My New Norasaki/ KawaTon

I started to think about it today, whether the KawaTon was registered by the frame VIN or the motor VIN. My brother tells me there are titles for most of his toys but not all, and that there is one for a Kawasaki. This means I won't be able to get the frame VIN until they fly back out there (Ca.) from Ct. later this month. This is frustrating doing research yet not being able to put hands on them until Nov. or Dec. sometime.
 
http://www.norvilmotorcycle.co.uk/

The Identify your bike tab at this location should give you a good steer on the origin of your frame.

I'm not a great fan of this vendor but this page is definitely helpful.

I actually think this could be a nice project. Its a way better thing to do with a Norton frame than some things I have seen and it's much easier to find a new featherbed frame these days than a good Norton engine to put in it. Id go as far to say its almost a compliment :roll:

As to the frame itself. As other pointed out it has the brackets for pillion footpegs which strongly suggest road bike origin. It does has the more unusual compressed swing arm Manx style end rather than the much more common lugs. But this was standard on street frames around 1953, 4, 5, 6 ? Dont quote me Im not exactly sure on the year. Rohan will know and correct me Im sure :D

And someone did weld on those gap filing spacers under the back of the tank. But they could be removed in 5 minutes if required.

On balance Id say a street frame originally - not Manx. If you get a clear number on the left hand plate where the swinging arm mounts that will do it for you.
 
I won't have access to the frame numbers for another month. On my Sportster the legal VIN for registration is the on the motor, not the frame, my custom frame has no numbers at all. This bike is titled as the Kawasaki.
They general consensus here is that it is not a Manx, what model should I look at to try and determine what model it is?
The pillion footpeg mounts look more triangular than the long skinny triangular ones I see on the Norton frames. Are they the same as some other model or sourced from a some other bike and welded on. I have no idea.
 
o1racing03 said:
The pillion footpeg mounts look more triangular than the long skinny triangular ones I see on the Norton frames. Are they the same as some other model or sourced from a some other bike and welded on. I have no idea.

You'll have to have a look at it, and tell us when you get it.
A quick-n-dirty test for a manx frame is to flick it with your fingernail.
If its thin wall hi-tensile, it will go 'ting'.
If its road bike, will go more 'thunk'.
Unmistakeable.
 
If I recall correctly, signs of a Manx frame include:

Fairing mounting lugs on the headstock
Chain oiler fittings on the left hand main frame (oil was put in the frame and 'dribbled" onto the chain)
Racing number plate mounts on the rar subframe diagonal tubes
Shorter seat rail rear loop with smaller bracket for the lighter racing mudguard
And of course, the frame number.

There may be other pointers I have missed...
 
Good to see you haven't left FF. Well at this point we won't know anything for a month until eyes can be laid on it. Until then I will just continue to educate myself on all things Norton. Appreciate the helps guys.
 
Fast Eddie said:
Well you, or at least your bike, have already had a lot of stick on here, bad taste, butchering a Norton, etc so at least we know you're brave!

Personally, I love it, or what it has the potential to become at least. I guess you need to decide what kind of direction you want to go in with it and how deep a money pit you want it to become!

There is not a lot of Norton on it I don't think. The frame and swinging arm are, but the frame has been modified. The forks look like Norton too. I can't quite make out the yokes. The tank is most likely after market. And the rest is anyone's guess!

I cannot tell from the pictures quite how the front caliper bracket is mounted, so I'd check that out.

Here's how I'd approach the job at hand:

The engine is physically quite small, so I would take the direction of minimalism with the rest of the bike. First step in that direction would be a 3 gallon 'sprint tank' to replace the 5 gallon job you currently have on there.

I'd go with modern shocks like Maxton or Falcon. I'd put Landsdowne dampers in the forks and generally rebuilt them properly.

You need a new Manx style seat and simple, normal, British cafe racer style mudguards. I'd go with Tomesselli rubber mounted headlamp brackets, normal Lucas style chrome headlamp, and one of those neat alloy castings that take a traditional Lucas style rear light.

I have no idea at all regarding the engine.

His could be so cool when finished, and you know that wherever you go on it... You will NEVER see another! I hope you see it through.

That's the direction I'd go.
I can't offer much regarding featherbeds other than to encourage you to get it at least rideable.
Not sure what kind of tune those pipes would put out, but would still be fun to find out.
Always had a fascination with the H2, even test rode one with chambers......
What a thrill, too scary for the street for me... Wished I had it now for the remember when days.

I'll be checking in on the progress. Don't be deterred.

Very nice XR750 RR, btw.....

Cheers....... 8)


Add.... looks like it is right side shift...............
 
Michaelb and GrandPaul, it is not an XR 750 but a 62 XLCH with Sputhe XR style heads , 1327cc and weighs 331lbs.

