Norton Manx and 88 twins at Daytona.....

[quote="Rohan"I thought that was a perfectly good question.[/quote]

It would be a good question, if anyone had ever actually said anything about a BSA dealer getting the first two Manxes, but no one did, so as usual most of what you say has no basis in reality....

This is your 3rd post on these points, and by now we are all totally confused !

Tell us (more) precisely how a BSA Dealer (your words) acquired a Manx Norton ?

Did or did not your father and this Mark race against each other (your words) on this pair of manx nortons ?

And how it is that a 'catalog manx' (your words) has a kickstart gearbox - my catalog shows a race gearbox, no kickstart. In fact, the words 'kickstarter' and 'manx norton' do not generally go togther...

Some of us are using words very loosely here.
Yes I know this is being picky, but if it is possible to read this in more than one way....

Nice story, once the misinterpreatations are out of the way.
Nice bike too.

Rohan said:

This is your 3rd post on these points, and by now we are all totally confused !

Tell us (more) precisely how a BSA Dealer (your words) acquired a Manx Norton ?

Did or did not your father and this Mark race against each other (your words) on this pair of manx nortons ?

And how it is that a 'catalog manx' (your words) has a kickstart gearbox - my catalog shows a race gearbox, no kickstart. In fact, the words 'kickstarter' and 'manx norton' do not generally go togther...

Some of us are using words very loosely here.
Yes I know this is being picky, but if it is possible to read this in more than one way....

Nice story, once the misinterpreatations are out of the way.
Nice bike too.

Click to expand...

1. A BSA Dealer can acquire any brand motorcycle he wishes to the same way anyone else can, by "purchasing" it from whatever party might own it. Mark the BSA dealer also owns a Bultaco and a Model A Ford. He also owns blue jeans, shoes and a pistol and a can of vegetable soup, all bought at the appropriate retailers for those items or from individuals who formerly possessed them. Does that clear it up for you twit?

2. One sentence states that Mark and my father raced together in the fifties and sixties while one was a BSA dealer and one was a Matchless dealer, PERIOD. It does not state that they did this on Norton Manx bikes, that bit of hearsay, as usual you pulled out of whatever dream/fantasy-world or ass your head is stuck in.

3. It is common knowledge that Norton Manx motorcycles sent to North America in the late 1940s and early 1950's were equipped with kick-start mechanisms so to comply with the rules of North American race-sanctioning bodies, in fact it is one of the subjects and points of this entire thread to educate people to the unique features and differences between the Norton racing bikes supplied to North America and those supplied to the rest of the world market.

Rohan, you have the reading comprehension and common sense of a kindergartner or a well trained ape. It might be in your favor to in the future, to talk as very little as possible except when necessary to maintain a supply of food, water, clothing and shelter for yourself.....

You said "catalog manx" - put your money where your mouth is and show us where manxes had kickstarters in any catalog.
And that is the wrong gearbox for that year anyway..

Perhaps your writing 'skills' are the problem, don't give up your day job.....?

This is Billy Mathews and Francis Beart with a 1949 Daytona Norton - Nortons had enlisted ace tuner Francis Beart to run the operation (after only a 2nd place the previous year) in conjunction with Canadian and US Norton Dealers / Importers (which was it ?)(Who was the US Importer ?).

Note Bill Mathews hands obscuring (totally covering) the dohc cambox. DOHC was new for 1949, maybe someone didn't want to publicise the fact- we still haven't got the inside story on this yet ?
And the silver finish to the crankcases - something restored Daytona bikes don't seem to have managed ?

I owe you an apology Rohan, I am sorry if I was mean to you in some way. It is not the place of those with average abilities, intelligence or strength to treat the disabled or challenged badly, but instead to help them. So bearing that in mind:

If you swivel your head towards and look into a Norton catalog or brochure for the year 1962 and take a look at a "catalog" model 88 Norton, it will not look like the photo below will it? No it will not. Yet according to the Norton factory records the bike below is indeed a 1962 Model 88, it simply has the option "Daytona 88", really.

Before Berliner Corporation in New Jersey became a distributor in the United States for Norton in the late 1950s, the importer named "McGill" in Canada imported bikes and spares to North America and supplied many dealers in the United States with such.

