Fork shrouds

Hi Keith,

We both seem to have a similar problem. I am rebuilding the forks on a '53 model 88 which appears to have been fitted with the later shrouds and headlamp brackets (see my wanted ad. in the classifieds).The shrouds are 6.3/8 in. long and the shrouds ona '56 Inter are 5.3/8 in long so I think that the answer to your question is no. In the absence of any other advice, I am about to cut mine down. Some fork shrouds, like those on the Inter,also have a cut awayadjacent to the mudguard apparently to clear the mudguard mounting projetion on the slider. I would be grateful to anyone who can tell us what is the correct length for short Roadholder shrouds and the relevance of the cut away. Incidentally, the headlamp brackets also appear to be longer on the later forks.

Regards

Bill

Previously wrote:

Sorry another dumb question.

Hi, can anyone please tell me.

Can I use a pair of upper fork shrouds that came off long roadholder yokes on short roadholders?

They are 6 3/16 inches long.

Thankyou.

Merry Christmas and happy new year to all.

Keith

hello keith The Norton Dommie 88 As totaly Diffrent fork shrouds too roadholder longs the 88 are in tin and the roadholder longs are made from alloy ? and the bracket part are in diffrent paces to one aother and thay do not look right if you use them ,So you need the rigth Shrouds For The Right Bike ? Yours Anna J dixon

Previously wrote:

Hi Keith,

We both seem to have a similar problem. I am rebuilding the forks on a '53 model 88 which appears to have been fitted with the later shrouds and headlamp brackets (see my wanted ad. in the classifieds).The shrouds are 6.3/8 in. long and the shrouds ona '56 Inter are 5.3/8 in long so I think that the answer to your question is no. In the absence of any other advice, I am about to cut mine down. Some fork shrouds, like those on the Inter,also have a cut awayadjacent to the mudguard apparently to clear the mudguard mounting projetion on the slider. I would be grateful to anyone who can tell us what is the correct length for short Roadholder shrouds and the relevance of the cut away. Incidentally, the headlamp brackets also appear to be longer on the later forks.

Regards

Bill

Hi Bill, I have a pair of the early type featherbed roadholder shrouds (thatscrew to the bottom yoke). I have only just removed them from my 1957 model 99 (because I am servicing the forks) they have the lower cut away which is wrong for my bike. They are 5 ?â long with a 5/8â cut away to clear the mudguard bracket mounting on the earlier short roadholder fork slider.

Note: The early short roadholders had the mudguard mounting studs positioned higher on the sliders so the top shroud needs the cut away to clear this when the forks are compressed.

I would be happy to exchange them with your ones if you like, please contact me for a photo if you want to see what they look like.

Regards

Alan

Previously wrote:

Previously wrote:

Hi Keith,

We both seem to have a similar problem. I am rebuilding the forks on a '53 model 88 which appears to have been fitted with the later shrouds and headlamp brackets (see my wanted ad. in the classifieds).The shrouds are 6.3/8 in. long and the shrouds ona '56 Inter are 5.3/8 in long so I think that the answer to your question is no. In the absence of any other advice, I am about to cut mine down. Some fork shrouds, like those on the Inter,also have a cut awayadjacent to the mudguard apparently to clear the mudguard mounting projetion on the slider. I would be grateful to anyone who can tell us what is the correct length for short Roadholder shrouds and the relevance of the cut away. Incidentally, the headlamp brackets also appear to be longer on the later forks.

Regards

Bill

Hi Bill, I have a pair of the early type featherbed roadholder shrouds (thatscrew to the bottom yoke). I have only just removed them from my 1957 model 99 (because I am servicing the forks) they have the lower cut away which is wrong for my bike. They are 5 ?â long with a 5/8â cut away to clear the mudguard bracket mounting on the earlier short roadholder fork slider.

Note: The early short roadholders had the mudguard mounting studs positioned higher on the sliders so the top shroud needs the cut away to clear this when the forks are compressed.

I would be happy to exchange them with your ones if you like, please contact me for a photo if you want to see what they look like.

Regards

Alan

Dear Alan,

Thanks for your offer. If you send me the picture, I will do likewise with mine and we can swap if we are both happy.

Regards

Bill

Not sure of the exact date offhand but it is basically the length of the stanchion tubes that dictates the length of the forks. See the excellent summary by Phil Hannam on P33 of Rh 275.

Regards

Bill

Hi Alan,

I am very interested in this discourse as I have run into fork problems which no one has been able to shed any light on- until I read your conversations.

I am installing a set of Short Roadholders in a Slimline Featherbed.

All parts are Short Roadholder (sliders are the type used pre 1957 with the mudguard studs 1& 3/4â from the top of the slider â John Hudson informed me of this many years ago).

I am looking to buy lower shrouds for the stanchionbut want to be sure that what Iget will fit.

Total fork travel on short roadholders is 112mm.

If the new shrouds are 125 mm long (allowing just 2mm of overlap on the screw in oil seal holders on full extension), they will just touch the stud boss on full compression.

If they are any longer than 125mm, a clash will occur.

Your information that some shrouds have 5/8" cutaway is a revelation - these seem to be what I require. What do you think? If you think they suit me, I would wish to buy them (I realise that Bill may have first refusal on this).

Regards

Matt

Previously wrote:

Previously wrote:

Hi Keith,

We both seem to have a similar problem. I am rebuilding the forks on a '53 model 88 which appears to have been fitted with the later shrouds and headlamp brackets (see my wanted ad. in the classifieds).The shrouds are 6.3/8 in. long and the shrouds ona '56 Inter are 5.3/8 in long so I think that the answer to your question is no. In the absence of any other advice, I am about to cut mine down. Some fork shrouds, like those on the Inter,also have a cut awayadjacent to the mudguard apparently to clear the mudguard mounting projetion on the slider. I would be grateful to anyone who can tell us what is the correct length for short Roadholder shrouds and the relevance of the cut away. Incidentally, the headlamp brackets also appear to be longer on the later forks.

Regards

Bill

Hi Bill, I have a pair of the early type featherbed roadholder shrouds (thatscrew to the bottom yoke). I have only just removed them from my 1957 model 99 (because I am servicing the forks) they have the lower cut away which is wrong for my bike. They are 5 ?â long with a 5/8â cut away to clear the mudguard bracket mounting on the earlier short roadholder fork slider.

