F: Frame AVO COIL OVER WANTED HELP PLEASE
- Thread starter kerry
- Start date
Alyson, Appreciate your suggestion, I have been in touch with a company that dealt with AVO and I have ordered one from them with a 275ib spring, fingers crossed, what I don't know is the length of the ones from AVO that lowered the bike over an inch. The original are 15" long so I am hoping the one I ordered at 13" will lower the bike approx 1" + . Needs someone technical to know, if it works when I try and fit then I will have an idea. If it fits but does not lower then the next step is the 11" AVO perhaps ? who knows.
Well the bad news is AVO went into liquidation today, if I were Kerry I would get up there pretty sharpish and see if there is any chance you could do a deal out of the back door, if they have official receivers in, any bonafide transactions stopped when they arrived. There is confirmation of this on their Australian AVO site, but by the looks of it they simply sold goods supplied from the UK.
Hello Peter,
I had someone visit but said it was all locked up, I have a plan B and have now found a copy of the original detail by Rob Staley, I also understand you were the additional person who helped with the testing.
I have also found the spring should be 300ib (but have ordered a 275lb one) and it appears that if the original is 15" a Avo 14" would actually reduce the seat / ride height by at least 1,1/2"owing to angle's but I could have the wrong information,
I have taken Alyson's advice and in fact have one coming tomorrow so I will know more soon.
Kerry.
I had someone visit but said it was all locked up, I have a plan B and have now found a copy of the original detail by Rob Staley, I also understand you were the additional person who helped with the testing.
I have also found the spring should be 300ib (but have ordered a 275lb one) and it appears that if the original is 15" a Avo 14" would actually reduce the seat / ride height by at least 1,1/2"owing to angle's but I could have the wrong information,
I have taken Alyson's advice and in fact have one coming tomorrow so I will know more soon.
Kerry.
The only one that springs to mind is Hagon,
Maybe also Maxton, who I understand have made at least one coil over shock that a Vincent owner commissioned.
The collapse of AVO is such a shame, a lot of research and work went into producing shocks that were custom made for Vincent’s, and as we all know, they worked really well.
Maybe also Maxton, who I understand have made at least one coil over shock that a Vincent owner commissioned.
The collapse of AVO is such a shame, a lot of research and work went into producing shocks that were custom made for Vincent’s, and as we all know, they worked really well.
Well, it´s cool to be different . . .
I have dumped the idea of coil overs on the Vincent, too limited in owner adjustments to individual requirements. So my mind went for air shocks in Fournales design that seem to tick a few more boxes when having them on Vincents:
Air shocks got the very progressive damping when approaching full compression and minimum air volume inside. So no bump stops there to limit useful stroke or coil bound limits. You can set progression by adding extra oil so air volume inside will act sooner.
Air shocks are easily set for bike or driver weight by adding air at the Schrader valve.
Air shocks can be set by various oil grades that you can exchange at the Schrader valve to your likings.
Air shocks are one pound less weight than the Brampton spring and limit extension and compression length on the Bramptons which otherwise crash on handlebars or foul the steering head at bottom.
At the rear get two shocks for avoiding bent bolts like with one coil-over in the middle. Looks will be like standard on B Types, no extra hydraulics required then. It is a bit tight there with cast lugs on the RFM to clear the alu end caps as I milled them for spherical IGUS bushes pressed in. You do NOT want shocks without spherical joints as you cannot know any crooked bores for mounting the shocks - which will put sideloads on piston rods and possibly broken rods as seen already on front shocks I think. The old Konis and AVOs had hard brackets welded on them with simple through holes and offset from center line as well - a definite no-no !! Standard on bike shocks is a rubber bush and spacer inside for some give. The Fournales on Max´s Ducati 860 GT rear swing got the spherical bushes obviously and he seems to be quite happy with the Fournales after the impossible Cerianis or Marzocchis as standard on these bevel types.
The shocks in my photos below are heavily modded for length on the Vincents, end caps and seal holders home made, the last of 6 each at front was 100% homemade from rounds on the lathe and mill , not worth the money when used Fournales cannot be had at low price just to have them reworked a lot still. Allright, it is a nice big job at home and less so for a company when ordering a batch of specials I´d believe.
So when AVO has folded now maybe some of the French sections could have a word with Fournales for Vincent specials. They do a lot of jobs for aviation landing gear applications and that is where they come from. Certainly they will not be extra cheap to have but quality is quite elevated compared to Hagons or the classic Konis I had a look inside some time ago. So no points from me for Hagons or common Konis after finding seals in there not great for bikes and not much scope for owner tweaks at home. I´d hate sending shocks onto long trips for modifications by trial and error. Rather have shocks that can be opened at home with some alu clamp for more force to overcome some Loctite on threads plus o-rings which hold all components in place. No pressed up or welded shocks here and no nitrogen pressurized types, you could look inside and mod them on a drill press if still unhappy for your particular bike. The seals I use are all common hydraulic seals from polyurethane plus split guide bushes I made of Turcite material you find in mill bedways.
