Featherbed frames

Agreed.
Once they had jigs and equipment to make the slimline bends, it would seem there would be very little cost difference between building slimline and wideline frames?
There is also the early obsolescence aspect to it. The old bikes were wide and uncomfortable, trade in on a new one to get slim and comfy. Why would you want the old type? Better to get new.
Everyone was working that angle in the late fifties/early sixties and they still are, to some degree.

I have looked at the sales brochures and ads for BSA Super Rockets from 1958 until they ended production in 63. Each model year had far more power, more chrome, better handling and braking than the preceding model year.
The truth is there is very little difference in ride between a 58 and a 63.

Glen

I went to the proverbial horses mouth today and chatted to Mr Sprayson. He understood the only reason for the slimline frame was rider confort.
To manufacture all the wideline frames each side was bent up in one operation around 4 formers and for the slimline frames a 5th former was added just above the gusset plate which made very little difference to manufacturing costs.
Personally I had no problems either with comfort or putting both feet on the ground when required with wideline frames even with my 29 inch inside length legs BUT my bikes were never fitted with standard comfortable thick padded seats but much thinner Manx seats putting me closer to the gropund by a couple of inches......till I built the wideline ES2 but to be honest I never had any problems with the standard thick seat so my money is on the narrower frame being simply a fad in an effort to compete with BSA and Triumph.......Made no difference to the handling.

I have ridden several different framed bikes with various motors. The Manx Norton is a benchmark, but a Mk3 Seeley framed bike with a G50 motor is better. I have not ridden one, but Bill Horsman used to ride Jerry Kooistra's bike - MKs 3 Seeley with G50 motor -in Historic racing in Australia in the 70s and 80s. He was never beaten. A Manx Norton can be ridden quicker than most 650cc Tritons..

J. M. Leadbeater said:

I went to the proverbial horses mouth today and chatted to Mr Sprayson. He understood the only reason for the slimline frame was rider confort.
To manufacture all the wideline frames each side was bent up in one operation around 4 formers and for the slimline frames a 5th former was added just above the gusset plate which made very little difference to manufacturing costs.
Personally I had no problems either with comfort or putting both feet on the ground when required with wideline frames even with my 29 inch inside length legs BUT my bikes were never fitted with standard comfortable thick padded seats but much thinner Manx seats putting me closer to the gropund by a couple of inches......till I built the wideline ES2 but to be honest I never had any problems with the standard thick seat so my money is on the narrower frame being simply a fad in an effort to compete with BSA and Triumph.......Made no difference to the handling.

Click to expand...

A classic cafe racer is a Manx wideline frame with a 1950s Triumph 650 motor. Car guys used to buy the Manx for the motor to use in a 500cc car racing class. We used to get the frames, but Norton would not ever sell us just a motor. Even to buy a complete Manx from the factory, you needed to be a known top line rider.
My 500cc Triton was wideline - it always felt huge. My Seeley 850 feels like a 250. To me, a Kawasaki Z900 feels like a British 350.

Z900 feels like a whale compared to a British 350 & handles like a shopping trolley!

You realize this thread is over 6 years old, as for Wideline frames I am 5'8 and my seat is thick, I can ride all day with comfort on my Wideline and touch the ground with both feet, but in my Norton book the section with Featherbeds most racers complained about the Widelines being uncomfortable on long races, so whether its BS reason for going to the Slimline design, maybe it was to tuck the legs in closer who knows as there is no other reason in the Norton history book to say other than that.

Ashley

Dave Degens at Dresda has been making various replicas for some time. Has a good rep.

Doh! Just saw your warning about zombie thread. Wonder which way he went, all those years ago?!

HopperXL said:

Dave Degens at Dresda has been making various replicas for some time. Has a good rep.

Doh! Just saw your warning about zombie thread. Wonder which way he went, all those years ago?!

Click to expand...

Dave makes near perfect Manx replica frames, as far as I know he doesn’t make a slime-line copy.

His own Dresda frames are somewhat narrower than a wide-line.

One of the nicest mods he does is to put a Manx style rear subframe onto a slim-line. That makes for such a lovely looking frame, it’s kinda hard to work out why Norton didn’t do it ?

