First of all many thanks to both hadronuk and chrislaun who have given me lots of feedback and of course Greg, who went even further with his additional modification with the use of needle roller and ball race bearings. As far as I am concerned the only thing left to be determined is the spring strength. I have been trying to keep the tests and measurements I am making between hadronuk and chrislaun and myself private until they are finished but it became clear two days ago that there were limits which had been reached. Two things are involved here. One is trying to make the front wheel movement more like that of a bike equipped with telescopic forks rather than the girdraulic path, see MPH for October if you need a reminder. The John Emmanuel modification does that but only if the front forks are not allowed to drop too far down, Additional to the paths published in MPH I did further tests without a damper, which allowed the front wheel to drop about an further inch below the lowest point on the published curves. The first half an inch of this additional movement is more or less vertical and then the lowest half an inch the wheel is starting to move backwards. Only by about 0.1 inch but backwards. Remember that what is trying to be achieved here is that under braking the wheel will only move upwards and backwards which allows the suspension to still do its work while with the standard set up the wheel moves as far back as it can as the bike rises up over the front end and then the suspension is effectively locked until such time as the brake is released and the wheel can move forwards. Noting the above I had thought that perhaps it would be possible to use that extra half an inch of movement, where the lowest movement is essentially vertical, to give a bit more comfort at the front end. However, what I discovered two days ago is that with the new AVO damper and long eyebolts, and the front end allowed to drop as far as it can then in my test bike before the damper is fully extended the inside rear of the top link is hitting the shroud on the damper and preventing the last one or two millimetres of extension. A damper with a smaller diameter shroud would allow a little more movement but we do not want the front end to drop too far or the wheel will get to the part of its path where it has to go forward, albeit only by about 0.1", as it goes upwards. I can get round the touching of the damper shroud be the upper link by grinding a couple of millimetres off the rear of the upper link. I have seen upper links so treated before but cannot remember where or when.
So my provisional conclusions are that if one want the best handling and comfort one needs the steering head modification, the new AVO front damper, long eyebolts, shortened front spring boxes ( if one want to get the maximum possible travel) and ensure that when the bike is sat on its wheels the front of the lower link is just lower than the rear and once the rider is on the bike the front of the lower link is just above the rear. As far as I am concerned all that remains is to determine what are the best compromise spring strength. Chris is using 36 lbs/inch with 3" of preload. The Lighting racer that I help with is using 30 lbs/inch springs, also with 3" of preload. I have ordered a new batch, ten of each, of both strengths of spring so that people can try them and they should be with me any time now. These will be sent out to both Chris ( the weaker ones) to see if they are strong enough for road use and both types down to Greg who can get different riders to try them out so that we can get feedback from different weight riders on different road surfaces. I would like to think that by Xmas or thereabouts all the result will be in and then those who want better handling and more comfort can go ahead while those who prefer the standard look can cease to have to read about this. Cheers chaps.