Back in the 70's the Honda Boys thought a Ducati was a bigger p.o.s. than a pommy motorcycle .
But they were mostly superficial , seldom hard riders , and didnt like getting there hands dirty .
' The New Breed of Rider ' . dealer serviced and later tradeds in . were always a few of them about.
NOW; the general bleating and sensationalist press did as much to cut the throats of the industry as
the government . Trendy liberal lefty party animal socialite , um , er . get the drift ??
:lol:
but what about my feelings ! :shock:
oh dear . :wink: :roll: Motorcycles dont have feelings !? :|
The GIST BEING . darn Yamaha driopped the TRX for world Superbikes on a whim. The FZR was easier
WITH their TECNOLOGY BASE . Haga had WON two rounds on the TWIN . they were raceing both together.
But TWINS dont work. everyone knows that ( the press ) archaic , outdated , vibrateing leaky anachronisms
like singles . Just look at Ducati , there hopeless . !
:lol: :shock: thats what they said .
And the average punter fell for it .
Bloor & Norton ?? WHAT is a Norton ?? WELL , if its going to be as good as any , and better than most,
ask the question WHERE . ? the track , or the road . Volumes , quantities and Cost .
To this mug to be better it must be simpler. no non essentials. but the job is going better, so that defines ' ESSENTIALS '
Horsepower , / durability
ridgidity / balance / roadholding
raceing
It always was ' cubic dollars ' .
But the BASIC DESIGN has the ability to be run at those outputs.
1/. the el cheapo , mass prod, not quite there job , provides the layout / tooling specs .
2/. The Second series ( S/C ? ) provides a sound base, to use for gentalmans sporting events
Stronger spec material for main cases and load bearing equipment. SOUND INVESTMENT in in house provided components
all the ' other stuff ' is just bolt on and of secondary consideration at best.No Point in wasteing money There at this stage.
Thats for all the ' update ' spec stuff . Hi-Po , not the dreary porridge with the advertiseing bling.
3/, The ' reason D' ter ' or however you pronunciate it .
:shock:
The POWERPLANT & FRAME .(chassis ? well , all the bolt ons are ' chassis ' too. )
This one would get the high spec tubeing FRAME , and High Q.C. machined cases / crankshaft , and ' a few ' other bits .
So running the sucker on 80% Nitro or Supercharged to two atmosheres ISNT going to get a electrical problem *
( * conrod through wireing loom or cranshaft vacateing the cases .)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so there you are . :roll:
The Olde Rotary in the First Oil Tube like chassis , would have been comercially viable TO ESTABLISH VOLUME PRODUCTION
profitability , rather than bleeding a sponsor dry .
At That Time , mostly buil;t in house on existing plant to control costing
The contraption would have had the performace to match any ( 132 mph a M.I.R.A.)
but was largely a confidance / resources abstact decision,
Would Still Be a Viable Motorcycle, useing sequential Fuel Injection and Ex. Extraction COOLING ( bar the noise levels ?? * )
* Astons ' exhaust bypass valve complies with regulations ! :lol: 8) )
Anothe prime consideration ' 40 yr old design ' . !? 40 years of development & Refinement !? pessimist / optomist
I prefer the optmiseation.
The second option would be the worlds biggest balls out High Power Twin Cylinder ( a parrallel V-Twin Britten ) De Tuned for ROAD USE . ( as per Above Considerations. )
---------------------------------------------------
Now , The Establishment had been whineing for years that we needed a ' New Vincent '.When we got it , I never saw the comparison , ONCE . What the h.ll else was the Britten. But , In '"Black Lightning " Spec . GET THE DRIFT .
The ' establishment ' had been Whineing in the Norton Cosworth erea , that they shouldve been doing a ' V Twin ' .
Oh Dear . They COULDVE bought the BRITTEN manufacturing Rights .
Id still go for the Canadian 4 Valve Parrallel Twin ,pre-unit (without the pre war bearer spaceing) and a ' good ole ' chassis ,
bar a set of GIRDERS , A frame mounted , forward .
Hossak and Britten wernt quite there , there . Theyed copied the Aerial Arrow . The Stressing continuity is highly dubious in the interupted load members. And it'd look better with the sides running right up from the axles. Girders the raceing trick was to tape across the shafs , incedently.They were less erratic than the obsolete telescpopics that have had 60 years of development
