When does a Norton Commando become a "Replica"?

comnoz said:

Being the owner of a bike that just kind of looks Norton- ish anymore but no longer has any part that has not been modified or upgraded I must say I have no regrets. I have never build a Norton to be of any value to anyone but myself.

I was rather happy when I entered my bike in the INOA concurs event in Canada some years back, in the modified class. They had real judging where they added points for everything that was not right. I got first place with a perfect zero. They could find nothing that was not modified. Jim

Click to expand...

+1 with Jim here. I "studied" his bike in person, at the INOA "Empire Rally" in New York, drooling the whole time. It does look "Norton-ish" and his mods are all fantastic IMO. Just wish I could do all the stuff he has done, or afford to have him do it. We are fortunate to have such a gifted craftsman and Norton enthusiast ... who contributes so much to this forum, and the "Norton world" in general.

First Norton I ever saw was in circa 1974 ... a Norton Hi-rider with chromed engine covers, 6" over forks, and a "Metalic Brown" color with stock 850 type stickers and pinstripes. 8) I think the color was really like the mid 70's Honda CB500T. (so it must have been a re-paint) It was parked daily in front of Ringle plating Corporation in Celina, Ohio, so I'm guessing the owner worked there. Bought my first Norton in 1982, a 1971 Roadster. Had the intention of making it a "replica" of that Metalic Brown one ... money and time didn't allow it then, but maybe someday ? All a "replica" built by the owner has to please ... is the owner, right ???

pete.v said:

This may be a little general, but if it is on the road today, much of it is probably not original.

Replica is not a good term in this regard. Maybe the question should be "when is a bitsa not a Norton" or "when is a Norton not a Norton" and if it's not, what is it. I think term "replica" might be applicable to models as in a Fastback replica, or an Interstate replica or swooshdaves PR replica. Maybe this is the authors intent.

Click to expand...

Actually, I still stand by my original thread title, but to elaborate.... "When does a Norton Commando become a 'Replica' of a Norton Commando?" I understand that most people would take the word replica to mean a "Special" or a famous race bike, but in this case it merely describes a specific model Norton.

dennisgb said:

Methods of producing 3D models of parts have been around since the early 80's with 3D Systems Inc. one of the early pioneers in the technology of stereolithography (SLA) which is still in use. 3D printing is a further evolution of the process. I have been involved in new product development since the early 70's, and with the advent of CAD and eventually Solids Modeling combined with CAM software, the evolution into modeling parts using the combination of CAD/CAM came out of the metal fabrication methods of the time (CNC, EDM and others).

There are still issues with resolution when producing parts with printing methods due to the material layering method along with variation in materials and controls. In the early days it was not hard to see the potential for manufacturing, but without secondary operations most mechanical parts made by investment casting or other methods to convert to metal are lacking in terms of tolerance and finish. The process to build the parts is realitively slow when compared to other methods for producing casting cores as well. This makes it difficult to compete with conventional production methods on most parts although for jewery and some medical and dental devices it can be more cost effective.

The real advantage has been the ability to model prototypes quickly for testing and refinement. In cases where a part can not be produced due to shape factor or some other reason, the process may be the only way to produce a given part.

Not sure that the "change the world" view of 3D printing is real in terms of manufacturing. It is a very valuable tool for product development and changed the way we design and prototype parts, but for manufactrring probably not as big as the hype.

Just a side note...there are methods for printing metal and ceramic using powered metal and sintering:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7ZYKMBDm4M

http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/vi ... ting+metal

Click to expand...

Dennis, very interesting info on 3D printing and sounds like you have a fair amount of experience with it. It sounds like the technology isn't too advanced at this time for rapid mfg. of complex and precision parts from various materials. The article I read said there were primarily three different players that make up the complete process: the manufacturer of the printing machine, the software developer, and the supplier of the raw materials for which the item being "constructed" is made from. As I remember, they suggested the companies taking a lead in these areas are based in the EU.

