Trouble at Mill

mikegray660 said:
well if it was on cafe racer its gotta be true :roll:
Snorton74 said:
I couldn't agree more Matt. But I did see it hit 112 on Cafe Racer. Might have been 106, not sure, but was over the ton anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
[

Your right. Was probably just camera tricks. I watched it like two years ago, when I still had hope for the new 'N'.
 
Not all british designs were a notable success.

Trouble at Mill


even the British Museum site aint quite there , saying F'bed , where appears to be AMC H Wt chassis . ?

Trouble at Mill


If you chaps will give this a quick valve grind , I will be back after lunch .

Trouble at Mill
 
Little did they realise it ? :? They probably could have grabbed the manufactureing rights to the BRITTEN for tuppance,
commercially speaking .

Heres a modern , up to date contempory.

Trouble at Mill


1929 A.J.S. 990 c.c.

Trouble at Mill


but we'
ll be giveing the game away next . . .

Then theres the mighty Morris Minor . On release , theyd got one to do 100 mph & 100 mpg , not simulteaneously though .
Apparently the advertiseing didnt entirely make that clear .
 
100% well put! This era of New "Norton" ownership is a farce
Garner is constructing a new bike with a Norton badge, i bet the guy is into fly fishing....sticks a couple of mayfly wings on a hook..and the fish come biting!
Its all sales hype and bull ,when will people wake up! If they want a NORTON they buy a original well sorted Commando for 1/2 the money..no waiting.
As they say "up North" " Nowt as odd as folk"

pvisseriii said:
I don't get it. What is the deal with this bike. Other than being new, a retro paint scheme and some resemblance of an old exhaust that really does not functionally apply, I see nothing special about this bike. All the componants are totally common and a power to weight ratio that is rather substandard. I expect it to handle as well as any Honda 750-4. Even their TT race bikes are Aprilia's.

Is it that "exclusive" or the "unattainability" that is so mysterously giving this bike appeal?

I would be better off buying one of a dozen comparable units with much better performance, reputable sales, not cost as much, and oh, attainable. Then I'll go get a set of Norton letters and basically have something that is just as much Norton as this thing is but maybe only better.

Let the bike die before it kills the Name.

They would have been better off calling it the Garner. What's the diff.
Click to expand...
 
If they want a NORTON they buy a original well sorted Commando for 1/2 the money..no waiting.
Click to expand...

Same could be said for Triumph. I wouldn't expect the new Norton to be same as the old. I would just expect it. To be delivered, that is.
 
JimC said:
If they want a NORTON they buy a original well sorted Commando for 1/2 the money..no waiting.
Click to expand...

Same could be said for Triumph. I wouldn't expect the new Norton to be same as the old. I would just expect it. To be delivered, that is.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you're saying the new Triumphs are all a big mistake? Or what am I missing? Triumph is, in my opinion, one of the more illustrious success stories of the last few decades (in the motorcycling community, anyway).
 
I think you misread my post. Exactly, Triumph is a success. " If they want a NORTON they buy a original well sorted Commando for 1/2 the money..no waiting.", was a quote from John Bould's post. I suspect if John Bloor were the Norton owner, rather than Stuart Garner, we'd be able to go to a local dealer and purchase a new high performance Norton.
 
Yes, I agree completely. Bloor had the correct long-term forward view, proper funding in reserve, realistic, believable business & marketing plan, and solid design, machining & production logistics before ever setting tool to material.

Hence, Triumph's unparalleled success.
 
It's good to hear from someone who gets it. I'm growing weary of the Garner supporters who say Norton's problems stem from the difficulty of passing EPA regulations and nebulous vendettas by industry insiders. These are the same hurdles John Bloor faced with the new Triumph. Bloor conquered his problems with a good business plan and proper financing. Garner is trying to clear these hurdles by soliciting deposits.

If I'm correct, Stuart Garner is pedaling a form of a Ponzi scheme and will bring untold damage to the Norton brand.
 
JimC said:
If I'm correct, Stuart Garner is pedaling a form of a Ponzi scheme and will bring untold damage to the Norton brand.
Click to expand...

Ponzi Scheme?? Perhaps. It's surely not a very good business model.

I'm not sure about damaging the Norton name though. I have a "new" triumph Bonneville and have never considered really a part of the classic triumph brand. Sure it's the same name, but it's completely different. Same thing with Indian. The new ones came out and I really didn't associate it with the classic Indians.

Now Royal Enfield might be a different story. Seeing the crap that india is putting out makes me look twice when I see a Royal E on the road. ;-)
 
Johnny, the damage I'm referring to would be a lot of depositors left with no Nortons and no money if Garner declares bankruptcy.
 
