the rods, nor springs as despite being filthy, they seemed in usable condition.

I have read the discussion about the position of the holes in the damper tube and fitted replacement tubes which had holes in the taper, not below it.

The attached photos show the condition of the internals - lovely aren't they?  It had been standing (or lying) since 1978 under an outdoor cover.

It isn't my main objective to get it back to original spec. If the forks work ok I'll leave them at this stage, maybe correct them later. I have to do something though to ensure it stands properly.

Thank you all for your help.

Richard

Permalink

If you fit 30mm longer top bushes then your full extension will be reduced by 30mm. You will lose 30mm off your full fork movement so another alternative is to get 30mm machined off the top of your current stanchions, plus add back taper and fork top nut thread. This second alternative would reduce the full extension by 30mm but keep the full fork movement. 

Permalink

Hi John, thank you for this.

Taking 30 mm off the top of the stanchions, wouldn't that mean that the rod and spring also need to be shortened?

All internals would stay the same?

Permalink

Richard, if your stanchions have a circlip then they are definitely not long roadholder stanchions. 

If it were my bike, I’d drop out the front wheel, slide out one leg and take it apart and measure the stanchion, damper tubes and damper rod to see exactly what I had! If In the end you shorten the stanchion then yes the rod willl need to be shortened by the same amount, but that’s easy enough with a saw and a die! 

Did you replace the Springs?  On reflection undoing a cap and measuring a spring might give you an insight into what’s going on. 

Dan 

 

Yes the damper rod may need to be shortened, but not too much of you end up with the error designed into the Commando version where the full extension hydraulic bump stop was replaced by a mechanical clunk.

Permalink

Thank you Dan, John, all,

I'll do that, ie take one out and strip it. I'll start with a spring.

With all the inconsistencies that seem to be present, I wonder if these come from another bike - eg Matchless.

I'll get back to you.

Have a good New Year!

Regards Richard

Permalink

Morning John, Dan,

I stripped the fork this morning and measured:

 - overall free length of the spring 473 mm

 - stanchion protrudes from locking screw ring at full extension 463 mm

 - overall stanchion length 553 mm - see photos.

I like the idea of shortening the stanchion by ... mm, but will I need to shorten the spring?

I think so or else I will never get it back together.

But how to get a flat top to the cut spring?

Richard

Permalink

Richard, Just been in the shed doing some measurements. 

PreCommando short Roadholder staunchions are 21.8" long and long Roadholder stanchions are 23.3"  long.  Note Commando stanchions  are longer at 23.2" but look similar to the short Roadholders. 

Spring lengths are 11.8" for Long Roadholders,  18.7" for short Roadholders and 18.7" also for Commandos. 

Hopefully the photo from the 1956 parts book showing exploded diagrams of long and short Roadholders has attached to the message

Permalink

Hi Ian,

Thank you for responding quickly and clearly.

The dimensions you have quoted are exactly what I measured so my stanchions are obviously  correct for the short Roadholders.

You may have noticed that all this started because the bike (with the correct rear shocks and now the correct front forks) has no clearance beneath either wheel when on the stand, and was rocking sideways as well.

Also, the distance between the top of the mudguard to the underside of the yoke is considerably more than my wideline Dominator 99.

This led me to believe that the forks were incorrect.

I've just checked the sliders, the Dominator's are 275mm axle c.l. to lip on which the lower shroud rests. The ES2 sliders are 240mm. This explains why the stanchions appear to be so much longer than the 99. To offset some of this difference, the mudguard studs are 235 mm above the axle hole, the 99's are 215mm above.

I have just measured the stand dimensions. They are the same, although I see that pads (about 10mm) have previously been welded to the underside on the ES2 stand. And now I want to weld 15 mm pads to the ES2 stand?? What's going on here??

This is all getting very confusing.

I need to relax and think about it all, maybe draw it all out.

Have a Good New Year everyone.