Now for the latest update on the Kawaton. My numbers were wrong. It is in fact a 1957 Norton featherbed frame and the motor is from a 1974 H2. I mistakingly thought they were a 59 and a 75. My brother handling the liquidation with my Mom are out there now and he looked for the Norton VIN and only found the Assigned Identification Number riveted to the frame that was issued when the Frankenbike was registered. Ross only paid $418 for it from the builders estate. Can anyone tell me exactly where the frame VIN on a 57 frame is. Surely the State of Calif. didn't put the assigned number over the original VIN? I can't tell from the pic of the AIN where it is attached to the frame. It's been decided that I will get the 1969 Honda CB750 sandcast also. It's a complete basket case that will take more money and time than I have, so I will probably sell it off to fund the restoration of the Kawaton and Triumph Tiger
 
Serial number should be on the drive (left) side gusset plate just above the swingarm spindle.
 
o1racing03 said:
It's been decided that I will get the 1969 Honda CB750 sandcast also. It's a complete basket case that will take more money and time than I have, so I will probably sell it off to fund the restoration of the Kawaton and Triumph Tiger

Sorry to be a bit of a killjoy, but there is no such thing as a sand cast Honda 750 –these crankcases never went anywhere near a grain of sand when they were made :!: - there has been a whole discussion of this subject on the Honda forums. :shock:
 
Bernhard said:
o1racing03 said:
It's been decided that I will get the 1969 Honda CB750 sandcast also. It's a complete basket case that will take more money and time than I have, so I will probably sell it off to fund the restoration of the Kawaton and Triumph Tiger

Sorry to be a bit of a killjoy, but there is no such thing as a sand cast Honda 750 –these crankcases never went anywhere near a grain of sand when they were made :!: - there has been a whole discussion of this subject on the Honda forums. :shock:
Give me a link to that discussion. I've certainly never heard that and it's a common knowledge fact how they were made.
 
Bernhard said:
o1racing03 said:
It's been decided that I will get the 1969 Honda CB750 sandcast also. It's a complete basket case that will take more money and time than I have, so I will probably sell it off to fund the restoration of the Kawaton and Triumph Tiger

Sorry to be a bit of a killjoy, but there is no such thing as a sand cast Honda 750 –these crankcases never went anywhere near a grain of sand when they were made :!: - there has been a whole discussion of this subject on the Honda forums. :shock:

Would love to hear more about this claim....
 
Well this is interesting. Paperwork from original builders attorney says it is a 1957 Norton frame. The VIN number, K122 #60952 says it is a 1955 Model 88 if I'm not mistaken.
My New  Norasaki/ KawaTon
 
o1racing03 said:
Bernhard said:
o1racing03 said:
It's been decided that I will get the 1969 Honda CB750 sandcast also. It's a complete basket case that will take more money and time than I have, so I will probably sell it off to fund the restoration of the Kawaton and Triumph Tiger

Sorry to be a bit of a killjoy, but there is no such thing as a sand cast Honda 750 –these crankcases never went anywhere near a grain of sand when they were made :!: - there has been a whole discussion of this subject on the Honda forums. :shock:
Give me a link to that discussion. I've certainly never heard that and it's a common knowledge fact how they were made.


A long while ago, Honda made their first batch of 750s which they tried to make quickly as they had heard Kawasaki was making a 4 cylinder bike, so they used a process of making diecast crankcases PDQ, that was speedier than the normal method of making the normal run of the mill diecasts, I forgot what this method was called. The result was a set of crankcases that was rough on the outside, then some dude, who should have known better, said they look sandcast-which stuck for the first batch of a couple of thousand 750s until these molds were worn. Kawasaki decided to sit back and see if Honda would sell their 750s, and missed the boat, so increased the engine to 901cc.
This entire story was printed in the Honda book first out in the 1970s.
There was a discussion on the now closed Honda Owners forum, that even the person whocalled himself ” the Doctor” was unaware of this information-sandcast is thicker than die-cast.
The fact that the “sandcast” name has stuck has meant that the gullible public have been paying premium prices for something that never saw a grain of sand :!: :shock:
 
[/quote]
Give me a link to that discussion. I've certainly never heard that and it's a common knowledge fact how they were made.[/quote]


A long while ago, Honda made their first batch of 750s which they tried to make quickly as they had heard Kawasaki was making a 4 cylinder bike, so they used a process of making diecast crankcases PDQ, that was speedier than the normal method of making the normal run of the mill diecasts, I forgot what this method was called. The result was a set of crankcases that was rough on the outside, then some dude, who should have known better, said they look sandcast-which stuck for the first batch of a couple of thousand 750s until these molds were worn. Kawasaki decided to sit back and see if Honda would sell their 750s, and missed the boat, so increased the engine to 901cc.
This entire story was printed in the Honda book first out in the 1970s.
There was a discussion on the now closed Honda Owners forum, that even the person whocalled himself ” the Doctor” was unaware of this information-sandcast is thicker than die-cast.
The fact that the “sandcast” name has stuck has meant that the gullible public have been paying premium prices for something that never saw a grain of sand :!: :shock:[/quote]


The premium price is not because they were sand cast but the fact that they were the first ones and few in volume that puts the premium on them. Call them what you want, they are more valuable than the one made later. It's not like sand cast was magically better than the die cast.
 
Back
Top