Larso1 said:

Dennis, very interesting info on 3D printing and sounds like you have a fair amount of experience with it. It sounds like the technology isn't too advanced at this time for rapid mfg. of complex and precision parts from various materials. The article I read said there were primarily three different players that make up the complete process: the manufacturer of the printing machine, the software developer, and the supplier of the raw materials for which the item being "constructed" is made from. As I remember, they suggested the companies taking a lead in these areas are based in the EU.

Click to expand...

I've been involved in this area for most of my life. Worked with MIT in the 80's when they were using modified HP ink jet printers to try and make parts...it was very exciting as things improved and we started actually making parts. Modeling new 3 dimensional products in the old days was done by hand. Carving from a block of wood or plastic...to be able to make 3D parts with a machine was huge. In the early days we would send our computer models to the printer and wait for the part to build...took hours and on complex parts a day or more to build them. Very few materials back then. Most systems used light curing materials with lasers and the material was very brittle. We used to go nuts when we showed a part to management and they broke it

This is another reason that additive manufacturing is still too costly. Even today the materials are much more expensive than conventional manufacturing materials. The available plastics are very expensive. Sintering powder is up to 60 times more expensive than raw steel. But in some applications it does make sense such as dental braces where an 3D image can be made of the mouth and braces designed on the computer and fed to the printer then sintered. Faster and better fit than the old hand build method. There are some common braces that can still be made by machining or metal injection molding much cheaper though.

It's not far off, but in volume manufacturing situations probably will be a while before it's competitive. Even with the major players touting better precision the truth is the resolution is not very good in terms of precision.

There is no question that the process has opened opportunities to do things that could not have been done before and that is a good thing.

The advent of portable benchtop machines at low cost have brought more people into the 3D printing world and new applications and advancements should come form that.

nortriubuell said:

First Norton I ever saw was in circa 1974 ... a Norton Hi-rider with chromed engine covers, 6" over forks, and a "Metalic Brown" color with stock 850 type stickers and pinstripes. 8) I think the color was really like the mid 70's Honda CB500T. (so it must have been a re-paint) It was parked daily in front of Ringle plating Corporation in Celina, Ohio, so I'm guessing the owner worked there. Bought my first Norton in 1982, a 1971 Roadster. Had the intention of making it a "replica" of that Metalic Brown one ... money and time didn't allow it then, but maybe someday ? All a "replica" built by the owner has to please ... is the owner, right ???

Click to expand...

I hope you don't plan to replicate those 6" over forks though. The low end torque of the Norton will throw you off that slanted back seat

chasbmw said:

As far as I'm concerned anything that makes my 42 year old Norton, more useable and reliable is a bonus, it means that the bike will get used a reasonable amount.....going home on the back of a truck gets boring very quickly.

Click to expand...

I just changed the front tire on my '74. On its side, it was labeled "Made in Great Britain". Yes, it was the original tire. An Avon now resides in its place. Is the bike no longer original? How about spark plugs? Chain? I went through this same mess with classic Mopars. The whole thing was coming across a "barn find" that could be used as a reference; correct-dated plug wires, belts, hoses, ad nauseam.
Keeping in mind that the Norton only came in a very limited amount of models, it's not hard to document what should and should not be. Sure, keep the original parts if you think it will help with the resale value. But, like Chasbmw says, they're a lot more fun to ride when you feel better about getting home under your own power.
Nathan

Larso1 said:

Actually, I still stand by my original thread title, but to elaborate.... "When does a Norton Commando become a 'Replica' of a Norton Commando?" I understand that most people would take the word replica to mean a "Special" or a famous race bike, but in this case it merely describes a specific model Norton.

Click to expand...

If you purchased every new item stocked by Andover Norton (who go back to the correct time period) used an original fuel tank,wheel hubs and a Fullauto head what would it be ?
90 % of Commando owners would not be able to pick it from an original bike even if deemed a replica.
That is the difference with the Commando.

