Article on featherbed frAme

Thanks for posting, anything to do with Featherbed frames is good with me, just love them and even better if set up right for a hot 850 motor,its hard to explain how well mine handles and such a fun bike to ride, I still get a big trill everytime I take it out, I am glad I took this road 35 years ago, it just gets better every year.

Ashley
 
I often wonder how things would have worked out if N-V has just concentrated on flexible, vibration-isolating engine mounts in a modified Featherbed frame instead of designing a completely new motorcycle.
 
frankdamp said:
I often wonder how things would have worked out if N-V has just concentrated on flexible, vibration-isolating engine mounts in a modified Featherbed frame instead of designing a completely new motorcycle.
Click to expand...

Or dropping in a DOHC transverse 4. The Rondine, Gileras and MVs foretold the future, but the Brits refused to believe it.
 
Danno said:
Or dropping in a DOHC transverse 4. The Rondine, Gileras and MVs foretold the future, but the Brits refused to believe it.
Click to expand...

Nortons commissioned how many different 4 cylinder designs over the decades - 3 or 4. ?
And contemplated buying in a few more, already done.
(there also the Nemesis V8, and several more associated designs).
(the car world saw several 4 cylinder versions with manx norton dohc cylinders/heads too).
So Nortons well appreciated 4 cylinder capabilities/potentials.

But the lack of funds meant each didn't get any further.
The ole proverbial operating-on-a-shoestring again....

Considering that BSA reportedly turned down the McCandless Bros featherbed frame idea,
its surprising that Nortons went with it. ? Maybe the asking price had reduced. ??
Not that BSA were into racing at that stage, which may be telling.

I tried to find a pic to link to, but not readily findable...
 
Rohan said:
Danno said:
Or dropping in a DOHC transverse 4. The Rondine, Gileras and MVs foretold the future, but the Brits refused to believe it.
Click to expand...

Nortons commissioned how many different 4 cylinder designs over the decades - 3 or 4. ?
And contemplated buying in a few more, already done.
(there also the Nemesis V8, and several more associated designs).
(the car world saw several 4 cylinder versions with manx norton dohc cylinders/heads too).
So Nortons well appreciated 4 cylinder capabilities/potentials.

But the lack of funds meant each didn't get any further.
The ole proverbial operating-on-a-shoestring again....

Considering that BSA reportedly turned down the McCandless Bros featherbed frame idea,
its surprising that Nortons went with it. ? Maybe the asking price had reduced. ??
Not that BSA were into racing at that stage, which may be telling.

I tried to find a pic to link to, but not readily findable...
Click to expand...

All true and the Sonny Angel NSU-engined attempt did not interest them, despite it's apparent economic viability. It takes money to make money, but one bad decision after another crippled the entire industry that once led the world. Not pursuing the inline-4 was just one more bad decision.
 
There was no money. Not in the company, the infrastructure had been worn to the bone in the war.
Banks weren't interested in providing either.

Norton wasn't alone, and nor were the rest of the car and bike producing industries.
 
nickguzzi said:
There was no money. Not in the company, the infrastructure had been worn to the bone in the war.
Banks weren't interested in providing either.

Norton wasn't alone, and nor were the rest of the car and bike producing industries.
Click to expand...

Business model-wise, I don't think they ever adjusted from producing motorcycles for basic transportation to producing motorcycles as a luxury item. First cheap cars and then cheap asian bikes shrunk their market and then short-sighted bankers and bean counters drove in the final coffin nails.

It's just strange how the Formula 1 industry thrived in postwar England as well as many luxury auto brands, but bikes were left for dead. Amazing they lasted as long as they did. John Bloor proved it could be re-done the right way. Nobody ever came with that kind of financial power to save Norton. If you fell from space and decided to buy a retro British twin, would it be a 961 or a Thruxton R?
 
Thruxton R by a long shot, the lare model Triumphs are bullet proof.

