Roadholder type on a 1960 Dommie

Later nortons used sliders that are wider at the bottom to match the wider yokes, its possible that if they are the only ones you can get you may be able to machine them down, not sure if both sides wider or just the brake side.You need short roadholder sliders ,the long ones go on much earlier nortons.

Previously wrote:

Bonjour tout le monde,

The fork sliders of my Dommie need to be replaced on both sides (pinch bolt and bake) because the pinch bolt holder was broken in the past & not well re-welded (breaking again), and same for the mudguard bolt-"plates" on the RH slider.

I'm a bit confused re: the short and long roadholders, if Commando's sliders would fit etc... and hence don't know what top look for

Thanks to anyone clarifying

Laurent

Hello Well if you get you Fork bottom welded by a welder who knows what he is doing then the weld will be stronger that the alloy that is round it , you pay something like £4 a inch For Alloy Welding And its done with a TIG welder and a yellow flux rod Hope this may help

Previously wrote:

Bonjour tout le monde,

The fork sliders of my Dommie need to be replaced on both sides (pinch bolt and bake) because the pinch bolt holder was broken in the past & not well re-welded (breaking again), and same for the mudguard bolt-"plates" on the RH slider.

I'm a bit confused re: the short and long roadholders, if Commando's sliders would fit etc... and hence don't know what top look for

Thanks to anyone clarifying

Laurent

Hello Laurent,

what year & model Dominator do you have? Is itpossibleto get a picture of the damaged area? There are a lot of different sliders used on Dominators over the years (I found out the hard way, by buying the wrong ones). There are many sliders out there with bodged repairs on the pinch bolt area, sometimes they an be re welded if the previous weld comes apart in the same area as the original break.The welding process is called Gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW), also known as tungsten inert gas (TIG) welding, and some of the old timers call it "heliarc" welding. It does a great job & is very strong. If welded correctly you will have no trouble with the repair.

There is someexcellentinfo on the long vs. short roadholders right here on this very website!

http://www.nortonownersclub.org/support/technical-support-common/roadholder-forks

Hope this helps!

Skip Brolund

. Just be sure you have the correct sliders to begin with.

Laurent,get an opinion from a competent welder.Many old repairs were done with oxy torches causing extensive contamination of the whole weld area as well as heat damage all around.These generally require the part to be ground out, and a new piece made and welded in.Also check the bores of your sliders,they may be worn out internally.and not worth fixing.The pinch bolt and axle clamp is one piece that you dont want to break while you are riding.Regards John.

Hello Laurent,

your bike woulddefinitelyhave the "short" Roadholder forks. Here is an excerpt from an excelent article from the INOA written by Dave Crespin ( see the entire article at: http://www.inoanorton.com/Articles/Roadholder.html

"Short Roadholder fork was fitted to Featherbed-framed models from 1953 onwards. It was to continue largely unchanged until Norton ceased manufacturing in the mid-Seventies. It also appeared on some of the hybrid AJS and Matchless machines made in the final years of the Associated Motorcycles (AMC) empire. For normal road use, this later design was a distinct improvement and closely followed the pattern of the Matchless Teledraulic fork. The fork now used a separate internal damper tube and shuttle valve arrangement which gave more precise control over the middle portion o fork travel. It is easily distinguished from the earlier design by the lack of an external spring and the presence of a damper rod screwed to the underside of the fork top nut. Unfortunately, it was at this stage that two design flaws, not present in the original Matchless fork, crept in. As the faults only affect damping near the extremes of fork travel, it is perhaps understandable that no mention of any deterioration was made in the road test reports of the day. Doubtless, if riders of the brand new Featherbed machine, introduced in 1953, had gone for a quick blast round the local slag heap, some of them would have noticed that all was not well with their forks. More specifically" the new design lacked proper hydraulic bump stops to cushion the final metal-to-metal contact at the two extremes of front suspension movement."

Service info on front forks from Andover norton with drawing & part numbers:

http://www.andover-norton.co.uk/SIForks.htm

or Norvil :http://www.norvilmotorcycle.co.uk/ go to the "forks" page , see part numbers 063318, 19298 ?

063318SLIDER - FORK - PINCHBOLT - 1957 ON - NOT 250CC - LEFT HANDCDLS140.0019298SLIDER - FORK - RIGHT HAND - PRE 1964 - 7" WIDE FORKS - NOT 250CC-DLS148.

Hope some of this helps!

