Poor bugger

And I thought value was based on at least one “endearing quality”plus rarity …. if I’m correct , ones not sold back will end up crushed …

This guy is not a happy bunny. I've watched his videos and he makes some irrelevant points about how other companies...the one he bought his bikes from..have fixed his bikes under warranty, yet a company unassociated with his bike won't fix his. He also makes some interesting, yet highly speculative, claims that the new CEO came from Ricardo (that part is true I believe) and something is a bit off..and it's curious as to why he chose a 961 vs the bike his company had a hand in designing the engine for. Gee, dunno, maybe because he wanted a retro bike vs a chromed uncomfortable superbike? They are two very different propositions.

I suspect his request for dialogue will be ignored and the 'don't engage' option will be selected.

I do feel sorry for the current owners, but time to face the 'life aint fair' facts on this one.......

Disabling comments doesn't encourage dialogue either....

Some points I can understand: ALL the bikes have been condemned due to the few (?) examples tested.
But.... as stated above, time to: 'wake up and smell the roses'.. Banging your head against a brick wall only guarantees a headache!
(Ginger too..... 'nuff said!)

OOO I bet Dr Bob is a quakin' in his boots.....

I don't want to sound unsympathetic because I would not like to be in his position but when I bought my 961CR I did my research and almost jumped ship to Triumph then decided that the risk could be managed without too much expense. Happily I had by what would be by Honda standards a nightmare of faults but by 961 standards a relatively painless ownership. Remember the early 961 owners had a similarly painful ride to the v4 owners.

Would I have bought a 200bhp rocket ship built in a call centre by a company who struggled to make a fault-free air cooled parallel twin? Answers on a post card please.

Unfortunately the responsibility for this creation lies with a different company - Old New Norton - and I don't understand consumer law to know how it should be pursued - a class action or something like? Unfortunately the low volume vehicle industry is littered with early adopters losing money by buying into someone's dream which could never be realised.

Agree, when I spend £44k.....I have to take some responsibility for my purchasing decision....and I do as much due diligence as I can. Even a modicum of research would have indicated issues with the company, it's practices and would have pushed this purchase deep into the 'calculated risk' category. Hell, I have not been an owner for a year even, but I knew what I was walking into.

His course of action is either take current Nortons offer, or sit on the list of unsecured creditors while the 'old' Nortons affairs are wound up by the adminstator and see if here is anything left for V4 owners. Now that is taking a risk! There is effectively no company against which to take action against. This guy seems to want the third option of 'an unrelated company fix this for me'.

EstuaryBoy said:

Some points I can understand: ALL the bikes have been condemned due to the few (?) examples tested.
But.... as stated above, time to: 'wake up and smell the roses'.. Banging your head against a brick wall only guarantees a headache!
(Ginger too..... 'nuff said!)

Click to expand...

Yep, I think Norton opening that can of worms was born of good intent, but suffered when realities hit.

So, New Norton come in, say (prematurely in my view) 'we'll try and help current owners....awesome for PR '. They take the bikes they have available to them an inspect and hit the 'WTF' point. 35 or so defects, many safety critical. What to do. If it was me and the remainder of the bikes were there, in the factory, unsold, my twitching eye of suspicion would be cast over every one of them. The fact that they were sold doesn't change this. Every single other bike would be a huge question mark. How could it not be? Owners seem to play the point of 'how do they know MY bike has these issues? they have not even looked at it?' Norton more than likely know that If what they had was so bad, that would point to a major quality control issue when the bikes were built. Without hard evidence to the contrary, you have to assume all bikes were built under similar conditions and the same 'ahem' 'attention to detail' was applied as with the samples they had. Like it or not, this now becomes an issue with all bikes built.

Now, suddenly, we are into damage limitation mode. So they take every bike in and strip every one? Would other faults show up? Who pays for this? Now they have customers bikes in bits, who has liability now? It accelerated into a rapidly expanding can or worms even without this and I doubt if any of the parties are happy with the position each find themselves in.

We can sit on the sidelines, popcorn in hand and watch, but I suspect all the most significant moves have been made and any further moves by the owners will be akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

So, this guy doesn’t want a V4SV because “It’s not a Ltd run edition bike and it’s not gonna have the same intrinsic value”…

He seems to divorce the fact that the bike is condemned and unridable from it having ‘intrinsic value’… guess what, being condemned and having 35 faults and being declared as unrectifiable by the manufacturer DOES impact the ‘intrinsic value‘ !!

He blames Dr Bob for calling out the faults, but not SG for causing them.

He also places no value on the SV actually being a better engineered product.

But he obviously doesn’t understand engineering anyway “how do they know my bike has faults when they’ve not inspected it”?

Errr… because they know what the issues are, issues with design and manufacture… so unless your bike was designed and manufactured elsewhere, it’s gonna have the same bleedin’ issues mate innit !?!

