My New Norasaki/ KawaTon

This is the internet and negative comments don't effect me, they are opinions and we all know opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and they all stink. I'm with FF on this one. I think the bike is quite unique and probably fun to ride, don't know yet. The "gusset" under the rear of the tank looks as though it may just be a filler piece to hide the frame /tank gap.
It can't be all bad, Reg Pridmore was putting Kawi triples in these as early as 1969.
 
You guys are funny.
Sure the bike is not all Norton, but it isn't like the guy took a bike NOW and did this.
These used to just be used bikes before they were investments or collector items.

Also someone thought Enough of the Norton frame to want to use it, with that epic collection of go fast bits.
Maybe some of the Norton purests should be honored.

The bike is never going to be restored back to stock. Even I it was people would look down at it as a bitsa.

Embrace the awesome that it is and be thrilled that an extreme example from the era will live to be shown to people.

I too cringe when I see a beautiful original example get cut up these days, but I also love to see people preserve the ones that were modified in period.
 
I'm in the camp that hopes you can see the project through and get it going. Before my big brother had his 1970 beautiful fireflake blue 750 "S" commando , he had a suzuki GT750 "water buffalo". He could wheelie that thing with both of us on it !! When they hit their power band hold on :D . A bunch of work and effort has already gone into making it come together, Please post your progress and keep this thread on track for the rest of us who see the potential in your seventies time capsule. :mrgreen:
 
Rohan said:
Can you get a photo of the steering head area in front of the tank on your kawasaki thingy ?
I'd agree, that frame doesn't look to be a manx, unless someone has cut some of the manx brackets off it,
and added pillion footpeg brackets !
A pic of the steering head would confirm it, manxs don't have the big bracing around/under the steering head.
(which are needed for road bike use though).
Passenger peg bracket does seem to be more triangular than any I have seen on a featherbed frame, sourced from another bike for this application I assume. Frame mod at subframe looks to be just a mount for the rear of the tank to sit on. It's been noted that it is an aftermarket tank, yet it fits that mod perfectly. It seemed strange to me that the rear Kimtab is skinnier than the front. Don't see any need for it, so I will probably swap in the wider wheel I have for it.
 
It's too bad that you no longer like some of the info that you're getting here. Especially since you asked in your original post, for the Norton experts to chime in.
Not sure you expected an out pouring of love from this community. I bite my tongue as I type, as it's pretty easy to get banned from the forum, and this post isn't worth getting banned for.
I'll admit that I'm a purist, so you can take that with a grain of salt. End of the day, we should all be preserving these old Nortons, and here's a perfect opportunity to take the Norton bits and bring them back to actually being a Norton.
No doubt that lots of funky things were done back in the day, but that surely doesn't mean we shouldn't undo what's obviously wrong. If a Kawasaki motor in a featherbed was something special, you'd see a whole lot more of them. In my eyes, this bike is a Frankenstein machine who's sum of parts just don't work together in any fashion.
I mean no disrespect to anything your brother was building, and I truly apologize for your loss.
I just think you'd be a whole lot better off making this bike into something that's at least British. I've got nothing against a Bitsa either, and there's plenty of parts out there that could be bought inexpensively and make a nice motorbike.
What you choose to do with it, is all yours to decide. But it's doubtful that many people would like it, and if you ever wanted to sell it, I can't see much interest, nor would anyone pay much for it.
 
I think it's awesome and would love to see it finished, running and pretty. For one thing you'd have the only one at an event you brought it to.

