Look what I've got

Status
Not open for further replies.
Absolutely. Matt Rambow and I have already discussed the Dutch company. The heads will be available worldwide. I am also trying to keep freight costs to a minimum.
There may be a slight delay. I am now investigating CNC machining of the ports so that we have absolute conformity from head to head and port to port. Won't that be a change? Answers shortly.
 
With the CNC machined ports, they will be basically stock profiles? Or is there a minimum amount of modification that can benefit the entire community without sacrificing advanced porting potential? I wouldn't think you would machine them all with performance porting that is lost with stock carburation, valves, exhaust, etc...
 
The plan was to update the port profiles to give them more efficiency throughout the rev range. The thought of losing low end power and torque for gains in the top end was never going to happen. I firmly believe that the Commando's strength is in it's power delivery from zero revs. The ports will work with standard engines and with ones which have been breathed upon.
 
I've got one one of those on my New Ltd Edition Caf'e Racer from Mr Rambow

WAH WAH WAH......................
 
Re: Re:

swooshdave said:
Jeandr said:
No offence meant, but I find it comical to see guys in small shops making a better product than the Norton factory could in over 30 years of evolution.

Jean
Click to expand...

No comical at all. Production techniques and better materials, and computer-assisted design in the last 30 years make a huge difference.

Considering that you can make a CNC device for under $500 and free CAD software nowadays... "anyone" can produce parts.
Click to expand...

Just look at what was coming out of the other factories at the same time the Norton was being made, big difference between the ones that made it past 1980 to the present and the ones that petered out slowly (ALL the brits) Neil Armstrong had walked on the moon at the same time the Commando was born and not only space age stuff was better because it cost so much, aluminum baseball bats were also being made when the Commando was just shedding its diapers.

Norton seem to have the idea that it was not to be improved or let well enough alone. In one way, that is good because they haven't changed much so parts made for one are available for all, the fact that they break made a good parts supply and made possible an industry trying to correct the mistakes made in the past just like these heads. I wonder who will be first with a modern classic, resurrected Norton in the UK or someone building complete engines from upgraded parts ready to drop in a newly made chassis just like S&S does it for the Harley crowd? If there is a market for $40K samo-samo V-twins, there has to be a market for a less expensive more exclusive neo-classic.

Jean [/stop rambling]


Jean
 
Well now that we can get the heads I think it can be done now, No? We can get cranks, cases, rods, and so on. Maybe it won't look stock but I really like the idea Fullauto is keeping this stock looking. The idea mentioned to make the barrels to look stock was GREAT too. I just wish I had more money.
 
Perhaps Frank could comment but I wonder if there is not more advance than mentioned. When I was in school we were told that most of the British factories were running pre war tooling, whereas the Marshall Plan had replaced the Japanese and German tooling. There certainly was little cash to upgrade.
 
Jean,

I fairness to the engineering and business people at Andover, they were in the business of selling motorcycles not parts to a competitive market on a shoestring budget. Small shops with no budget constraints can make better parts.

David
 
The interesting thing is that it was the lack of money at Norton that gave us the Commando. In the British National Motorcycle Museum there is an 800cc DOHC twin Norton from 1966. It was to replace the Atlas 750. At the time AMC (Matchless & AJS) were sucking the profit out of Norton the only brand selling well. As the moeny dried up, Dennis Poore CEO of Managanese Bronze stepped in an bought out AMC, got rid of Matchless and AJS and refinanced Norton. He brought in Dr Stephan Bauer from Rolls Royce to head up a new design team to produce a new generation of big road bikes. The 800 DOHC was not a good basis, Bauer recommended a multi cyclinder (as had Bert Hopwood, the original Dominator designer).

In 1967, there was neither time or money to run an entirely new motor development program, Bauer disliked the Atlas engine but had to work around it,so Bauer advised that they had to change the frame at the very least. He saw the Featherbed as too heavy and outdated. Bernard Hooper was appointed to design the frame and he with John Favill came up with the idea of Isolastic mountings and recorded a patent for it. Bauer and his team always insisted that the Commando was only an interim product measure to allow time to properly develop the next generation of modern motorcycle. Unfortunately, due to his successs with Norton Poore was seduced into buying Triumph. He intended to dump the 750 twins and concentrate on the Trident, and this lead to the Meriden factory workers lockout which witheld the Triple production equipment. The cost of reproducing the Trident ultimately bankrupted Norton Villiers in a bizzare repeat of the AMC debacle 10 years earlier.

This shows the engineering vision was there, but the money and resources to run a whole scale engine development program was not.

