N15CS Thread

Rohan said:
nickjtc said:
At risk of sounding like the 'anti-anorak',
Click to expand...
You say you are an anti-anorak, but are going to paint it strictly factory colors.
Hmmmm. Welcome to the ..... club !?Cheers.
Click to expand...

BUSTED!! :? And proud of it.... if only to re-say what I said originally..... what is it about North Americans wanting their bike to be black?? Both of the Nortons are rare compared to the plethora of modern v-twin machines on the road these days (doesn't anyone have any imagination....) and I want them to not be black, so what better than to make them the colour they came from the works. :wink:
 
When I got my Commando basket case, the tank and side covers were black. As I stripped them down, I found the bike had been painted a half dozen times and decided to repaint whatever the original color was. It turned out to be Signal Red. It was only after I painted it that I learned 850s didn't come in that color or have fiberglass tank and side covers. The bike was probably originally a different configuration, and a previous owner found some Roadster parts to convert it.

Repainted it Candy Red to match the Ranger, and the G15 will also be Candy Red, except with the Silver double 'D' stripe :wink:
 
Herewith the two Nortons. I have fitted the later style exhausts to the N15. And subsequent to this pic, the original style air filter.

N15CS Thread


N15CS Thread
 
Rohan said:
Matchless Teledraulic forks.
Which were famous for their smooth action and progressive damping...
Click to expand...

Rohan - can you tell us a little more about this? I have a project G80CS with Teledralics that I was thinking of swapping out for something more modern. Maybe I should revisit this idea? I have a Suzuki GT750 drum brake that ought to bring the Matchless to a halt better than the original unit . . .

Vintage Paul
 
Being famous for smooth action and progressive damping IN THEIR DAY, is not the same as having smooth action and progressive action relative to updated modern parts.

That said, it's down to the intended use, and what would constitute acceptable performance to YOU.
 
grandpaul said:
That said, it's down to the intended use, and what would constitute acceptable performance to YOU.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Speaking as a ghof I am quite happy puttering along at a rate which does not get anywhere near being too much for the technology on these older bikes. :?
 
Sure, it would not be fair to expect the old Teledralics to compare with some modern sport bikes units but I would like to know how they might work compared to an old set of Roadholders or even the more modern internal spring Commando units. I'm not nearly as demanding on equipment as I was years ago . . .

Vintage Paul
 
hudson29 said:
Sure, it would not be fair to expect the old Teledralics to compare with some modern sport bikes units but I would like to know how they might work compared to an old set of Roadholders or even the more modern internal spring Commando units. I'm not nearly as demanding on equipment as I was years ago . . .

Vintage Paul
Click to expand...

I think the heavyweight Teledraulics from the '60s are comparable to Roadholders. They're both 1-1/4 fork tubes and have a similar damper assembly. The sliders use caps on the AMC, rather than the pinch bolt method of the Norton. AMC caps also have a piece of steel embedded in the bridge to reinforce the cap. The lightweight teledraulics used 1-1/8 fork tubes, which I think are too small. Both use tapered top yokes with fork nuts that lock in the tube and hold the damper rod. Lower yokes both use pinch bolts.

Teledraulics are external spring, and I don't think they can be set up for internal springs. This makes getting the teledraulics into the yokes a bit tricky, as you have you extend the fork tube and compress the spring to get the forks assembled.

G15/N15/33 used Roadholders, where the P11 series used Teles. Some competition P11s used Roadholders or Cerianis - whatever the pilot felt comfortable with.
 
BillT said:
Teledraulics are external spring, and I don't think they can be set up for internal springs. This makes getting the teledraulics into the yokes a bit tricky, as you have you extend the fork tube and compress the spring to get the forks assembled.
Click to expand...

Same as Triumphs up through '70, there is a long threaded stanchion tube installation tool that helps greatly. I made an adapter for the Atlas I'm working on; all I did was take an old fork cap, chop off the head, and drilled it through to the same diameter as the Triumph tool's working end. It sure makes it easy.
 