No knowledgeable Norton person will say anything negative about this bike, the worse they could say is put a pre-unit Bonnie engine in it.
 
wilkey113 said:
It's too bad that you no longer like some of the info that you're getting here. Especially since you asked in your original post, for the Norton experts to chime in.
Not sure you expected an out pouring of love from this community. I bite my tongue as I type, as it's pretty easy to get banned from the forum, and this post isn't worth getting banned for.
I'll admit that I'm a purist, so you can take that with a grain of salt. End of the day, we should all be preserving these old Nortons, and here's a perfect opportunity to take the Norton bits and bring them back to actually being a Norton.
No doubt that lots of funky things were done back in the day, but that surely doesn't mean we shouldn't undo what's obviously wrong. If a Kawasaki motor in a featherbed was something special, you'd see a whole lot more of them. In my eyes, this bike is a Frankenstein machine who's sum of parts just don't work together in any fashion.
I mean no disrespect to anything your brother was building, and I truly apologize for your loss.
I just think you'd be a whole lot better off making this bike into something that's at least British. I've got nothing against a Bitsa either, and there's plenty of parts out there that could be bought inexpensively and make a nice motorbike.
What you choose to do with it, is all yours to decide. But it's doubtful that many people would like it, and if you ever wanted to sell it, I can't see much interest, nor would anyone pay much for it.


Do you know how to read? If so go back and read the thread again and you will know my brother had nothing to do with building this bike. My question to the forum was to help identify the Norton aspects of this bike. I didn't ask for anyones opinion on what I should do with it. Surely you don't expect me to like everything that is said about it. Most of it is opinions and if you reread the thread you'll know how I feel about them. Have you ever seen anything sold that you thought the buyer paid way more than YOU thought it was worth? If and when I sell it , it will be for a profit, because it was free to me and my brother only paid $500 for it 35 years ago. I'm in total agreement with those that have pointed out the frame , that has not been positively identified yet, is too hacked up to bring back to stock without deep pockets. And then I need an engine. No one would pay much for it? The wheels are worth over $1k bare, the motor another $2k. Pipes probably cost $1500 and are worthless for anything else. You think it's worth nothing, others have told me it's uniqueness could bring 5 figures. I knew there would be purists that wouldn't like it, I don't care. I didn't build it. The consensus here so far looks about 50/50 on whether it is "cool" or an atrocity. I think it was smart idea at the time it was built and I think it is cool. I can't wait to ride it and see if I feel the same afterwards. I'll put it in my collection of other rare bikes I have. But hey, thanks for your input.
I'm curious to what post you read between this one of yours and the previous post you made that showed I "no longer like some of the info". I think I've been quite accepting of everything said.
 
You're quite right there sir, our opinions have been unsolicited.

I shall withdraw from the fray and leave you In peace.
 
o1racing03 said:
Here is a 59 Featherbed frame, I see no obvious modifications on mine in the area you speak of.
My New  Norasaki/ KawaTon

The tank may be a Manx-style aftermarket item, made to fit road frames like that 1959 one pictured. The later frame has a smaller radius bend at the rear of the top tubes.
Fitting it to your early (or maybe Manx) frame leaves a gap under the rear of the tank. The builder didn't like that and welded pads on, to support the tank. Most of us hackers would just have used a thick bit of rubber padding.

You could fit a Norton, Triumph, or BSA engine without much trouble. But only if you want to.
You could clean it up as it is. It will always look strange and ungainly, and will attract old farts who will criticise it and yell at you. Do you care?
 
Fast Eddie said:
That last pic in particular shows the frame mod I have been trying to explain, under the rear of the tank and on top of the frame loop. Difficult to visualise what and why it is, it may make sense when you look under the tank.

At o1racing03: this is what I meant by you being brave, this is a Norton site, so by definition your bike is bound to attract more negativity than an immaculately restored, bog standard, shiny Norton that looks exactly the same as all the others! You simply need to filter these comments out and ignore them!

Here's my 2 cents: selling off all the parts suggested by others will net you about $0 ! The engine will get you a few $ though. Reverting the frame back to stock will likely cost more than you could buy another one for. Then buying all the stuff to revert to standard, well, you'll probably have to sell everything else you inherited from your brother, and more, to finance it! Then you'll have a bike with zero sentimental value that looks like all the others. But where's the fun in that!?!

I think your bike has the potential to be a real fun, outrageous, different, cool, characterful bike. I think its gonna be great in its own right, and a great tribute to your brother too.

Ref your cafe racer comments though, this bike IS a cafe racer. If you want a street bike just to go fast, with zero interest in style, being different, being old skool, etc... You should just buy a few yers old R1 for next to nothing!