Ashley
 
frankdamp said:
I often wonder how things would have worked out if N-V has just concentrated on flexible, vibration-isolating engine mounts in a modified Featherbed frame instead of designing a completely new motorcycle.
Click to expand...

That would, at first glance, seem to be the logical approach. However, the Featherbed frame relies on the engine/gearbox/side plates to achieve the necessary frame rigidity. In short, the engine frame assembly in toto, makes it lightweight and rigid. Iso mounts would have destroyed the inherent "in toto" rigidity.

Slick
 
So how did all those 'featherlastic' featherbeds get on ?
(Isolastics added to featherbeds.)
In Texas was it - AMR ?? .

They were all the rage at one stage, but seem to have faded from view....
 
Rohan said:
So how did all those 'featherlastic' featherbeds get on ?
(Isolastics added to featherbeds.)
In Texas was it - AMR ?? .

They were all the rage at one stage, but seem to have faded from view....
Click to expand...

In my opinion, they didn't work, you change a design that relies on hard mounts and change it to Ioslatics and what ever else that needs changing is going away from the orginal design, so how can you really call it a Featherbed if its rubber mounted.

Ashley
 
Rohan said:
So how did all those 'featherlastic' featherbeds get on ?
(Isolastics added to featherbeds.)
In Texas was it - AMR ?? .

They were all the rage at one stage, but seem to have faded from view....
Click to expand...

I never said it could not be done ....only implied Norton knew it could not be done well.

I would really like to have an expert racer put one of those Featherlastics to the test, and get his opinion thereafter. Perhaps someone did and that is why they faded from view,

Slick
 
ashman said:
Thanks for posting, anything to do with Featherbed frames is good with me, just love them and even better if set up right for a hot 850 motor,its hard to explain how well mine handles and such a fun bike to ride, I still get a big trill everytime I take it out, I am glad I took this road 35 years ago, it just gets better every year.

Ashley
Click to expand...

I've seen similar posing as an Australian Period 3 historic racer. You can tell it has a 1973 motor from about 100 metres away, but that's OK. It is still a bloody good bike. I know the fellas love their Commandos with the isolastics, however I like the Norton Atlas better. The isolastics were added to compete with the CB750 Honda as a commuter and that is understandable. Many British bikes of that period were effectively café racers. If I want comfort, I drive a car. Getting an adrenalin rush is another story.
 
As a bike, a featherbed with a rigidly mounted motor should work perfectly well. The balance factor is the problem. If you need to use the bike for fast riding, you will need to increase the balance factor or the vibration will kill the bike. That means the bike would then shake at low speeds. For anyone who is experienced, that is not a problem, in fact it is part of the adrenalin rush. It only ever became a problem when Norton had to compete with the CB750 Honda for smoothness/comfort . When the CB750 Honda was first released, I had ridden British bikes for many years. I found the Honda handled like a turd and there was little thrill in riding it, however it was turbine smooth. What Norton did was similar to Triumph when they made bath-tub Thunderbirds because people were riding motor scooters. It was about marketing.
 
texasSlick said:
I would really like to have an expert racer put one of those Featherlastics to the test, and get his opinion thereafter. Perhaps someone did and that is why they faded from view,
Click to expand...

Yes that would have been an interesting test.

For general road riding though, bike makers figured out long ago that few use their bikes to anything like 100% of its potential, or more sophisticated suspensions would have appeared - many decades earlier... !?
 
Rohan said:
ashman said:
so how can you really call it a Featherbed if its rubber mounted.
Click to expand...

Isn't that just adding more feathers !!! ?
Click to expand...

More feathers will mean more flex and a bike that won't handle as good.
 
So we need someone to put it to an actual test, as above....

Not seeing ddoouubbllee or ttttrrrriiiipppllleee might mean more accurate navigation ?
I can still recall someone with a race outfit telling a new rider to "rev it until you see double", then change gear.
Who needs a tacho. ?

There is also the minor matter that a Commando lapped the IoM - back then - faster than any featherbed had ever done.
Not sure where they are up to these days...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top