Mileage

Fast Eddie

Fast Eddie

VIP MEMBER
Joined
Oct 4, 2013
Messages
20,641
Country flag
What's the highest mileage anyone on this forum has put on a new Garner Commando?

And what issues were experienced?
 
Just completed 700 miles, and had the first service last week.
I was lucky actually. Dealer only got one oil filter from Norton.

No serious issues. Minor stuff only.

1. Foot pegs have no return spring. Would be nice for a street bike.
2. Side stand is too long. the bike stands almost vertically and feels like it might tip over.
3. Little bit of vibs around 3000 RPM, and again near 4700-5000 RPM. However, it's a plus for me, maybe not for the initiated.
4. Norton have no replacement EFI map available for after market pipe. I have Dominator silencers but i'm using the standard map.
5. Get stopped and asked questions by many people about the bike.

Otherwise, it's been all good. :)
 
Thanks for the reply there BritTwit, great you're enjoying the bike.

BUT GUYS... is 700 miles the highest mileage on a new Norton from this forums members?!?!

Surely not...
 
No mileage reports but did take a 961 out for a ride at the weekend. Much has been said about the bike but the thing that amazed me was that the riding position ergonomics are near perfect. I've suffered from a bad back for years which has limited movement, but after a short ride on the bike my back has improved to the extent where I can now get my head completely up my own arse -just like many 961 owners! See the NOC 961 forum for confirmation.
 
oil filter is supposed to b the same as on the triumphs... from what i have been told.
 
huskyfrk said:
are we really gong to refer to the 961's as garner Norton's ??
Click to expand...

It seemed a logical way of differentiating them to me...
What would you prefer / suggest?
 
huskyfrk said:
are we really gong to refer to the 961's as garner Norton's ??
Click to expand...

I'd probably shorten it to Garner 961's as I apply the same reasoning to the Garner prams - just because they've 'Norton' on the side dosen't make them a Norton.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q= ... 2130279962

Scroll down a bit to the 'Norton Pure'. These things are fast appreciating and many are speculating they're a future classic. Although the Bugaboo Donkey would get my money.
 
Kenny Deer & Co. Spent millions securing the Norton name. Then he designed a modern Commando that could produce 80 HP or so with reliability. His funds ran out and Stuart Garner picked up the ball just as it was dropping.
Otherwise there would be no new Norton, it would just be another failed attempt at revival of a grand old Marque.
I honestly believe some people would prefer if it went that way. This makes no sense to me, but perhaps some Norton owners want the Norton name only associated with bikes that went out of production long ago.

Most old time Norton lovers think the styling of the 961 is perfect. Hell, everyone I talked to at the last big motorcycle show was blown away by it, it was the talk of the show. With all the millions of $ spent by all of the big Motorcycle manufacturers on marketing and design, none of them came close to having anything like the Norton 961. Not that they haven't tried. When you see one in the flesh, they really are in a league of their own styling wise. We can thank Kenny for coming up with that, and Stuart Garner for carrying it thru. Those who ride them generally give very positive reviews.
And now/you say we can't really call it a Norton?
Just what would qualify as a real new Norton?

Glen
 
worntorn said:
Kenny Deer & Co. Spent millions securing the Norton name. Then he designed a modern Commando that could produce 80 HP or so with reliability. His funds ran out and Stuart Garner picked up the ball just as it was dropping.
Otherwise there would be no new Norton, it would just be another failed attempt at revival of a grand old Marque.
I honestly believe some people would prefer if it went that way. This makes no sense to me, but perhaps some Norton owners want the Norton name only associated with bikes that went out of production long ago.

Most old time Norton lovers think the styling of the 961 is perfect. Hell, everyone I talked to at the last big motorcycle show was blown away by it, it was the talk of the show. With all the millions of $ spent by all of the big Motorcycle manufacturers on marketing and design, none of them came close to having anything like the Norton 961. Not that they haven't tried. When you see one in the flesh, they really are in a league of their own styling wise. We can thank Kenny for coming up with that, and Stuart Garner for carrying it thru. Those who ride them generally give very positive reviews.
And now/you say we can't really call it a Norton?
Just what would qualify as a real new Norton?

Glen
Click to expand...


Well said. The people who say it isn't a 'real' Norton ought to consider that some think no Commandos are either as the only real Norton's came out of the factory in Bracebridge Street, Birmingham.

Ian
 
Donington Norton would equate to the usually applied Hinkley Bonneville description.

Fast Eddie said:
huskyfrk said:
are we really gong to refer to the 961's as garner Norton's ??
Click to expand...

It seemed a logical way of differentiating them to me...
What would you prefer / suggest?
Click to expand...
 
worntorn said:
Kenny Deer & Co. Spent millions securing the Norton name. Then he designed a modern Commando that could produce 80 HP or so with reliability. His funds ran out and Stuart Garner picked up the ball just as it was dropping.
Otherwise there would be no new Norton, it would just be another failed attempt at revival of a grand old Marque.
I honestly believe some people would prefer if it went that way. This makes no sense to me, but perhaps some Norton owners want the Norton name only associated with bikes that went out of production long ago.

