Tritons

Joined
Nov 2, 2013
Messages
52
Awesome, thanks for sharing- I'd love to see some pictures of the bikes.
 
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
432
Country flag
It continues to amaze me that accurate history is thrown to the side very often. The actual history of these old bikes, is what it is. And while we evolve thru time, some think that history continues to be made. Which is true, but not for the history of bikes from the 50's and 60's. That history is already written, and therefore unchangeable.

These are nice bikes, nonetheless, and I don't have anything bad to say about them. There are things that I'd change if they were mine, but they're not mine, so it is what it is. Nothing wrong with an owner making changes that suits there taste. But you can't call them historically accurate. Certainly not with Miukni carbs and a Suzuki front brake.

Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but what's fact, is fact.
Often times it seems like the need to compliment each other is more important than the facts.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
8,216
Who are these nazi thought-police that say Tritons in 2013 need to be 'historically accurate' ??!!
This is 2013, not still 1953 or 1956 or 1962, or some other such arbitary date frozen in time.

And as for history not still evolving - quite a few Tritons that were built from Manx frames have since had their manx frames ripped out of them, and returned to being a Manx.
Manxes being worth probably double or triple what a Triton is worth...
Thats the reality of how history works....

BTW, An interesting special that Classic Bike or similar showed, quite a few decades ago now, showed how featherbed specials were evolving back then. ?
It was called, by its builder, a SNOTWAK - Suzuki Kawasaki Norton based featherbed.
4 cylinder power.
Somewhat vaguely along the lines that Nortons themselves tried in a featherbed in the early 1950s, with a BRM-designed engine.
Only that engine was a dud, and the pounds were not there to develop it.

If folks didn't think they could build a better mousetrap, we'd still all be riding penny farthings.....
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2013
Messages
52
I have to disagree with your 'history'. A Triton was a combination of bits, starting with a featherbed frame and a Triumph engine. The objective was to make a quick, better handling bike, if that includes better carbs and stopping power, so be it.

Plus, you hit the nail on the head of Triton history:

There are things that I'd change if they were mine

:wink:
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2013
Messages
52
Several curators of Tritonic historical accuracy here have referenced proper Tritons of the 50s & 60s; how is the pre-unit slimline pictured not part of the latter decade?
 
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
432
Country flag
I'm definitely not part of any Nazi-Thought Police

But when someone posts photos of bikes on this forum and says that "the bits combined to form the whole are historically accurate", then that's just not a factual statement.

There are bits of both bikes that are incorrect for the period. On the wideline, there's the Commando 2LS brake and the aluminum tail section. On the slimline, there's the Suzuki front brake, Ceriani forks, Mikuni carbs, Works shocks and hydraulic steering damper. And both bikes have the filler cap on the wrong side. So basically, there are plenty of little things that are inaccurate.

Like I said, they're nice bikes, and I'm not talking trash. But at the same time, the facts are the facts, and it's important to preserve accurate history, especially amongst like minded enthusiasts. New members find their way to this forum on a regular basis, so they should be able to look thru and find correct information about the bikes we all love.

A Triton has always been a special built up by an individual, with his own taste. But they come from a certain point in history. So there's nothing wrong with there being period bikes, and then modern built replicas of those originals.

My history is the same as everyone's history. The facts of history during that time frame, are what they are. Why anyone feels like that somehow changes, is beyond me.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Messages
1,132
"The objective was to make a quick, better handling bike, if that includes better carbs and stopping power, so be it."

I thought the objective was to use the leftover featherbed frames that Manx motors had been removed from.? Something about Norton not just selling an engine for mini car racing??
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2013
Messages
52
A Triton has always been a special built up by an individual, with his own taste. But they come from a certain point in history. So there's nothing wrong with there being period bikes, and then modern built replicas of those originals.

OK, this I can accept. Thanks for clarifying.

I can't imagine the backlash if I posted a picture of a Hinckley Bonneville engine in a reproduction featherbed with hydraulic disc brakes and EFI and called it a Triton :twisted:
 
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
432
Country flag
I'm not trying to tear anyone down, or be a pain the butt. To me, we're all sort of custodians for these old bikes, and while we ride and enjoy them, we share info and experiences here on the forum, with like minded enthusiasts. It's a great way to share info on rebuilds, find parts or anything else related to Nortons. But it's also way to sort of build a library of information so that those that come after us, can become custodians of these bikes, learn about their great history and carry on with accurate information. So I think it's good that we debate and outline the facts.

I'll use myself as an example. I have a 1966 Atlas that I rebuilt years ago from a basket case. At the time, finances were limited and the only front brake I could reasonably put on it was from a Commando. None the less, I've ridden it nearly every day and thoroughly enjoyed it. I've also worked on it continuously and rebuilt nearly everything on it. It's got a single Amal MK II carb on it, and that's simply because I'm quite fond of the very rare Sonny Angel manifold I have for it. But in reality, it should have twin Amal Monoblocs. I've yet to post a photo of it simply because it's not accurate. In my mind, it's not what it should be, and I'm honest with myself about it. Luckily, I've acquired an appropriate front brake for it, and along with a few other small bits, I'll be swapping them out over the winter. At that point, it'll be a much more correct representation of a special from the late 1960's. And then other than finding a correct original chain guard, it'll be pretty damn accurate.

So, at the end of the day, it's a damn nice bike, but it's not accurate. And I'll be the first to admit it. The facts are the facts, and I apply them to myself.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
8,216
Fletch said:
I can't imagine the backlash if I posted a picture of a Hinckley Bonneville engine in a reproduction featherbed with hydraulic disc brakes and EFI and called it a Triton :twisted:

One of those was posted here just recently.
2 in fact.

1st one didn't have disk brakes, but was exactly as you said.
Looked about 99% like your Tritons, but with a hotrodded Hinckley in it, probably near 100 bhp.