Anyway, still I am quite confident the bikes will be nice on the roads, the original B components don´t look quite so with their limitations. To be open, I am terrible when finding places on bikes I disagree with when I see a chance to be better than all the years ago in standard bikes.
Vic
Fournales company:
Fournales company
I have dumped the idea of coil overs on the Vincent, too limited in owner adjustments to individual requirements. So my mind went for air shocks in Fournales design that seem to tick a few more boxes when having them on Vincents:
Air shocks got the very progressive damping when approaching full compression and minimum air volume inside. So no bump stops there to limit useful stroke or coil bound limits. You can set progression by adding extra oil so air volume inside will act sooner.
Air shocks are easily set for bike or driver weight by adding air at the Schrader valve.
Air shocks can be set by various oil grades that you can exchange at the Schrader valve to your likings.
Air shocks are one pound less weight than the Brampton spring and limit extension and compression length on the Bramptons which otherwise crash on handlebars or foul the steering head at bottom.
At the rear get two shocks for avoiding bent bolts like with one coil-over in the middle. Looks will be like standard on B Types, no extra hydraulics required then. It is a bit tight there with cast lugs on the RFM to clear the alu end caps as I milled them for spherical IGUS bushes pressed in. You do NOT want shocks without spherical joints as you cannot know any crooked bores for mounting the shocks - which will put sideloads on piston rods and possibly broken rods as seen already on front shocks I think. The old Konis and AVOs had hard brackets welded on them with simple through holes and offset from center line as well - a definite no-no !! Standard on bike shocks is a rubber bush and spacer inside for some give. The Fournales on Max´s Ducati 860 GT rear swing got the spherical bushes obviously and he seems to be quite happy with the Fournales after the impossible Cerianis or Marzocchis as standard on these bevel types.
The shocks in my photos below are heavily modded for length on the Vincents, end caps and seal holders home made, the last of 6 each at front was 100% homemade from rounds on the lathe and mill , not worth the money when used Fournales cannot be had at low price just to have them reworked a lot still. Allright, it is a nice big job at home and less so for a company when ordering a batch of specials I´d believe.
So when AVO has folded now maybe some of the French sections could have a word with Fournales for Vincent specials. They do a lot of jobs for aviation landing gear applications and that is where they come from. Certainly they will not be extra cheap to have but quality is quite elevated compared to Hagons or the classic Konis I had a look inside some time ago. So no points from me for Hagons or common Konis after finding seals in there not great for bikes and not much scope for owner tweaks at home. I´d hate sending shocks onto long trips for modifications by trial and error. Rather have shocks that can be opened at home with some alu clamp for more force to overcome some Loctite on threads plus o-rings which hold all components in place. No pressed up or welded shocks here and no nitrogen pressurized types, you could look inside and mod them on a drill press if still unhappy for your particular bike. The seals I use are all common hydraulic seals from polyurethane plus split guide bushes I made of Turcite material you find in mill bedways.
Anyway, still I am quite confident the bikes will be nice on the roads, the original B components don´t look quite so with their limitations. To be open, I am terrible when finding places on bikes I disagree with when I see a chance to be better than all the years ago in standard bikes.
Vic
Fournales company:
Fournales company
Superb engineering, yes much better.
Attached is the original info on the AVO coil over for series D's
There are two versions, a standard version and a low seat height version. Both have quickly adjustable spring preload and damping. Standard Version PC1589: Ride height and load carrying capacity are very close to the original, but a solo rider could set a minimal spring preload in order get a slightly lower seat height when astride the bike. It is fitted with a 350lb/inch spring, part number A10350. Other springs are available to special order. Low seat version PC1590: The lower seat height is achieved by a ¾” reduction in the extended length of the damper that lowers the seat by about 1.125”. The closed length remains as standard. You might rea sonably think “Less travel? Must be less comfortable!” Not if the preload is correct for the load. In marked contrast to standard Series ‘B’/’C’ bikes, the Series ‘D’ design has generous suspension travel. In fact it is quite good even by modern standards. Consequently, an average weight solo rider doesn’t use much more than the top part of the suspension movement. So even with a ¾” reduction in travel and the same spring rate, there is still sufficient travel to avoid excessive bottoming out, provided the spring preload is adjusted to suit the load. This keeps the suspension travel in the centre of its range. Increasing the damping may also be beneficial. Depending on many variables, some riders may find a single preload setting is OK for both solo and two up. Others may find it preferable to always change the settings according to load. The low seat version is offered with a choice of springs to best match the intended use: 300lb/inch Part No A9300: Suitable for an average weight rider who usually rides solo and wants the most comfortable ride. 350lb/inch Part No A9350: Suitable for two up and solo riding. May bottom out a bit when two up. 400lb/inch Part No A9400: For predominately two-up use. Those who frequently heavily load their bike will need to choose between a low seat height with a 400lb/ inch spring or slightly better comfort with the full length unit and the 350lb/inch spring. But note that the low seat version still has more suspension travel and load capacity than a Series ‘C’ bike. Centre Stands; A bike fitted with the shorter coil-over will inevitably be a bit harder to lift onto the stand. Both testers report this is not a big issue. A few notes about testing: Peter Holmes did two-up and solo testing of the first (full length) prototype and with different rate springs. AVO then revised it and converted it into the low seat height version for more tests. Thanks to Peter for his patience through several iterations and for his valuable feedback on two up use.
