Attention Norton Featherbed owners...

I guess Beng would have bought a pinto with his eyes closed, after all it had gone through strenuous testing and it was designed by qualified engineers :roll: Oh and the next time you plan to cross an old bridge, make a detour because it was not thoroughly tested before being built and never, never go up the Eiffel tower.

Jean
 
beng said:
So here is someone designing and making parts then selling them to the public without any testing whatsoever huh?
Click to expand...

Not unlike most of the brit bike manufacturers, or shall we not mention the Commando Combat motor or the early (1960) duplex framed Triumphs :mrgreen:
 
Webby03 said:
...or shall we not mention the Commando Combat motor or the early (1960) duplex framed Triumphs
Click to expand...

Whatever you do, DON'T mention the war...
 
In his own inimitable way Beng raises a valid point here: Should we reasonably expect that new products offered for sale should have first undergone at least some semblance of testing? This seems to be the case with products like the Dave Taylor headsteady, the various electronic ignition systems, CNW's crankcase ventilation system etc., etc.
So what about it Paul are you going to campaign that sucker for a season or two to see whether your modification is indeed an improvement over the standard arrangement?
 
I'm going to get it done as quickly as I possibly can. In the meantime, my friend Mark who traded me for my frame, will be putting one of the kits in his TriTon and laying his life on the line for science.

Actually, it's a horse race as to who will finish thier bike first, his engine is already overhauled and ready to pop in the frame, my donor engine hasn't even been torn down yet.

I'm a reasonable man. I never assumed people would be stacking the queue clamoring to snap up these kits. Goofy as I may be at times, I've done enough brain-scratching to know that the one on my bike will outperform the original 1/2" "spindle" bolt and corrosion-prone OEM bits, without being a hazard to life, limb, or handling performance.

So far, I've never had a serious moving failure on a bike I've built in 35 years. That includes at least 60-plus that have come and gone in my collection, and 30 or so client builds. I did have one overlooked swingarm spindle sloppiness that Windy helped me sort out on Chip's beautiful Dunstall cafe racer; I don't believe it was a death trap, hundreds of Commando owners have experienced worse without serious incident.
 
The issue that beng brought up was perfectly valid, in my opinion. I can see how the spindle is used as a structural member and I hope GP's revision takes this into account.

To dismiss the comments as not relevant just because of past engineering mistakes by other manufacturers is not responsible. To just hide behind "buyer beware" when it's an identified concern is not excusable.

If it were my design I would not feel comfortable until I knew that I had created the best solution possible.

I'm looking forward to the revised drawings, damn the perpetual motion machine.
 
swooshdave said:
The issue that beng brought up was perfectly valid, in my opinion. I can see how the spindle is used as a structural member and I hope GP's revision takes this into account.

To dismiss the comments as not relevant just because of past engineering mistakes by other manufacturers is not responsible. To just hide behind "buyer beware" when it's an identified concern is not excusable.

If it were my design I would not feel comfortable until I knew that I had created the best solution possible.

I'm looking forward to the revised drawings, damn the perpetual motion machine.
Click to expand...

Just questionning someone's design does not mean the design is flawed, after all, what are beng's credentials, what did he ever build and show :?: nothing so far. I could be smart and say I knew from the onset that the Ford Pinto was a death trap, but it's not the case, I have seen many designs that did not make sense to me, my reaction was to just stay away. Just a simple example, highway pegs on choppers, those should be outlawed because it is clear that the rider can't possibly move his feet to the controls if something unforseen was to pop up, like a deer running across the road. Are they outlawed :?: any plans to make them illegal :?: Are the manufacturers of said pegs deemed irresponsible :?:

We are responsible for our own lives, we buy a 300 kph capable motorcycle because we want to run it up to that speed, is it safe to do so :?: who is responsible if the bike can't handle a high speed turn :?: the motorcycle manufacturer for making a bike that is too fast :?: the tire manufacturer for making a tire that does not stick well enough :?: or the idiot on the seat who doesn't know enough to slow down or doesn't have the skill to negociate the turn :?:

It is so bad that people are suing McDonald's for making them fat or cigarette makers for giving them cancer :roll: as they used to say on 60 minutes, "give me a break"

That being said, I would buy one of Paul's spindles if I needed one.

Jean
 
As I said (somewhere), I'm very comfortable with the design and I'm sure it'll prove out. I think some of the negative criticism, while well intentioned, is pretty sensational. Recall Ludwig's imminent death warnings regarding my monoshock design; so far, so good.

