commando head steady rubber width

I will check the width of my spare headsteady tomorrow, the one in use has the tank over it so I can't get to the rubbers but I added the MK3 spring to it last summer and the plates did not need spacing out and were vertical, the rubbers from memory did not have much give and are the old originals. I also have 2 frames spare so can check the 37mm dimension too.

Both frames are 32mm wide on the tube the rubbers screw into, a freshly powder coated headsteady is 65mm wide so probably 64mm under the powdercoat. I will look later on to see if I have old parallel side rubber buffers to measure, on the exhausts I use the waisted Mini type and will measure their thickness too, I suspect someone is using a exhaust alternative, where it can be thicker, and mis selling them for the headsteady.

Original parallel sided are 17.3mm wide, I have new unfitted Mini exhausts at 18mm and 19mm (several of each of the 2 sizes) respectively as they are from 2 sources.

Previously john_holmes wrote:

Original parallel sided are 17.3mm wide, I have new unfitted Mini exhausts at 18mm and 19mm (several of each of the 2 sizes) respectively as they are from 2 sources.

Hello John

RGM also do a rubber mount 060622 but its only 15.5mm wide and I don't recommend these as you don't get any squash on the rubber and it affects the handling.

I have to say that I don't see what the concern is in this thread.

As I understand it, the role of the head steady is principally to restrain the engine/gearbox assembly from lateral tilting relative to the frame.

While I can just about see how compression/extension of the rubber blocks might affect this (Mick's point) I'm unconvinced that the degree of force resulting from a millimetre or so difference in the width over the head steady compared to the width over the rubber mounts would have a material effect.

Previously mick_green wrote:

...

RGM also do a rubber mount 060622 but its only 15.5mm wide and I don't recommend these as you don't get any squash on the rubber and it affects the handling.

A side plate bent to the extent you describe definitely sounds like a candidate for the scrap bin. I imagine you would get a fatigue failure if you just bolted it up willy-nilly.

Previously arthur_fish wrote:

Hello Julian, I think you may be correct that I am chasing something not that important, but just to put the rebuild into context I started in early 2016 stripping and sending it all for powder coating, then started the rebuild, engine back into frame but had to break off nov 2016 picking the project back up this last two weeks due to unforeseen circumstances. I was just sorting the mk3 spring to box section having ordered the new triangle plates, when I came across the 5mm , fitting the new lower isolastics has centralised the engine. so its just a couple of mm either side. The original triangle plateswere one flat and the offside bent out the approx. 1/4 inch or 5.5mm, surely wrong and as I commented the new ones were still at a slightangle. 45 years ago I would have just bolted the thing up and ridden it, but its all sorted now and I will thank John [Mr Holmes] for taking the trouble to check his frame box section and rubbers. and apologies for not adding the picture of the original head plates on a surface plate to show the problem but my daughter has promised to show me at Christmas how to add pictures to a picture web site and get them smaller to post on here.!thanks all Arthur.