What is it about the Norton that gets you hook, line and sinker?

BritTwit said:
If the suspension is not comfortable ....
Click to expand...
My suspension is at the factory 'firm' setting and makes for a different ride than on the 961. The 'clip-ons' on the Thrux are raised by about 4cm which should make for a much more relaxed ride but not so, I actually get far more feedback from the road surface which is harsher than the vibration on the 961. I will explore changing my front/rear shock settings in line with your suggestions.
 
Its definitely not about the numbers. We're all different, but I didn't even like sitting on the Thruxton. I simply felt too high. Wrong body position for me. I hit 128 with the Norton with room to spare. If that's not quick enough on a public road at my age, I'm gonna have some big problems. Besides, look at the bike sitting next to my Norton. Get the picture?
 
BritTwit said:
Not to worry.

I liked the Thrux from the day I set eyes on it back in 2015. Triumph did a great job on it both from an engineering, and aesthetic perspective. I do prefer the standard Thrux with RWU forks and gaiters though. I’m still considering buying one. The bike’s only visual flaw is the front mounted radiator.
Be careful what you wish for. Real classics like the 750/850 Nortons have a way of consuming all of your free time in constant upgrade/maintenance/repair/leak hunting cycles. Modern classics like the 961 and Hinckley Triumphs provide the fun of a modern classic, without much of the frustration of the real classics.
Click to expand...

I have the 1200 Thruxton S with fairing etc and the radiador looks good to me same as the AC Thruxton with the oil cooler mounted on the front.

Well I have owned my 850 Norton for over 43 years now converted it to a Featherbed frame in the early 80s and it has never leaked a drop of oil in all that time, is very reliable, I only do its normal maintenance, of course things do wear out but lets see any new bikes today last as long without replacing things.
But isn't that what its all about riding and mucking around with our bikes whether new or old its all about looking after them we can't just keep riding them and not do any work on them, how long will they last if we did nothing to them but ride them.

Ashley
 
Interesting thread, for sure. I'll come back here with my perception after I put a bunch more miles on my 961. But that's the just the thing. I've owned mine for 2 1/2 years and have only managed to accumulate about 2000 miles. Reliability does stand for something, doesn't it?
 
Look , Sound , Feel , Good Handling , History , and Pride of Ownership . This sums it up for me . The spectacle of three , shorty piped 961's rumbling through Niagara Falls CN was awesome ! Can you imagine if there would have been six or nine of us ?? We could have charged admission fees !!
 
Last edited:
Riding with Sir Richard of Kent and Sir Fred of Glendale, I'd try to hold the rpm about the same and go slightly off to hear those oscillating sound waves. Harmonious
 
worntorn said:
We put the Thrux R and a 2014 Ac 865 on the scales.
The Thruxton R is 52 lbs lighter according to my scales. The bike handles.
109 mph TT lap. Let me repeat, 109 mphTT lap on a bike with blinkers and a license plate. Steve Parrish thinks there is more to come with higher gearing. He was on the Rev limiter at 140 mph on the straights when Cam Donald came by on a 4 cylinder Honda works racer. Steve caught him thru the corners.
So it does handle.
I think you will find it is also about 40- 50 lbs lighter than a 961.
And a whole lot quicker, if you put them side by side. A lot more power, less weight.

Just setting it straight.

Its not all about the numbers tho.
I get as much enjoyment from my old 850 as anything. Nigel says it has 40 HP at best!
I dunno, I like it as much as any bike..

So I get the enjoyment you are receiving from your 961s, when they work properly.


Carry on!

Glen
Click to expand...


From Chris Dolan on NOC UK :

Weighed mine, today, with full tank and got 515 Lbs, so close enough.

Triumph 1200 Thruxton came in at 491 on the same scale.

so 24 lbs not 40 or 50 lbs.
 
Tony it was Cycle World that weighed the two bikes as shipped from factory and got a substantial difference
The main shocker was that the Norton did not come anywhere close to its claimed weight of 415 dry.
Triumph claims 448 dry so 491 with fuel, oil and coolant seems reasonable.
One big weight item is the cat.
Did both bikes have factory exhaust or had changes been made?
I have a cat delete for the Triumph, it knocks off several pounds. There's more weight yet to drop on the silencers.
The R is also a few pounds lighter than the standard Thruxton 1200, if that was what was being weighed.

If the actual difference is 24 pounds, how is it that the Norton , which is listed as 33 pounds lighter than the Triumph is actually 24 pounds heavier? Doesn't seem right.

Glen
 
Last edited:
May be it was weighed with CF wheels instead of the standard wheels? Gives surely some pounds of difference...
 
We've got a minimum of 57 pounds discrepancy.
I don't think cf wheels will account for that.

I think motorcycle manufacturers fib about the weight number. They are all a bit guilty of this.
Ive read that some will , in addition to fluids, deduct battery weight plus tires, chains and sprockets to come up with a truly low dry weight.
Dry weight is then explained as bike curb weight minus consumables.


Glen
 
Last edited:
Norton later came up with a revised DRY WEIGHT which was 205kg . I no longer see any weight listed on the website. I think both power plant and frame are heavier on the Norton 961 than on Thruxton 1200. Simon Skinner said they wanted to make it robust .
 
On the subject of the brand hooking you, I have found a new tipple, £7.49 from Waitrose

What is it about the Norton that gets you hook, line and sinker?
 
Britfan60 said:
Well steel bits ARE heavier than plastic bits.:cool:
Click to expand...

That's why people seem to love cf plastic.

The " My bike is made out of Steel" thing is what the Harley crowd brags about. I guess there is a lot of steel in a Harley, but it's nothing to brag about, it just adds tonnage.

Build it out of anything, so long as it goes good, handles, and endures.
Example, Thrux R has an alloy swing arm.
This is a more expensive choice than steel (961)but saves weight while still giving rigidity.
 
Last edited:
TonyA said:
Norton later came up with a revised DRY WEIGHT which was 205kg . I no longer see any weight listed on the website. I think both power plant and frame are heavier on the Norton 961 than on Thruxton 1200. Simon Skinner said they wanted to make it robust .
Click to expand...

Tony 205 kgs dry is a lot closer to actual weight. That's 460 lbs.
I don't think you can stuff 55 lbs of fluids in but they arent so far off
Small fib rather than big fib:)
They all do it, SportRider publication catches the big four constantly.
 
TonyA said:
I think both power plant and frame are heavier on the Norton 961 than on Thruxton 1200. Simon Skinner said they wanted to make it robust .
Click to expand...

That is what Dreer was shooting for in the 952/961.
A super strong engine case to eliminate the type of failures that the 750/850's were prone to.
I said it before, the cases are built like a brick S**thouse, and consequently are heavy.
The impact of all that mass down low is that the bike has a really low center of gravity, and great handling manners.
I don't wish it on anyone, but If you ever drop your 961, you'll be surprised have little effort it takes to lift it back up.
Don't ask how I know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top