Layshaft bearing question

Did Norton ever realize that the layshaft bearing they were using was a failure item, and at some point change it? Or did they continue with the "bad" bearing even through MKIII production?

My '75 Mk III had the suspect Portugese ball bearing in it; manufactured in 2/75.

I suspect that when Norton found out about the bad bearing they had greater troubles keeping afloat; the only motorcycle company that I can think of that went out of business faster than Norton was Buell. I am also sure that the bad bearing looked good on "paper", good enough anyway. Who, back then, could have predicted the effect of owners slamming gears, not changing gearbox oil or letting the gearbox slowly fill with water? (my gearbox had almost a 1/2 pint of water in it after sitting for 27 years and 6300 miles in the PO's dining room....go figure).

RS

My MkII is exactly one year older, has the fated bearing.
Although I have not looked carefully with a strong glass, it
feels fine.
15k and the gears all look good, mainshaft 3rd area is 3 thou
down though.
I wonder if the whole box was made of higher grade stuff
if it wouldnt have been much less trouble. Like the crank,
you wonder just how much they saved by cheaping out.
Certainly didnt save the company.

maylar said:

Did Norton ever realize that the layshaft bearing they were using was a failure item, and at some point change it? Or did they continue with the "bad" bearing even through MKIII production?

Click to expand...

For quite a while, I was under the impression that the 850 MkIII models were fitted with the improved layashaft roller bearing as standard.
However, from previous discussions here, I learnt that wasn't necessarily true, and that the majority, or maybe all MkIII models left the factory with standard layshaft ball bearings, and the roller bearing possibly introduced as an upgrade at a later date by Andover Norton after the Norton/NVT (Wolverhampton) factory closed?

Onder said:

My MkII is exactly one year older, has the fated bearing.
Although I have not looked carefully with a strong glass, it
feels fine.
15k and the gears all look good, mainshaft 3rd area is 3 thou
down though.
I wonder if the whole box was made of higher grade stuff
if it wouldnt have been much less trouble. Like the crank,
you wonder just how much they saved by cheaping out.
Certainly didnt save the company.

Click to expand...

If you mean the flexible crankshaft being cheaper, improvement here may not have been the final solution. The Commando engine was engineered as a 500cc with under 30hp. As displacement and power grew Norton fixed what broke. That's not really engineering and similar to what many Commando owners do....improve one part then the next weekest link fails. A stiffer one piece crankshaft will probably cause the well under engineered crankcase to have problems.

The internals of the gearbox on my '61 ES2 looked as new with roughly 20hp driving them and it's the same gearbox used on the Commando.