Note: The early short roadholders had the mudguard mounting studs positioned higher on the sliders so the top shroud needs the cut away to clear this when the forks are compressed.

I would be happy to exchange them with your ones if you like, please contact me for a photo if you want to see what they look like.

Regards

Alan

Drawing of my fork/shroud problem included as an attachment

Matt

Previously wrote:

Hi Alan,

I am very interested in this discourse as I have run into fork problems which no one has been able to shed any light on- until I read your conversations.

I am installing a set of Short Roadholders in a Slimline Featherbed.

All parts are Short Roadholder (sliders are the type used pre 1957 with the mudguard studs 1& 3/4â from the top of the slider â John Hudson informed me of this many years ago).

I am looking to buy lower shrouds for the stanchionbut want to be sure that what Iget will fit.

Total fork travel on short roadholders is 112mm.

If the new shrouds are 125 mm long (allowing just 2mm of overlap on the screw in oil seal holders on full extension), they will just touch the stud boss on full compression.

If they are any longer than 125mm, a clash will occur.

Your information that some shrouds have 5/8" cutaway is a revelation - these seem to be what I require. What do you think? If you think they suit me, I would wish to buy them (I realise that Bill may have first refusal on this).

Regards

Matt

Previously wrote:

Previously wrote:

Hi Keith,

We both seem to have a similar problem. I am rebuilding the forks on a '53 model 88 which appears to have been fitted with the later shrouds and headlamp brackets (see my wanted ad. in the classifieds).The shrouds are 6.3/8 in. long and the shrouds ona '56 Inter are 5.3/8 in long so I think that the answer to your question is no. In the absence of any other advice, I am about to cut mine down. Some fork shrouds, like those on the Inter,also have a cut awayadjacent to the mudguard apparently to clear the mudguard mounting projetion on the slider. I would be grateful to anyone who can tell us what is the correct length for short Roadholder shrouds and the relevance of the cut away. Incidentally, the headlamp brackets also appear to be longer on the later forks.

Regards

Bill

Hi Bill, I have a pair of the early type featherbed roadholder shrouds (thatscrew to the bottom yoke). I have only just removed them from my 1957 model 99 (because I am servicing the forks) they have the lower cut away which is wrong for my bike. They are 5 ?â long with a 5/8â cut away to clear the mudguard bracket mounting on the earlier short roadholder fork slider.

Note: The early short roadholders had the mudguard mounting studs positioned higher on the sliders so the top shroud needs the cut away to clear this when the forks are compressed.

I would be happy to exchange them with your ones if you like, please contact me for a photo if you want to see what they look like.

Regards

Alan

Previously wrote:

Previously wrote:

Previously wrote:

Sorry another dumb question.

Hi, can anyone please tell me.

Can I use a pair of upper fork shrouds that came off long roadholder yokes on short roadholders?

They are 6 3/16 inches long.

Thankyou.

Merry Christmas and happy new year to all.

Keith

hello keith The Norton Dommie 88 As totaly Diffrent fork shrouds too roadholder longs the 88 are in tin and the roadholder longs are made from alloy ? and the bracket part are in diffrent paces to one aother and thay do not look right if you use them ,So you need the rigth Shrouds For The Right Bike ? Yours Anna J dixon

Thanks Anna

Of course your right.

Just trying to get it on the road on a tight budget is all.

Thanks agian Keith

hello keith yes even I am one a tigth Bubget So I know where you coming from Keep Looking For them On ebay or at auto jumbels there out there you shoud pay around 45 to 55 pounds for a good pair so good hunting Yours Anna J Dixon

Hi Matt

Yes your fork shrouds need to have the cut outs to clear the mudguard mounting points on your sliders. Later sliders have the mudguard studs lower, approximately 64mm from the top of the slider.

I have the correct shrouds for your forks but I have already arranged an exchange with Bill.

In the next couple of days I will try and put pictures and the dimensions as an attachment then you should be able to modify your shrouds to fit. Or contact me directly.

If your frame is a Slimline then it would have had originally the later sliders with lower mudguard studs. If you use the earlier type sliders you will also require a mudguard bridge to match them. Another point that I have discovered is that sliders for 7â yokes are different to sliders for 7 3/8â yokes in the wheel spindle area. So beware its not so easy to mix and match fork sliders.

Regards

Alan

Previously wrote:

Hi Alan,

I am very interested in this discourse as I have run into fork problems which no one has been able to shed any light on- until I read your conversations.

I am installing a set of Short Roadholders in a Slimline Featherbed.

All parts are Short Roadholder (sliders are the type used pre 1957 with the mudguard studs 1& 3/4â from the top of the slider â John Hudson informed me of this many years ago).

I am looking to buy lower shrouds for the stanchionbut want to be sure that what Iget will fit.

Total fork travel on short roadholders is 112mm.

If the new shrouds are 125 mm long (allowing just 2mm of overlap on the screw in oil seal holders on full extension), they will just touch the stud boss on full compression.

If they are any longer than 125mm, a clash will occur.

Your information that some shrouds have 5/8" cutaway is a revelation - these seem to be what I require. What do you think? If you think they suit me, I would wish to buy them (I realise that Bill may have first refusal on this).

Regards

Matt

Previously wrote:

Previously wrote:

Hi Keith,

We both seem to have a similar problem. I am rebuilding the forks on a '53 model 88 which appears to have been fitted with the later shrouds and headlamp brackets (see my wanted ad. in the classifieds).The shrouds are 6.3/8 in. long and the shrouds ona '56 Inter are 5.3/8 in long so I think that the answer to your question is no. In the absence of any other advice, I am about to cut mine down. Some fork shrouds, like those on the Inter,also have a cut awayadjacent to the mudguard apparently to clear the mudguard mounting projetion on the slider. I would be grateful to anyone who can tell us what is the correct length for short Roadholder shrouds and the relevance of the cut away. Incidentally, the headlamp brackets also appear to be longer on the later forks.

