English French German Italian Spanish

56 Dominator front brake question

Submitted by jim_algar on Sun, 01/12/2013
Forums
Heavy Twins

A front brake cable for my 1956 Dominator should end in a clevis/fork that attaches directly to the brake arm (at least that's what all photos show.) On the bike I'm restoring (photo here) it appears someone has added a clamp type of fixture (probably to allow the use of a generic cable.) I've taken the cable end out from behind the clamp in the photo. I'm assuming that the correct cable whould simple attach directly to the end of the brake cable by its clevis ... yes? An if I order a correct cable, will I need a new pivot and split pin? Any idea of part numbers for those?

Attachments screen-shot-2013-12-01-at-12-15-42-pm-png

Submitted by Xanna_jeannett… on Sun, 01/12/2013

Permalink

Hello well this is not right and its dangerous too you need a front brake cable for a 1954to 1958 dominator ask Rodger Or Lorence at RGM Motors there number 24987 5/16 dia .37.1/2 inch outer

,phone 01946 841 517 , yours anna j

Submitted by john_shorter on Sun, 01/12/2013

Permalink

Also, be aware that the brake arm can be fitted upside down. This is not immediately obvious, but, if is wrong you lose most of the cable adjustment.

By the way, it is Lawrence, at RGM, not Lorence. A phone call will get you parts delivered in less than a week (took 5 days to reach Spain).

Submitted by david_cooper on Mon, 02/12/2013

Permalink

And that external spring is a dodgy looking lash-up. It should not be there because the brake shoes should have their own internal return spring linking from one to the other. Earlier bikes had eternal springs just like the back brake -but not like that one.It's difficult to be sure but that lever looks like it might be home made from a simple piece of flat alloy and not the forged original (plated steel I think). Is it stainless steel? It looks a bit thin - especially at the tip where the clevis fits. If it's not correct then it might not be safe - especially if it's the wrong material...maybe some else with a 1950's bike can tell?

Submitted by jim_royce on Mon, 02/12/2013

Permalink

Hi Jim,

If that were in the UK and was presented for an MOT it would instantly fail. You are not allowed to have brake cables fitted like that. Under hard braking it will just pull straightout.

The lever looks right and the external spring is a hint at asticky cable or wrong springs on the shoes preventing it from returning properly. My concern with the lever would be that it has had a bolt possibly forced into it so checkfor damage here.

Jim

Submitted by jim_algar on Mon, 02/12/2013

Permalink

David, that explains something I found when rebuilding the bike's front brakes; the lower tang on one of the brake shoes was broken off, and there was no spring rattling around inside; it was just missing. (I've attached a photo.) I suspect a previous owner removed the spring, kept the broken brake shoe in place (not surprising, considering his willingness to bodge the cable,) and slapped on the external spring. I've installed new brake linings, of course, and the missing spring ... so does that mean I can pull off that outer spring, do you think? Thanks for the input.

Previously David Cooper wrote:

And that external spring is a dodgy looking lash-up. It should not be there because the brake shoes should have their own internal return spring linking from one to the other. Earlier bikes had eternal springs just like the back brake -but not like that one. It's difficult to be sure but that lever looks like it might be home made from a simple piece of flat alloy and not the forged original (plated steel I think). Is it stainless steel? It looks a bit thin - especially at the tip where the clevis fits. If it's not correct then it might not be safe - especially if it's the wrong material... maybe some else with a 1950's bike can tell?
Attachments screen-shot-2013-12-02-at-9-13-35-am-png

Submitted by john_shorter on Mon, 02/12/2013

Permalink

Sorry, I had not looked at the picture, when I made my earlier post. David Cooper is right, that lever is definitely not correct. Bin the outer spring. Now you have fitted new shoes, it is a useless bodge.

Submitted by jim_royce on Mon, 02/12/2013

Permalink

All,

That lever is of identical style to the one on my 55 Model 7 which uses the same brakeparts but not the hub. The same part is also on my 55 ES2 so there can be no doubt it is correct.

Jim

Submitted by john_shorter on Mon, 02/12/2013

Permalink

Previously jim_royce wrote:

All,

That lever is of identical style to the one on my 55 Model 7 which uses the same brakeparts but not the hub. The same part is also on my 55 ES2 so there can be no doubt it is correct.

Jim

Well, it is most certainly not the same as was fitted to a'54 Dominator 88. Neither does it resemble the illustration in the Norton handbook, for later models with the full width hub. So, there is some doubt as to it's correctness.

Submitted by jim_royce on Mon, 02/12/2013

Permalink

John,

It's identical to that shown in MY 55 parts list and also to that shown in a Model 88 handbook of the same year. 55 Model 7 handbook shows the same lever but earlier (steel)backplate design. What parts list/handbook are you looking at anyway? If it's 57 or later it will be a different hub and lever.

I will also draw attention to what is shown in the 55 catalogue though not a good image (none are quite the same)it is extremely similar to what Jim has fitted. The 56 images are even less clear.

Jim

Submitted by jim_algar on Mon, 02/12/2013

Permalink

UPDATE; (from Jim Algar). I've removed the spurious external spring, lever return is strong and positive, so we're good there. I've attached a closer picture of the lever with all the bodged parts removed; it looks proper to me.

Previously jim_royce wrote:

All,

That lever is of identical style to the one on my 55 Model 7 which uses the same brakeparts but not the hub. The same part is also on my 55 ES2 so there can be no doubt it is correct.

Jim

Attachments lever2-jpg

Submitted by mark_dinsdale on Tue, 03/12/2013

Permalink

Looks like you are on the right track, heres a picture of my 56 99 front brake for ref. My brake arm has more curved edges but it maybe from a later year?

Mark

Attachments front-brake-jpg

 


Norton Owners Club Website by 2Toucans