Mick
 
Interesting Jean, and something I have thought about a lot. The whole idea of bringing a brand new ( ie Dreer/Garner Nortons) bike to the market place is fraught with pitfalls. Look at the myriad companies which produce parts for existing bikes which do very well and then name the successful companies which have brought complete bikes to the market since, say, 1970. Erik Buell would be a standout here. I own a '99 X1 which I absolutely love and is a great complement to the two Commandos in my garage. The Hinckley Triumphs are another. Any others who have succeeded don't even spring to mind. MV can't qualify as they were ressurected with the huge resources of an existing company. Mr Garner's problem is that he has to produce a bike economically which will sell in the marketplace and , here's the catch, conform to all current legislation and be able to be modified to conform with future legislation without cutting the guts out of the bike's character. I mean, who wants to ride a quiet Norton? Nobody I know. Has anybody here ever seen a Harley with stock pipes? If you have it'll get into the Guinness Book of World Records.
Have a look at Guzzi's V7. A forty year old Norton will eat it for breakfast. Having ridden a Hinckley Triumph, it doesn't go any harder than my "73 850s.

It's interesting that Classic Bike just ran an article on why classic bikes are selling much better than modern sports bikes. Over the top performance, complexity, parts prices, lack of owner servicability, and the expense of servicing and keeping it in tyres are some of the negatives. And, of course, depreciation, the big killer. My Nortons depreciate? Don't think so. The other thing is that modern bikes have a generic feel to them to a large extent, but the people who ride all the big Japanese current bikes think they are all so different because that's all they ride. A mate of mine has a Hayabusa which I've ridden a few times. I twist the throttle a few times, have a bit of a laugh and then it's like riding a fridge. Bores the hell out of me.

Commandos survive and thrive because they are such a fun bike. They never fail to put a huge smile on my face. They DESERVE to survive. So it becomes logical to me that to improve the parts available to keep them running ever more reliably by using better materials and closer tolerances will only make the experience better. Also, generally, we don't have to worry about noise and emissions regulations. At this stage, we'll be fitting peashooters for a long time.

I just hope we don't get to the stage where the bikes become so valuable that they aren't ridden ( like, say, Vincents).
 
Very well said, Funny I also have two Norton's and a 98 S1 Buell. I recently went to club gathering that is put on by a bunch of great guys that ride mostly new Triumph's, A few guys were riding some older ones. But I can tell you they really spent some time looking at the Norton and so do the Harley guys. These Norton machines have a certain character that other bikes don't. Is it that you just don't see as many or they have a different look? I am really not sure, But it is a great way to meet people and talk bikes. I find a lot of people even give me a thumbs up while ridding no matter what they are on. I can only wonder what will become of Norton, I hope in a way it will make it and do the name proud. I know what Kenny was onto was a bad ass machine and should be in production, Must be hard to have a dream and design it and then have to hand it off. In my mind if that design is to happen it's still Mr. Dreer's bike. Hope this doesn't piss anyone off, Just my thoughts. Sorry, Chuck.
 
ML said:
This shows the engineering vision was there, but the money and resources to run a whole scale engine development program was not.

Mick
Click to expand...

I will offer another opinion, easy to demonstrate in the "modern" Triumph Trident and the BSA Rocket III. Both these bike's engine as well as the chassis are basicaly the same and these engines are based on the Triumph 500cc twin designed after the war, there was no inclusion of overhead cams, neither single nor double, they used the same alternator and electrical equipment used on the previous generation of bikes. The crankcases were still split verticaly, still leaked even if this was denounced by all technical writers of the magazines at the time. Before they came out with the magnificent Trident, Honda had produced a twin with horizontaly split cases, 180 degree crank and overhead cam, Honda also made a 450cc twin with double overhead cams and torsion bar springs. Ducati came out with a 750 V twin with desmodromic valves, sure it was "only" an evolution a single with a similar valve gear, but it was miles ahead of the Brits.

The British have one quality I admire, they don't destroy everything they have built to replace it with something newer, this is the reason we love the Norton and this is the reason they have pubs older than many countries.

If you stand still, even a slug will pass you

Jean
 
Fullauto said:
Interesting Jean, and something I have thought about a lot. The whole idea of bringing a brand new ( ie Dreer/Garner Nortons) bike to the market place is fraught with pitfalls. Look at the myriad companies which produce parts for existing bikes which do very well and then name the successful companies which have brought complete bikes to the market since, say, 1970. Erik Buell would be a standout here. I own a '99 X1 which I absolutely love and is a great complement to the two Commandos in my garage. The Hinckley Triumphs are another. Any others who have succeeded don't even spring to mind. MV can't qualify as they were ressurected with the huge resources of an existing company. Mr Garner's problem is that he has to produce a bike economically which will sell in the marketplace and , here's the catch, conform to all current legislation and be able to be modified to conform with future legislation without cutting the guts out of the bike's character. I mean, who wants to ride a quiet Norton? Nobody I know. Has anybody here ever seen a Harley with stock pipes? If you have it'll get into the Guinness Book of World Records.
Have a look at Guzzi's V7. A forty year old Norton will eat it for breakfast. Having ridden a Hinckley Triumph, it doesn't go any harder than my "73 850s.

It's interesting that Classic Bike just ran an article on why classic bikes are selling much better than modern sports bikes. Over the top performance, complexity, parts prices, lack of owner servicability, and the expense of servicing and keeping it in tyres are some of the negatives. And, of course, depreciation, the big killer. My Nortons depreciate? Don't think so. The other thing is that modern bikes have a generic feel to them to a large extent, but the people who ride all the big Japanese current bikes think they are all so different because that's all they ride. A mate of mine has a Hayabusa which I've ridden a few times. I twist the throttle a few times, have a bit of a laugh and then it's like riding a fridge. Bores the hell out of me.