I feel for all that have suffered a loss ! This sad tale does give me solace for not being a wealthy man , would kill me to know I had wasted so much of my hard earned $$$

Fast Eddie said:

So, this guy doesn’t want a V4SV because “It’s not a Ltd run edition bike and it’s not gonna have the same intrinsic value”…

He seems to divorce the fact that the bike is condemned and unridable from it having ‘intrinsic value’… guess what, being condemned and having 35 faults and being declared as unrectifiable by the manufacturer DOES impact the ‘intrinsic value‘ !!

He blames Dr Bob for calling out the faults, but not SG for causing them.

He also places no value on the SV actually being a better engineered product.

But he obviously doesn’t understand engineering anyway “how do they know my bike has faults when they’ve not inspected it”?

Errr… because they know what the issues are, issues with design and manufacture… so unless your bike was designed and manufactured elsewhere, it’s gonna have the same bleedin’ issues mate innit !?!

Click to expand...

Totally agree. If you watch his videos, a word that keeps comming is ‘investment’ and how he has lost his investment, they have lost their investments, the company has forced them to write off their investments etc. In a reply to my comment he has said that he will now keep his v4 as it will be a ‘collection piece’. Reading between the lines, I get the hint that many, although not necessarily all, were banking on these bikes increasing in value.

Vernon240 said:

In a reply to my comment he has said that he will now keep his v4 as it will be a ‘collection piece’.

Click to expand...

I think he might be right about that, there weren’t many V4SS‘ anyway, and if a chunk of owners take the SV deal, there’ll be a lot less, so they‘ll definitely be rare.

But like any investment, they can go down as well as up !

Fast Eddie said:

I think he might be right about that, there weren’t many V4SS‘ anyway, and if a chunk of owners take the SV deal, there’ll be a lot less, so they‘ll definitely be rare.

Click to expand...

Damn - I should have bought an Edsel when I had the chance. Probably worth millions now by the same principle

We are an uncharitable lot at Christmas aren't we? As you put it so succinctly Nigel; Poor Bugger.

Well, the guy will continue the fight:

'Very much doubt that many people are pro Norton, I intend to be the very largest pain the the arse they have ever come across and based upon global feedback I am not alone. In fact private messages on LinkedIn show clear disbelief in the lack of corporate ethics show by the continued employment of Skinner. I can assure you momentum and popular support is favouring owners'

I said lets see where they are in a year. I don't believe that brow beating Norton on social media will achieve anything positive.

I bought an oven from John Lewis who used to operate their warehouse from the building Norton are now in. That oven has now stopped working and despite my calls and emails Norton have failed to respond to my requests to come out and fix it. I have a fresh Halibut in the fridge which will not last much longer so I an going to lose money here...
I think you agree that this is completely unacceptable and they really don't want to make me angry because I WILL stand outside and look VERY cross. I may even point at Dr Bob when he drives out. They only have themselves to blame for bringing my wrath upon them so don't say I didn't warn them.

OK, this one made me laugh and I had to respond...

"Facts are clear corporate ethics show they lack a north star, as referenced by the continued employment of Simon Skinner. The refusal to engage with owners other than in group emails who have already invested in V4SS bikes is short-sighted; these are potential buyers of future products. The same can be said for the high-handed way other impacted groups have been dealt with. This is observed by the market; buyers of a motorcycle at a price point of £44k are informed, risk-averse and not interested in rapid depreciating assets. Norton is inadvertently fueling a toxic backstory that risks undermining its future product lines, silence is a fuel the angry, in fact you can argue it can be argued its a form of abuse!"

my response

"I agree, employing him isn't a good look from the outside in, but I don't have the details conversations that happened with new Norton etc, so difficult to comment other than that. Saying that by employing him they 'lack a north star' and I assume, implying they have questionable ethics, is something I don't agree with. I have no idea as to why, given the history, they chose to employ him and until I do, I'm not willing to pass judgment on such little data. You are right, current owners could have been potential purchasers of new product. That does not mean that Norton should fix issues and take responsibility for a product they did not manufacture or sell. The benefits I can see, garnering significant good will with customers of the previous incarnation of Norton and a general positive view of the company more broadly. The negatives are it could cost a huge amount...more than they would recoup on sales, but the elephant in the room is product liability. Taking liability for a product you did not make where it was built by a company with such poor standards is, in my view, significantly more risky. Maybe they aren't the only one who are risk averse. I would also guess someone getting killed due to a defect is not worth thinking about...and I doubt it would be seen positively among prospective purchasers. You seem hell bent on making them compensate you for a product they neither designed or built. You bring up the word 'investment' many times, so it seems reasonable to believe you were hoping for an appreciating asset. I understand the disappointment, but not all investments go your way. Well, buyers may be informed and risk averse, but that does not seem to have been the case with V4 purchasers. I visited the company, I knew their issues, I walked away. You took a significant risk in buying an untried design from a company with highly questionable ethics and quality standards. If you did not know this, then you were neither well informed or risk averse. The SG backstory is already toxic, but I believe they are well aware of what they are doing. There is no perfect line to tread here, but on balance, I would agree they are doing the right thing. Making a statement, proposing what they will do is not silence. They have made an offer to try and help, but without accepting the liabilities of another company. You mistake this for a negotiation or a conversation. It clearly isn't. And silence is abuse? I didn't take you for a snowflake, but that's a ridiculous statement. So if you shout at me, complaining about something I had no hand in...point in hand, the current Norton uncovered the defects, but it was the old Norton created the defects...If I refuse to engage, I'm abusing you? If you make statements like that, any empathy you might have will ebb away quickly from non V4 owners (I'm sure V4 owners will back you to the hilt). I'm sure you are better than that and suspect emotion is getting the better of you."

