I think you're looking at this all wrong. This is a bike that has clearly been built in an attempt to overcome ALL of the original design failings, full of innovative ideas that Burt Hopwood, Doug Hele and the like would have implemented immediately if they'd been allowed to. I suspect this forum would be half the size if just some of his ideas were copied:
Roadholders not having enough damping? SORTED. Money that could have been wasted on things like Landsdowne internals etc can now go towards more important things, like women and beer.
Yokes? SORTED. It's obvious where CNW stole their design from, changing it just enough to reduce the risk of being sued.
Worried about ethanol eating into your fibre glass tank and which sealant of the month to use? SORTED. This one won't rust, being welded to the frame shows the builder is 100% confident in its reliability, along with no more worn mounting rubbers or lost bolts. Comes with the added bonus that the capacity even looks bigger than a Roadster. Folks, this is a win-win situation! Wonder if this could be made in India? Buy now before it gets copied and sold with a Genuine... label on it with double the price. Impressive the way money has been spent on things that really count rather than bling; like fuel lines and replacing the factory taps that break so easily.
Worried about which carb(s) to chose and where they were made? SORTED. No need for sleepless nights fretting; as another sign of his mechanical competence and good taste it's got twin Amals fitted. For maximum performance, naturally; and best of all made in England! After all, if it was good enough for the factory?
Worried about 40 year old Lucas electrics letting you down when you least want them to ? SORTED. Some people fit expensive non-standard switch gear in an effort to ward off the prince of darkness. Yet this designer has dared to take the ultimate step and done without. With the benefit of hindsight it does seem logical to follow the KISS principle. I mean, if it was good enough for Einstein...
Worried about which headsteady design to choose? Maybe even an extra iso mount? SORTED. Weight reduction in non-critical areas seems to be part of the design criteria. After all, if thoughtful design can overcome the need why have a fancy head steady if they just add weight, cost and complexity? I suspect that this may be the bike that gave Ludwig ideas?
Side stand mounting bracket failure? SORTED. It's unbelievable that after all the years that Norton made motorcycles they were still trying to get something as simple as side and centre stands to work reliably right up until the very end. This frame has been discreetly modified, no doubt after years of frustration so it has the best of both worlds: reliability yet still looking standard. If you've ever had a bolt break while trying to start it on the sidestand in front of an interested audience you'll know what I mean. The patina on the cylinders shows that this is a bike built to be ridden in any conditions, unlike the fair weather trailer queens you see at rallies that are ridden through the gate just so they can collect their attendance badge.
This my friends is a bike designed for one purpose only, and that is to ride long distances at speed; trouble free, without stopping and in style. Having no mirrors or speedo confirms his interest in weight saving, along with a healthy contempt for authority (and after all isn't this what motorcycling is really about, rather than being yes men and wearing all of the factory accessories and clothing in an attempt to look different?). If you want endless arguments in front of the tv over which headsteady or shade of yellow is best this isn't the bike for you. And unlike the factory there is no sign of cost cutting, as proven by the useful addition of the lunch tray. (Even Mr honda didn't think of that.) Buy now or live forever with the consequences of what might have been.