Regards

Bill

Hi Bill, I have a pair of the early type featherbed roadholder shrouds (thatscrew to the bottom yoke). I have only just removed them from my 1957 model 99 (because I am servicing the forks) they have the lower cut away which is wrong for my bike. They are 5 ?â long with a 5/8â cut away to clear the mudguard bracket mounting on the earlier short roadholder fork slider.

Note: The early short roadholders had the mudguard mounting studs positioned higher on the sliders so the top shroud needs the cut away to clear this when the forks are compressed.

I would be happy to exchange them with your ones if you like, please contact me for a photo if you want to see what they look like.

Regards

Alan

Hi Alan,

Thanks very much for your knowledgeable reply - I have been looking for answers in many sources with no success up until now. Unfortunately I am unable to contact you directly as the NOC system throws up a ' no valid email address found' message for your contact. Could you please investigate this.

I would be delighted to see your pics plus dimensions of the shrouds.

I am also very interested in the differences between the slider bottoms ( 7"/73/8") as I have a front wheel which does not lie in the centre of the forks yet fits perfectly thefork gap (7" centres yokes). Your comments on this would be much appreciated.

20 years ago Iwrote tothat great gentleman John Hudson with fork queries and he replied with great and detailed info on roadholder forks:

Long Roadholders first fitted 1947 season, short roadholders introduced for road models 88 and International for 1953 season but were used earlier on the first works featherbed racers.

STANCHIONS: Long23.312", Short 21.843", Commando 23.161", Manx 20.375"

Birmingham made Short Roadholdershad sliders with 4 holes for a C spanner but Woolwich deleted these presumably for cost reasons.

Long Roadholders had cup and cone head bearings, short roadholders had a special from Ransome & Marles 29LJT25. Ransomes later amalgamated with Hoffman & Pollard.

DAMPER TUBES: Short 7&3/4" overall, Commando 8&15/16"

SPRINGS: Birmingham had 3 different internal springs for the short forks. 18.5" for the sidecar conversion (yellow painted end), 18.687" for the solo (red paint or none at all), 18&1/16" to 18&5/16" for the Navigator 350cc twin (green paint). John remarked that he doubted if Woolwich knew very much about the different springs as very few sidecar conversions were done there (yellow spring). He further said and I quote "With the demise of the Navigator at Woolwich where I cannot recall ever seeing a spring marked green, they were left with only one spring, the one marked red and I can only surmise that when they wanted longer forks for the Commando the simplest way to do it was to just lengthen the stanchions and damper cylinder and then they could use the existing rod and spring and from then on as there was only one spring there was no call to mark it red". The short roadholder solo fork spring part number was 18813 (old) or new number 06-7723.

SLIDER: The Short Roadholder slider was changed from 1956 to 1957. The early right hand slider had an extra lug, 5" up from thecentre of the spindle,to which could be bolted a heavy duty torque stop for a Manx front brake but this was deleted on the 1957 forks, and at the same time the studholes for the mudguard bridge were lowered on the slider from 1&3/4" to 2&1/2" from the top end.

SIDECAR YOKES: The top yoke is stamped s/car to the right of the top column nut. On the bottom yoke - (the crown and stem) - the column is not parallel with the fork stanchions but pulls them in at the top to push the front wheel forward and so reduce the trail. Additionally the crown is straight across instead of being a shallow inverted 'U', and instead of the underside being completely flat with a hole approximately 5/8" in diameter for the boss on the lock stop plate to centre in, it has a much larger diameter hollow boss over which a lock stop plate with a large diameter hole - from memory 1&1/4" - fits, with a friction disc above and below and then a threaded cap into which the steering damperrod screws clamp the the two friction discs together with the lock stop plate between them and this cap ismade to turn with the forks by a pear shaped extension and a set screw which secures it to the underside of the crown. Additionally, the lamp brackets/fork top covers are 1/4" ormaybe 5/16" shorter than the solo parts.

Wasn't John a great man to bother type that out (and much more besides) and post it to me in Ireland 20 years ago.

Hopethese details are of use to others.

Matt

Previously wrote:

Hi Matt

Yes your fork shrouds need to have the cut outs to clear the mudguard mounting points on your sliders. Later sliders have the mudguard studs lower, approximately 64mm from the top of the slider.

I have the correct shrouds for your forks but I have already arranged an exchange with Bill.

In the next couple of days I will try and put pictures and the dimensions as an attachment then you should be able to modify your shrouds to fit. Or contact me directly.

If your frame is a Slimline then it would have had originally the later sliders with lower mudguard studs. If you use the earlier type sliders you will also require a mudguard bridge to match them. Another point that I have discovered is that sliders for 7â yokes are different to sliders for 7 3/8â yokes in the wheel spindle area. So beware its not so easy to mix and match fork sliders.

Regards

Alan

Previously wrote:

Hi Alan,

I am very interested in this discourse as I have run into fork problems which no one has been able to shed any light on- until I read your conversations.

I am installing a set of Short Roadholders in a Slimline Featherbed.

All parts are Short Roadholder (sliders are the type used pre 1957 with the mudguard studs 1& 3/4â from the top of the slider â John Hudson informed me of this many years ago).

I am looking to buy lower shrouds for the stanchionbut want to be sure that what Iget will fit.

Total fork travel on short roadholders is 112mm.

If the new shrouds are 125 mm long (allowing just 2mm of overlap on the screw in oil seal holders on full extension), they will just touch the stud boss on full compression.

If they are any longer than 125mm, a clash will occur.

Your information that some shrouds have 5/8" cutaway is a revelation - these seem to be what I require. What do you think? If you think they suit me, I would wish to buy them (I realise that Bill may have first refusal on this).

Regards

Matt

Previously wrote:

Previously wrote:

Hi Keith,

We both seem to have a similar problem. I am rebuilding the forks on a '53 model 88 which appears to have been fitted with the later shrouds and headlamp brackets (see my wanted ad. in the classifieds).The shrouds are 6.3/8 in. long and the shrouds ona '56 Inter are 5.3/8 in long so I think that the answer to your question is no. In the absence of any other advice, I am about to cut mine down. Some fork shrouds, like those on the Inter,also have a cut awayadjacent to the mudguard apparently to clear the mudguard mounting projetion on the slider. I would be grateful to anyone who can tell us what is the correct length for short Roadholder shrouds and the relevance of the cut away. Incidentally, the headlamp brackets also appear to be longer on the later forks.