JimC said:
Johnny, the damage I'm referring to would be a lot of depositors left with no Nortons and no money if Garner declares bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

Then yes, that would be horrible. I can't imagine how mad I would be. -Not to mention the enteral sh*t that I would get from my wife!! :shock:
 
-Not to mention the enteral sh*t that I would get from my wife!! :shock:[/quote]

LOL I get that even though!! :(
 
JimC said:
I'm growing weary of the Garner supporters who say Norton's problems stem from the difficulty of passing EPA regulations and nebulous vendettas by industry insiders.
These are the same hurdles John Bloor faced with the new Triumph. Bloor conquered his problems with a good business plan and proper financing. Garner is trying to clear these hurdles by soliciting deposits.

If I'm correct, Stuart Garner is pedaling a form of a Ponzi scheme and will bring untold damage to the Norton brand.
Click to expand...


-As others are probably growing tired of you continually repeating yourself over and over.

That's the fourth post where you've mentioned Ponzi scheme,-yes, OK we get it. :roll:

But there wouldn't be any: "Norton (motorcycle) brand" if it weren't for Garner!
 
JimC said:
Matt,

Your post got me to thinking. A large part of the original Norton's cache was it's performance. In it's heyday it ruled the roost. The new Norton is probably one of the slower over 500 cc bikes being produced. Hadn't really thought of it in those terms before. When I saw all those teens and twenty somethings trade their GSXers for the BMW S1000RR, only to have horsepower bragging rights, I knew the younger buyer has little or no brand loyalty. This being the case, are there enough nostalgic motorcycle buyers with the required $20,000 to sustain a motorcycle manufacturer such as Norton? I am more inclined to see the viability of what CNW, as well as members comnoz and fullauto, and the many others I fail to recall, are doing with the original Norton. Improving upon the original.
Click to expand...

You lost me here. Its impossible to hide your glee at discovering yet another way that Norton could fail, even after agreeing that the bikes are highly desirable to most of us old farts with a bit of spare cash.
They might make it, they might not, but why do you seem to desperately want them to fail? Just to be proven correct?

Glen
 
L.A.B. said:
-As others are probably growing tired of you continually repeating yourself over and over.

That's the fourth post where you've mentioned Ponzi scheme,-yes, OK we get it. :roll:
Click to expand...

Some of us were tired of it the 1st time he said it.
There is no suggestion that Mr Garner is doing anything fraudulent ?

A good business plan it may be not, but Nortons have operated along similar lines for most of the last century ? (hovering near bankruptcy that is). ~Ten financial restructures in 100+ years does not exactly show a sound financial position or stable business plan.

The press, and gov't, are still mostly still supportive of keeping the Norton name going...
 
You'll probably soon hear Ponzi scheme and Garner from a lot more other than me. Why is it that some of you seem to be mired in wishful thinking? Does taking deposits and not delivering per contract strike you as a good business model or a Ponzi scheme? What's with you, L.A.B., got a deposit on an undelivered Norton or what?
 
What is it with you and this ponzi %^%$ - get burned somewhere ??
Got any proof WHATSOEVER that anything underhanded is going on?

In a past life, worked for a computer co that took deposits on computers that were impossibly hard to get = severely rationed. Placing a deposit got you in the queue. Don't recall any complaints, except 'when are they coming'. Eventually delivered.
Totally obsolete in 2 years, but that computers for ya...
 
Jim, that is some serious Schadenfreude you've got going on there.The Germans were honest enough (and experienced the sensation often enough) that they gave it a name.

In the English speaking part of the world, we dont really have a name for getting a good feeling from seeing the misery or misfortune of others, we generally know it's a bad karma thing to do. The one possible phrase that comes to mind is "morose delectation" ......and Ponzi Ponzi Ponzi of course! :)

Glen
 
You lost me here. Its impossible to hide your glee at discovering yet another way that Norton could fail, even after agreeing that the bikes are highly desirable to most of us old farts with a bit of spare cash.
They might make it, they might not, but why do you seem to desperately want them to fail? Just to be proven correct?
Click to expand...

Where have I ever said I want the new Norton to fail? NEVER! I have a tendency to believe the numerous testimonies from customers who have had to retain a lawyer to get their (some) money back from deposits of undelivered bikes. I have a tendency to believe that when vendors stop delivery due to nonpayment it indicates real trouble. I have a tendency to believe that when top level employees resign, stating they don't think the company will survive, it's a pretty good indicator the company's in serious trouble. I have a tendency to believe that when major industry news publications print articles pointing out serious problems, the company may not be on the right track. Others of you choose to believe the PR from said company as opposed to the things I stated.

How many of you Garner supporters would be willing to put up a large deposit for a new Norton? And I don't want to hear,"If I had the money....."? I'm talking real money here and putting it on the line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top