Great History and Pics of the Works Nortons

1up3down · Sep 20, 2013

Hi all, I stumbled upon this web site by accident

it is loaded with quality pictures of the Norton factory Racers of the early mid 1970s

an excerpt

974 Norton 750 John Player Special

Third time unlucky
During its three years of existence, the John Player Norton team used three different cycle parts. Following the classic tubular frame of 1972 (derived from the Commando) with a large-diameter top tube and small-section auxiliary tubes, in 1973 the team used a stainless-steel monocoque devised by Peter Williams, who rode it to a record victory in the Isle of Man IT. Finally, for the 1974 season, a trellis girder frame was adopted.

Political Decision
Why had Norton abandoned the monocoque, which had been so successful? Williams, who later worked on Ford Formula 1 engines at Cosworth, commented: “I was against the change, but though the team seemed fully aware of my success as designer and rider, they decided to replace the monocoque. In my opinion, it was a political decision.”

Lack of Success
“You’ve never seen so many tubes in one frame,” declared Motor Cycle magazine. The new trellis frame (similar in concept to the Ducati’s) was faithful to the theory of the monocoque, with a load-carrying backbone surrounding the engine. The mechanics, who were all for the change, claimed it was lighter and made it easier to work on the engine. Williams said that the monocoque would have been considerably lighter for 1974. The second generation 749cc Commando engine replaced the old long-stroke (73×89mm) unit but was only a little more powerful, and the 1974 JPS was never fast enough to counter the new wave of Japanese two-stroke multi-cylinders.

SPECIFICATIONS
Engine: 749cc (77×80.4mm) air-cooled V-twin four-stroke; Lucas coil ignition
Power Rating: 78 hp @ 7500 rpm
Valves: overhead
Fuel System: two Amal GP carburetors
Transmission: 5-speed, chain final drive
Suspension: telescopic forks (front); swing arm with twin spring/dampers (rear)
Brakes: Lockheed; twin discs (front); disc (rear)
Wheels: 18 inch Dunlop tires on cast magnesium wheels (front & rear)
Weight: 331lb
Maximum Speed: 165 mph

The cantilever spine of the 1974 Norton-JPS was made up of many short, straight tubes. Sadly, the engine lacked the power to match the new generation Japanese works bikes.

check it out!
http://www.italian.sakura.ne.jp/bad_toys/norton/

Torontonian · Sep 20, 2013

WHEW !

Chili · Sep 20, 2013

Now that's what I call PORN :shock:

Rohan · Sep 21, 2013

1up3down said:
SPECIFICATIONS
Engine: 749cc (77×80.4mm) air-cooled V-twin four-stroke; Lucas coil ignition
<snip>

check it out!
http://www.italian.sakura.ne.jp/bad_toys/norton/

I'd find it hard to entirely believe or trust anything that calls a Norton Commando derived engine a "v-twin" !!!

Nice find.
More pirated pics than even Matt could post...

beng · Sep 21, 2013

The John Player effort picked up the Norton "works" effort that had been axed along with the original Norton works on Bracebridge Street at the end of 1962, making racing machinery for the use of the factory, major distributors and hired guns only. Works machinery is by definition that which is not made for public consumption, it is for the use by the "works". The John Player Commando effort certainly fit that bill.....

Norton had a long history of making special racing equipment for itself back to the early 20th century especially once the OHC machines were introduced. A lot of works equipment took many years to trickle into production and the hands of paying customers, and a lot of it never did.

After AMC took over Norton in the early 50s it put a stop to the really exotic works experiments and works efforts had to be based on production bikes , but Norton continued to test new ideas and prototypes on the race track and public roads before a possible public release. A lot of people don't know that a lot of the testing of the P10 DOHC road bike was done in the USA, and it's poor reliability there directly led to it being axed.

The John Player effort gave it a hell of a go, it was on the right track as long as real motorcyclists had a say in what it was, once the businessmen got their hooks into it then it was quickly run into the ground.