 

Permalink

I'll check the sliders tomorrow.  Nearly New Year's Day down here. 

Happy New Year to all members.

Permalink

If you shorten the springs their spring rate will increase, exactly like a shortened plank. So before shortening the spring I would see if the preload/static sag is correct with the normal load including rider. That should be for front suspension 1/6 of the total travel so 5" total travel should have 7/8" preload/static sag.

Permalink

Have you checked that the frame tubes where the stand 'stops' are still ok (no flats/holes) and that the holes in the stand and the pivot bushes aren't worn? Either of these will leave you with the 'both wheels on the ground' scenario. 

Regards,  George. 

Permalink

WI’ve just done some more measuring too, I found my old stanchions,as you have found the Short roadholders are 550mm long the long roadholders are 592 mm long, giving a difference of 42mm. I also measured from the top of the stanchion to the top of the lower bush, that also has a difference of 42mm. So we all have the correct stanchions!

However you are getting an overall fork length of 740mm, your dominator and my Navigator are nearer 710 ( I’ve put blocks under the stand to make sure the forks are fully extended and can confirm the same measurement 710mm.   If you put your Dominator on wooden blocks and pull the forks down as far as possible can you get them to 740 mm? if you can’t then something else is enabling the other short roadholders  to extend further than normal. I thought that the bushes hit each other to top out, they do on long roadholders, but perhaps it’s the damper rod that creates the stop? If it does then longer damper tubes would perhaps allow the forks to extend too far? 

At least you know that your stanchions are the right size! 

Dan 

 

 

Permalink

George's suggestion about the lower frame tubes is worth checking.  I have a 1969 Mercury and my stand didn't lift the wheels off the ground either.  In discussions with Phil Hannam he mentioned that the last featherbed frames (1969 'ish) were made of lighter weight tubes and that sometimes the tubes can rust and deform, so that the stand does lift the bike properly.

Simply run a straight edge along the bottom tube to check this.  My frame was OK so I ended up adding pads onto the feet of the stand, which worked fine.

Also, are your tyres the original profile?  On my ES2 I fitted some Mitas tyres and these are a deeper section and this resulted in both wheels touching the ground with no clearance.  New tyres will obviously have full tread, so will accentuate the problem with stands.

Philip

Permalink

Hi Phillip

Unfortunately that wouldnt explain why Richard’s short roadholders appear to be 30mm longer than normal when fully extended. Can anyone else measure their’s to double check? 

Of course it may be a combination of issues! 

Dan 

Permalink

It sounds to me that the damper has topped-out before the bottom bush reaches the top bush.  It is a known problem with the Short Roadholder forks.  It you get time to remove the top nut and then release the damper rod you will see that the forks can extend further until the bushes collide. You should first insert a length of locking wire around the retaining nut (3/8 inch) at the top of the damper rod so that the damper can be relocated later.  The rods should technically be longer so that all the front-end weight is not suspended on the two little scuttle-nuts that hit the alloy damper tops.  The issue came to light when buying parts for my Commando.  I wondered why the dampers were almost two inches longer and yet the sliders, bushes and seals were all the same dimensions. So there you are,  with standard components in Short Roadholders (on the featherbed models) the dampers top-out  before the bushes touch.  This can be a big problem going quick on bumpy terrain and an absolute 'no no' on a dune sled.  Many people fit Commando dampers tho' watch for the different thread forms. The Commando damper rods are too long of course.  Some people fit longer damper rods especially if the originals are alloy.  Care must be taken fitting longer damper rods and precise measuring is recommended so that the dampers don't bottom-out.  My measurements suggest that the internal spring gets coil-bound and acts as a stop before the scuttle crashes into the bottom of the damper.  However many people use external springs without making adjustments and they don't act as stops.   This has been an interesting thread.  Happy New Year to you all, howard 

Permalink

Thank you all again for all your useful info.