Most old time Norton lovers think the styling of the 961 is perfect. Hell, everyone I talked to at the last big motorcycle show was blown away by it, it was the talk of the show. With all the millions of $ spent by all of the big Motorcycle manufacturers on marketing and design, none of them came close to having anything like the Norton 961. Not that they haven't tried. When you see one in the flesh, they really are in a league of their own styling wise. We can thank Kenny for coming up with that, and Stuart Garner for carrying it thru. Those who ride them generally give very positive reviews.
And now/you say we can't really call it a Norton?
Just what would qualify as a real new Norton?

Glen
Click to expand...

Ok, I stand corrected - it's a Dreer 961. What would qualify as a real new Norton? Nothing can. The company's been dead and buried for however many years so all the continuity and history that was Norton ended then. All Garner has done is bought the rights to use the name as he sees fit - which included sticking it on a pram and now the Aprilia engined 'Norton' race bike. Another example is the BMW 'Mini' - is that a real new Mini? He could make a 'Norton' car, lawn mower, fridge, caravan or whatever - and they'd all be real new Nortons right? It's just marketing and nothing to do with the history of the original manufacturer. Call the bike what you like - I see it for what it is.
 
Al-otment wrote;
Call the bike what you like - I see it for what it is.
Click to expand...

It's a bike with "Norton" on the tank and it's engine layout largely apes a traditional Norton twin ( yes I know it's a 270*), hoping I suppose to link it as an evolvement of the Norton twins of the 50's 60's and 70's.
Hinckley Triumphs have gone the same way with their twins and triples harking back to their bikes of the 60's and 70's and I suppose it is all about as far as possible, niche marketing. In the same way as Moto Guzzi have stuck with their V twins, aping their success with this configuration in the 70's/80's.

I hope they do well and eventually start developing a larger range of bikes even if it is unlikely, but whichever way you look at it, they are still there making bikes legally with "Norton" on the tank.

Fast Eddie, I have a friend who has bought a 961 this year. This bike will get fairly well used and so maybe next year I can report back with some info?
 
worntorn said:
Kenny Deer & Co. Spent millions securing the Norton name. Then he designed a modern Commando that could produce 80 HP or so with reliability. His funds ran out and Stuart Garner picked up the ball just as it was dropping.
Otherwise there would be no new Norton, it would just be another failed attempt at revival of a grand old Marque.
I honestly believe some people would prefer if it went that way. This makes no sense to me, but perhaps some Norton owners want the Norton name only associated with bikes that went out of production long ago.

Most old time Norton lovers think the styling of the 961 is perfect. Hell, everyone I talked to at the last big motorcycle show was blown away by it, it was the talk of the show. With all the millions of $ spent by all of the big Motorcycle manufacturers on marketing and design, none of them came close to having anything like the Norton 961. Not that they haven't tried. When you see one in the flesh, they really are in a league of their own styling wise. We can thank Kenny for coming up with that, and Stuart Garner for carrying it thru. Those who ride them generally give very positive reviews.
And now/you say we can't really call it a Norton?
Just what would qualify as a real new Norton?

Glen
Click to expand...

garner needs to make one of these.......
Mileage
 
Reggie said:
Al-otment wrote;
Call the bike what you like - I see it for what it is.
Click to expand...

It's a bike with "Norton" on the tank and it's engine layout largely apes a traditional Norton twin ( yes I know it's a 270*), hoping I suppose to link it as an evolvement of the Norton twins of the 50's 60's and 70's.
Hinckley Triumphs have gone the same way with their twins and triples harking back to their bikes of the 60's and 70's and I suppose it is all about as far as possible, niche marketing. In the same way as Moto Guzzi have stuck with their V twins, aping their success with this configuration in the 70's/80's.

I hope they do well and eventually start developing a larger range of bikes even if it is unlikely, but whichever way you look at it, they are still there making bikes legally with "Norton" on the tank.

Fast Eddie, I have a friend who has bought a 961 this year. This bike will get fairly well used and so maybe next year I can report back with some info?
Click to expand...

The arguments by some in this thread are way off topic and in my opinion are just silly. If you want to argue about whether or not the new Nortons are real, please start another thread.
I will continue to use the term Garner Norton, it is a sensible way of differentiating: original Nortons, Dreer Nortons, Garner Nortons... No malice or sarcasm, just clear differentiation.
Thanks Reggie, I know you're serious in your answer and I would be very interested in hearing some regular updates on how your mate is getting along, and indeed, how his Garner compares with your Maney!!
 
Fast Eddie wrote;
how his Garner compares with your Maney!!
Click to expand...

My friend has promised me a go on it at some time, so hopefully we shall see then. I've only seen him once when it had about 1300 miles on and he did say that it was slightly vibratory at certain revs and not as smooth or powerful as his Ducati 916 (which he is selling). Well we knew it wouldn't be as powerful as the 916, but as the engines have 270* firing intervals albeit in a different configuration, there was a semi valid comparison.
 