And the other was something built using a 961 motor in it.
Uber expensive, and quite redundant in some respects, but commented on for its great looks.
If someone sells that design to Mr Garner, we wouldn't be surprised to see it in production ?!
Or him pinch the design, as more often happens in the strange world of motorcycles.

We'll say it again, and keep saying it.
If folks didn't think they could build a better mousetrap, we'd all still be riding penny farthings.
And if time stopped dead, in 1962, why is the clock still ticking....
 
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
432
Country flag
Another fact is that a lot of Norton history did indeed stop in 1962, since AMC came into play, and the Bracebridge St. factory was closed. That's a pretty simple fact. But certainly not the end of the road for Norton. Although it wasn't much more than a decade later that the whole thing was done. So I'd certainly say that Norton history is indeed forever trapped in time. It's history stopped there.

This one is for Rohan since he likes to refer to it so much:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FRuqoTKzl4
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
8,216
AMC had owned Nortons since 1953.
Perhaps we should stop the clock there ?

Nortons came out of Plumstead Rd in 1964 little changed from what came out of Aston Brook St before. ?
Except for the /P after the engine number.
(Bracebridge St was the race shop and admin block , its incorrect to say the road bikes had anything to do with Bracebridge St.)
It was only the race shop in Bracebridge St that actually closed in 1963, the roadbike production simply moved.

And Nortons had moved, 4 ? times previously - it was only the flat tankers that had anything to do with Pa Norton.
So why don't we stop the Norton clock in 1925 ?

I don't have unlimited broadband, you can waste an awful lot of time there, what does the video show.
 
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
420
Country flag
At the end of the day a Triton is the individuals ideal special, built to that individuals taste/talent/expertise/pocket.

For me a "classic" Triton would have a pre unit motor with a Norton gearbox and clutch in a slimline frame and for todays riding a disc brake would be a good idea. As has been said a Triton with a unit motor is just wrong, if nothing else compare a photo of a Manx (preferably) or a Domi, with a unit Triton. The simple fact is that the unit construction crankshaft, and therefore the rest of the motor is too high, and almost certainly too far back.

As far as I'm concerned anything else goes, there is no such thing as a historically correct Triton, apart from a pre unit motor in a featherbed.

The Tritons that are the subject of this thread are both gorgeous, but I really like the pre unit one.
cheers
wakeup
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2013
Messages
52
Thanks for the compliment- I like the individuality of the two bikes, would be silly to have two of the exact same.

but I really like the pre unit one.

^ I am confused
 

Time Warp

.......back to the 70's.
Joined
Dec 3, 2012
Messages
2,806
Fletch said:
^ I am confused

Give it more time and that will be an understatement :lol:
Basically your excellent Triton thread will be run way off topic as it is heading now.

Can I ask,the tachometer drive cover on the pre unit,does it fit nicely to the engine case or is there a misalignment between it and the case at the outer edges (front)
I have one on a 1957 TR6.
 

grandpaul

VIP MEMBER
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
11,729
Country flag
Fletch said:
I can't imagine the backlash if I posted a picture of a Hinckley Bonneville engine in a reproduction featherbed with hydraulic disc brakes and EFI and called it a Triton.

Try sticking "Triton" decals on a modern Hinkley Thruxton with an aluminum tank. Absolutely NO Norton parts on the bike. There's a guy making money with his own TV show that has done this. Maybe you've heard of it? "Café Racer TV"?

"Historically Accurate!"
 

grandpaul

VIP MEMBER
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
11,729
Country flag
I'll throw this in, just an opinion:

I started riding in about '72, Got my license in '74. My older brothers had been riding for a while and there were always plenty of bike magazines around. I don't know if anyone else was affected similarly, but I seem to have my preferences centered on bikes that were all around me at that time. I don't much care for crotch rockets, Tupperware cruisers, and just about all modern bikes and electronic gizzards. I prefer the classic "standard" style, with an engine you can see and tinker with, with carbs.

Along those lines, the Triton I built IS "historically accurate" for ME, and for a 70s Triton (apart from the AGM battery and modern tires).
 
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
432
Country flag
My reference to 1962 was simply in response to Rohan mentioning that year in his comment about why not stop the clock there.
We all know that there were many significant dates / years in Norton history. I think it's widely known that 1962 was one of those years.

I've made my point, which was just a simple correction about the Tritons being pictured, not being 100% historically accurate. A small thing to point out, and simply done for the record as a way for us to all police each other and verify / correct the facts that we state to be true on this forum.

I've also said countless times that the 2 Tritons pictured are fine bikes, and although I would change things on them, that's irrelevant. Fletch certainly likes them as they are, and he rides and enjoys them. I think that's a good enough fact for any of us.

The only thing I've tried to do is to set the record straight as to what the historical facts are for the 2 Tritons that started this post. Pretty simple really. But the fact that some like to pretend that "history continues to be made", and somehow the history that was made yesterday, for instance, is somehow relevant to a motorcycle that existed in the 1950's or 60's, is purely ludicrous. Basically, the terms Triton and Cafe Racer have been misused to the point of being unrecognizable sometimes. And it's simply because it's "cool". Hopefully, the term Street Tracker will become the hip new thing, and the trendy motorcycle hipsters will move along and start to bastardize that instead.
 

grandpaul

VIP MEMBER
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
11,729
Country flag
wilkey113 said:
Hopefully, the term Street Tracker will become the hip new thing, and the trendy motorcycle hipsters will move along and start to bastardize that instead.

"start to"?

Too late.
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2013
Messages
52
The reason I said I was confused is because several folks have said, "I like the pre-unit one best." Both Tritons pictured house Triumph pre-unit 650cc engines . . .
 
Top