Still Kickin at 70

This may seem obvious or even trivial, but when trying to kickstart your Norton, have on substantial footwear, meaning a good boot with ankle support and a solid, strong sole. I wear tennis/athletic/running shoes sometimes just around home or working in the shop, just because they're comfy, but trying to KS the Norton in those type of shoes is a mistake, as others, I'm sure, already know. I'm seeing a common thread in most of these posts about kickstarting these old bikes, and that is most of the owners commenting are in the same age group and are right around my age (old, past citizen status) and are having similar physical issues (broken this, replaced that, and various surgeries) that all too often come with living this long. I also think it shows the demographic that own these bikes, ie, guys that owned these bikes back when they were young, and in some cases maybe still do, or those who dreamed of having one and for whatever reason couldn't, back in their youth, but are now in a position to own one. I can't imagine a person who had never had any interest in having a Norton for the first 70 years of their lives would just, out of the blue, decide one day, I think I'll buy a Norton motorcycle. I think the nostalgia factor is responsible for most of the ownership of these bikes, as let's face it, if we were being honest there are better motorcycles to be had from a strict riding standpoint. That doesn't mean I don't like mine, as I'd bet other owners do.
 
"I would expect removing weight off that great lump of steel/metal spinning round on the end of the gearbox main shaft will improve reliability."

Can't disagree with the theory but in practice, my OEM chain primary Commando has never needed any service related to the clutch basket/mainshaft.
 
MexicoMike said:
"I would expect removing weight off that great lump of steel/metal spinning round on the end of the gearbox main shaft will improve reliability."

Can't disagree with the theory but in practice, my OEM chain primary Commando has never needed any service related to the clutch basket/mainshaft.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Belt drives became popular back in the 70's. (Drag racing, blower drive belts, etc.)

They are an answer to a problem that didn't exist.

Also, they come with their own shortcomings.

I deal with them regularly.

479307F5-31F4-4C0B-A63C-7B441CDB12A5.jpeg
7F74E2B2-8FB8-4573-9FE4-723ECECC5AF5.jpeg
A061D238-EF02-45A6-A6ED-FC3945187E9E.jpeg




JMWO
 
cash said:
I you fit a belt drive the clutch weight saving is considerable. I would expect removing weight off that great lump of steel/metal spinning round on the end of the gearbox main shaft will improve reliability.
Click to expand...
Although heavy, I don't think the clutch assembly weight is a reliability concern, but it does increase wear at transmission bearings, it consumes energy at speed changes, and it makes the bike heavier and thus impedes on acceleration. So, actions to lighten the clutch basket is of interest. Triumph duplex and triplex clutch housings feature 10 holes at the bottom, and I believe it's possible to perforate bottom of Norton's clutch basket (including the backplate) without loosing too much stiffness. If backplate is perforated, the total friction area will be slightly reduced by this measure.

- Knut
 

Attachments

  • Still Kickin at 70
    T140 clutch basket.webp
    57.7 KB · Views: 112
Last edited:
concours said:
Exactly.

Belt drives became popular back in the 70's. (Drag racing, blower drive belts, etc.)

They are an answer to a problem that didn't exist.

Also, they come with their own shortcomings.

I deal with them regularly.

View attachment 113819View attachment 113820View attachment 113821



JMWO
Click to expand...
I have never had a problem with my belt drive
But it's the only one I have ever had or dealt with
I made my own double tensioner and spent a bit of time aligning the belt
 
MexicoMike said:
... stalled it at a stop light or in bumper to bumper traffic, kick starting was always a horn-honking experience I prefer not to have! :mad: One could argue that since Norton INTENDED to implement E-start much earlier than the Mark III, adding an E-start to my '73 is simply "completing" the manufacturing process! :) ...

Re weight...It's hard for me to believe that there would be a detectable performance reduction caused by the added weight of an E-start kit on a street-ridden Commando... ;)
Click to expand...
I haven't weighed all the bits of a cNw starter, but will do that and compare with the original parts. Once a LiFePO4 battery is added, there probably isn't much in it.

And remember, filling the tank on an Interstate adds 18.7Kg (41 pounds), do many of us notice any reduction in performance after we've filled the tank?
 
Richard Tool said:
Yep - able to kickstart high compression motorcycles at 70 years old but somehow I’m invisible to attractive young women.
How can this be ?
Click to expand...
Yesterday I had an attractive woman 1/2 my age at my bank volunteer her address and the fact that she was divorced. I seem to be getting a lot of that lately even though I'm overweight and bald.
 
MichaelD said:
I haven't weighed all the bits of a cNw starter, but will do that and compare with the original parts. Once a LiFePO4 battery is added, there probably isn't much in it.

And remember, filling the tank on an Interstate adds 18.7Kg (41 pounds), do many of us notice any reduction in performance after we've filled the tank?
Click to expand...
You won't notice a difference in acceleration with 30 pounds or so of estart.
It makes the bike about 1/10 of a second slower in the quarter mile, which is too small of an amount for a rider to feel.
There have been articles written about how heavy and slow the electric start MK3 was compared to earlier models.
The articles I have read are all bunk.
One claimed a dry weight of over 500 lbs for a MK3. They weigh considerably less than that full of fuel.

I weighed 2 estart and 2 kickstart Commandos on my hanging scale.

The estart bikes were a 750 fitted with an Alton and my Mk3 850. They were within 4 pounds of each other, virtually the same weight.

The Kickstart bikes were a 750 and an 850.
All of the bikes were Interstates with tanks filled to 2" down.

The Kickstart bikes were within 3 pounds of each other, also virtually the same weight as each other.
So much for 750s being a much lighter machine than 850s.

The estart bikes were about 30 pounds heavier than the Kickstart bikes.

All of the bikes had lead acid batteries in place. The estart bikes had slightly larger lead acid batteries than the kick start bikes did , so that was part of the 30 extra pounds.

Glen
 
worntorn said:
You won't notice a difference in acceleration with 30 pounds or so of estart.
It makes the bike about 1/10 of a second slower in the quarter mile, which is too small of an amount for a rider to feel.
There have been articles written about how heavy and slow the electric start MK3 was compared to earlier models.
The articles I have read are all bunk.
One claimed a dry weight of over 500 lbs for a MK3. They weigh considerably less than that full of fuel.

I weighed 2 estart and 2 kickstart Commandos on my hanging scale.

The estart bikes were a 750 fitted with an Alton and my Mk3 850. They were within 4 pounds of each other, virtually the same weight.

The Kickstart bikes were a 750 and an 850.
All of the bikes were Interstates with tanks filled to 2" down.

The Kickstart bikes were within 3 pounds of each other, also virtually the same weight as each other.
So much for 750s being a much lighter machine than 850s.

The estart bikes were about 30 pounds heavier than the Kickstart bikes.

All of the bikes had lead acid batteries in place. The estart bikes had slightly larger lead acid batteries than the kick start bikes did , so that was part of the 30 extra pounds.

Glen
Click to expand...
I love this, proper date resulting from proper research
 

Similar threads

Mr. Rick
  • Locked
still kickin
Replies
5
Views
1,343
XTINCT
XTINCT
Back
Top