Fast Eddie said:
The arguments by some in this thread are way off topic and in my opinion are just silly. If you want to argue about whether or not the new Nortons are real, please start another thread.
I will continue to use the term Garner Norton, it is a sensible way of differentiating: original Nortons, Dreer Nortons, Garner Nortons... No malice or sarcasm, just clear differentiation.
Thanks Reggie, I know you're serious in your answer and I would be very interested in hearing some regular updates on how your mate is getting along, and indeed, how his Garner compares with your Maney!!
Click to expand...

Getting a bit authoritarian aren't we? And anyway, you started the off topic comments. What do you call your reply if it's not 'going off topic'

Fast Eddie said:
huskyfrk said:
are we really gong to refer to the 961's as garner Norton's ??
Click to expand...

It seemed a logical way of differentiating them to me...
What would you prefer / suggest?
Click to expand...

talk about the pot and the fucking kettle. You also started the 'silly' argument with your opening post - 961 owners doing mileage? get real. If it wasn't for the 'off topic' comments, which you propagated, there would be no thread. Anyway, where's your sense of humour regarding my 'ergonomics' post.
Enough of this, later than predicted but bike assembly starts today! On the road Sunday at the latest.
 
Reggie said:
Al-otment wrote;
Call the bike what you like - I see it for what it is.
Click to expand...

It's a bike with "Norton" on the tank and it's engine layout largely apes a traditional Norton twin ( yes I know it's a 270*), hoping I suppose to link it as an evolvement of the Norton twins of the 50's 60's and 70's.
Hinckley Triumphs have gone the same way with their twins and triples harking back to their bikes of the 60's and 70's and I suppose it is all about as far as possible, niche marketing. In the same way as Moto Guzzi have stuck with their V twins, aping their success with this configuration in the 70's/80's. I hope they do well and eventually start developing a larger range of bikes even if it is unlikely, but whichever way you look at it, they are still there making bikes legally with "Norton" on the tank.

Fast Eddie, I have a friend who has bought a 961 this year. This bike will get fairly well used and so maybe next year I can report back with some info?
Click to expand...

The only significant design feature which differentiated between British twin cylinder designs of the 1940's and 50's is position of the cam shaft(s). The only marque specific design feature common to the 961 and the original Commando is they both have a single camshaft mounted in the crankcase forward of the cylinders. That's it.

The Hinckley (Bloor) Triumphs have one thing in common with the Meriden Triumphs and that's the name.

Moto Guzzi have been in continuous motorcycle production since 1921 (Wikipedia) and so the bikes produced now are genuine Moto Guzzi's. They have continuity and history which you can directly associate with the original factory. The Bloor Triumphs and Garner Nortons do not have this - they are new companies trading off the image/kudos or whatever it is people associate with a brand and history of now defunct companies. I wish Triumph good luck, not that they need it. I wouldn't think of purchasing from any business of Garner's for two reasons 1) several reports of unsatisfactory customer service. 2) I don't like the guy.
 
Al-otment said:
Fast Eddie said:
The arguments by some in this thread are way off topic and in my opinion are just silly. If you want to argue about whether or not the new Nortons are real, please start another thread.
I will continue to use the term Garner Norton, it is a sensible way of differentiating: original Nortons, Dreer Nortons, Garner Nortons... No malice or sarcasm, just clear differentiation.
Thanks Reggie, I know you're serious in your answer and I would be very interested in hearing some regular updates on how your mate is getting along, and indeed, how his Garner compares with your Maney!!
Click to expand...

Getting a bit authoritarian aren't we? And anyway, you started the off topic comments. What do you call your reply if it's not 'going off topic'

Fast Eddie said:
huskyfrk said:
are we really gong to refer to the 961's as garner Norton's ??
Click to expand...

It seemed a logical way of differentiating them to me...
What would you prefer / suggest?
Click to expand...

talk about the pot and the fucking kettle. You also started the 'silly' argument with your opening post - 961 owners doing mileage? get real. If it wasn't for the 'off topic' comments, which you propagated, there would be no thread. Anyway, where's your sense of humour regarding my 'ergonomics' post.
Enough of this, later than predicted but bike assembly starts today! On the road Sunday at the latest.
Click to expand...

Calm down Mr Kettle, actually, for the record, I found your ergonomic post quite amusing!

I just didn't, and still don't, want the thread hijacking and turning into a debate about the name. I know a lot of people do feel strongly about this, same with Triumph, Mini, Jag, et al, but I personally don't and moreover, that's not what this thread is about.

This thread was and still is a genuine attempt to get some serious feedback from any Garner / Donnington / whatever you want to call them, owners regarding use, mileage and how reliable the bikes have (or have not) been.

I have checked out the NOC forum, but as Access Norton is a forum that tends to have some good knowledgable posters, I was, and am still, hoping that there'll be people on here with worthwhile feedback.

Your actual opinions on the Garner / Donnington / whatever you want to call them bikes are quite clear and well known to all on this forum. And I am NOT arguing with you, I'm simply wanting good first hand feedback from actual users.

However, being quite frank, the lack of answers, so far at least, actually seems to back up your hypothesis that they don't get used!

Kindest Regards,
Mr Pot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top