Regards

Bill

Hi Bill, I have a pair of the early type featherbed roadholder shrouds (thatscrew to the bottom yoke). I have only just removed them from my 1957 model 99 (because I am servicing the forks) they have the lower cut away which is wrong for my bike. They are 5 ?â long with a 5/8â cut away to clear the mudguard bracket mounting on the earlier short roadholder fork slider.

Note: The early short roadholders had the mudguard mounting studs positioned higher on the sliders so the top shroud needs the cut away to clear this when the forks are compressed.

I would be happy to exchange them with your ones if you like, please contact me for a photo if you want to see what they look like.

Regards

Alan

Previously wrote:

Previously wrote:

Not sure of the exact date offhand but it is basically the length of the stanchion tubes that dictates the length of the forks. See the excellent summary by Phil Hannam on P33 of Rh 275.

Regards

Bill

I don't have a copy of that one, is it scanned/online any place (or can somneone scan and attach/email)?

Peter

I am unable to scan at the moment but the stanchion lenghts quoted were:-

Long Roadholder 23.312"

Commando 23.161"

Short Roadholder & Manx 1951-55 21.843"

Manx from 1956 20.375"

Regards

Bill

Previously wrote:

Hi Alan,

Thanks very much for your knowledgeable reply - I have been looking for answers in many sources with no success up until now. Unfortunately I am unable to contact you directly as the NOC system throws up a ' no valid email address found' message for your contact. Could you please investigate this.

I would be delighted to see your pics plus dimensions of the shrouds.

I am also very interested in the differences between the slider bottoms ( 7"/73/8") as I have a front wheel which does not lie in the centre of the forks yet fits perfectly thefork gap (7" centres yokes). Your comments on this would be much appreciated.

20 years ago Iwrote tothat great gentleman John Hudson with fork queries and he replied with great and detailed info on roadholder forks:

Long Roadholders first fitted 1947 season, short roadholders introduced for road models 88 and International for 1953 season but were used earlier on the first works featherbed racers.

STANCHIONS: Long23.312", Short 21.843", Commando 23.161", Manx 20.375"

Birmingham made Short Roadholdershad sliders with 4 holes for a C spanner but Woolwich deleted these presumably for cost reasons.

Long Roadholders had cup and cone head bearings, short roadholders had a special from Ransome & Marles 29LJT25. Ransomes later amalgamated with Hoffman & Pollard.

DAMPER TUBES: Short 7&3/4" overall, Commando 8&15/16"

SPRINGS: Birmingham had 3 different internal springs for the short forks. 18.5" for the sidecar conversion (yellow painted end), 18.687" for the solo (red paint or none at all), 18&1/16" to 18&5/16" for the Navigator 350cc twin (green paint). John remarked that he doubted if Woolwich knew very much about the different springs as very few sidecar conversions were done there (yellow spring). He further said and I quote "With the demise of the Navigator at Woolwich where I cannot recall ever seeing a spring marked green, they were left with only one spring, the one marked red and I can only surmise that when they wanted longer forks for the Commando the simplest way to do it was to just lengthen the stanchions and damper cylinder and then they could use the existing rod and spring and from then on as there was only one spring there was no call to mark it red". The short roadholder solo fork spring part number was 18813 (old) or new number 06-7723.

SLIDER: The Short Roadholder slider was changed from 1956 to 1957. The early right hand slider had an extra lug, 5" up from thecentre of the spindle,to which could be bolted a heavy duty torque stop for a Manx front brake but this was deleted on the 1957 forks, and at the same time the studholes for the mudguard bridge were lowered on the slider from 1&3/4" to 2&1/2" from the top end.

SIDECAR YOKES: The top yoke is stamped s/car to the right of the top column nut. On the bottom yoke - (the crown and stem) - the column is not parallel with the fork stanchions but pulls them in at the top to push the front wheel forward and so reduce the trail. Additionally the crown is straight across instead of being a shallow inverted 'U', and instead of the underside being completely flat with a hole approximately 5/8" in diameter for the boss on the lock stop plate to centre in, it has a much larger diameter hollow boss over which a lock stop plate with a large diameter hole - from memory 1&1/4" - fits, with a friction disc above and below and then a threaded cap into which the steering damperrod screws clamp the the two friction discs together with the lock stop plate between them and this cap ismade to turn with the forks by a pear shaped extension and a set screw which secures it to the underside of the crown. Additionally, the lamp brackets/fork top covers are 1/4" ormaybe 5/16" shorter than the solo parts.

Wasn't John a great man to bother type that out (and much more besides) and post it to me in Ireland 20 years ago.

Hopethese details are of use to others.

Matt

Previously wrote:

Hi Matt

Yes your fork shrouds need to have the cut outs to clear the mudguard mounting points on your sliders. Later sliders have the mudguard studs lower, approximately 64mm from the top of the slider.

I have the correct shrouds for your forks but I have already arranged an exchange with Bill.

In the next couple of days I will try and put pictures and the dimensions as an attachment then you should be able to modify your shrouds to fit. Or contact me directly.

If your frame is a Slimline then it would have had originally the later sliders with lower mudguard studs. If you use the earlier type sliders you will also require a mudguard bridge to match them. Another point that I have discovered is that sliders for 7â yokes are different to sliders for 7 3/8â yokes in the wheel spindle area. So beware its not so easy to mix and match fork sliders.

Regards

Alan

Previously wrote:

Hi Alan,

I am very interested in this discourse as I have run into fork problems which no one has been able to shed any light on- until I read your conversations.

I am installing a set of Short Roadholders in a Slimline Featherbed.

All parts are Short Roadholder (sliders are the type used pre 1957 with the mudguard studs 1& 3/4â from the top of the slider â John Hudson informed me of this many years ago).

I am looking to buy lower shrouds for the stanchionbut want to be sure that what Iget will fit.

Total fork travel on short roadholders is 112mm.

If the new shrouds are 125 mm long (allowing just 2mm of overlap on the screw in oil seal holders on full extension), they will just touch the stud boss on full compression.

If they are any longer than 125mm, a clash will occur.

