Interesting 961 History Info

I ran across these postings on a 961 Sport up for auction on BAT. I recognize that some of the comments might be controversial, but thought some of you might find them interesting.


"Sluggo503 This author's likes: 457

Nice bike & good price. I might be able to offer some clarification on a few issues. First, the frames for these bikes is the same as the prototypes that came from here in Oregon-Norton America. Kenny Dreer worked with Jeff Cole of the famous C&J frames to create these, Jeff is now retired but still does small batches of frames for all kinds of bikes, Of note, He has made a number of custom frames for Matt @ CNW but I have spoke to Jeff and while I have several prototype Nortons and the original CAD files, new frames are not inexpensive. I have spoke to many of the Norton UK vendors and many are operating on rev1 CAD prints so, the claim that Stuart Garner made of revamping the entire bikes is not entirely true.
For clarification, When Garner bought Norton from Norton America the chassis was 100% production, Shovel ready. The motor was at 90% and while they knew what it needed, lacked the funds to go into production, Hence the venture capitalist who funded Norton Americas decision to sell. Garner employed a well known midlands company to refine the motors and build all the early ones. Based on this bikes date, This bike SHOULD have one of those motors. However there was a dispute over funds and eventually that company severed ties with Garner/Norton. When they had them built by a new vendor and some inhouse, they had some issues. All of which if you search on the net you can read about. I have several of these early motors and they are excellent.
As to Spondon, thats a different topic, and post liquidation seems there was some issues with the purchase of Spondon and its assets. Again well chronicled on many sites, including AccessNorton. If true, & the reports are credible, Its an unfortunate outcome for what was once a reputable company.
TVS has allegedly targeted another 40 bikes of the 961 series, But after that the future of this model is uncertain as well as spares, But most are hopeful that they support the owners and hopefully continue making them. But fear not… other than crankcases and cyls and heads, ALL components can be sourced. I dont want to go too far into that topic, but many of the parts on these are also in production for other applications.
For example, The trans is the same as a Harley Sportster or Buell. In fact, wishing a 6 speed you can buy them from Baker drivetrain and Norton America had some and planned to offer them as an option.
The Alternator and clutch can be found on some Suzuki models. And the Starter? Thats history repeating itself from the days of the Norton 850 when Norton bought rejected starters for Harley ironheads and fitted to 850s. Norton owners refuse to acknowledge this and pay 2x too much for starter upgrades from Norton suppliers, while the same upgrade from a Harley source is a fraction of the cost. The Starters on the 961 series bikes are a common starter, again found on Sportsters, Buells and even some cars. My Kubota and Yanmar tractors with the 3 cyl diesels also use this starter.
I have discussed this with 961 owners and even the forum admin at In-AccessableNorton and they dont believe it but, yes, you CAN fix your Norton from parts at the local Lawn-Garden & tractor shop.
As for TVS, TATA and the others,, I can confirm they were looking at Norton for purchase for many years. At one point even Harley considered a purchase as well as some Chinese manufacturers. There was a matrix for buyers, Some, Dreer called “All hat, No cattle”
But they ranked the buyers based on several factors and one was preserving the brand identity and legacy.
Later, after Garner bought the brand it was on shaky ground for some time and many entities were looking at it should the opportunity arise. I took a friend over to meet Dreer as he lived a short distance from me, (Now retired and out of state). In discussion Kenny revealed that at that time he had been contacted and asked about his interest if a sale happened, WOULD he be interested in returning to a role in the new Norton company? My friend Dave, who has spent a lot of time in Asia and India immediately knew who he was talking about and Kenny was shocked, We kept it quiet at the time, But yes,, for many years Norton was being looked at. I have not spoken to Kenny for some time and no idea if he is in contact with the current owner, but last we spoke, he said,,, “Im happy to talk boats or fishing but dont want to discuss motorcycles anymore”.
I am a big Norton enthusiast and confident that Norton has a bright future, I can 100% say this bike is a future collectible bike and a good investment. Should you have any issues, questions or need tech help there is a lot of passionate people to support you and assist.
As to this model, actual production numbers are fuzzy and hard to figure out but not many were built in this configuration, those forks and wheels are IMHO the nicest set up, most used USD forks and the spoked rims just connect it to the heritage of the bike.
Styling? What many dont realize is that, Its Dreers styling with his US team, Paul Gaudio, Seamo, Patrick Leyshock and some others, But the biggest nod should go to Evan Wilcox who, master metal smith had been refining this style for many years and starting with the Vintage Rebuilders custom Nortons and then the VR series. VR/Norton America had planned and designed several variations of 961 Nortons, A proddie racer style, a Roadster, a Interstate and even a single. Garner went with this style and riffed off it, But there was other versions in the works. I have all this material to tell the unique chapter of the Oregon story in the Norton sage. As Dreer said…. “The Norton story is still being written”
But, this bike is a great buy *I have not personally inspected it, But based on auction description I am confident this is a good deal.
Assuming things improve, I hope to see the new owner and this bike at the 2021 INOA Norton rally in Lumby BC Canada and would be happy to buy the new owner a beer!
Nortons RULE!


