1971 Single sided swingarm fastback (2011)

Status
Not open for further replies.

motoalchemist

Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
379
Country flag
I am going to start anew thread for my other Norton instead of following up behind my other. i am going to try to transfer the pics Ive already posted, but here is the link anyway;

Ignore the first couple of entries

1971-interstate-fastback-restoration-t6785-90.html


will continue with updates on this project, I have a lot of reminding myself Of what i was doing as its been sitting for awhile
 
You are as crazy as I am. I love it. I thought about single sides swingarm, but better judgment took over. I still went with a mono shock. Yours is looking good. I can't wait for more pictures.
 
You are both crazier than me, so let that sink in eh. I respect and encourage that.

motoalchemist I love your extreme refittings and seriousness to attempt. First
mystery is how you attached the swing arm pivot? To the frame or to the cradle?
I sorta see how you shifted the chain run to clear tire. What size meat is on it?
 
hobot said:
You are both crazier than me, so let that sink in eh. I respect and encourage that.

motoalchemist I love your extreme refittings and seriousness to attempt. First
mystery is how you attached the swing arm pivot? To the frame or to the cradle?
I sorta see how you shifted the chain run to clear tire. What size meat is on it?
Click to expand...

I will easily fit a 170 rear..but I think with a little more fettling I can put a 180. The rear rim is a 5.5 inch so a 170 is the proper size as is a 180. A 6.0 inch rim is good for 180 to a 190. Either way Im looking forward to 17inch wheels and how this thing may or may not handle
 
hobot said:
You are both crazier than me, so let that sink in eh. I respect and encourage that.

motoalchemist I love your extreme refittings and seriousness to attempt. First
mystery is how you attached the swing arm pivot? To the frame or to the cradle?
I sorta see how you shifted the chain run to clear tire. What size meat is on it?
Click to expand...

The swingarm does attach to the Cradle, but there are a series of custom spacers and a new brackt to the rear iso to help stabilize the whole assembly (so the theory goes) This part was actually designed by my friend who passed away 10+ years ago. but its all totally re-doalble...meaning if this all works out, I can do it all again.

But for all of everybodys curiosity, when I break this whole thing down for paint, I will take much more detailed photos of how it all goes together
 
I will easily fit a 170 rear..but I think with a little more fettling I can put a 180. The rear rim is a 5.5 inch so a 170 is the proper size as is a 180. A 6.0 inch rim is good for 180 to a 190. Either way Im looking forward to 17inch wheels and how this thing may or may not handle
Click to expand...

Hmm I've developed a rather low and rather pensive opinion of 17" fat rubber myself. Fine for bee line sprints if horse power/torque enough to over come the extra mass. Should give long mileage I'd think. Anywho 17" do have over 150 mph tire rating available so good to go there.

Thanks for the review of the cradle beef up to handle the lean loads. Will be a double taker head turner. Get 'er done and impress us some more please.
 
I am answering a comment from my other thread before I had started a new one for this bike.
The comment was regarding modern stiff suspension on the Older Norton frames. I understand this , but the hope is that
the 200+ hours of welding supports and gussets into this bike will help the bike work together and provide an inproved handleing
Unit.


1971 Single sided swingarm fastback (2011)

The basic profile of the project...minus the fastback tail.



1971 Single sided swingarm fastback (2011)


This is the VFR rear swing arm


A shot with some bodywork removed to see some of the gusseting.

1971 Single sided swingarm fastback (2011)
 
That's going to be really cool when you're done. I look forward to watching your progress.

And yes, you're insane. :)

-Jordan
 
You can only go so large with the rear tire before it becomes a liability, when your available horsepower is well under 100...
 
grandpaul said:
You can only go so large with the rear tire before it becomes a liability, when your available horsepower is well under 100...
Click to expand...

Well, yes the rear tire is a bit gimmicky, But this Norton will also be putting out some HP. Maybe not 100HP but definitly alot more than factory. The lean angles should be awsome though
 
hobot said:
OK, motorchemist, what lean angle you expect clearance for?
Click to expand...

Well, one of the last things I am working on for mock-up (before teardown) is the exhaust system. There is already a 2 into 1 header that comes out the right side......I will be asking the forum for opinions of the undertail design I have in mind. Im going to take some pics to post. But anyway, my point is there will be plenty of clearance for lean angles....but more importantly the center of gravity is much lower...which should allow for some quick flip-flops and knee scraping.....maybe. remember...its all untested
 
very interested in this project - you're doing some cool stuff, motoalchemist. definitely interested to know how she ends up riding when complete.

a question, though, regarding hobot's 17" comments: aren't the stock wheels on our bikes 19"? i realize the tires are meatier for the 17" wheels, but shouldn't the lower rotational inertia offset that at least a little? i always thought reducing the radius of rotation had a more significant effect than changing the mass that's rotating.

perhaps?
 
Yes Soturi, fat tires are only good for more upright power handling and rather worse for leaned power handling. Fatter the tire the worser its gets leaned. You can see this on some bike drifting video where the tire patch width shows up on leans. Lowering wheel diameter does not help lean angles but brings it closer to fouling limits as any drifting scooter rider like me can attest too. I admire the extremists but it ain't the best way to get going and turning for most stability and least weight. Reducing wheel OD does make easier initiation of direction changes but not holding the loads better near edges. Mono shocks are sexy and do allow less shock motion so less heating and therefore easier to regulate dampening. Also centralizes mass over dual shocks out back. I'm likely one who'd actual get some advantage form a mono shock, if it allowed easier ruined tire changes. But sports bikes are Peel's bait fish so need to be innately better engineered geometry than them. Take a close look at new bikes, seat is about level with the bars. hehe.
 
Just curious...what's the scoop on the barrels on your motor? Is that stock and awaiting paint or is something else going on there?

Russ
 
rvich said:
Just curious...what's the scoop on the barrels on your motor? Is that stock and awaiting paint or is something else going on there?

Russ
Click to expand...

rvich, I think you are refering to the modified head steady? It just happens to look like a scoop. And yes it will be getting paint later.

Is this what you were talking about?

1971 Single sided swingarm fastback (2011)
 
Sorry! I said "what's the scoop" as in "what's up with". And yes I was looking at your cylinders.
I didn't realize how poory chosen the words were until I read your response!
Thanks
Russ

PS-might as well tell us about the head steady while you're at it!
 
rond944 said:
I think he's referring to the cylinders. Maney alloy perhaps ?
Click to expand...

Ya, OK now I feel stupid...I re-read the question.

Yes i believe it is a Maney cylinder... Kinda strange you would think thats something I wouldn't forget...but this project started in 1998...so.......what was I saying?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top