You seem to have a fixation on the crankcases of plunger-framed Manx Nortons. If the paint has fallen or been taken off the cases at some point over the last sixty odd years at the discretion of mother nature and various owners, that is supposed to be a big surprise? I was talking to a Norton authority in Canada in the last few weeks who has had his hands on many International and Manx Norton bikes and bits, and holds the records of the Importer McGill. More than half a dozen International Nortons he has worked on have had aluminum paint on their crankcases. Why would Norton paint an aluminum crankcase with aluminum paint? Personally I don't care, I just accept the fact. If I ever find out the reason it will be a bonus but I am not wasting my time looking for it.

I am sure that more than one owner of a plunger Manx Norton has put it together with bare magnesium cases either because they were not aware of the fact that they were ever painted in the first place, but most likely it would be because getting the bike together and running and ready for the next race so they could have fun with it was a lot more important than pleasing someone thousands of miles away who is worrying about the appearance of their bike.....

beng said:

Click to expand...

Up to the 1960’s the annual Daytona was a beach race, hence the reason for painting the crankcases Sand + sea = salt = alloy attack!
Whilst I am not an expert on the history on the Daytona races as I only came into motorcycling during the mid 1960s……..
I do know that the Norton Manx (or similar) were regular entrants in this race, that is, until all the OHC engines were banned by the AMA
1948 Daytona result See;
http://www.norton.uk.com/hol.htm

Up until 1966/7, the AMA rules banned any OHCs any bikes more than 2 cylinders or over 500cc all to protect a certain manufacturer from Milwaukee, that is until……. a certain ex Norton engineer named Doug Hele blew the rule book wide open when his rider Buddy Elmore won the 1966 Daytona on a 500 Triumph. This later became known as the 500 Daytona.

Bernhard said:

that is until……. a certain ex Norton engineer named Doug Hele blew the rule book wide open when his rider won the 1970 Daytona on a 500 Triumph. This later became known as the 500 Daytona.

Click to expand...

1970?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Tiger_Daytona
http://www.classicbike.biz/Triumph/Broc ... elsOPT.pdf

1970?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Tiger_Daytona
http://www.classicbike.biz/Triumph/Broc ... elsOPT.pdf[/quote]

Thanks for doing the research for me.

beng said:

I owe you an apology Rohan, I am sorry

Click to expand...

Ben, I don't even know what subject we have now switched to. ?
Explain more, before launching into another of your pyscho babbles ?
Its been said folks empty of facts resort to abuse...

In case its something I said about that 1962 Daytona bike you show from Mick Woolletts book - its pretty much the 1961 Domiracer that came 2nd in the IoM TT - there is a pic of Doug Hele standing beside it in Mick Woolletts book, on the same page you nicked the pic from. I don't have a problem with that - the text says its that. But unless you have any special insights into how its different from the TT bike, whats different for the Daytona bike ? Since it was a good thing, they just built a few more of them...

The problem with the crankcases, Ben, is that you keep slinging words about, like 'catalog', when clearly things are not. A bike 'restored' as a genuine Daytona bike should LOOK like a genuine Daytona bike, yes ? If its not, you have to ask why. (like I did).
In the AMCA scheme of judging things to 100 points, where would that put it. ? (it is shown in the AMA Hall of Fame Museum, afterall ).

P.S. The Norton importer for the US for most of the 1950s was the Indian Sales Co, in case it had slipped your notice. When did this arrangement begin ? And end. Anyone ?
http://i1113.photobucket.com/albums/k50 ... aytona.jpg

Cheers.

How do you spell persnickity ? :wink:

Don't know who you are referring to Matt, and don't really care. But when folks post things here that are in some measure ambiguous, half truths, nonsense, wrong, wild assertions, or just plain hearsay, I'd hope that folks would point these out, or at least question them. Everyone does this now and then, exclude no one. You included, at times !
Not an excuse for abuse or cr*p though.

Speaking of errors, spot the missing word ?
http://www.beezanet.com/daytona/dick_klamfoth.htm
Should have a word at xxx ?
"As someone who xxx on his first attempt in 1949 at the tender age of 20 then again in 1951 and 1952, Dick will forever be associated with the Daytona 200. "

Picky picky, but makes little sense without it...

Quite an amazing record. Get em while their young ?
Very true in modern racing.

Note also the following
"Klamfoth wasn’t as successful in the 54 event, something that was attributed by the press at the time to his riding a swinging-arm framed bike, when all the other works riders were using the special rigid frames <snip> that were 30lbs lighter. "
So was it the 30 lbs, or the rigid frames ?