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And a second post on the same bike auction.





Repicheep Correct, the trans is the cassette style prior to the XB Buell Motors, I have several evo sporties and 2 tuber Buells, and 3 XBs, FUN FACT: the idea for the tranny came when Kenny Dreer was still in early design phase. (To be fair, Kenny was the ring master in the circus, DO NOT overlook his dedicated team of minions). Kenny was talking to George Latus of Latus HD (George owns multiple brand lines and dealerships-but his flagship shop is in Gladstone Oregon, close to where we live and the home of Norton America). Spitballing ideas it was George who suggested the tranny idea. There is multiple vendors making them (Andrews, Baker Drivetrain, etc etc) and no patent issues.
Kenny talked to Baker about their economy of scale-wholesale and offering the 6 speeds as an option. Baker said once production was bigger they could revisit the price issue. I know Kenny had several 6 speeds they tried out and I passed on buying them because even with my good buddy deal, they are not cheap. But ultimate bragging rights for a Buell guy (Or a girls bike sportster
More Fun FACTS! Fallicone engineering did the cranks/rods for these. They are based in Florida IIRC, I talked to them and they confirmed after the sale to the UK they continued to get orders from the UK for more assemblies, But at some point they found a new vendor. At some Norton rallies, One of the smart guys, Ken Carnaga said he thought the rods were out of a common sport bike, so even if a crank/rod assy wears out, good chance you can source repair or new parts.
I HAVE the prototype cranks in both versions. Show them at Norton rallies and events. Originally it was going to be like the old Nortons-360, But the vibes were an issue so they reverted to a 270 degree like a Duc. I have several assys of each. (yes they have a balance shaft)"

Ken

Interesting stuff, thanks.

Yes that is interesting, thanks for posting it Ken.

@lcrken Ken, I assume you know the author? He does have a lot of information and interesting parts. That sounds like everything I’ve heard from Kenny.

The engine when it came to England was no where near 90% ready for production. More like 10% !!
The clutch IS NOT SUZUKI. Period !!!!! The clutch I saw come from USA was a pieced up welded affair , some thing like Frankenstiens monster! It was all at prototype stage
The gearbox was originally as described, but was changed later. The shaft spline is completetly different profile.
I know this because I saw it at MCT in Oxford when it arrived. I was There !
I saw it all develop and evolve. I saw it all with my own eyes.

Good stuff Ken.
Thanks for posting.

As for the crank and con-rods, I seem to recall a conversation about them being from a Polaris jet ski engine, as they are two stroke rods, but that may have been the prototype crank that came over originaly. The new crank assemblies are completly manufacture in Taiwan for around $60 complete !! Increadible quality for the price. I was shocked when I saw them.

swooshdave said:

@lcrken Ken, I assume you know the author? He does have a lot of information and interesting parts. That sounds like everything I’ve heard from Kenny.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know him. He's an interesting guy, and very much a modern Norton enthusiast, among other interests.

Ken

Nikoli said:

The engine when it came to England was no where near 90% ready for production. More like 10% !!
The clutch IS NOT SUZUKI. Period !!!!! The clutch I saw come from USA was a pieced up welded affair , some thing like Frankenstiens monster! It was all at prototype stage
The gearbox was originally as described, but was changed later. The shaft spline is completetly different profile.
I know this because I saw it at MCT in Oxford when it arrived. I was There !
I saw it all develop and evolve. I saw it all with my own eyes.

