1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

USA 961 Sales.. (2011)

Discussion in 'Norton Motorcycles (Modern)' started by jeffdavison, Nov 9, 2011.

  1. JimC

    JimC

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Unless someone steps up with some real money, quick, I'm afraid the new Norton is doomed. We are talking hundreds of millions here. I doubt the numbers would justify any prudent investor to part with his or her money. Build to order may have some interest, a'la CNW, but as a manufacture, no way. Not the way Norton is currently structured.
     
  2. grandpaul

    grandpaul VIP MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Hundreds of millions to save a company that was bought (supposedly) only 10 million short of producing product?

    Sounds like a golden opportunity for the U.S. government!
     
  3. JimC

    JimC

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    So what's your estimate to reach production, establish a dealer network, adequate replacement parts stock, advertising and what ever else? I'm saying if you got the current company for zero dollars it would take one hundred, maybe two hundred million to make it go.
     
  4. L.A.B.

    L.A.B. Moderator VIP MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004


    This is reasonably normal retail practice-and it isn't greed it's just simple economics - low turnover goods generally have higher profit margins and the 961 was always intended to be a more exclusive (therefore more expensive) low-volume production (at least for the forseeable future) hand-built motorcycle. As sales turnover will be considerably less than for other mass-produced machines Norton dealers would need to make a decent profit on each sale otherwise it wouldn't be worth their time and trouble selling them and yes-they are in business to make a profit-they do not exist merely to pass on motorcycles at around its cost price to needy souls for the sheer love of it although perhaps it would be nice if they did but they wouldn't remain in business for very long.
     
  5. JimC

    JimC

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007

    I totally agree, but its either totally stupid or totally arrogant, in this case, I suspect both, to put out a statement to the public that dealers' profit will be high.
     
  6. lcrken

    lcrken VIP MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Why would you take it that I believe him? I just thought it was another take on the situation, and might be of interest to readers on this thread.

    Ken
     
  7. L.A.B.

    L.A.B. Moderator VIP MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Where does it say that?
     
  8. JimC

    JimC

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Here's the direct quoted from Stuart Garner: "We don't seek to produce the volumes of the larger European manufacturers. Our growth plan, infrastructure are calculated to make sure we remain flexible, profitable and able to scale ourselves with the market. Rather than trying to push the market, we want to react to the market. That's the fundamental difference. We're not going to be leaders in absolute volume, we will be leaders in the contribution to our dealer's bottom line."

    L.A. B. in answer to your question, "Where does it say that?". Maybe I mistook Garner's statement as to mean high profit for the dealer. What's your take?
     
  9. L.A.B.

    L.A.B. Moderator VIP MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004

    I think perhaps people are overlooking the fact that the 'Dealernews' article is basically a sales-pitch made by Norton aimed at potential dealers to get them interested in taking on a Norton dealership-so it's probably intended to sound like "a good deal".
     
  10. grandpaul

    grandpaul VIP MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Garner's statement is illogical.

    Logic would dictate that Nortons are sold through a network of well-established dealers.
    Well-established dealers feed thier bottom line with steady volume.
    Garner clearly indicates they will not be volume producers.
    Thus, profits from selling limited quantities of Nortons will not be a leading contribution to a dealer's bottom line.

    What his statement is, is a lot of business-speak that isn't going to sell too many dealers until Norton fulfills thier current obligations and is still in production.

    Many people misunderstand my core sentiment on this subject: I WANT NORTON TO SUCCEED. I just haven't seen any positive steps "on this side of the pond", and the fact-based rumors aren't helping them at the moment. I hope they continue NOT stating "projected shipping dates", that's the only good thing they've done lately.
     
  11. L.A.B.

    L.A.B. Moderator VIP MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    But that statement (along with all the other quotes in the Dealernews article) appears to have been made by Dan Van Epps-not Stuart Garner?
     
  12. ZFD

    ZFD

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    No, LAB, you are correct. However, the statements were made by the US speaker of the company, so it is probably fair to assume the statement reflects the opinion inside the company which looks, for outsiders, as Garner's private company, hence such statements are seen as his opinion.
    The real contradiction is that there are statements out there that dealers and importers are flocking to become part of the new setup. If this is so, why the recruitment pitch?
     