Vernon240 said:

garnering significant good will with customers of the previous incarnation of Norton

Click to expand...

Was that pun intended

My puns are never intended...much lol!

PS, if you don't respond, I'm reporting you for abuse. Apparently it's the thing to do these days.

sitting here giggling like a kid. Apparently it's my worst trait, laughing at my own jokes. I maintain someone has to!

Clive said:

I bought an oven from John Lewis who used to operate their warehouse from the building Norton are now in. That oven has now stopped working and despite my calls and emails Norton have failed to respond to my requests to come out and fix it. I have a fresh Halibut in the fridge which will not last much longer so I an going to lose money here...
I think you agree that this is completely unacceptable and they really don't want to make me angry because I WILL stand outside and look VERY cross. I may even point at Dr Bob when he drives out. They only have themselves to blame for bringing my wrath upon them so don't say I didn't warn them.

Click to expand...

'The wrath of Clive'. Thats got movie rights written all over it.

Vernon240 said:

' That does not mean that Norton should fix issues and take responsibility for a product they did not manufacture or sell.'

'You took a significant risk in buying an untried design from a company with highly questionable ethics and quality standards.'

Click to expand...

Not here to offer argument or opinion, or to decry those of others who are more adversely affected or indeed knowledgeable than I, but feel the above two sentences could be questioned, perhaps?

Did not Norton (TVS) 'take responsibility' for the controversy here by most publicly announcing the magnitude of the defects they found in 'a product they did not manufacture or sell?' Was that necessary?

I'm not criticising their 'solution' and subsequent generous part exchange offer, mind you..

As for buyers taking a: 'significant risk?' Did they? Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but were any of the behind the scenes shenanigans extant when the V4 was announced? Was Garner Norton already a sinking ship? Yes, a gamble perhaps, but I doubt anyone expected the odds as being all or nothing....

Again, just raising points for discussion..

I seem to remember when Triumph introduced the T595, they had an issue of frames cracking and there was a recall. One guy was very vocal about it in MCN etc. and was eventually offered a replacement bike. He refused as he also wanted compensation apparently, so John Bloor personally retracted the offer and told him he's see him in court ( possibly not so politely). I don't know if it ever went further.

Maybe that's what Norton should do?

EstuaryBoy said:

Not here to offer argument or opinion, or to decry those of others who are more adversely affected or indeed knowledgeable than I, but feel the above two sentences could be questioned, perhaps?

Did not Norton (TVS) 'take responsibility' for the controversy here by most publicly announcing the magnitude of the defects they found in 'a product they did not manufacture or sell?' Was that necessary?

I'm not criticising their 'solution' and subsequent generous part exchange offer, mind you..

As for buyers taking a: 'significant risk?' Did they? Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but were any of the behind the scenes shenanigans extant when the V4 was announced? Was Garner Norton already a sinking ship? Yes, a gamble perhaps, but I doubt anyone expected the odds as being all or nothing....

Again, just raising points for discussion..

Click to expand...

Good points. I'm not sure there is a definitive wrong or right here.

Hmm, on the responsibility thing, the waters are cloudy at best. There was a lot of pressure to try and make things right with previous V4 owners. In hind sight, it may have been best for all involved if TVS Norton had not touched them.....but then you have to think, was finding and disclosing all those faults a good or bad thing? Probably good if you were planning on riding your V4, not so good if this was an investment purchase...as I think many were. Having said they were going to do something, this set the ball in motion.....something had to be said. Indeed. given the severity of the faults, I think they were duty bound to say something. Conversely, if they had said nothing and subsequently someone had had a bad accident and it came to light that issues were found but had been 'hushed up'....that would not be great either. I fear it was a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Buyers taking a significant risk. That is down to opinion, but my opinion is they did. The problems with Norton were well established and known. They had dealt with many wind up orders and were brought to the edge on a number of occasions. I remember looking around the factory and thinking 'where is the quality control?'...others might have taken a look and though 'wow, cool, they know what they are doing'. Granted, what came to light after it all ended took 'behind the scenes shinanigans' to another level. I find it hard to believe Skinner is still employed, but that is with a paucity of facts, so what do I know. I have my 961 and I still think I took a significant risk. Risk is very much subjective, however, so depends on how much risk you want to take and you are comfortable with. For example, at the time, I'd view a Norton V4 purchase far riskier than an Aprilla purchase. Someone might view that the other way around. Agree though, they were probably taking a far greater risk than they were aware of.

All this is 'thoughts according to Vern' though and I hold no dominion over right and wrong, just views!