Yes nice indeed. As a former auto manufacturing toolmaker, I would guess the slimline frame rear section was easier and therefore cheaper to manufacture. All done in one jig with the main part of the frame, no welded on tabs on the frame then more welded on tabs on the sub frame etc etc. The Brits were grand masters of finding the cheapest way to production engineer things like that. If they could save one or two Quid on the cost of each bike, it added up over thousands of bikes made.
The styling department probably had some input too, going along with the new look tank and seat that came with the Slimline. Got to remember they were aiming at the US market too where slim tanks were all the go. I know guys over there who admitted to me they cut the two top frame tubes out of a Featherbed frame and replaced with a conventional single tube so they could run a two gallon peanut tank on there. To each their own I guess, but really, sacrilege!

British designs are usually very functional. In the 1960s, they could no longer sell motorcycles which resembled racers, they needed to compete with the Japanese, and when they becamee artistic, they usually muffed it. The Bathtub Triumph Thunderbird was designed to keep the mud off the mods clothes - just ugly. Ariel Leaders were an effective two-stroke, but they resemble motor scooters. The Japanese styling looked much less mundane.
I would never buy a slimline featherbed frame when the real deal was the wideline. With my Triton, I just got accustomed to bashing myself on it. It always seemed huge, but it did most things very well. The rear loops on the slimline and the big box gusset under the steering head are pretty disgusting - and it must be heavier than a Manx frame.
I don't think slimline Nortons had the turnbuckle behing the steering head. With a Manx frame the turnbuckle can change the trail. That is the reason one of my mate has a piece of tune from the back of the steering head near the top, to the first cross tube, on his Triton's Manx frame.
If you have that turnbuckle, you can pull the top of the steering head back, and sometimes it can get there by itself., if you don't tighten everything. As you brake the bike tries to steepen the steeringb head angle.

Yes heavier for sure. ISTR that is the other difference: The original Manx frame and subsequent Widelines were made from thin-walled special Reynolds tubing. Maybe CroMo? Not sure. Maybe Manganese Moly. All very specially sif-bronze welded together. The Slimline was more run of the mill mild steel tubing of thicker wall. And thus heavier. And welded together by conventional electric welding, which was cheaper and less skilled. Functional.
All a bit moot for a road going bike though. If I want good handling, I'll ride my modern sportbike. None of these old bangers are a patch on the new stuff with the extra 70 years of development, alloy spar frames, USD forks, rising rate suspension etc etc. The old stuff is just fun to play around with and for me a Slimline is plenty good enough for that. And in many locations, cheaper and easier to obtain than a Wideline. Certainly in the USA, they must have imported squillions of Atlases as they seem very common there. Whereas Widelines are virtually unheard of unless you import them from the UK etc. I got all my Slimlines from the US when I lived there for a while. Dirt cheap. (Typically $200 for a non running but easily fixable Atlas, but that was some years ago!)

acotrel said:

British designs are usually very functional. In the 1960s, they could no longer sell motorcycles which resembled racers, they needed to compete with the Japanese, and when they becamee artistic, they usually muffed it. The Bathtub Triumph Thunderbird was designed to keep the mud off the mods clothes - just ugly. Ariel Leaders were an effective two-stroke, but they resemble motor scooters. The Japanese styling looked much less mundane.
I would never buy a slimline featherbed frame when the real deal was the wideline. With my Triton, I just got accustomed to bashing myself on it. It always seemed huge, but it did most things very well. The rear loops on the slimline and the big box gusset under the steering head are pretty disgusting - and it must be heavier than a Manx frame.
I don't think slimline Nortons had the turnbuckle behing the steering head. With a Manx frame the turnbuckle can change the trail. That is the reason one of my mate has a piece of tune from the back of the steering head near the top, to the first cross tube, on his Triton's Manx frame.
If you have that turnbuckle, you can pull the top of the steering head back, and sometimes it can get there by itself., if you don't tighten everything. As you brake the bike tries to steepen the steeringb head angle.

Click to expand...

You just demonstrated a lack of understanding of featherbed development.
The term "wideline" was the "over-the-counter" version of the works Nortons. The origins of the triton was because Norton would not sell engines alone, so people who wanted the engines for lightweight car racing bought the bike and sold the frame relatively cheaply. What would go in them? Whatever was available - mostly Triumph.
The "wideline" did not exist until the slimline was produced (1959-60?) because the top, straight frame rails were, apparently, uncomfortable to some (short-arse) riders in the public. It was called the "Slimline" - so, what do you call the "old" one? "Wideline"
The "turnbuckle" and on the roadgoers the "headsteady" was not a way of adjusting trail (you have problem with that don't you?) it was merely a way of fixing the fatal flaw of the featherbed - the weakness at the crossover of the downtubes (from top of steering head) and the top, horizontal tubes (connected to the botton of the steering head)
Without the steadying mechanism the front downtubes would fail in fatigue.
It is apparent you have never raced a featherbed - and if yes, definitely without any knowledge of how they work

Cant beat riding a bike to see how it suits! Short assed riders found the seat width uncomfortable? Well im 6ft 2in & it rubs my thighs like a bugger. My Slimline is much better, you can not tell the difference between a wideline & a slimline on track. As to weight, all production frames were in mild steel.

