Is it really that hard to re-engineer the fork braces?

Swooshdave,
No, it isn't, but the call for these braces is limited. Andover Norton has no end of new product projects going as is- see our "News" page- and as the tooling should be out there somewhere, I see little sense in re-making it. I have ploughed every Penny back in over the last nearly five years and our spares range has grown enourmously, as has our tooling and spares stock. My two buyers are flat out with what we are currently doing and planning. One needs to know one's limits.

I did sell the fork braces for many years. Whilst there is a lot of academic interest in them- as in this forum- don't let yourself be fooled into believing all these "academics" will buy one when we have it. Then again, I might be surprised, as I was with, say, our tool kit- a great seller, to my amazement-, or then again not, as in a few other cases.
Joe

Chris T wrote:Very interesting bike. What benefit was the hub steering set up intended to provide over the stock set up?

" The Press " are Paranoid about " Changes in Whellbase / Castor / steering axis " with telescopic front suspension . A derevitive of Dowty Oleopnematic
aircraft landing gear ?? In theyre ignorance they atributed most dynamic instability to these dark and mysterious creations .

Obviously the Isolastics in themselves are satisfactory in this respect , witness the capability of the 73 JPN Norton so fitted . The best in the world in F - 750
could not huaratee to beat it in that year . For 74 they had the rules ammended to " 25 sets " of castings , for their " Race Engines " .
WHERE the original objective of the Class was ' Roadster Based ' Raceing Machines , to encourage development or these , and attempt an equal footing for privateers. The regulations were in their usual interpretation / manipulation / politics / investment pressure ( loot invested / Promotors Returns ) riders demands ( Free Race Bikes ! ) flux and wandered of into the sunset . ( Digressing slightly )

john robert bould wrote:I think if norton had put this design into production, i would not be owning two today Personal remark, inovation is good,as long as its done with style. Yamaha GTS centre hub is designed well and stylish...but was dropped, This Norton one ...well .........its gross in its looks!

I know a Belgian husband and wife who at one time had a pair of GTS1000 Yamahas, they were not popular for three reasons, the most important being the very high price set by Yamaha to try and recover some development and manufacturing costs!, price was huge, but perhaps lower in belgium due to taxes and the proximity of the european importer who maybe sold some off cheaper...the second was that the excess weight could have readily use a larger and more torquey motor without over stretching the handling....

The third drawback was seat height, the lady sold hers simply because they got fed up with picking it up again....remember drawback number 2!

Like a lot of things, it was good but not by enough of a margin to attract a lot of buyers...and with other flaws.....it will be the same with fork braces....better, probably if very well set up, which probably few would be, but not a lot of use to classic racers due to rulebooks and most road riders (as opposed to hobot the off road rider!) would not really notice enough of a benefit to make it worthwhile.....