Fast Eddie
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2013
- Messages
- 20,685
What's the highest mileage anyone on this forum has put on a new Garner Commando?
And what issues were experienced?
And what issues were experienced?
Fast Eddie said: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...
huskyfrk said:are we really gong to refer to the 961's as garner Norton's ??
huskyfrk said:are we really gong to refer to the 961's as garner Norton's ??
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
Fast Eddie said:huskyfrk said:are we really gong to refer to the 961's as garner Norton's ??
It seemed a logical way of differentiating them to me...
What would you prefer / suggest?
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
Call the bike what you like - I see it for what it is.
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
Reggie said:Al-otment wrote;Call the bike what you like - I see it for what it is.
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?
how his Garner compares with your Maney!!
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!!
Fast Eddie said:huskyfrk said:are we really gong to refer to the 961's as garner Norton's ??
It seemed a logical way of differentiating them to me...
What would you prefer / suggest?
Reggie said:Al-otment wrote;Call the bike what you like - I see it for what it is.
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?
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!!
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 ??
It seemed a logical way of differentiating them to me...
What would you prefer / suggest?
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.