The frame and stand were stripped down completely and inspected.  No problem there.

The wheels are 19" in both bikes, I have just measured the tyre heights off the rim. The ES2 rear actually has a dimension of 65 mm vs the Dominator rear of 75mm, fronts are the same.  So with the correct size tyres the situation is worse - the bike will be higher and will rock even more on the stand.

Remember the ES2 forks are overall 30mm longer than the short Roadholders. The stanchions are the same. I have measured the damper tube, it is 230mm long. See photo.

I beginning to suspect the rod, I can't see anything else which would allow the sliders to be positioned 30-40 mm lower.

I think we have all spent too much time on this. Thank you all.

I'm going to strip the ES2 forks completely and also the Dominator, to find out exactly what the difference is.

I'll get back to you.

Attachments
Permalink

Well there is your problem!  ..... you have commando damper tubes,  they are longer than the short roader ones. Commando dampers are 232mm and short roadholders are 194mm. That accounts for the 40mm extra length. 

https://www.rgmnorton.co.uk/buy/alloy-fork-damper-body-with-improved-damping-standard-commando-1_2282.htm

https://www.rgmnorton.co.uk/buy/alloy-fork-damper-body-cap-with-bolts-improved-damping-short-r-holder_2281.htm

The rod should be 503mm long

https://www.rgmnorton.co.uk/buy/steel-fork-damper-rod-26tpi-featherbed_4015.htm

According to RGM the rod and springs were the same length in the commando and short roadholder forks, the main difference being the length of the damper tube. 

So with a couple of new damper tubes you’ll be sitting pretty on your stand .... hopefully anyway! 

Dan 

Ps why is there a weld mark around your damper tube?

Permalink

So Richard - If you've already got Commando dampers fitted at least you know that they won't top-out and as they're probably ten years newer than the older ones they should operate well.  You will also probably need to weld some 15mm blocks to your centre-stand.  You can ride to your heart's content safe in the knowledge that your forks are operating correctly and are not topping -out the dampers on our pot-holed highways........ regards, howard

Permalink

Howard

If I understand you correctly you are advising Richard to run with forks 40mm longer than they should be.  Why would you recommend that? It upsets the handling and the stand as we know, as well as looking odd! All short road holders top out in the damping tube which is oil damped. Most owners with long road holders hate the clank on topping out you get when the two bushes hit, which is what Richard will get if he leaves the commando dampers in there.  But I guess it’s Richards decision !  Dan 

Permalink

No I am not advocating running longer forks.  Richard has already confirmed that the stanchion tubes are the correct length for a Dommie.  If his assertion that the only difference is the damper length then when the bike is on its wheels being ridden the only noticeable difference will be when the sliders drop to their full extent over bumps etc.  In such a case a Dommie damper can top-out depending on the damping rate and the persistence of the drop.   The bike will sit and ride correctly and the only obvious difference will be when he pops it on the stand the wheel will drop until the bushes collide instead of the whole mass of the wheel, sliders, mudguard etc resting on the two (or one in some cases) scuttle nuts encountering the damper top screw.  Fitting the Commando damper allows the forks to operate throughout the range afforded by the travel of the bushes in the slider.  When the damper rods screw into the top nut it can easily be the case that one damper will top-out before the other so beware.........Ride safe, howard   

Permalink

We’ll have to agree to disagree Howard!! You are forgetting that by fitting longer dampers you will have the same preload as having standard damper tubes and a standard rod,  So the sag will be the same but they will be starting from a set of forks 40mm longer.  While the landsdown mod is popular I have not heard anyone recommending fitting commando damping rods to short road holders.  Of course you could shorten the spring to compensate but by doing that you increase the spring rate!     

I would also guess that with shrouds fitted them may even show a gap fully extended? 