Click to expand...

I suspect the discrepancy in the description of the state of the prototypes is due to the people selling Norton America at the time. Of course they are going to say the prototype is "almost done".

The Garner/Skinner history would also suggest that they may have oversold the improvements that they were claiming to have made, so perhaps the truth is in the middle somewhere.

Nikoli said:

As for the crank and con-rods, I seem to recall a conversation about them being from a Polaris jet ski engine, as they are two stroke rods, but that may have been the prototype crank that came over originaly. The new crank assemblies are completly manufacture in Taiwan for around $60 complete !! Increadible quality for the price. I was shocked when I saw them.

Click to expand...

The ones in the Dreer 952 prototypes looked a lot like they were pressed up from 2-stroke parts and rods, or from 4-stroke engines with pressed-up cranks. They look a lot like parts from the Rotax 4-stroke singles, but none of them had 79 mm strokes, so they could be from any number of other engines. Kenny told me where they came from at the time, but my memory is definitely not what it used to be. It would be interesting to check the specs for Polaris engines to see if they had a twin with a 79 mm stroke.

This is the crankshaft assembly in Kenny's 952 prototype.



But he also tried some other designs.

This is a picture of the crankshaft from one of Kenny's earlier development prototypes.



This is a picture of the early 961 crankshaft from the Norton web site back in 2012, and it is similar to the top one above. Based on the date, I would assume it is the one sourced from Falicon.



Ken

How much power would you guys think a stock 961 parts wise could handle? Are the internals stout? Is the crank case capable of handling much more hp?

Matt Capri, the original distributor for the Norton 961 in the USA was working on performance parts back in 2014 before he went bankrupt.
He was hoping to get close to 120 HP from a 1100cc kit he was developing which included cams, big valves, head porting, etc.
Matt was also a Triumph dealer and developed performance parts for the Hinckley Bonneville - a 1075cc kit that produced 125 crank HP.

Voodooo said:

How much power would you guys think a stock 961 parts wise could handle? Are the internals stout? Is the crank case capable of handling much more hp?

Click to expand...

IMHO most of the key components are over engineered and very robust. But any tuning must be preceded by a full strip and blue print (as detailed by Tony a while ago) to ensure the possible build issues are irradiated

Whilst we’re on that subject, as the bike has a 270 crank already, I have often wondered if the balance shaft is really necessary. My hunch is that if the whole crank assembly was properly dynamically balanced, it wouldn’t be.

Then whilst in the primary we could look at those dreadfully noisy drive gears and that fragile clutch. Ideally I’d bin the lot and fit a wide belt drive and sturdy clutch. There are a gazillion perfectly good clutches out there. I can’t image why Norton saw fit to re invent the wheel (badly) here?

Sorry for taking us wildly off topic here! Scott, why not start a proper 961 tuning thread to thrash these daft ideas out ?

Fast Eddie said:

...
Sorry for taking us wildly off topic here! Scott, why not start a proper 961 tuning thread to thrash these daft ideas out ?

Click to expand...

Most of my engine experience is car based so can anyone definitively answer the need for a balance shaft? One less thing to fail...

And yes - a tuning thread would be good. I wonder what Ollie at Thiel's recommendations would be?

Balance shafts do consume power, especially agricultural crude ones! And they do go wrong, at least one on this forum has broken and caused catastrophic engine failure.

A 270 degree crank should be quite smooth Clive.

The question that statement raises is: what is quite smooth?

Quite smooth in 1965 probably isn’t the same as what most folk would consider quite smooth today (thanks largely to those evil Japanese making those hideously smooth, reliable, fast machines the ‘norm’).

But, the standard 961 is NOT quite smooth at all. Not by any reasonable standards. And Dave / Tony discovered one big reason why: the balance shaft is crude and badly timed. Kinda ironic to build an engine with an out of balance ‘balance shaft’ but there you go.

It is therefore not unreasonable to hypothesis that in order to make a 961 smoother, re timing (re balancing) of the balance shaft is required, and doing so will optimise the smoothness on the unit.