But where's the fun in that !?!

I for one, hope you see this project through, and keep us posted along the way!

I echo every word of the post above!
 
First thing to do, just to get that aspect of the discussion over and done with, is to read the two digits which appear together just near the top of the left side rear frame web that the swingarm spindle bolts through; that is the MODEL CODE, and will put to rest the frame MODEL. The rest of the serial number which reads in a single row from top to bottom, just below those two digits, is the serial number which will identify what year it was manufactured.

I'd ABSOLUTELY refurbish it AS-IS, and have a ton of fun with it.

You have no shame to bear, being AT LEAST twice removed from it's creation; and especially considering the path it took to get to you, having been obtained by your deceased brother for a very reasonable sum.
 
Fast Eddie said:
You're quite right there sir, our opinions have been unsolicited.

I shall withdraw from the fray and leave you In peace.

Don't do that. Your posts have been nothing but inline, keep em coming. it's those who don't read the whole thread and then have negative comments about what I should do. I'm not saying don't post your opinion. I'm just saying I'm not affected by negative opinions as long as they are based on true info. Some here have not. If you read the whole thread, and I know you have, you will agree that I think it is more than 50% in favor of what this bike IS at this time.
The posts made in this thread since you made this one are all in line with the direction I am taking with this bike. Wilkie will to be missed and he will be better off not being offended by what it is, so he shouldn't miss being here.
Unfortunately at this time I don't have access to the bike or paper work to help decipher exactly what model frame it is, doesn't really matter except to educate me on Norton bits. I was never a huge Norton fan other than Tritons because my first bike purchase was 67 500 Daytona in 1972.
Here's another question, are the air shocks on the back a Norton item or aftermarket units?
My mother is going through the paperwork (it's her bike until she transfers paperwork to me) to see if she can get me a VIN number to help identify it. I only said it's a max because when my brother acquired it in 1980 that's what he told me, 59 Manx/75 H2.
 
Triton Thrasher said:
o1racing03 said:
Here is a 59 Featherbed frame, I see no obvious modifications on mine in the area you speak of.
My New  Norasaki/ KawaTon

The tank may be a Manx-style aftermarket item, made to fit road frames like that 1959 one pictured. The later frame has a smaller radius bend at the rear of the top tubes.
Fitting it to your early (or maybe Manx) frame leaves a gap under the rear of the tank. The builder didn't like that and welded pads on, to support the tank. Most of us hackers would just have used a thick bit of rubber padding.

You could fit a Norton, Triumph, or BSA engine without much trouble. But only if you want to.
You could clean it up as it is. It will always look strange and ungainly, and will attract old farts who will criticise it and yell at you. Do you care?
Frame mod you suggest is what I thought it might be and I mentioned it previously. So as little as I know about Nortons I took a guess about what was going on there through experience building other bikes. I probably would not have gone that far in this build and used a foam spacer like you suggest. I am glad to see the original builder took the time to "do it right". Do I care when others criticize, not really. I don't build them for anyone but me and know my credentials and accomplishments through 46 years of riding and building bikes.
I know this is the epitome of a "Frankenbike" and not being familiar with Nortons that much, don't really see it as ungainly. Yeah those extra cylinders stick out bit more. But it doesn't look totally out of place TO ME. I also understand the purists. but life is too short to worry about every little detail. Unlike my brother who hid these toys away until his death I think is a waste of owning them. I'm a rider, not an art lover. This bike has not been seen by anyone for 35 years, I don't get it, why own it if you can't ride it or show it off?
 
diff strokes for diff folks, i'll say the air shocks are aftermarket, might be some info on them
 
Someone mentioned they may be S&W (Sparks and Witham) made by Gabriel and Monroe. Again, I'll be able figure out more when I have the bike in my hands. I may swap a pair of Hagons or something else if these are not viable.
 
hi all,looking at the flat section on the top tube nearest the shed doors,it looks like this frame was originally made to take a single cylinder motor,but not a manx.chris
 
Will the frame number tell me what model bike it was, or was that frame used in multiple models?
 
Back
Top