Your information that some shrouds have 5/8" cutaway is a revelation - these seem to be what I require. What do you think? If you think they suit me, I would wish to buy them (I realise that Bill may have first refusal on this).

Regards

Matt

Previously wrote:

Previously wrote:

Hi Keith,

We both seem to have a similar problem. I am rebuilding the forks on a '53 model 88 which appears to have been fitted with the later shrouds and headlamp brackets (see my wanted ad. in the classifieds).The shrouds are 6.3/8 in. long and the shrouds ona '56 Inter are 5.3/8 in long so I think that the answer to your question is no. In the absence of any other advice, I am about to cut mine down. Some fork shrouds, like those on the Inter,also have a cut awayadjacent to the mudguard apparently to clear the mudguard mounting projetion on the slider. I would be grateful to anyone who can tell us what is the correct length for short Roadholder shrouds and the relevance of the cut away. Incidentally, the headlamp brackets also appear to be longer on the later forks.

Regards

Bill

Hi Bill, I have a pair of the early type featherbed roadholder shrouds (thatscrew to the bottom yoke). I have only just removed them from my 1957 model 99 (because I am servicing the forks) they have the lower cut away which is wrong for my bike. They are 5 ?â long with a 5/8â cut away to clear the mudguard bracket mounting on the earlier short roadholder fork slider.

Note: The early short roadholders had the mudguard mounting studs positioned higher on the sliders so the top shroud needs the cut away to clear this when the forks are compressed.

I would be happy to exchange them with your ones if you like, please contact me for a photo if you want to see what they look like.

Regards

Alan

Matt's input re John Hudson's commentswill bevery helpful to many of us but my recollection about the reason for the introduction of the long Roadholders is that it was to stop the front mudguard from fouling the frame on the Featherbeds. This was one of the warranty problemsthat wefoundwhen production was moved to Plumstead. I was the draughtsman assigned to investigating why it was happening and I found that the frames were being made with a head angle that was 2 degreescloser to the vertical than was shown onthe drawing. Lengthening the stanchion tubes was quicker, easier and less risky than modifying the framesas the frame geometry (as we all know) was proven to work very well indeed as it was. I can't remember the exact dimensions but the difference in lengths sounds about right.

Regards

Bill

Matt and Bill, Now we are really getting detailed information on the mystery of Roadholder forks. This is truly a great club to be part of. I can be contacted on: alanthrossell@NOSPAMhotmail.co.uk please remove NOSPAM before use.

Many thanks to you both.Alan

Previously wrote:

Previously wrote:

Hi Alan,

Thanks very much for your knowledgeable reply - I have been looking for answers in many sources with no success up until now. Unfortunately I am unable to contact you directly as the NOC system throws up a ' no valid email address found' message for your contact. Could you please investigate this.

I would be delighted to see your pics plus dimensions of the shrouds.

I am also very interested in the differences between the slider bottoms ( 7"/73/8") as I have a front wheel which does not lie in the centre of the forks yet fits perfectly thefork gap (7" centres yokes). Your comments on this would be much appreciated.

20 years ago Iwrote tothat great gentleman John Hudson with fork queries and he replied with great and detailed info on roadholder forks:

Long Roadholders first fitted 1947 season, short roadholders introduced for road models 88 and International for 1953 season but were used earlier on the first works featherbed racers.

STANCHIONS: Long23.312", Short 21.843", Commando 23.161", Manx 20.375"

Birmingham made Short Roadholdershad sliders with 4 holes for a C spanner but Woolwich deleted these presumably for cost reasons.

Long Roadholders had cup and cone head bearings, short roadholders had a special from Ransome & Marles 29LJT25. Ransomes later amalgamated with Hoffman & Pollard.

DAMPER TUBES: Short 7&3/4" overall, Commando 8&15/16"

SPRINGS: Birmingham had 3 different internal springs for the short forks. 18.5" for the sidecar conversion (yellow painted end), 18.687" for the solo (red paint or none at all), 18&1/16" to 18&5/16" for the Navigator 350cc twin (green paint). John remarked that he doubted if Woolwich knew very much about the different springs as very few sidecar conversions were done there (yellow spring). He further said and I quote "With the demise of the Navigator at Woolwich where I cannot recall ever seeing a spring marked green, they were left with only one spring, the one marked red and I can only surmise that when they wanted longer forks for the Commando the simplest way to do it was to just lengthen the stanchions and damper cylinder and then they could use the existing rod and spring and from then on as there was only one spring there was no call to mark it red". The short roadholder solo fork spring part number was 18813 (old) or new number 06-7723.

SLIDER: The Short Roadholder slider was changed from 1956 to 1957. The early right hand slider had an extra lug, 5" up from thecentre of the spindle,to which could be bolted a heavy duty torque stop for a Manx front brake but this was deleted on the 1957 forks, and at the same time the studholes for the mudguard bridge were lowered on the slider from 1&3/4" to 2&1/2" from the top end.

SIDECAR YOKES: The top yoke is stamped s/car to the right of the top column nut. On the bottom yoke - (the crown and stem) - the column is not parallel with the fork stanchions but pulls them in at the top to push the front wheel forward and so reduce the trail. Additionally the crown is straight across instead of being a shallow inverted 'U', and instead of the underside being completely flat with a hole approximately 5/8" in diameter for the boss on the lock stop plate to centre in, it has a much larger diameter hollow boss over which a lock stop plate with a large diameter hole - from memory 1&1/4" - fits, with a friction disc above and below and then a threaded cap into which the steering damperrod screws clamp the the two friction discs together with the lock stop plate between them and this cap ismade to turn with the forks by a pear shaped extension and a set screw which secures it to the underside of the crown. Additionally, the lamp brackets/fork top covers are 1/4" ormaybe 5/16" shorter than the solo parts.

Wasn't John a great man to bother type that out (and much more besides) and post it to me in Ireland 20 years ago.

Hopethese details are of use to others.

Matt

Previously wrote:

Hi Matt

Yes your fork shrouds need to have the cut outs to clear the mudguard mounting points on your sliders. Later sliders have the mudguard studs lower, approximately 64mm from the top of the slider.

I have the correct shrouds for your forks but I have already arranged an exchange with Bill.