OR... if power, lightness, simplicity and removal of potential failure modes are prioritised over smoothness (which would be the case if tuning for speed / track use) proper dynamic balancing of the crank assembly and removal of the balance shaft may well produce a unit close to the levels of vibration of the standard unit.

But... it would need someone with time, money, and motivation to burn in order to find out for sure !

Safest option, in reality, would be to strip and blue print as per Tony A.

Interesting stuff indeed!

Fast Eddie said:

Balance shafts do consume power, especially agricultural crude ones! And they do go wrong, at least one on this forum has broken and caused catastrophic engine failure.

A 270 degree crank should be quite smooth Clive.

The question that statement raises is: what is quite smooth?

Quite smooth in 1965 probably isn’t the same as what most folk would consider quite smooth today (thanks largely to those evil Japanese making those hideously smooth, reliable, fast machines the ‘norm’).

But, the standard 961 is NOT quite smooth at all. Not by any reasonable standards. And Dave / Tony discovered one big reason why: the balance shaft is crude and badly timed. Kinda ironic to build an engine with an out of balance ‘balance shaft’ but there you go.

It is therefore not unreasonable to hypothesis that in order to make a 961 smoother, re timing (re balancing) of the balance shaft is required, and doing so will optimise the smoothness on the unit.

OR... if power, lightness, simplicity and removal of potential failure modes are prioritised over smoothness (which would be the case if tuning for speed / track use) proper dynamic balancing of the crank assembly and removal of the balance shaft may well produce a unit close to the levels of vibration of the standard unit.

But... it would need someone with time, money, and motivation to burn in order to find out for sure !

Safest option, in reality, would be to strip and blue print as per Tony A.

Click to expand...

See this link to Busman's rebuild update a few years back :

https://www.accessnorton.com/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWCjLw1H.jpg&hash=f0e98c824d08ecfd406f5093dc6d6b7d

From Bushman : Things I didn't think I would be doing with my 961 thread .

Simple math, no need to find centre of balancing lobe. Engine is 270 deg crank - 90deg between cylinders. The timing gear woodruff key is on one of the 90deg axis. Scribing the 45 deg vertical gives the exact centre line of the balance shaft. Using the roller bearings on vee blocks, the balance shaft should rest at the exact mid point. It did not. By removing weight on the heaviest bob weight the at rest came back to the centre vertical. This is static balancing which is typically good enough.In the sketch drawing you can see where the bob weights are in relation to the keyway.

TonyA said:

See this link to Busman's rebuild update a few years back :

https://www.accessnorton.com/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWCjLw1H.jpg&hash=f0e98c824d08ecfd406f5093dc6d6b7d

From Bushman : Things I didn't think I would be doing with my 961 thread .

Simple math, no need to find centre of balancing lobe. Engine is 270 deg crank - 90deg between cylinders. The timing gear woodruff key is on one of the 90deg axis. Scribing the 45 deg vertical gives the exact centre line of the balance shaft. Using the roller bearings on vee blocks, the balance shaft should rest at the exact mid point. It did not. By removing weight on the heaviest bob weight the at rest came back to the centre vertical. This is static balancing which is typically good enough.In the sketch drawing you can see where the bob weights are in relation to the keyway.

Click to expand...

This test was performed for my bike at Coote's , and my balance shaft was good . There was no need to remove material from any lobe of my balance shaft. I think this engine needs a balance shaft , at the very least a dummy shaft for the power transfer to the clutch basket. But the real reason for my post is to suggest that whenever you do this , the best bearings must be used and with the correct clearance C # . The crankshaft must be checked for true and adjusted if needed .

Clive said:

Most of my engine experience is car based so can anyone definitively answer the need for a balance shaft? One less thing to fail...

And yes - a tuning thread would be good. I wonder what Ollie at Thiel's recommendations would be?

Click to expand...

A large displacement twin other than a 180 degree opposed, definitely needs counter balancing for smooth operation. Otherwise, you will have a modern version of the classic British paint mixer twin vibrator.

A counterbalancer shaft is not necessary, BMW uses a reciprocating counterbalancer mass. This would require a different crankcase/crankshaft design though.

Hosted on Fotki

Dave, Richard Coote, and Bushman have shown that the precision alignment for the 961’s crank and balancer shaft is lacking. Better alignment will have a positive effect on vibration reduction.