 

dan 

Permalink

Dan - How can the forks be longer if the stanchion tubes are the same length , the sliders are the same and the bushes are the same ?  All that is different is the operating regime in which the damper scuttle moves within the damper tube.  If you look at a stanchion tube with the lower bush in place and insert this into the slider with the top bush in place,  you will see that there is a total movement of the top bush and slider of 155mm.  Now if you look at the total travel available for the scuttle to move in the damper tube you will measure 155mm.  So to get perfect operation of the forks the scuttle should be aligned to the respective position within the stanchion. Something went awry when the factory determined the overall length of the damper rod from the scuttle nut to the depth in the top nut.  It must have seen adequate to them that in normal operation with a fairly slow damping coefficient the fork damper would not top-out and when the bike is on the centre-stand the downward force exerted is applied fairly slowly as the stand rotates on the mounting pivot so the top-out then isn't so severe.  When Commandos were designed this feature was obviously considered and so even tho' the first models shared the same slider, bushes, wheel, seals, mudguard and mudguard bridge as my Mercury,  the damper is longer.  Moreover you should not compare the clunk of a long Roadholder fork topping-out as this is not a double-damped system. Je reste ma valise !!  Howard  

Permalink

 Hi all,

Thank you finding that Dan, yes you are correct, the ES2 damper tube is 230 mm long, my Dommie is 194mm.  All other dimensions are identical, the rod length, the spring length, even the sliders which I thought were different (but aren't, the locating surfaces inside are positioned exactly the same). See photo below, the shiny items are the Dominator.

So, reading the discussion between you and Howard above (where I am thinking that a damper tube extending further up into the slider will allow the slider to travel further down until the rod stops it), I will fit the ES2 damper tube to the Dommie and see if the wheel sits 36 mm lower.

If this works, I think the easiest course will be simply to cut 36 mm off the damper tube and put a 28 tpi thread on it.

I'll keep you informed - but not tomorrow unfortunately, some other things are calling.

Thank you everybody for all your help and time spent on this.

By the way, I have heard of a "fix" to block off the holes (below the taper) in the damper tube and drill them higher. Has anyone done this, does anyone have any comments?

 

Attachments
Permalink

Hi Richard 

Cutting and tapping the damper tube will fix it.  

A minor point but your assumption about a longer tube allowing the slider to drop until it’s stopped by the rod isn’t quite right. I think the longer commando damper tube is allowing the slider to travel until the bottom bush on the stanchion hits the top hat bush in the slider. This is how the long road holders stop. 

By all means send me a message I’m happy to call if you’d like to discuss anything! 

While you may not be bothered when you have everything in bits you could modify the dampers to improve damping, or RGM sell them ready done. It involves blocking the holes in the damper tube and drilling some new ones. Depends how you want to use the bike I guess! 

Dan 

 

Permalink

Morning all,

The problem of my ES2 forks being 35mm longer than my Dominator has been cleared up - finally.

The ES2 had been fitted with Commando damper tubes. Assembling it this morning with tubes from the Dominator, (all other components the original ES2 items). gives me a fork length fully extended of 710 mm. Exactly what it should be.

I will get the Commando tubes cut short (to 194 from 230 mm) and threaded to take the end cap.

As a matter of interest, if anyone else is involved with this work, note that the slider holding bolt at the bottom of the fork are different Dominator to Commando.

For the Dominator it is 5/16" x 26 TPI, Cycle thread, with a head fitted by a 12 mm tube spanner.

For the Commando it is 5/16" x 24 TPI, NF thread, with a head fitted by a 13 mm tube spanner.

(I only have metric tubes)

I will also get the forks modified as the excellent paper by Peter Crespin in 1997 - attached below for anyone interested. It describes how to stop the forks bottoming and topping out.

Thank you Dan, and all for your help.

 

Permalink

Good news Richard, we got there in the end!

Just a point of interest the threads on the commando damper rod are also different and won’t fit into the pre commando fork top nuts. 

All the best

dan 

 


Norton Owners Club Website by White-Hot Design