More Norton history?

Mart UK said:

Britain was bankrupt after WWII. It had used everything it had, then borrowed more. There was no debt relief, grants or charitable investment for the Victor. Industry had to make do. No money to invest in tooling and infrastructure.

Click to expand...

That may have been the case for the early years after 1945. In the 1950's, business was blooming, especially for the M/C manufactureres. AMC for instance invested huge amounts of money into new semi-automatic machines and new buildings in the late 50's. I believe Norton/Triumph did the same.
We have to look elsewhere. I think the main reason for the industrial decline was lack of leadership, extreme conservatism, professional incompetence, and a demotivated workforce by the social climate.

At the same time, the japanese factories were able to modernize, underpinned by selling cheap transports (mopeds) to millions of Asian buyers. Profits per unit may not have been much, but when you sell 50 million units, the revenue is still substantial, allowing (and necessitating) rational production methods, which paved the way for building modern big bikes at very competitive prices. At the same time, the European manufactureres lost their home markets (this happened in the UK as well as in Germany, France, Italy and Sweden). The "japanese train" of market success was impossible to compete against. The European societies failed - they liked the foreign goods so well, they deserted their own producers. The m/c press is also to blame. They were unprefessional and partial to domestic manufacturers, which made the manufacturers complacent.

- Knut

mdt-son said:

That may have been the case for the early years after 1945. In the 1950's, business was blooming, especially for the M/C manufactureres. AMC for instance invested huge amounts of money into new semi-automatic machines and new buildings in the late 50's. I believe Norton/Triumph did the same.
We have to look elsewhere. I think the main reason for the industrial decline was lack of leadership, extreme conservatism, professional incompetence, and a demotivated workforce by the social climate.

At the same time, the japanese factories were able to modernize, underpinned by selling cheap transports (mopeds) to millions of Asian buyers. Profits per unit may not have been much, but when you sell 50 million units, the revenue is still substantial, allowing (and necessitating) rational production methods, which paved the way for building modern big bikes at very competitive prices. At the same time, the European manufactureres lost their home markets (this happened in the UK as well as in Germany, France, Italy and Sweden). The "japanese train" of market success was impossible to compete against. The European societies failed - they liked the foreign goods so well, they deserted their own producers. The m/c press is also to blame. They were unprefessional and partial to domestic manufacturers, which made the manufacturers complacent.

- Knut

Click to expand...

I'm a time served Fitter Turner Tool Grinder 1966, and well into the 80s here in the UK we were still using pre WW1 and WW2 lathes, single spindle autos, horizontal and vertical borers etc with some German and Italian taken as repositions and crudely modified to imperial. We visited Triumph and I didn't see anything unusually modern. The first modern "CNC" I worked was a peg board miller nicknamed the tiger because it seriously bit two operators.
Times were hard especially up North.

When I started my apprenticeship in 1978, the first machine I used was a Ward capstan lathe, on the back of which in slightly faded letters, was stencilled WAR FINISH. Next to this was an Archdale vertical milling m/c with the same.
A few years later when working at GEC Traction, part of a very large engineering group, in the main machine shop, there was a slotting m/c from 1919!

cash said:

well into the 80s here in the UK we were still using pre WW1 and WW2 lathes, single spindle autos, horizontal and vertical borers etc with some German and Italian taken as repositions and crudely modified to imperial.

Click to expand...

I can't deny your observations, but investments in machinery needs a production volume, and a company needs to reach that decision gate. It can go bankrupt by over-investing, and it can go bankrupt by doing nothing. To make an investment worthwile, you need to have products with a sales potential and a programme of continuing development. All of these factors form a chain of dependencies. The japanese have a philosphy (Kaizen = continuous improvement) that was developed during the 60's. I don't believe a similar philosophy was ever tried in British industries. It has much to do with the strength of the Quality Control department. Management usually don't want to be interfered by the QC staff, while QC really should be at the upper end of the management board.

- Knut

Yes, that's the common view. I've never really bought that. A former world leading industry with multiple participants all of a sudden is unable to find a single decent managing director. A picture repeated across multiple industries (e.g. cars and aerospace). I've always thought there's more to it.