Skip Brolund

Hello Laurent,

your bike woulddefinitelyhave the "short" Roadholder forks. Here is an excerpt from an excelent article from the INOA written by Dave Crespin ( see the entire article at: http://www.inoanorton.com/Articles/Roadholder.html

"Short Roadholder fork was fitted to Featherbed-framed models from 1953 onwards. It was to continue largely unchanged until Norton ceased manufacturing in the mid-Seventies. It also appeared on some of the hybrid AJS and Matchless machines made in the final years of the Associated Motorcycles (AMC) empire. For normal road use, this later design was a distinct improvement and closely followed the pattern of the Matchless Teledraulic fork. The fork now used a separate internal damper tube and shuttle valve arrangement which gave more precise control over the middle portion o fork travel. It is easily distinguished from the earlier design by the lack of an external spring and the presence of a damper rod screwed to the underside of the fork top nut. Unfortunately, it was at this stage that two design flaws, not present in the original Matchless fork, crept in. As the faults only affect damping near the extremes of fork travel, it is perhaps understandable that no mention of any deterioration was made in the road test reports of the day. Doubtless, if riders of the brand new Featherbed machine, introduced in 1953, had gone for a quick blast round the local slag heap, some of them would have noticed that all was not well with their forks. More specifically" the new design lacked proper hydraulic bump stops to cushion the final metal-to-metal contact at the two extremes of front suspension movement."

Service info on front forks from Andover norton with drawing & part numbers:

http://www.andover-norton.co.uk/SIForks.htm

or Norvil :http://www.norvilmotorcycle.co.uk/ go to the "forks" page , see part numbers 063318, 19298 ?

063318SLIDER - FORK - PINCHBOLT - 1957 ON - NOT 250CC - LEFT HANDCDLS140.0019298SLIDER - FORK - RIGHT HAND - PRE 1964 - 7" WIDE FORKS - NOT 250CC-DLS148.

Hope some of this helps!

Skip Brolund

Previously wrote:

Hello Laurent,

your bike woulddefinitelyhave the "short" Roadholder forks. Here is an excerpt from an excelent article from the INOA written by Dave Crespin ( see the entire article at: http://www.inoanorton.com/Articles/Roadholder.html

"Short Roadholder fork was fitted to Featherbed-framed models from 1953 onwards. It was to continue largely unchanged until Norton ceased manufacturing in the mid-Seventies. It also appeared on some of the hybrid AJS and Matchless machines made in the final years of the Associated Motorcycles (AMC) empire. For normal road use, this later design was a distinct improvement and closely followed the pattern of the Matchless Teledraulic fork. The fork now used a separate internal damper tube and shuttle valve arrangement which gave more precise control over the middle portion o fork travel. It is easily distinguished from the earlier design by the lack of an external spring and the presence of a damper rod screwed to the underside of the fork top nut. Unfortunately, it was at this stage that two design flaws, not present in the original Matchless fork, crept in. As the faults only affect damping near the extremes of fork travel, it is perhaps understandable that no mention of any deterioration was made in the road test reports of the day. Doubtless, if riders of the brand new Featherbed machine, introduced in 1953, had gone for a quick blast round the local slag heap, some of them would have noticed that all was not well with their forks. More specifically" the new design lacked proper hydraulic bump stops to cushion the final metal-to-metal contact at the two extremes of front suspension movement."

Service info on front forks from Andover norton with drawing & part numbers:

http://www.andover-norton.co.uk/SIForks.htm

or Norvil :http://www.norvilmotorcycle.co.uk/ go to the "forks" page , see part numbers 063318, 19298 ?

063318SLIDER - FORK - PINCHBOLT - 1957 ON - NOT 250CC - LEFT HANDCDLS140.0019298SLIDER - FORK - RIGHT HAND - PRE 1964 - 7" WIDE FORKS - NOT 250CC-DLS148.

Hope some of this helps!

Skip Brolund

Something went wrong! I tried to comment on Skip Brolund's post, but just copied his entry. I had a '53 Dommy 88, in my late teens, and early twenties, this was "well thrashed", but, I don't remember the forks ever "bottoming out". I now own, a very similar, '54 model which does have this problem (especially in Spain, where they have a "love affair" with speed bumps!). Is there any easy remedy? Maybe thicker, or more, oil in the forks? Any advice would be appreciated.

All the best,

John.

HI John, that happens to me sometimes too, I don't know why? You may want to take a look at this article as I think it may address your problem:

http://www.inoanorton.com/Articles/Roadholder.html

Hope it is of some help!

Skip Brolund