Matchless · Sep 21, 2013

I think the Ducati ref. was meaning the frame. Ducatis frame being similar to Nortons & not the other way round.Ducati were still racing a Seely designed frame in 1974. Also the Ducati road bike frame is an ugly MIG welded mass produced effort, whilst the Nortons is a hand made bronze welded work of art.

cjandme · Sep 21, 2013

Nice read, thanks for posting the link 1up

Rohan · Sep 21, 2013

beng said:
The John Player effort picked up the Norton "works" effort that had been axed along with the original Norton works on Bracebridge Street at the end of 1962,

There was almost 10 years between Nortons quitting Bracebridge St and the closing of Nortons Race Shop there,
and John Player becoming involved sponsoring race Nortons in the 1970s.
Which were reasonably stock Commandos initially.....
http://www.normanwhite.co.uk/_borders/p ... _racer.jpg
So they wouldn't have 'picked up' very much of that expertise ??

The P10 engine was a Matchless project - no Norton involvement ?

fredful · Sep 21, 2013

Many concepts way ahead of their time, that monocoqe frame wouldnt look out of place on a ZX1400 and did double duty as the fuel tank as visited by Buell more recently, the oil tank position in front of the engine is the same as my KTM superduke, not in the frame as denoted in the picture

Great History and Pics of the Works Nortons

Rohan · Sep 21, 2013

Not there was anything very new about the monocoque concent by the time Nortons tried it. ?

Santiago Herrero on the Ossa had (mostly) blitzed em in the 1969 and 1970 seasons, on a lightweight bike against some quite powerful opposition (sound familiar ?).

DonOR · Sep 21, 2013

Great link, story and photos... thanks!

acotrel · Sep 21, 2013

Love the article, however surely an early Egli frame would have been better than the space frame ?

Rohan · Sep 22, 2013

In the tech discussion on egli frames, it mentions that it wasn't until the late 1970s,
when someone suggested a honeycombe contruction INSIDE the central spine
that Egli frames were stiff enough to be a serious race frame prospect....

The Commando frame itself was of course distantly related to the Egli frame concept, with a large-ish central spine.
And more tubing around for better support and stiffness.
It was quite successful in early racing 750's, until the opposition got more serious.

Space frames were widely used in the sports car racing world, and some had been quite successful.
Wasn't the Maserati 'birdcage' something famous in that use.
Looks like a bundle of sticks gone wrong, but apparently it worked....
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ington.jpg

Doug MacRae · Sep 23, 2013

Nice find.
More pirated pics than even Matt could post...

Yes, two of those pictures of the Monocoque are mine and someone went to some lengths to photoshop or crop off the watermarks I always put on my photos. Stuff like that pisses me off.

lcrken · Sep 24, 2013

Welcome to the club, Doug. Several of the monocoque pics on that site are mine, taken when it still belonged to the Frutiger brothers. In my case, I don't really care. I figure once I put them up somewhere on-line they become de facto public info, whether I like it or not. If I was in the business of selling photos, I'd certainly feel differently! Interestingly, it looks like they have done some image processing of my photos that has improved the image quality.

I try to collect all the interesting Norton pics I can find on-line, and I find it helpful when people watermark them or add title info, because then I don't loose track of which ones are mine and which aren't. I try to keep track of that, but I have to admit that I have a fair number of pictures in my files that I can't identify the source of.

Ken

Chris · Sep 24, 2013

Hi Ken

I will post some photographs that I took of some bikes that I took at Donnington. Cant believe the quality of the bikes that were there. Funny but it was the Nortons that did it for me.

Chris

1up3down · Sep 24, 2013

well,

from what I have read the John Player Nortons with Peter WIlliams, Mick Grant, and Dave Croxford were
producing at most some 78 horsepower with the highest top speed reported in 1973 of 155mph at Daytona

WIlliams said the single biggest concerns were the gearbox and primary staying together long enough to finish individual races.

Peter's famous victory in the 1973 Formula 750 class on the Island was likely the factory's ultimate development of the Atlas/Commando based motor.

And just like when the Harley and Indian controlled AMA "banned" Norton after multiple victories in the Daytona 200 in the early 50s, "they" (this time the Japanese two strokes makers) found a way to effectively "ban" Norton again in Europe after the equally famous early 90s TT victory by enacting new rules limiting rotary motors in racing.

Such is life for Norton racing, but oh what a great time Norton had dominating the world's tracks from the 1920s through the early 50s when the factory withdrew from entering and supporting their Works bikes.

Great History and Pics of the Works Nortons

Similar threads