In the next couple of days I will try and put pictures and the dimensions as an attachment then you should be able to modify your shrouds to fit. Or contact me directly.

If your frame is a Slimline then it would have had originally the later sliders with lower mudguard studs. If you use the earlier type sliders you will also require a mudguard bridge to match them. Another point that I have discovered is that sliders for 7â yokes are different to sliders for 7 3/8â yokes in the wheel spindle area. So beware its not so easy to mix and match fork sliders.

Regards

Alan

Previously wrote:

Hi Alan,

I am very interested in this discourse as I have run into fork problems which no one has been able to shed any light on- until I read your conversations.

I am installing a set of Short Roadholders in a Slimline Featherbed.

All parts are Short Roadholder (sliders are the type used pre 1957 with the mudguard studs 1& 3/4â from the top of the slider â John Hudson informed me of this many years ago).

I am looking to buy lower shrouds for the stanchionbut want to be sure that what Iget will fit.

Total fork travel on short roadholders is 112mm.

If the new shrouds are 125 mm long (allowing just 2mm of overlap on the screw in oil seal holders on full extension), they will just touch the stud boss on full compression.

If they are any longer than 125mm, a clash will occur.

Your information that some shrouds have 5/8" cutaway is a revelation - these seem to be what I require. What do you think? If you think they suit me, I would wish to buy them (I realise that Bill may have first refusal on this).

Regards

Matt

Previously wrote:

Previously wrote:

Hi Keith,

We both seem to have a similar problem. I am rebuilding the forks on a '53 model 88 which appears to have been fitted with the later shrouds and headlamp brackets (see my wanted ad. in the classifieds).The shrouds are 6.3/8 in. long and the shrouds ona '56 Inter are 5.3/8 in long so I think that the answer to your question is no. In the absence of any other advice, I am about to cut mine down. Some fork shrouds, like those on the Inter,also have a cut awayadjacent to the mudguard apparently to clear the mudguard mounting projetion on the slider. I would be grateful to anyone who can tell us what is the correct length for short Roadholder shrouds and the relevance of the cut away. Incidentally, the headlamp brackets also appear to be longer on the later forks.

Regards

Bill

Hi Bill, I have a pair of the early type featherbed roadholder shrouds (thatscrew to the bottom yoke). I have only just removed them from my 1957 model 99 (because I am servicing the forks) they have the lower cut away which is wrong for my bike. They are 5 ?â long with a 5/8â cut away to clear the mudguard bracket mounting on the earlier short roadholder fork slider.

Note: The early short roadholders had the mudguard mounting studs positioned higher on the sliders so the top shroud needs the cut away to clear this when the forks are compressed.

I would be happy to exchange them with your ones if you like, please contact me for a photo if you want to see what they look like.

Regards

Alan

Matt's input re John Hudson's commentswill bevery helpful to many of us but my recollection about the reason for the introduction of the long Roadholders is that it was to stop the front mudguard from fouling the frame on the Featherbeds. This was one of the warranty problemsthat wefoundwhen production was moved to Plumstead. I was the draughtsman assigned to investigating why it was happening and I found that the frames were being made with a head angle that was 2 degreescloser to the vertical than was shown onthe drawing. Lengthening the stanchion tubes was quicker, easier and less risky than modifying the framesas the frame geometry (as we all know) was proven to work very well indeed as it was. I can't remember the exact dimensions but the difference in lengths sounds about right.

Regards

Bill

Hi Bill,

Thank you for your comments - the more information we share, the wiser we will become. You obviouslywere in a position to know a lot of factual information,Iam just going on what I have learned from others over the years and from my own experience and I am delighted to receive your info.

I don't understand some of what you have written. When were the Long Roadholders 'introduced' for the Featherbed - for what domestic models? On what Featherbed models were there problems with mudguard/framefouling?

Matt

Previously wrote:

Previously wrote:

Hi Alan,

Thanks very much for your knowledgeable reply - I have been looking for answers in many sources with no success up until now. Unfortunately I am unable to contact you directly as the NOC system throws up a ' no valid email address found' message for your contact. Could you please investigate this.

I would be delighted to see your pics plus dimensions of the shrouds.

I am also very interested in the differences between the slider bottoms ( 7"/73/8") as I have a front wheel which does not lie in the centre of the forks yet fits perfectly thefork gap (7" centres yokes). Your comments on this would be much appreciated.

20 years ago Iwrote tothat great gentleman John Hudson with fork queries and he replied with great and detailed info on roadholder forks:

Long Roadholders first fitted 1947 season, short roadholders introduced for road models 88 and International for 1953 season but were used earlier on the first works featherbed racers.

STANCHIONS: Long23.312", Short 21.843", Commando 23.161", Manx 20.375"

Birmingham made Short Roadholdershad sliders with 4 holes for a C spanner but Woolwich deleted these presumably for cost reasons.

Long Roadholders had cup and cone head bearings, short roadholders had a special from Ransome & Marles 29LJT25. Ransomes later amalgamated with Hoffman & Pollard.

DAMPER TUBES: Short 7&3/4" overall, Commando 8&15/16"

SPRINGS: Birmingham had 3 different internal springs for the short forks. 18.5" for the sidecar conversion (yellow painted end), 18.687" for the solo (red paint or none at all), 18&1/16" to 18&5/16" for the Navigator 350cc twin (green paint). John remarked that he doubted if Woolwich knew very much about the different springs as very few sidecar conversions were done there (yellow spring). He further said and I quote "With the demise of the Navigator at Woolwich where I cannot recall ever seeing a spring marked green, they were left with only one spring, the one marked red and I can only surmise that when they wanted longer forks for the Commando the simplest way to do it was to just lengthen the stanchions and damper cylinder and then they could use the existing rod and spring and from then on as there was only one spring there was no call to mark it red". The short roadholder solo fork spring part number was 18813 (old) or new number 06-7723.

SLIDER: The Short Roadholder slider was changed from 1956 to 1957. The early right hand slider had an extra lug, 5" up from thecentre of the spindle,to which could be bolted a heavy duty torque stop for a Manx front brake but this was deleted on the 1957 forks, and at the same time the studholes for the mudguard bridge were lowered on the slider from 1&3/4" to 2&1/2" from the top end.