  13. john robert bould

    john robert bould

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Bleedin Heck Jim :!: 100 million :?: They looked happy with Vince Cable's 300 plus grand [well santandar] and spoke of expansion, If Norton do require 100 million, it would take many many years to repay it. Perhaps they should approach John Bloor and use his expert staff :?:
     
  14. L.A.B.

    L.A.B. Moderator VIP MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    I didn't think it would be very long before somebody put forward that viewpoint.




    I presume it was Mr Van Epps doing what he's paid to do-which was promote the company's image and paint a glowing picture for the benefit of any prospective dealers.
    If people actually bothered to read the article then it all seems rather innocuous and nothing to get excited about in my opinion.
     
  15. ZFD

    ZFD

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Well, it didn't excite me enough to flock for one thing!
     
  16. VintAge

    VintAge VIP MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Of course, it didn't hurt that Bloor's one of the richest men in the country and injected what, 80 to 100 million pounds, just to get Triumph to the point where it was poised to be successful 15 years ago. Once he abandoned the modular idea (poor Hopwood must have spun in his grave) and stopped trying to make a Japanese 4, his company started making competitive and desirable machines. - especially the Speed Triple. Doesn't look anything like the twins I rode in the 60's but a fine bike in its own right. And, as an extension of a well thought out progression of models, as much a Triumph as any other.

    The 961 is in the same boat - by extension it's a Norton. The company even mimics Norton's small size compared to the giant competitors it faced in years past - including Triumph. But it can't make it past cottage industry if it's going to hand build real expensive bikes which are only techno-mods of the originals. Park one alongside a black and gold 70's Roadster and IMHO the 961 comes off second best. Then take the same money needed to purchase one (if you can) and mod an original Commando to your heart's content with today's technology and compare the results, including ride and resale.

    Now a devil's advocate would say: get mean and compare it to a new Triumph. (This, of course, is unfair). But a twin shock, 80 claimed HP, 414 pound dry, naked cafe racer for $18K? I agree with those who said ride a modern Thruxton for half the price and a dealer network or look farther from the cafe mold and ride a new Street Triple - thoroughly modern and smile-inducing in every way (well, maybe not the original seat!), 105 claimed HP from 675cc, 370 pounds dry, naked roadster, and a sound and 6 speed ratios to die for (yes, I own one). And all that for half price and it's a product of the English Motorcycle Industry. I'll admit to the worst: for a quick go-get-something ride, I look lovingly at the Commando for a spell and then hop on the no fuss-no muss ST. Hey, I don't even have to move the oil back to where it belongs.

    I hope there are enough well-off people who will look past all the obvious reasons not to buy one and do it anyway. I'd love to see Norton make it back too.
     
  17. Matt Spencer

    Matt Spencer

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    If you look where Norton were internationally in the 50s , as defineing what Norton was tecnologically and ancestrally.
    Much the same as Bently was in the 30s , you can understand their genetics .
    The new Triumphs took a decade or more to evolve into a integrated homogonous machine .Hence ' Development ' .

    If a few off the new Nortons were in the hands of track merchants , it would engender similar kudos .Though thats
    where Id have started with the development machines . Race Proven .

    Putting some in a few of the Endurance Races would indeed put there capeabilities in the Pubic Face .

    Though , like the new Thunderbird isnt , Id have built a LeMans contender and devolved it to a road machine
    for production .
    Not sure if the current approach is passing baubles & trinklets to the heedy . :?
     
  18. JimC

    JimC

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Now, if it took Triumph as much as $165 million some fifteen years ago, why do some of you think Norton can do it for much less today? Here, in the U.S., we went through two economic bubbles, the dot com and housing bubbles, during Trimuph's developing years, which no doubt helped Triumph sales considerably. Given today's economic climate and Norton's lack of money, I'd say Norton has a much less chance of survival. I'm not in anyway hoping for Norton to fail, just being realistic.
     
  19. john robert bould

    john robert bould

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Good job John Bloor began copying Hondas, those early Tridents where rubbish, tall ,heavey,clattery engines!
    and yes i had one!
     
  20. grandpaul

    grandpaul VIP MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    I, for one, wasn't saying that.

    I was referring to needing ANOTHER 100 million, above and beyond what they've ALREADY spent.
     

Share This Page