I'd hate to think the fevered rhetoric on this topic might affect other new stuff produced by forum members where it's going to be overly scrutinised and possibly put off developers or at a minimum force extended pre-release testing till they are guaranteed foolproof, harm no animals (hobot excluded), and don't contribute to global warming.
 
Ben is right, but I think he's exaggerating the problem. The rubber bush and spacer clamping arrangement of the swingarm is pretty weedy on the scale of the frame. You might feel a wobble, you might not, but instant death is not the natural consequence of Paul's modification.
 
Oh come now Paul, Just because Beng is less than diplomatic in his posts I think it's pushing definitions to the limit to describe the total discussion as 'fevered rhetoric', both Swooshdave and myself have made sensible observations containing no personal attacks or making any claims whatsoever. Furthermore whether or not any of the people commenting within a forum designed to elicit comment, have themselves contributed any technical advance to the subject in question is beside the point. Likewise historic examples of insufficient product testing making it to market simply reinforces the case for some sort of testing - I'm sure there were many clever engineers involved in the design of the Pinto and I'm equally sure that many hours of testing were involved, notwithstanding the end result.

In a nutshell; As a purchaser and user of Norton aftermarket components, I personally would like to know that any modification that I put on my bike has at least been thoroughly tested by the producer of the product , I am not advocating "over scrutiny" and "forced extended testing" but you haven't even run it to the end of your drive and back. The bikes fitted with the kits that you have so far produced appear to be many months away from turning a wheel, surely there is somewhere a happy medium between no testing whatsoever and thousands of hours of testing.

I recommend that you get Hobot to use it for a year throwing it at the ground, at deer, at hogs and anything else he can set his sights on. If it survives that I will buy the kit and build a bike around it, even though I don't currently own a featherbed chassis!
 
Here's my problem (on the forums)-

I DON'T USE EMOTICONS.

"keep 'em guessing" I sez.

'nuff said.
 
Triton Thrasher said:
Ben is right, but I think he's exaggerating the problem. The rubber bush and spacer clamping arrangement of the swingarm is pretty weedy on the scale of the frame. You might feel a wobble, you might not, but instant death is not the natural consequence of Paul's modification.
Click to expand...

No, instant death is not a worry and I am sure the bike will go down the road, and what the OEM setup adds is "weedy". But then the entire featherbed frame, street or Manx version, is a collection of marginal and "weedy" components that when all assembled and working together have often cracked and/or fallen apart. BUT if pauls untested creation falls apart, seizes up or breaks in use, then serious consequences are a possibility.

This has nothing to do with me at all, is not a matter of Paul vs. Me, it is a matter of Paul vs. The brilliant engineers Rex and Cromie McCandless and sixty years of recorded Norton racing history and millions of miles of street use.

For a "crafter" to take a design that a real engineer has produced and proved for decades with thousands of GP races and start making changes is ridiculous.

And Paul, that is all you are is a crafter. You have an eye for aesthetics and you already stated in a previous thread that your main reason for doing this was vanity, to make "my Triton, my Triton". And of course there is profit too.
If you walk around a craft-fair, you will see girls stringing beads together for jewelry, old men with scroll-saws making whirly-gig lawn ornaments, and women making leaded-glass christmas ornaments, maybe each in the shape of a motorcycle. Paul this is the league your creations are in. Everything at the fair looks good, but it is not the real thing.

Go ahead and build and sell all the bikes and parts you want, I just thought that if you put others before yourself then you would prove they were better and safer than the OEM setup before claiming they are, or before taking advantage of innocent motorcyclist that are more ignorant than yourself, or that blindly look up to you by offering them for sale.
 
I think beng is spot on in this instance. It is not very responsible to offer untested modifications without at least testing it on your own bike or with someone wiling to do the testing. Cart before the horse scenario
 
In the case of selling an untried part which seems like it may well cause problems, its well worth making 100% sure product liability cover is up to date, as should anything unfortunate occur its very likely lawyers eager for a big payout will be knocking on the producers door.
 
Carbonfibre said:
In the case of selling an untried part which seems like it may well cause problems, its well worth making 100% sure product liability cover is up to date, as should anything unfortunate occur its very likely lawyers eager for a big payout will be knocking on the producers door.
Click to expand...

Sharks don't eat sardines :!:

Jean
 
Jeandr said:
Carbonfibre said:
In the case of selling an untried part which seems like it may well cause problems, its well worth making 100% sure product liability cover is up to date, as should anything unfortunate occur its very likely lawyers eager for a big payout will be knocking on the producers door.
Click to expand...

Sharks don't eat sardines :!:

Jean
Click to expand...

"fish are friends, not food!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top