Investment in the 50s grew at twice the pace for the public sector vs. Private sector. Private sector investment was also hampered by imposed import controls and balance of payments problems. I grew up in the '70s, but my father had been through these experiences in the aerospace industry (BAC then Rolls Royce). He specialised in thermodynamics / fluid dynamics and led the design of multiple jet engine combustion chambers at Rolls for the defence sector. Many stories there of working 'hand to mouth', debt, lack of available investment post war, through to Rolls going bust in the early '70s. Some interesting tales of heroics to overcome lack of equipment. Also coupled with an uneven playing field, when competing for sales, inconsistent governments, etc. Experiences mirrored across other British industries at the time.

Too easy to just blame it on short-sighted management. Just my view.

Mart UK said:

Too easy to just blame it on short-sighted management.

Click to expand...

Of course, and creating a winning team requires cooperation at all levels. You can't do that and engage in an anti-social class war at the same time. The British society was disabled by its archaic structures right from the start after WW1.

- Knut

Fast Eddie said:

That’s overly harsh IMHO.

Ray Petty took up where the factory left off when they closed the race dept doors in ‘62. He (albeit not alone) kept the Manx competitive for another 10 years, which is nothing short of remarkable when you look at the technological advances that took place in that time.

You are right that it is different, the frame is lower, shorter (hence longer swinging arm) and has the engine mounted further forward.

But a Petty Manx is a Manx in its own right, with a well deserved reputation in motorcycle racing history.

Click to expand...

Calling it a Petty Manx is ok, but with so many changes is no longer a Norton Manx or Manx in my book. I'm not being harsh , I'm just pointing out the obvious. To me a Manx has a featherbed frame. And now the new breed of "Manx" engines are putting out something like 80 HP. So I guess as long as you put the builder or tuners name in front of it, it's a better name/ description.
Like "Don Vesco Yamaha" or "Todd Henning Racing Honda." or "Dunstall Norton" They deserve to get the credit for the improvements and upgrades. I call my equipment "CHR Commandos."

Carl H said:

Calling it a Petty Manx is ok, but with so many changes is no longer a Norton Manx or Manx in my book. I'm not being harsh , I'm just pointing out the obvious. To me a Manx has a featherbed frame. And now the new breed of "Manx" engines are putting out something like 80 HP. So I guess as long as you put the builder or tuners name in front of it, it's a better name/ description.
Like "Don Vesco Yamaha" or "Todd Henning Racing Honda." or "Dunstall Norton" They deserve to get the credit for the improvements and upgrades. I call my equipment "CHR Commandos."

Click to expand...

The difference here is that Petty is a period bike, it’s not the same as talking Molnar etc. that’s all.

Fast Eddie said:

The difference here is that Petty is a period bike, it’s not the same as talking Molnar etc. that’s all.

Click to expand...

As are my CHR Commandos, complete with isolastic frames, very Period.

Carl H said:

As are my CHR Commandos, complete with isolastic frames, very Period.

Click to expand...

Has anyone ever said that your Commandos aren’t Commandos ?

A Petty Manx is a bike built by Ray Petty, using a Manx power train and cycle parts and a frame design based on the featherbed but updated.

They were called Petty Manxes, not Norton Manxes. Putting Petty in front of Manx even meets your own criteria above.

No one here called them Norton Manxes, I think we’re therefore talking at cross purposes …

Fast Eddie said:

Has anyone ever said that your Commandos aren’t Commandos ?

A Petty Manx is a bike built by Ray Petty, using a Manx power train and cycle parts and a frame design based on the featherbed but updated.

They were called Petty Manxes, not Norton Manxes. Putting Petty in front of Manx even meets your own criteria above.

No one here called them Norton Manxes, I think we’re therefore talking at cross purposes …

Click to expand...

Didn't I say it should be called a Petty Manx. To me a Manx has a featherbed frame, just like to me a Commando should have an isolastic frame. And I said the new breed on 'Manx" motors have about 80HP. I'm sorry I ever wrote in.

