Why Norton, Why Bother!

I found this blog article to be an interesting read:

Why Norton, Why Bother!
By Phil Pilgrim on September 24, 2020

"...was the Norton a better product, cheaper to make or considerably faster then, well no it was a dearer product that suffered with horrendous warrenty problems, cost far to much to produce and relied on police sales to make it viable, other problems stemmed from parts that were produced in 1936 that were still in use in 1974 ie: rear brake shoes and gearbox internals from the Sturmey -Archer bicycle company, a frame that was renowned as the world best Fetherbed was replaced with a Italian fabricated (although designed in Britain) “Rubberbed” isolastic requiring adjustments every 3,000 mile, this coupled with a badly designed head steady caused it in the Interstate version to be renowned as the only machine that can get into a “tank slapper” in a straight line at 60 Klm’s, don’t believe me get on your standard Mk 2A and with a pillion or top box fitted sit on the required speed and roll off the throttle, lift your hands from the handlebars and it will try to kill you!..."

If you don’t constantly dream of Norton , then look elsewhere , lots of other older bikes nearly as good

Craig said:

If you don’t constantly dream of Norton , then look elsewhere , lots of other older bikes nearly as good

Click to expand...

ya, that guy is rather biased to Triumph...

YukoNorton said:

I found this blog article to be an interesting read:

Why Norton, Why Bother!
By Phil Pilgrim on September 24, 2020

"...was the Norton a better product, cheaper to make or considerably faster then, well no it was a dearer product that suffered with horrendous warrenty problems, cost far to much to produce and relied on police sales to make it viable, other problems stemmed from parts that were produced in 1936 that were still in use in 1974 ie: rear brake shoes and gearbox internals from the Sturmey -Archer bicycle company, a frame that was renowned as the world best Fetherbed was replaced with a Italian fabricated (although designed in Britain) “Rubberbed” isolastic requiring adjustments every 3,000 mile, this coupled with a badly designed head steady caused it in the Interstate version to be renowned as the only machine that can get into a “tank slapper” in a straight line at 60 Klm’s, don’t believe me get on your standard Mk 2A and with a pillion or top box fitted sit on the required speed and roll off the throttle, lift your hands from the handlebars and it will try to kill you!..."

Why Norton, Why Bother!

I once had a apprentice who always answered a question as the above instead of “Why not” it was a bit of a standing joke until we were made authorised NVT (Norton Villiers Triumph) agents in 1974 as BSA-Triumph group had collapsed, things were going from bad to worse as very few Triumph twins...

www.unionjack.com.au

Click to expand...

Hey, if I wanted his opinion on our beloved Norton's, I'd beat it out of him............

Can’t imagine taking the time to trash any bike , folks like what they like ….

He's just pissed off that the antiquated Commando is faster than anything Meridan Triumph ever built, including the triples. Because of the isos, it is also a whole lot smoother than the Triumph twins. The Commando is nice for long distance touring. All of the other Parallel twins, not so much.
The other wacky thing is that he thinks the Commando gearbox struggles because of the 70-75 hp of the Commando.
I guess with the way a Commando romps away from a Bonnie he figures that a Commando must have 75 hp!

Glen

Poor boy, he's clearly a wounded puppy.

Clearly the author likes to stir the pot - this is just the sort of article Adventure Rider is always putting forth - blather outrageous things to get responses. Anger clickbait.

Well we all know too differ, why else would we love them so much, these so call experts who aline themselves to one brand of bike usually because they are sponsored by that brand and there are many who are and will put crap on any other brand for their own gain or what ever.
As I say we all know differently to what B S they say.
Over 46 years I have owned my Norton as well I have owned a few older Triumphs as well a few new Triumphs, the Norton being the oldest in my collection of British bikes and the love I have for my old Norton out weight every other bikes I have ever owned and it's such a dream to work on and lucky I never had any major failures or major break downs in over 46 years, yes a few parts have failed while out but has usually got me home except for one failed EI and two broken rear chains not bad for 46 + years and in all 3 cases was my own fault not the Norton's.
I didn't even bother to even look at that article I just know my own bike and if I had all thought problems would I still own one of the classic bikes ever built or what I built , I never believed in what others say only what I know.

Ashley

YukoNorton said:

I found this blog article to be an interesting read:

Why Norton, Why Bother!
By Phil Pilgrim on September 24, 2020

"...was the Norton a better product, cheaper to make or considerably faster then, well no it was a dearer product that suffered with horrendous warrenty problems, cost far to much to produce and relied on police sales to make it viable, other problems stemmed from parts that were produced in 1936 that were still in use in 1974 ie: rear brake shoes and gearbox internals from the Sturmey -Archer bicycle company, a frame that was renowned as the world best Fetherbed was replaced with a Italian fabricated (although designed in Britain) “Rubberbed” isolastic requiring adjustments every 3,000 mile, this coupled with a badly designed head steady caused it in the Interstate version to be renowned as the only machine that can get into a “tank slapper” in a straight line at 60 Klm’s, don’t believe me get on your standard Mk 2A and with a pillion or top box fitted sit on the required speed and roll off the throttle, lift your hands from the handlebars and it will try to kill you!..."

Why Norton, Why Bother!

I once had a apprentice who always answered a question as the above instead of “Why not” it was a bit of a standing joke until we were made authorised NVT (Norton Villiers Triumph) agents in 1974 as BSA-Triumph group had collapsed, things were going from bad to worse as very few Triumph twins...

www.unionjack.com.au

Click to expand...

Phil's OK, he's stirring the pot I think. I've dealt with Union Jack and spoken to Phil several times over the years, particularly when I lived in Melbourne, always found him helpful and knowledgeable, regardless of whether I was buying Norton or Triumph stuff. He's been generous to me and others with his time on the phone even if it didn't directly lead to sales. Last time I spoke to him he extolled the virtues of the Commando's torque delivery compared to Triumph twins.

