The Norton telescopic fork does have limitations. There is the Covenant kit, designed to give progressive hydraulic lock at the ends of fork movement.
For full compression, the two side holes at the bottom of the damper tube should be blocked, and new hole in the taper section substituted. RGM says a 6mm hole, Access Norton and JS motorcycles say 1/16".
That's a big difference. Comments?
The fixed plate at the bottom of the fork damper rod on '50s and '60s bikes has four milling cuts. Commando ones are more solid, with four shallow flats. Does this make a significant improvement (increase?) to compression damping?
Also, JS motorcycles offer a shuttle valve which is a very close fit in the damper tubes. Does this really improve rebound damping? Does anyone have experience of their Turcite fork bushings, or teflon?
I see that there are progressive rate springs available for the Commando. Has anyone got the spring rate and length data for this and the standard spring?
Paul
Hi Paul, I recently rebuilt…
- Log in to post comments
Pre Commando Forks.
Hi Gents,
Have any of you read 'the hole truth?' Regards damper tubes....I have. Holes in the wrong place.
I have experimented with a whole lot of dedicated fork oils but on Norton's I found medium to be the best one suites all grades without mixing.(In my experience)
A lot of choice with fork oils but for technical reasons best not to use it in the primary.
- Log in to post comments
Improving Front Forks
Hi all
Have a Covenant Kit fitted to my 650SS forks.
Has anyone got an opinion on Progressive Fork Springs, pls.
Tim
- Log in to post comments
Hi Paul, I recently rebuilt my std 1960 forks with the kit which is designed for the later commando damper so had an extra couple of holes to block . I also bought the longer bronze bushes and progressive springs and new caps . The forks now stand the bike up a bit higher and no clunks at extremes of travel .I am happy , with them , am using 10/40 oil , not experimented with anything else , 6mm holes .