Access Norton Motorcycle Forum

Do Triumph engines make more power? Is there a good reason to want a unit engine over a Norton engine? Were none of the Triumph frames as good as Nortons? I will admit that a lot of them look really cool! Possibly for the period of the featherbed frame there were no Triumphs that matched the performance. But I don't know.

I remember the first time I ever heard of Norton. I was in our dining room and a college student who was a neighbor had come home for a visit. He owned a Norton and was telling my dad about it. My dad asked what a Norton was. The young guy said, "It is sort of a refined Triumph." It was 1972 or 3 and we were in Peru South America.

Originally Tritons were built because the Triumph twin engine was cheaper than an exotic racing engine, and it was more developed than the Norton twin engine, and the reverse was true of the chassis: The Norton featherbed chassis was the best handling motorcycle chassis in the world, while Triumph chassis were very average. So it was a cheap way to a high performance bike if someone had access to a Norton chassis or blew the engine in their Norton, they could more easily and cheaply find a Triumph engine to replace it rather than find or repair a OHC Norton racing engine.

As the 1950's wore on the supply of used Norton chassis and Triumph engines continued to increase, while Norton continued to trail Triumph in developing it's twin engine for performance and power suitable for anything more than practical touring. It was not until the very end of the 1950's, when Doug Hele was put in charge of some Norton development that factory "speed" parts became available as options or over the counter for the Norton twin, and it was not until 1962 that a 650cc Norton twin became officially available for purchase in the U.K.. This meant that unless a Norton enthusiast could afford to buy a new or late model Norton in the late 1950's or early 1960's, his best bet for an affordable fast sport bike was still screwing one together from a used Norton chassis and maybe a Triumph or BSA Goldstar engine.

So by the time Norton got their act together in the twin-cylinder engine compartment, the British bike industry was on it's way to oblivion and the Cooper Mini made buying an automobile as or more affordable than buying a state-of-the-art sporting motorcycle. At the end of 1962 the original Norton works was shut down and Doug Hele migrated to Triumph, right when the unitized 650cc engine was introduced. Mr. Hele put his talent into making the Triumph unitized bikes handle very well and they won many road races in the 1960's and looked to finally be competitive with Norton handling.

In the mid-1960's the "Rocker" scene was in as much of a decline as the British motorcycle industry and on it's way from being about machinery and riding fast to becoming the fashion movement that it is today.

The British motorcycle industry collapsed and went down the toilet altogether about thirty years ago. Shortly afterwards clubs started to form and through the 1980's old British bikes became trendy collectors items and investments. A new generation latched onto them and a neo-cafe racer movement was hatched which imitated the old rockers much more in appearance than action or mechanical knowledge.
Probably 90% of the Tritons that exist today were all built since 1985 by or for neo cafe riders to use as jewelry and props to pose on at Bike Nights and other gatherings.

Today some of the original reasons to build a Triton still hold some water. First of all Norton production in the 1950's and early 1960's was a small fraction of what Triumph OR BSA put out and it is very hard to find a 1950's or early 1960's Rocker-era Norton featherbed twin that is ready to ride and it is very hard to find the parts to rebuild it's engine when it is needed. So there are still a lot more Norton frames and chassis lying around than there are complete and/or running bikes. Triumph bikes and engines by comparison are lying all over the place like dog-shit and it is very easy and relatively cheap to find and maintain a Triumph engine, especially the later unitized engines which were built in large numbers right through the 1970's.

The most authentic Triton, that would be representative of the 1950's and early 1960's would be a wide-line framed job with a pre-unit lump, which is what was mostly available to the poor lads craving performance back then. Used slim-line frames and unitized Triumph lumps were not going to be on the used and cheap market until the party was over, but they are what have been most available for the neo-rockers to find in the last few decades, so Tritons built up from those parts are very common at this time.

In the 1950's and very early 1960's Tritons were not common bikes anyway. If you look at any old photographs of the rocker scene that are pre-1963, you will see the youth riding bikes that are for the most part stock machines with maybe a few alterations to help riding position. The youth with the money for a new bike, or the money and/or talent to screw a special together was not the rule at all.

So when asked today "Why Triton?". The answer can either be maybe one of the practical reasons they might have been built since the early 1950's, or it might be one of the reasons created over the past three decades by some subculture, society and their trends.