Time Warp said:

If you purchased every new item stocked by Andover Norton (who go back to the correct time period) used an original fuel tank,wheel hubs and a Fullauto head what would it be ?

Click to expand...

umm, I give up? :?

I realize now there is no answer. Virtually every Commando is a "custom"...... some just a lot more than others. Nobody has an answer as to how much non-Norton content constitutes a replica, or a near-Commando, or a Bitsa, or whatever. It's all too subjective. Only the re-sale market will dictate what each is worth relative to a totally stock bike.... or something. :lol:

Larso1 said:

Time Warp said:

If you purchased every new item stocked by Andover Norton (who go back to the correct time period) used an original fuel tank,wheel hubs and a Fullauto head what would it be ?

Click to expand...

umm, I give up? :?

I realize now there is no answer. Virtually every Commando is a "custom"...... some just a lot more than others. Nobody has an answer as to how much non-Norton content constitutes a replica, or a near-Commando, or a Bitsa, or whatever. It's all too subjective. Only the re-sale market will dictate what each is worth relative to a totally stock bike.... or something. :lol:

Click to expand...

The catch is a replica is just that.
In the case of the Commando it can be duplicated down to the last detail thanks to Andover Norton.
What other motorcycle has that distinction.

If you take a dead stock Commando and fit a 18 inch rear rim kit,electronic ignition,Amal Premiers etc etc it is still a Commando.
A stock Commando with billet engine cases is still a Commando.
If you fit Kawasaki forks and wheels it still looks like a Commando.
If you fit a Commando engine to any other Norton rolling chassis it is not a Commando.

Once you start changing a bike visually for personal taste is when opinion/judgement comes into it.
One persons nirvana can be cringe worthy to others.

I wonder if Andover Norton will ever offer a complete brand new 1974 Commando.
Would it be a replica or not.

That again is where that model differs,what other 40 year old motorcycle can be produced off the shelf by what may be deemed original supplier.

Time Warp said:

[
I wonder if Andover Norton will ever offer a complete brand new 1974 Commando.
Would it be a replica or not.

Click to expand...

I believe they do and so does OldBritts.

Seems to me the only time a Norton is not a replica is when it came out the dealers door. I guess mine's a replica, but WGAF. How many angels dance on the head of a pin? Where is ET?

Larso1 said:

I guess my question is, how much of the DNA (original parts) in a stock Norton can you remove and replace with modern designs and materials before it is no longer "a Norton"? Or is it always "a Norton" because it's all fitted onto a original isolastic frame....or not? :?

Click to expand...

I think that just because a bike might use some aftermarket parts (or a complete clone---so many wonderful choices these days) it's still a Norton, kinda like what Madass140 was saying about Harley Clone bikes they're still Harley because of the basic design, so a Norton clone would still be a Norton to me because of the basic design---featherbed, seeley, rickman or isolastic frame etc...

pete.v said:

This may be a little general, but if it is on the road today, much of it is probably not original.

Click to expand...

Not so out in my garage. I have a half-dozen modified/custom builds, the rest (15 or so) are totally stock with the exception of some tires, grips, cables and maybe the odd nut or bolt that was replaced.

That represents 75% of my bikes...

grandpaul said:

pete.v said:

This may be a little general, but if it is on the road today, much of it is probably not original.

Click to expand...

Not so out in my garage. I have a half-dozen modified/custom builds, the rest (15 or so) are totally stock with the exception of some tires, grips, cables and maybe the odd nut or bolt that was replaced.

That represents 75% of my bikes...

Click to expand...

Key words here "general" and "probably" not "absolutely" or "positively". I am learning to word my posts carefully for just such occasions.
Paul, I never saw you as one of the many hair splitters around here.

I'm not a hair-splitter because I have everything from rolling basket cases to one-off builds, to resto-mods, to originals. I like 'em all and don't begrudge anybody what they want to do with their bike(s).

Now, that doesn't mean I like "brat" bikes, exhaust wrap, or crotch rockets with tails 5' in the air...

...but I'm not going to criticize their owners, either.

