F: Frame Coil Over Damper

Peter Holmes

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
There is nothing significantly wrong with adding additional internal springs to the Petteford springs, I did this years ago in attempt to stop bottoming out when fully sprung and fully loaded, and that was using A Koni rear damper, and like yours, not satisfied with one additional spring I also tried an additional 3rd spring using a cut down air rifle spring, but that proved to be a step to far, the first inner spring by the way was a cut down girdraulic fork spring. If done correctly it should not stress the damper, the secondary springs can be shorter than the primary spring, and only come into effect after the primary spring has compressed, say 25%, or subject to experimentation, I did ditch the rifle spring as it was deemed unnecessary.

Bear in mind when the Thornton suspension kit was available, they also supplied a couple of secondary internal springs of different lengths so you could experiment to find the level of suspension spring strengths that suited your requirements, just take a look at the next Vincent gathering you attend, you will see a solo bike being ridden by lithe fit guy of possibly 10-11 stone (as I was once, sadly no longer) and you will possibly see two very large individuals heave themselves onto a heavily loaded Vincent, that is probably why you have discovered what you have, one suspension set up cannot cater for this.

I have to ask why you have purchased new springs at all, I would have tried the your original springs without the additional inners, by the looks of it they are probably of better quality than what you have been supplied, maybe the length disparity has little detrimental effect, if any, but as an engineering friend constantly informs me "If its not right, its wrong!"
 
Last edited:

davidd

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
A very interesting find! The addition of internal springs happens quite a lot, but the third spring shows it was not an engineered solution. With nested springs, the practice is usually to reverse the winding of each spring so the coils are unable to truly "nest" in between an adjoining spring as that could possibly change the motion of each spring. The manufacturer wants to know if the springs are "left wound" or "right wound".

One of the advantages of coil-over shocks is that you can adjust the ride height of the bike because the pre-load is limited rather than unbound, like the stock Vincent springs. The rear springs are semi-limited, but the pre-load remains non-adjustable. The best handling can be obtained by using coil-over shocks front and rear.

thumbnail_P1030841 01.jpg


At least you can set the front and rear ride height.

David
 

nobby

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
Another interesting discovery in the mystery of my distorted UFM:

Finally took the spring boxes apart and found that the bike had longer 7.5" (Petteford?) springs installed.

View attachment 60855


But not only that! When I took the caps off the springs...

View attachment 60856

(Using the correct tool, not a hammer and punch as suggested in one of the little books...)

I found, nestled inside, two other springs!!

View attachment 60857

So maybe all these long springs were just stretching the poor damper over time? Must have been an odd ride (sadly I never rode the bike before the tear down).

New springs from VOC.

View attachment 60858

Sorry to moan, but I haven't bought a single part from the VOC spares company yet, which hasn't needed modifying to fit. One of these springs longer, and the end diameter too small, and not ground square.
I would buy your Petteford springs plus inner springs...
 
Top