Commandos survive and thrive because they are such a fun bike. They never fail to put a huge smile on my face. They DESERVE to survive. So it becomes logical to me that to improve the parts available to keep them running ever more reliably by using better materials and closer tolerances will only make the experience better. Also, generally, we don't have to worry about noise and emissions regulations. At this stage, we'll be fitting peashooters for a long time.

I just hope we don't get to the stage where the bikes become so valuable that they aren't ridden ( like, say, Vincents).
Click to expand...

I didn't mean produce complete bikes, I for one think this is a losing proposition, a Norton however good it looks and sounds will never sell as well as a V-twin or a V-twin clone neither will it ever sell as well as a repli-racer. I think there would be a market for a complete engine and transmission package, complete with a "working" electric starter but built with modern techniques and materials, even a ofset crank model if vibrations are too objectionable. Then leave the rest to frame builders and finaly bike builders.

Jean
 
I also hope someone makes it with Norton, the name should survive. I find most of the new machines somewhat boring and the antiques a lot of fun. Royal Enfield might have a method that could work for Norton, the build an old style machine somewhere that labor is cheaper.
Regardless, starting a new motorcycle factory in the biggest recession since the depression is a large task.
 
and yet a rattly old trident made them all look stupid,the poms had,and still have,the smarts but I believe they were financialy hamstrung. They only paid off their 2nd WW debt a few years ago yet the japs and the germans had every thing handed to them on a plate.So what else is needed now to build a coomando up out of totally new parts, can you buy new hubs?
 
Hubs would not be a big deal. I have friends both in the US and China who could build those. One of my friends recently did the patterns for a dual leading shoe brake and another is manufacturing quite a number of early BMW parts including wheels.
 
Hortons Norton said:
Very well said, Funny I also have two Norton's and a 98 S1 Buell. I recently went to club gathering that is put on by a bunch of great guys that ride mostly new Triumph's, A few guys were riding some older ones. But I can tell you they really spent some time looking at the Norton and so do the Harley guys. These Norton machines have a certain character that other bikes don't. Is it that you just don't see as many or they have a different look? I am really not sure, But it is a great way to meet people and talk bikes. I find a lot of people even give me a thumbs up while ridding no matter what they are on. I can only wonder what will become of Norton, I hope in a way it will make it and do the name proud. I know what Kenny was onto was a bad ass machine and should be in production, Must be hard to have a dream and design it and then have to hand it off. In my mind if that design is to happen it's still Mr. Dreer's bike. Hope this doesn't piss anyone off, Just my thoughts. Sorry, Chuck.
Click to expand...

Horton's right - Nortons do have character.

I went on a ride on January 1st with the local Ducati club - about 60 bikes - mostly Ducatis, but a couple of Hinckley Triumphs, Moto Guzzis, BMWs, an MV Agusta, and some Hondas (RC45 and RC51). The Norton was by far the oldest bike on the ride - next was a mid-80's Ducati 850 - but had no problem keeping up with the guys who kept it in double digits.

We stopped at the Clewiston Inn for brunch, and when we came out, there was a crowd around the Norton. People walked right past a couple of Desmosedicis to see me start up 'Ed'.

I think the new Bonnevilles are great bikes, but they are designed to look and perform like Meriden Triumphs. Just as Guzzi with their V7 or Ducati with their Sportclassics, the idea is to conjure the look of 1970. I think all three companies have done a good job of creating bikes with - if not 'character' - at least the appearance of character.

My other bike is a 1050 Speed Triple. In my opinion, it is what the Norton would be if Norton had stayed in business - almost identical weight and riding position, with modern brakes, suspension and double the horsepower. Hinckley's produced well over 50,000 Speed Triples since 1994, and it is by far the best bike I've ever had. Like the Norton, the 'Speedy' draws attention wherever I go (does it come that way? is Triumph still in business? does it leak oil?). Of the modern bikes on the market today, I think the Speed Triple and Ducati's Monster have character - maybe its because one can see the engine, frame and suspension, not a bunch of plastic with fancy graphics.

That said, I find the Norton just as enjoyable to ride, and usually reserve even days for the Triumph and odd days for the Norton.

I wish Mr. Garner luck in his venture. I think it would serve him well to learn from the experience of Mr. Bloor, and hopefully resurrect another storied marque.
 
BillT said:
maybe its because one can see the engine, frame and suspension, not a bunch of plastic with fancy graphics.
Click to expand...

To me the most important part of a motorcycle and what sets it appart from any form of motorised transportation, the Norton has that "sex appeal" look to it just plain and simple. While the Norton designed and built by Kenny Dreer may be better in all respect, it has lost some of the classic look of the Norton engine which means [to me] that a modern Norton made from better materials should retain the look, all the way down to the "useless" left projection of the timing case which used to drive the magneto and the points right up to the first Commandos.

Jean

(maybe we should start a new thread rather than step on the new heads)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top