Carl H said:

Didn't I say it should be called a Petty Manx. To me a Manx has a featherbed frame, just like to me a Commando should have an isolastic frame. And I said the new breed on 'Manx" motors have about 80HP. I'm sorry I ever wrote in.

Click to expand...

The ‘new’ top end Manxes are around 60mph at the wheel.

IMO the new Manx makers are all rather fair about what they’re called, Molnar Manx, Summerfield Manx, Works Racing Manx, etc. no one is calling them Norton Manxes.

I just don’t know what else you’d rather they were called? Or what a Petty Manx should be called?

Think you mean 'bhp'. Major step backwards otherwise.

Using 'Manx' is helpful to show where the engine came from, but if they're not original castings and no longer have Manx internals, doesn't that seems more like sentimentality or kidology really? Not that I'm especially bothered, as long as the bikes are honestly declared when it comes to racing them.

Mart UK said:

Think you mean 'bhp'. Major step backwards otherwise.

Using 'Manx' is helpful to show where the engine came from, but if they're not original castings and no longer have Manx internals, doesn't that seems more like sentimentality or kidology really? Not that I'm especially bothered, as long as the bikes are honestly declared when it comes to racing them.

Click to expand...

Quite right… 60mph ain’t gonna get you far is it?!

I guess my main point here is… what would people rather these bikes be called? Let’s just look at two examples:

A period Ray Petty built racer, called a Petty Manx. What would people have this called instead?

A modern classic race bike, all new, but clearly based on a Manx, built by Andy Molnar and called a Molnar Manx. What would people have this called instead?

Fast Eddie said:

Indeed.

The entire wealth of the British Empire, and more, was spent on two world wars.

And all of that spending was in one shop… USA Inc !

So… over a 30 year period, the ENTIRE wealth of the British Empire, PLUS debt that took over 60 years to pay off, went to USA Inc.

It’s quite amazing when you think about such a massive financial / power shift.

Click to expand...

Before WW1 Britain had the world's largest economy.
After WW1 the USA had the world's largest economy.
It's understandable that there was so much US resistance to joining the Allies in WW2. Supplying war but not fighting in the war is tremendously profitable.
Roosevelt hated this fact but couldn't overcome it.
Finally Japan bombed the US at Pearl Harbour then declared war on the US, as did Germany. The US could not stay on the sidelines after that.
Even the big money anti- involvement industrialists like Henry Ford realized they couldn't sit it out any longer.

Glen

Mart UK said:

Yes, that's the common view. I've never really bought that. A former world leading industry with multiple participants all of a sudden is unable to find a single decent managing director. A picture repeated across multiple industries (e.g. cars and aerospace). I've always thought there's more to it.

Investment in the 50s grew at twice the pace for the public sector vs. Private sector. Private sector investment was also hampered by imposed import controls and balance of payments problems. I grew up in the '70s, but my father had been through these experiences in the aerospace industry (BAC then Rolls Royce). He specialised in thermodynamics / fluid dynamics and led the design of multiple jet engine combustion chambers at Rolls for the defence sector. Many stories there of working 'hand to mouth', debt, lack of available investment post war, through to Rolls going bust in the early '70s. Some interesting tales of heroics to overcome lack of equipment. Also coupled with an uneven playing field, when competing for sales, inconsistent governments, etc. Experiences mirrored across other British industries at the time.
J
Too easy to just blame it on short-sighted management. Just my view.

Click to expand...

My father spent 40 years in the helicopter business, first with Pieseki and then Boeing when they bought Frank Pieseki out. He worked with everything from the H21 through the V22, all of it in production flight testing. He often told me that Boeing stopped hiring airplane people and replaced them with accountants, thus the reason for all the developmental problems with the V22. Management shortsightedness? Definitely, but this was after years of producing CH47 Chinooks at production cost plus to the military, a profit guarenteed on every aircraft. When the money tap turned off they started pinching pennies hard. Now it seems every attempt to diversify or update ends in trouble (Starliner 737 MAX labor union troubles) will they end up like BSA and NVT?