As far as the person contemplating building a Triton goes, they are probably the only one who can answer that question about themselves.

My own preferences keep me from crossing the street to even piss on most any British bike of unitized engine design, and I am not particularly fond of any of the British bikes built after 1962 unless they are carry-over designs or models from back then. I probably get this bias from my father who packed it in as a Dealer for British bikes when 1963 came up, he and his riding buddies hated what happened to the British bikes in the 1960's, losing their magnetos, old-style Amals and souls. The BSA A-65 is one ugly lump of shit as far as the engine goes. The Triumph unit-jobs were much improved bikes but there are a lot of people that just do not like change. When Norton closed up AMC proceeded to humiliate both that and the Matchless marque, throwing away anything that was good about them and coming out with hybrid-freaks that looked like escapees from the Island of Dr. Moreau with the bodies of one beast and the head of another before finally all the marques came out with "new" products that did not keep them in business anyway.

Cheers!

Well . If you cant afford a NorVin .


http://cybermotorcycle.com/gallery/vinc ... ord_CT.htm
I Suppose . . . .

http://www.triton-owners-club.co.uk/page10.html

Ooh Argh .

This is the Best of the Pre Unit Triump swing arm frames. Tecnically , 1961/62 only .



These are Not the Best of Triump Pre-Unit Frames . 1954 / 58 . TRY ONE . Then youll understand .







The Ridgid Frame rear section wasnt too bad .





I think ' IT ' might have been NECESSARY , in some instances . .

It could however do with a bit more room in it , lengthwise .

You PAY for the ENGINE .



The Rest of the Bikes FREE .

What Are You COMPLAINING About .

Apparently Norton Had a Patent on Roadholding .





With the MANXs after the Trigonic Tyres came out , they strated dragging things , So HIGH PIPEs are de Rigueur .

Therefore ; On the Eigth Day , God created the Triton .



( just as well its bedtime , I think . )

Because THAT'S why!

Well, beng has pretty much told the story. So here's my reasons.

1) First of all I like café racers, I also find them quite comfortable with my build being short legs and long arms, maybe I'm closer to some of our evolutionary friends than others
2) The Norton featherbed framed bikes, IMO are the some of the best looking bikes of all time, especially the Manx and Dommie racer.
3) I could never afford a Manx, and even the twins are expensive, in fact these days anything with a featherbed frame is expensive.
4) I actually think that the inclined Commando engine looks better in a featherbed than any vertical Triumph or Norton lump, but the engines are harder to find and more expensive than Triumphs, they also need a little more work to run as they should, crank rebalancing etc.
5) With a Triumph lump (at least in the case of a Bonnie) you get twin cams and twin carbs, it probably makes sod all difference in the real world, but they look cool.
6) Now, why choose a Triumph pre unit or unit motor? Well, I think the pre unit looks better, but it doe's require a fair bit of work to get it up to the same level of reliability as a unit, machining out the timing case for an oil seal, fitting a later crank etc. The unit on the other hand, is build up as you want, but with minimal engineering work required, they are also plentiful and cheap. Finally, in my case I already own a unit Triumph, so I have all the specialist tools, experience and spare parts.
7) The great thing with a featherbed frame is you can fit almost anything you want in it, so if I ever get bored of my Triton I can always fit a Norton, BSA, Vincent etc. lump in there. It can also be changed from a café racer into a tourer if I want, in fact it should be the last bike I ever have to buy, I just need a couple of engines
Finally, the name's cool !

All the best

Webby

Yes, thanks Matt for the several pages of information on Triumph motorcycles. Maybe if someone starts a thread asking for that information you can move it over there.......

Half of a Triton is a Triumph, you know. Perhaps Matt wanted to build up the case for properly answering the question this thread originally posed?

Indeed , picture youreself on that souped up 59 Bonneville , cranked over in a sweeper.At 80 mph ,dragging a peg, and theres a decent bump BUMP in the Road up ahead . Now the problem is , if theres more than one bump .

Off Road , Even , Rickman threw them in BSA Frames , with Norton Forks .( tecnically a alloy T100 Metisse )

One could even say there were plenty of bent Triumphs with good engines , and plenty of good Nortons with Blown Engines .
Now. What would You Do .