The Wideline frames are a heavy steel tube but is soft metal and will dent easy, I run a interstate solo seat with the hump and have a stock interstate seat when riding two up just have to change the mounting lugs to fit, they are the same wideness as the stock tank and rear frame and are very comfortable for all day riding, when I first built mine back in the 80s I brought a new repo Wideline seat thin built and found it to be very uncomfortable, the interstates seats are so much better, I am only 5'8, I have clocked up a lot of miles and travel time on my road going Commando/Featherbed, I couldn't do it with a stock Wideline seat.
As for handling between the Wideline/Slimline they handle just the same, my mate Don who got me into Norton's and Featherbeds he built and ran both frames on his Triton builds but these days only build Slimlines so he can tuck his legs right in when racing but that was a long time ago, he has to many bikes he builds and play with these days lol.
Myself have only ridden one Slimline so not enough time to judge have to wait till I finish off my 650 Manxman cafe racer project bike to find out what I like, but as I say I have no problems at all with riding my Wideline as it was my everyday rider for so long and for many many years was my only transport for everything/travels.
1980 to 1982 it was built and on the road, only time it was off the road was for mods and upgrades, was semi retired in 2013 from everyday use when I brought my first Triumph Thruxton but it's still on the road and rode regularly, it's a light weight compared to the modern Thruxton 1200 S but the Thruxton feels light and handles pretty good very similar to the Featherbed but a bit smoother with the 270 swing motor, but the Commando/Featherbed is my hot rod bike and my toy/play bike with a lot of great mod/upgrades to it, it's a dream to ride it's so much fun, but the last few months life has got in the way of taking it out I have gone back to Amal carbs, just got to fire it up and tune them in.

Ashley

You will all be glad to know I altered my post! I couldnt have people posting in the future that youve spelt slimline wrong because Chris said! Its a slime line frame.

'What man has invented he can invent again'?
This video really does it for me - I dream about things such as this :

acotrel said:

It is not often we see a race from the inside.

Click to expand...

I have got to do it again. It is better than sex.

Rode a slimline for a few years back in the sixties. Back then also had tried a wideline Dommie. Now playing with a Manx. Handling no difference. Rider comfort on a slimline much better as a road bike. But the riding position on the Manx is perfect for me on track. So I guess that Norton after some years found that using a race frame on their road bikes was not the best thing. They managed to slim the frame without adverse effect on handling.
On the unconventional frame tubes to steering head setup. The head steady part from top of the steering head to the cross tube is important for strength. The rear part of the head steady to the cylinder head is just to hinder engine from rocking. I think that the design gives more lateral flex. Riding bumpy bends at high speed (100+) possible without wobbling. Way better than the Goldie I had after the Dommie.
That I'm still here is due to the fact that I rode a Norton when young, foolish and hard riding. Some friends on Triumphs ended in wheelchair or six feet under.

Mike40M said:

That I'm still here is due to the fact that I rode a Norton when young, foolish and hard riding. .

Click to expand...

I will second that quote above. The handling of the Featherbed frame saved me more than once!

Slick

The only Manx I ever rode was a very original 1961 500. I found that, if I got a bit off-line with it, more stick brought it back. It definitely over-steered a bit as I accelerated, which inspired confidence. My 500cc Triton had it's motor right forward and was good around corners, but not as good as the Manx. My mate's 650 cc Triton had it's motor an inch further back and felt safe in corners, but I could not ride it as fast in corners. It was faster down the straights. The Manx was slower down the straights than both Tritons, but faster in the corners. When I race, I like to be able to really gas the bike hard everywhere, including in corners. With the Tritons, I could not do that. The Manx is simply a better motorcycle, than most twin cylinder machines.
Generally speaking, when you race - if your bike does not oversteer as you accelerate, you do not know the difference - until you ride a bike which does oversteer. With an original Manx, it is almpost impossible to get more trail on the steering. But there is enough to do the trick.
I crashed a lot when I was learning to race. Then I got past that stuff.