I am qualified as a scientist as an industrial chemist, I studied part time and trained, while working in the Commonwealth Analyst's Branch of the Department of Customs and Excise by Nazis and Jews,over a period of ten years. During that time, I was always building hotted-up motorcycles. My mate was Allan Greening and he had raced and almost killed himself in about 1958. He was always a much better rider, but competing with him every weekend made me competent. At about the time I gained my first diploma, I got a job running a laboratory in our government aircraft factory, where I was trained by two ex RAAF officers. After two years a guy arrived and got the top job over us. He was an idiot, so I applied for and got the job he was leaving in the Ordnance Factory Maribyrnong. My worst boss gave me my best job. I set up a laboratory doing chemical analysis of metals, which I was able to fully automate. The main programme was developing steel for the 105mm NATO gun.
Ordnance Factory was bliss - we had the complete British engineering structure.
When I was in the system, I knew the sales manager - he was a dickhead and I would not bother talking to him. I don't believe he had any imagination. We could have built the best motorcycles on the planet in that factory.
Changing the system from within is not easy. I can see why the British failed to recover. There would have been idiots like me working in their factories and unable to be heard. I am not exceptional.
In later life I brought an engineering company to ISO9000 certification. Change is easier when it is introduced from the top downwards. The first quality standard was BS4891 - used to build Spitfires during WW2.
I feel really sad for the British workers, they deserve much better than they got.
When I look at a Norton Commando or a Manx, I can see the guys who made it.
Those old factories were really fun places in which to work.
I would not like to regimented like the Japanese, and the Americans are impersonal.

To me the name Manx specifies the design - the motor, and the way the bike handles. A Molnar Manx is probably what a Manx might have become. 60 BHP is realistic and plenty. A Manx is designed for racing on the IOM, and for that it is probably perfect. Four cylinders with four valves per cylinder might be faster, but a Manx might be safer and more reliable. So the length of the races becomes a factor. When blokes kill themselves while racing, it does not help the sport.
My mate has a Molnar Manx, years ago he offered to sell me a genuine 1961 model 500. I did not buy it because I could not care for it adequately or do it justice. There is really no race class in Australia to justify using it. Even if there was a Lansdowne class, it would be hard to justify using it. A Molnar is a replica - that is the thing to use.
I would bet that most riders these days would not know how to use a Manx - they are a bit different. They can be ridden a lot faster and safer than many other bikes.

Fast Eddie said:

The ‘new’ top end Manxes are around 60mph at the wheel.

IMO the new Manx makers are all rather fair about what they’re called, Molnar Manx, Summerfield Manx, Works Racing Manx, etc. no one is calling them Norton Manxes.

I just don’t know what else you’d rather they were called? Or what a Petty Manx should be called?

Click to expand...

Molnar Precision Limited, which Richard operates with son Andy, has developed the Manx further than its mid-century designers could have ever properly conceived. The team’s four-valve Manx produces 70 hp at 9,500 rpm at the rear wheel and weighs a scant 275 pounds wet, proving the past is most respected when it isn’t left to gather dust.

I'm not arguing what they should be called, putting the builders name and the Type or Brand or Frame builder or whatever a racer wants to call it is ok with me.
One bike I worked on is called "The Dick Mann Rocket 3", that Yvon Duhamel #17 rode to great success. YD could make that thing fly!

Carl H said:

Molnar Precision Limited, which Richard operates with son Andy, has developed the Manx further than its mid-century designers could have ever properly conceived. The team’s four-valve Manx produces 70 hp at 9,500 rpm at the rear wheel and weighs a scant 275 pounds wet, proving the past is most respected when it isn’t left to gather dust.

I'm not arguing what they should be called, putting the builders name and the Type or Brand or Frame builder or whatever a racer wants to call it is ok with me.
One bike I worked on is called "The Dick Mann Rocket 3", that Yvon Duhamel #17 rode to great success. YD could make that thing fly!

Click to expand...

Carl, I'm not jumping into this mix. We own nothing but Commando's. All 850's. We refer to them as "The White bike", "The Green bike", The NY bike", etc. When we refer to the heads... It's "The RH4 Carl did" or "The RH10 Carl did".