Attached is the original info on the AVO coil over for series D's
There are two versions, a standard version and a low seat height version. Both have quickly adjustable spring preload and damping. Standard Version PC1589: Ride height and load carrying capacity are very close to the original, but a solo rider could set a minimal spring preload in order get a slightly lower seat height when astride the bike. It is fitted with a 350lb/inch spring, part number A10350. Other springs are available to special order. Low seat version PC1590: The lower seat height is achieved by a ¾” reduction in the extended length of the damper that lowers the seat by about 1.125”. The closed length remains as standard. You might rea sonably think “Less travel? Must be less comfortable!” Not if the preload is correct for the load. In marked contrast to standard Series ‘B’/’C’ bikes, the Series ‘D’ design has generous suspension travel. In fact it is quite good even by modern standards. Consequently, an average weight solo rider doesn’t use much more than the top part of the suspension movement. So even with a ¾” reduction in travel and the same spring rate, there is still sufficient travel to avoid excessive bottoming out, provided the spring preload is adjusted to suit the load. This keeps the suspension travel in the centre of its range. Increasing the damping may also be beneficial. Depending on many variables, some riders may find a single preload setting is OK for both solo and two up. Others may find it preferable to always change the settings according to load. The low seat version is offered with a choice of springs to best match the intended use: 300lb/inch Part No A9300: Suitable for an average weight rider who usually rides solo and wants the most comfortable ride. 350lb/inch Part No A9350: Suitable for two up and solo riding. May bottom out a bit when two up. 400lb/inch Part No A9400: For predominately two-up use. Those who frequently heavily load their bike will need to choose between a low seat height with a 400lb/ inch spring or slightly better comfort with the full length unit and the 350lb/inch spring. But note that the low seat version still has more suspension travel and load capacity than a Series ‘C’ bike. Centre Stands; A bike fitted with the shorter coil-over will inevitably be a bit harder to lift onto the stand. Both testers report this is not a big issue. A few notes about testing: Peter Holmes did two-up and solo testing of the first (full length) prototype and with different rate springs. AVO then revised it and converted it into the low seat height version for more tests. Thanks to Peter for his patience through several iterations and for his valuable feedback on two up use.
There was a pair of Fournales on the rear of my Harley Softail before I bought it about 25 years ago (so they've been on about 30 that I know of) and they've been great.
I've contacted Maxton over the last couple of days to see if they would be prepared to produce suitable dampers. Their reply is below.
Thanks for the photos. Unfortunately, these shocks are very different to anything we already manufacture. At the moment we do not have any spare capacity to take on a new design damper.
Apologies
I can see that the front might be a problem and of course the special for the rear with the offset lower mount is unlikely to be available elsewhere.. For the rear I think it might be worth while looking into using standard coil over dampers as used on many bikes. The hole centre to hole centre needs to be about 10"/250mm (Pettiford spring dimensions) and there are plenty that size about. The idea is that two would be used to replace the original spring boxes. The spring rates are probably not a problem but as the damping would now be shared between two dampers that might take some experimenting.
I have two of the extra strong front dampers as are used for heavy weight riders in stock and will sell those to any heavy rider who might want them for the original price.
Thanks for the photos. Unfortunately, these shocks are very different to anything we already manufacture. At the moment we do not have any spare capacity to take on a new design damper.
Apologies
I can see that the front might be a problem and of course the special for the rear with the offset lower mount is unlikely to be available elsewhere.. For the rear I think it might be worth while looking into using standard coil over dampers as used on many bikes. The hole centre to hole centre needs to be about 10"/250mm (Pettiford spring dimensions) and there are plenty that size about. The idea is that two would be used to replace the original spring boxes. The spring rates are probably not a problem but as the damping would now be shared between two dampers that might take some experimenting.
I have two of the extra strong front dampers as are used for heavy weight riders in stock and will sell those to any heavy rider who might want them for the original price.