SIDECAR YOKES: The top yoke is stamped s/car to the right of the top column nut. On the bottom yoke - (the crown and stem) - the column is not parallel with the fork stanchions but pulls them in at the top to push the front wheel forward and so reduce the trail. Additionally the crown is straight across instead of being a shallow inverted 'U', and instead of the underside being completely flat with a hole approximately 5/8" in diameter for the boss on the lock stop plate to centre in, it has a much larger diameter hollow boss over which a lock stop plate with a large diameter hole - from memory 1&1/4" - fits, with a friction disc above and below and then a threaded cap into which the steering damperrod screws clamp the the two friction discs together with the lock stop plate between them and this cap ismade to turn with the forks by a pear shaped extension and a set screw which secures it to the underside of the crown. Additionally, the lamp brackets/fork top covers are 1/4" ormaybe 5/16" shorter than the solo parts.

Wasn't John a great man to bother type that out (and much more besides) and post it to me in Ireland 20 years ago.

Hopethese details are of use to others.

Matt

Previously wrote:

Hi Matt

Yes your fork shrouds need to have the cut outs to clear the mudguard mounting points on your sliders. Later sliders have the mudguard studs lower, approximately 64mm from the top of the slider.

I have the correct shrouds for your forks but I have already arranged an exchange with Bill.

In the next couple of days I will try and put pictures and the dimensions as an attachment then you should be able to modify your shrouds to fit. Or contact me directly.

If your frame is a Slimline then it would have had originally the later sliders with lower mudguard studs. If you use the earlier type sliders you will also require a mudguard bridge to match them. Another point that I have discovered is that sliders for 7â yokes are different to sliders for 7 3/8â yokes in the wheel spindle area. So beware its not so easy to mix and match fork sliders.

Regards

Alan

Previously wrote:

Hi Alan,

I am very interested in this discourse as I have run into fork problems which no one has been able to shed any light on- until I read your conversations.

I am installing a set of Short Roadholders in a Slimline Featherbed.

All parts are Short Roadholder (sliders are the type used pre 1957 with the mudguard studs 1& 3/4â from the top of the slider â John Hudson informed me of this many years ago).

I am looking to buy lower shrouds for the stanchionbut want to be sure that what Iget will fit.

Total fork travel on short roadholders is 112mm.

If the new shrouds are 125 mm long (allowing just 2mm of overlap on the screw in oil seal holders on full extension), they will just touch the stud boss on full compression.

If they are any longer than 125mm, a clash will occur.

Your information that some shrouds have 5/8" cutaway is a revelation - these seem to be what I require. What do you think? If you think they suit me, I would wish to buy them (I realise that Bill may have first refusal on this).

Regards

Matt

Previously wrote:

Previously wrote:

Hi Keith,

We both seem to have a similar problem. I am rebuilding the forks on a '53 model 88 which appears to have been fitted with the later shrouds and headlamp brackets (see my wanted ad. in the classifieds).The shrouds are 6.3/8 in. long and the shrouds ona '56 Inter are 5.3/8 in long so I think that the answer to your question is no. In the absence of any other advice, I am about to cut mine down. Some fork shrouds, like those on the Inter,also have a cut awayadjacent to the mudguard apparently to clear the mudguard mounting projetion on the slider. I would be grateful to anyone who can tell us what is the correct length for short Roadholder shrouds and the relevance of the cut away. Incidentally, the headlamp brackets also appear to be longer on the later forks.

Regards

Bill

Hi Bill, I have a pair of the early type featherbed roadholder shrouds (thatscrew to the bottom yoke). I have only just removed them from my 1957 model 99 (because I am servicing the forks) they have the lower cut away which is wrong for my bike. They are 5 ?â long with a 5/8â cut away to clear the mudguard bracket mounting on the earlier short roadholder fork slider.

Note: The early short roadholders had the mudguard mounting studs positioned higher on the sliders so the top shroud needs the cut away to clear this when the forks are compressed.

I would be happy to exchange them with your ones if you like, please contact me for a photo if you want to see what they look like.

Regards

Alan

Matt's input re John Hudson's commentswill bevery helpful to many of us but my recollection about the reason for the introduction of the long Roadholders is that it was to stop the front mudguard from fouling the frame on the Featherbeds. This was one of the warranty problemsthat wefoundwhen production was moved to Plumstead. I was the draughtsman assigned to investigating why it was happening and I found that the frames were being made with a head angle that was 2 degreescloser to the vertical than was shown onthe drawing. Lengthening the stanchion tubes was quicker, easier and less risky than modifying the framesas the frame geometry (as we all know) was proven to work very well indeed as it was. I can't remember the exact dimensions but the difference in lengths sounds about right.

Regards

Bill

Previously wrote:

Hi Bill,

Thank you for your comments - the more information we share, the wiser we will become. You obviouslywere in a position to know a lot of factual information,Iam just going on what I have learned from others over the years and from my own experience and I am delighted to receive your info.

I don't understand some of what you have written. When were the Long Roadholders 'introduced' for the Featherbed - for what domestic models? On what Featherbed models were there problems with mudguard/framefouling?

Matt

Previously wrote:

Previously wrote:

Hi Alan,

Thanks very much for your knowledgeable reply - I have been looking for answers in many sources with no success up until now. Unfortunately I am unable to contact you directly as the NOC system throws up a ' no valid email address found' message for your contact. Could you please investigate this.

I would be delighted to see your pics plus dimensions of the shrouds.

I am also very interested in the differences between the slider bottoms ( 7"/73/8") as I have a front wheel which does not lie in the centre of the forks yet fits perfectly thefork gap (7" centres yokes). Your comments on this would be much appreciated.

20 years ago Iwrote tothat great gentleman John Hudson with fork queries and he replied with great and detailed info on roadholder forks:

Long Roadholders first fitted 1947 season, short roadholders introduced for road models 88 and International for 1953 season but were used earlier on the first works featherbed racers.

STANCHIONS: Long23.312", Short 21.843", Commando 23.161", Manx 20.375"

Birmingham made Short Roadholdershad sliders with 4 holes for a C spanner but Woolwich deleted these presumably for cost reasons.

Long Roadholders had cup and cone head bearings, short roadholders had a special from Ransome & Marles 29LJT25. Ransomes later amalgamated with Hoffman & Pollard.