Too bad the guy can't spell. And can't get his facts straight:
Italian made frames (some, not all)
head steady on the Interstate causes tank slappers (huh?)
Police sales made the Commando viable?
What's a KLM?
What is a Fetherbed?

Otherwise, excellent points all round.

Stephen thanks for your input , many of Phil's full article I feel a need to agree with !

Phil Pilgrim is (was?) a Vincent man.

Well that could easily make him irritable.

Glen

ericg said:

Phil Pilgrim is (was?) a Vincent man.

Click to expand...

looks like it:

Vincent's and their effect on my life​

"... The first time I went to a Victoria Section meet had most members amazed as I was only 22 yo and for a Vincent Owner very young...
after 10,000 miles in the tractor seat it’s comfortable and rides to Sydney and back are luxurious at my age (67) I like comfortable bikes and as a Vincent owner of over 45 years I know what I need and want, a standard factory model is nice but can be harsh, enough said..."

Just a Triumph bigot ranting about the past. He probably can't stand that we have made the model as well as we have and continue on while his ugly baby fades in the rear view mirror unable to keep up without vibrating it's rider to death. His tank slapper comments are ridiculous.

Why ? Nortons are more fun and simply cooler than a Triumph !

Our group rode BSA's and Triumphs with a couple of Honda 305's. Bob was a 'dyed in his Barbour suit' BSA man and had a fairing on his 66 Thunderbolt. I'll always remember the day when he rode up on this odd looking green bike that we learned was a brand new early Commando Fastback. We headed out for a ride, about 5 of us solo. Bob had his girlfriend on the back. He simply rolled on the throttle and left us all for dead while riding two up. It was beyond impressive. By the next season those with better paying jobs were on beautiful new Roadsters. Why Norton? It was obvious.

Hi all,
I‘m probably about to commit forum Hari Kari but nevertheless the following needs to be said.
My gut feeling is that everything that Mr Pilgrim says is correct.
Much as we all love our Nortons, objectively they were a disaster. They were in good company because all British bikes by the early seventies were being outclassed by the Japanese onslaught.
Now, providing you are still reading this and are controlling your apoplectic rage, let me explain.
We here on the forum are all enthusiasts and revel in the fine qualities of our bikes but to some extent overlook their many problems. The problems I refer to are the result of Norton’s continued over reliance on ageing design, management conservatism, under capitalisation and refusing to develop new models in good time. Books by smarter people than me have been written on the subject, I’m primarily thinking of Bert Hopwood’s ‘Whatever Happened To The British Motorcycle Industry’ but in brief, it was a complex scenario, much of the issues stemming from the financial ruination of Britain by ’unfortunately’ being victorious in two world wars.
The very strength of this forum is proof not only of the wonderful qualities of our bikes but also the fact that they need constantly fettling and repairing to keep them on the road. I doubt for example that the Kwacker Nine Forum (I presume there is one) is nearly as technically involved as this one.
We too quickly forget that by the late seventies all British bikes were the butt of jokes to the general public. By the late eighties they were largely forgotten by all except us old greaser boys (Too Old to Rock&Roll, Too Young to Die, Jethro Tull). Even today the majority of people love the nostalgia of the bike but I am occasionally confronted by some dickhead who ask where the oil puddles are or what bits have fallen off recently. Fortunately, due to my 2m, 130kg presence they generally don’t persist.
I have spent 45 years passionately defending British bikes, both in the pub and on the road. With the endurance of Job, I have kept my bikes running and ignored their many design failings. Want me to name a few, Norton’s proclivity to fill its sump up with oil when left standing and Trident’s proclivity to run lean and melt a piston if run at high speed on one fuel tap. Name any other high performance four stroke whose owners were forced to accept problems like that as par with the course? I have bravely faced all comer, preferably on winding mountain roads that I know intimately but deep down I have always know I have been pushing excrement uphill with a pointy stick.
What do we have with our bikes? Objectively an ancient design that was constantly refined and improved by passionate experts at Norton who battled to improve the design but also management failings, Britain’s economic woes and foreign countries that assisted their emerging motorcycle industries with all manner of incentives.
There was so much more that could have been achieved with the Commando, as is seen by the many improvements that are discussed on this forum but at the end of the day Norton needed a brand new bike. Norton needed to bravely face the critics who had their feet stuck in the nostalgic mud of the past. To point, Triumph quickly abandoned the new space age look of their Tridents and resorted to the fool’s paradise of nostalgia which ultimately is a dead end unless backed up by technical modernity. The bike industry needed a government that recognised the need to support its failing vehicle industry, with a view to long term returns and it needed a new broom through the entire industry.
So, in short, believe it or not there are few greater fans of Norton’s (and Triumphs) than me but much as I hate to admit it, I think everything Phil Pilgrim says is correct. But even if was tempted to disagree, I would have to defer to his lifetime involvement with the brand. After all he is speaking from experience.
However in spite of what I have said, we have amazing bikes. The very number left tells us that in the long run they were robust even if in the short term they drive us nuts. I suspect that many riders alive today who got their abilities mixed up with their aspirations in their youth because Nortons looked after their rider far more than 70s screaming two strokes did.
If Norton had of brought out modern sensible bikes in the late sixties they may be now those models may be hardly remembered.
Last of all, I still find it amazing that Norton was voted Bike of the Year for a number of years at the very time when they were under the greatest pressure. I can only assume that the judges could look beyond the more obvious faults of the bike and understand that riding a really well fettled commando is one of the greatest riding experiences there is .
Alan