It would be interesting to see pics of what Klamfoth raced in 1954.
Details seem hard to come by.
Guess you'd need the magazines of the day.

http://motorcyclemuseum.org/asp/classics/bike.asp?id=80
This doesn't suggest any swingarm involved ?

Exploring details and questions like these are what turns up interesting answers...

P.S. Eggers bike.
http://www.motorcycleclassics.com/uploa ... r_BSA042(1).jpg

Mentions somewhere that Klamfoth broke his rigid frame testing before the race (!), and since there were only 4 special rigid framed bikes made, they fitted a swingarm frame.

It seems the NMM in Brum has what they think/claim is the 1949 Daytona winning Norton.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32315868@N03/3106775389/

Interesting that it also is not restored to looking exactly like the period photos of the winning 1949 Daytona bike - alloy wheels and black crankcases in particular.

A question has arisen whether these are SOHC or DOHC motors. ?
Might start a separate thread on this subject.
Anyone seen it in the museum, and looked under the tank. ?
Does the museum have any of its history, we wonder....

Bernhard said:

I do know that the Norton Manx (or similar) were regular entrants in this race, that is, until all the OHC engines were banned by the AMA
Up until 1966/7, the AMA rules banned any OHCs any bikes more than 2 cylinders or over 500cc all to protect a certain manufacturer from Milwaukee, that is until……. a certain ex Norton engineer named Doug Hele blew the rule book wide open when his rider Buddy Elmore won the 1966 Daytona on a 500 Triumph. This later became known as the 500 Daytona.

Click to expand...

Dick Mann won the 1963 AMA championship using a Matchless G50 OHC racer.......

Rohan said:

In case its something I said about that 1962 Daytona bike you show from Mick Woolletts book - its pretty much the 1961 Domiracer that came 2nd in the IoM TT - there is a pic of Doug Hele standing beside it in Mick Woolletts book, on the same page you nicked the pic from. I don't have a problem with that - the text says its that. But unless you have any special insights into how its different from the TT bike, whats different for the Daytona bike ? Since it was a good thing, they just built a few more of them...
Cheers.

Click to expand...

The three Daytona 88 bikes supplied by Norton for the 1962 Daytona 200 were a LOT different than the Domiracer that came in 3RD, in the 1961 TT. The Domiracer had a unique frame that was of course different than the production slimline featherbed frame staring you in the face in the photo of the 1962 Daytona 88. So that means that except for the wheels, almost every other part of the bike's chassis is not interchangeable with the TT Domiracer. As for the engine the TT Domiracer had eccentric valve-train adjustment, the Daytona bike does not. Daytona bike used production head, cylinder and crankcase castings. TT Domiracer did not have a kickstart gearbox. The only engine parts the Daytona borrowed from the Domiracer were the bucket tappets, long pushrods and large connecting rod journals.

So it is not "pretty much the 1961 Domiracer that came in 2nd in the IoM TT. You did not even get it's placing in the race correct. Up to your usual standard though....

I didn't say it had a slimline frame, I said it has a slimline style rear subframe - have a look. READ MY WORDS !.

2nd, 3rd slip of the pen. It wasn't first. But it was the first 100+ mph lap for a twin, and the 1st 100+ mph lap for a pushrod motor. I'm not allowed to make a typo, and you trash anyone who diagrees with you when you do, let alone when you quote nonsense ???!!!

Where are you getting those engine specs and variances from ?

Did the Daytona bikes have a full fairing.? Details seem hard to pin down.
Tom Phillis wasn't a big man, which may account for some of the IoM performance.
Sadly killed in a 1962 IoM race, lost before his time.

beng said:

Dick Mann won the 1963 AMA championship using a Matchless G50 OHC racer.......

Click to expand...

Isn't this because AMC built a batch of G50CSR 'road' bikes, to get the type homologated to be eligible to race. Otherwise, the out-of-the-catalog G50 was no-wheres-ville.

Rohan said:

P.S. The Norton importer for the US for most of the 1950s was the Indian Sales Co, in case it had slipped your notice. When did this arrangement begin ? Cheers.

Click to expand...

Indian Sales Co. was not THE Norton importer for Norton for most of the 1950's, they were just one of several that dealers in the USA could get their bikes and parts from including McGill in Canada.

Indian Sales company was formed in 1949 and ran on until 1962 as a separate venture from the American Indian Company. I have a 59' Norton that the factory records show was imported directly by Hap Jones in California.

Well, that may answer some questions. N America is a huge continent that requires different importers from state to state, as Norton did not appear to have one set up themselves.