In the car world, painting and badging a '69 Camaro to look like a Z-28 would be considered a replica, like turning a Belvedere into Roadrunner. Passing it off and selling it as original, well that's considered fraud.
In my mind the only comparables in the Commando world would be hanging JPN body work on a Roadster or something like that. Making it look like a JPN is making a replica. Selling it as an original would be different.
Since changing back and forth between Interstates and Roadsters are an easy swap, I don't think it counts as making a replica.

Does that make sense?

cjandme said:

Larso1 said:

I guess my question is, how much of the DNA (original parts) in a stock Norton can you remove and replace with modern designs and materials before it is no longer "a Norton"? Or is it always "a Norton" because it's all fitted onto a original isolastic frame....or not? :?

Click to expand...

I think that just because a bike might use some aftermarket parts (or a complete clone---so many wonderful choices these days) it's still a Norton, kinda like what Madass140 was saying about Harley Clone bikes they're still Harley because of the basic design, so a Norton clone would still be a Norton to me because of the basic design---featherbed, seeley, rickman or isolastic frame etc...

Click to expand...

I'm now surmising that the reason Nortons, Commandos in particular, seem to be the objects of unrestrained performance modifications by their owners is that they were always considered to be "hot rods" back in the day, since they were the quickest bike you could buy for several years. The hot rod image was burned into the consciousness of anyone who was interested in bikes from back then. I talk to any baby boomer and they know the legend even if they had never owned a bike. That mod "movement" then fed into the performance aftermarket, and the ball keeps rolling.

On the other hand, in my small world, I almost NEVER see an obviously modified '60's to '70's Triumph Bonneville or BSA Lightning or RE Interceptor; specials like Seeley and Rickman and Triton notwithstanding. Oh I'm sure they must be out there but I just don't see them. Those other marques I see look like they just rolled off the showroom floor, equipment-wise. I am suspecting the owners' thought is: "What's the point in modifying my bike when I know I'll just be spanked by a Commando anyway..." :lol: jus' sayin'

Larso1 said:

Those other marques I see look like they just rolled off the showroom floor, equipment-wise. I am suspecting the owners' thought is: "What's the point in modifying my bike when I know I'll just be spanked by a Commando anyway..." :lol: jus' sayin'

Click to expand...

I'm thinking this line needs to be place in the archives as one of the best ever...sums it up pretty well Actually the whole post was pretty good but I love this line the best.

I would think as long as major components are still intact, frame, engine ,trans, forks etc. it is still a Norton.
Its only original once. My bike is fairly original but some changes were made to keep it on the road.
There are some things I will change back, and some I will keep. I want to get it running and back on the road first.
It will then slowly change back to what it was. I would like to keep it vintage.
MikeM

Larso1 said:

cjandme said:

Larso1 said:

I guess my question is, how much of the DNA (original parts) in a stock Norton can you remove and replace with modern designs and materials before it is no longer "a Norton"? Or is it always "a Norton" because it's all fitted onto a original isolastic frame....or not? :?

Click to expand...

I think that just because a bike might use some aftermarket parts (or a complete clone---so many wonderful choices these days) it's still a Norton, kinda like what Madass140 was saying about Harley Clone bikes they're still Harley because of the basic design, so a Norton clone would still be a Norton to me because of the basic design---featherbed, seeley, rickman or isolastic frame etc...

Click to expand...

I'm now surmising that the reason Nortons, Commandos in particular, seem to be the objects of unrestrained performance modifications by their owners is that they were always considered to be "hot rods" back in the day, since they were the quickest bike you could buy for several years. The hot rod image was burned into the consciousness of anyone who was interested in bikes from back then. I talk to any baby boomer and they know the legend even if they had never owned a bike. That mod "movement" then fed into the performance aftermarket, and the ball keeps rollin

Click to expand...

I wish that was true, but unfortunatly Nortons staright out of the crate were so bloody unreliable (especially if you used that performance) that you had to modify them to keep them on the road.