DAMPER TUBES: Short 7&3/4" overall, Commando 8&15/16"

SPRINGS: Birmingham had 3 different internal springs for the short forks. 18.5" for the sidecar conversion (yellow painted end), 18.687" for the solo (red paint or none at all), 18&1/16" to 18&5/16" for the Navigator 350cc twin (green paint). John remarked that he doubted if Woolwich knew very much about the different springs as very few sidecar conversions were done there (yellow spring). He further said and I quote "With the demise of the Navigator at Woolwich where I cannot recall ever seeing a spring marked green, they were left with only one spring, the one marked red and I can only surmise that when they wanted longer forks for the Commando the simplest way to do it was to just lengthen the stanchions and damper cylinder and then they could use the existing rod and spring and from then on as there was only one spring there was no call to mark it red". The short roadholder solo fork spring part number was 18813 (old) or new number 06-7723.

SLIDER: The Short Roadholder slider was changed from 1956 to 1957. The early right hand slider had an extra lug, 5" up from thecentre of the spindle,to which could be bolted a heavy duty torque stop for a Manx front brake but this was deleted on the 1957 forks, and at the same time the studholes for the mudguard bridge were lowered on the slider from 1&3/4" to 2&1/2" from the top end.

SIDECAR YOKES: The top yoke is stamped s/car to the right of the top column nut. On the bottom yoke - (the crown and stem) - the column is not parallel with the fork stanchions but pulls them in at the top to push the front wheel forward and so reduce the trail. Additionally the crown is straight across instead of being a shallow inverted 'U', and instead of the underside being completely flat with a hole approximately 5/8" in diameter for the boss on the lock stop plate to centre in, it has a much larger diameter hollow boss over which a lock stop plate with a large diameter hole - from memory 1&1/4" - fits, with a friction disc above and below and then a threaded cap into which the steering damperrod screws clamp the the two friction discs together with the lock stop plate between them and this cap ismade to turn with the forks by a pear shaped extension and a set screw which secures it to the underside of the crown. Additionally, the lamp brackets/fork top covers are 1/4" ormaybe 5/16" shorter than the solo parts.

Wasn't John a great man to bother type that out (and much more besides) and post it to me in Ireland 20 years ago.

Hopethese details are of use to others.

Matt

Previously wrote:

Hi Matt

Yes your fork shrouds need to have the cut outs to clear the mudguard mounting points on your sliders. Later sliders have the mudguard studs lower, approximately 64mm from the top of the slider.

I have the correct shrouds for your forks but I have already arranged an exchange with Bill.

In the next couple of days I will try and put pictures and the dimensions as an attachment then you should be able to modify your shrouds to fit. Or contact me directly.

If your frame is a Slimline then it would have had originally the later sliders with lower mudguard studs. If you use the earlier type sliders you will also require a mudguard bridge to match them. Another point that I have discovered is that sliders for 7â yokes are different to sliders for 7 3/8â yokes in the wheel spindle area. So beware its not so easy to mix and match fork sliders.

Regards

Alan

Previously wrote:

Hi Alan,

I am very interested in this discourse as I have run into fork problems which no one has been able to shed any light on- until I read your conversations.

I am installing a set of Short Roadholders in a Slimline Featherbed.

All parts are Short Roadholder (sliders are the type used pre 1957 with the mudguard studs 1& 3/4â from the top of the slider â John Hudson informed me of this many years ago).

I am looking to buy lower shrouds for the stanchionbut want to be sure that what Iget will fit.

Total fork travel on short roadholders is 112mm.

If the new shrouds are 125 mm long (allowing just 2mm of overlap on the screw in oil seal holders on full extension), they will just touch the stud boss on full compression.

If they are any longer than 125mm, a clash will occur.

Your information that some shrouds have 5/8" cutaway is a revelation - these seem to be what I require. What do you think? If you think they suit me, I would wish to buy them (I realise that Bill may have first refusal on this).

Regards

Matt

Previously wrote:

Previously wrote:

Hi Keith,

We both seem to have a similar problem. I am rebuilding the forks on a '53 model 88 which appears to have been fitted with the later shrouds and headlamp brackets (see my wanted ad. in the classifieds).The shrouds are 6.3/8 in. long and the shrouds ona '56 Inter are 5.3/8 in long so I think that the answer to your question is no. In the absence of any other advice, I am about to cut mine down. Some fork shrouds, like those on the Inter,also have a cut awayadjacent to the mudguard apparently to clear the mudguard mounting projetion on the slider. I would be grateful to anyone who can tell us what is the correct length for short Roadholder shrouds and the relevance of the cut away. Incidentally, the headlamp brackets also appear to be longer on the later forks.

Regards

Bill

Hi Bill, I have a pair of the early type featherbed roadholder shrouds (thatscrew to the bottom yoke). I have only just removed them from my 1957 model 99 (because I am servicing the forks) they have the lower cut away which is wrong for my bike. They are 5 ?â long with a 5/8â cut away to clear the mudguard bracket mounting on the earlier short roadholder fork slider.

Note: The early short roadholders had the mudguard mounting studs positioned higher on the sliders so the top shroud needs the cut away to clear this when the forks are compressed.

I would be happy to exchange them with your ones if you like, please contact me for a photo if you want to see what they look like.

Regards

Alan

Matt's input re John Hudson's commentswill bevery helpful to many of us but my recollection about the reason for the introduction of the long Roadholders is that it was to stop the front mudguard from fouling the frame on the Featherbeds. This was one of the warranty problemsthat wefoundwhen production was moved to Plumstead. I was the draughtsman assigned to investigating why it was happening and I found that the frames were being made with a head angle that was 2 degreescloser to the vertical than was shown onthe drawing. Lengthening the stanchion tubes was quicker, easier and less risky than modifying the framesas the frame geometry (as we all know) was proven to work very well indeed as it was. I can't remember the exact dimensions but the difference in lengths sounds about right.

Regards

Bill

Hi Matt,

The problem was associated with all Featherbed framed models. I can'recall the exact date for the introduction of the longer Roadholders but it would have been soon after prduction was transferred to Plumstead around 1963/4

Regards

Bill