BillT said:
G15/N15/33 used Roadholders, where the P11 series used Teles. Some competition P11s used Roadholders or Cerianis - whatever the pilot felt comfortable with.
Click to expand...

How did AMC decide to use Roadholders vs. Teledralics on a given model? Were there differences in the way they worked for various jobs such as dirt vs. street?

Vintage Paul
 
hudson29 said:
How did AMC decide to use Roadholders vs. Teledralics on a given model? Were there differences in the way they worked for various jobs such as dirt vs. street?

Vintage Paul
Click to expand...

I think the Roadholders were used on the Atlas Scrambler because of the bigger brake on the Norton wheel and the reputation of the roadholder on the street. Initially, the G15 'N' used a hybrid fork, combining AMC and Norton components. In '64, they just used long roadholders.
For the P11, all but a small handful of the '67s were built for scrambles. The springs were stiffer and there was no buffer spring, giving a bit more travel in the forks. Matchless had many years' experience building off-road forks, so I imagine they felt no need to change them on the P11. In addition the G85, on which the P11 is based, had been built with skimmed hubs. The wheels were lighter and more robust than the G/N15 Norton wheels. 7" brakes weren't a big deal for a scrambles bike. The skimmed hubs continued for the P11A, though the forks came with road springs and buffer springs. They stopped skimming the hubs for the Ranger, but I'm sure they saw no need to change forks for a 500-bike production run.
 
How did AMC decide to use Roadholders vs. Teledralics on a given model? Were there differences in the way they worked for various jobs such as dirt vs. street?
Click to expand...

Roadholder forks replaced Teledraulics for '64 on the AJS/M roadster model line-up. This was primarily a cost cutting exercise (Roadholder forks had to stay due to manufacturing of Norton relocating to Plumstead in 1963). It also meant a much more rigid chassis - essential on the G12/G15Mk1 models in particular which were increasingly used on the new M1 Motorway in the UK.
Use of the Roadholder front end also addressed a shortcoming in the brake department which had been criticised by the press for years - AMC's 7in brake was not up to the job of stopping the heavyweights efficiently.

Teledraulic forks / front ends were still used on the G80/85CS for at least 3 reasons: Lower weight (this is particularly true for the G85Cs which had 1-1/8in fork tubes); two-way damping; and the increasing cost of producing them would be easier to reclaim on a competition bike. One of the reasons why asking prices for these bikes soared towards the end of the 60's.
Forks and hubs have to fit to another. Another advantage of using the "old" design is the spoke pattern of hubs used by Matchless: Both hubs are designed for straight pull spokes. This design is much more tolerant to shock loads occuring in motocross than the traditional J-shaped spokes. Straight-pull spoked wheels are also stiffer than traditional wheels. The design is shared by BMW and my impression is that AMC copied BMW as they did when designing the Teledraulic fork in the late 30's. It could be the other way around though .....
I believe AMC was the only maker in the UK applying this design. As a side note, straight-pull spokes and ditto hubs are very much in fashion on today's BMX and CX pushbikes!

-Knut
 
mdt-son said:
Teledraulic forks / front ends were still used on the G80/85CS for at least 3 reasons: Lower weight (this is particularly true for the G85Cs which had 1-1/8in fork tubes);
Click to expand...

AMC did away with 1 &1/8" fork tubes in the early 1950s, and went to 1 & 1/4" ??
My old road 1949 Ajay has 1 & 1/8" fork tubes, and they are somewhat flexible.
I cannot imagine them being used in competition....

My old BM has straight pull spokes, they've been using them for donkeys years. (In stainless even).
Surprising more didn't copy them.
BSA used them at some stage, but didn't continue with them ??
 
mdt-son said:
Teledraulic forks / front ends were still used on the G80/85CS for at least 3 reasons: Lower weight (this is particularly true for the G85Cs which had 1-1/8in fork tubes); two-way damping; and the increasing cost of producing them would be easier to reclaim on a competition bike. One of the reasons why asking prices for these bikes soared towards the end of the 60's.
-Knut
Click to expand...

The G80/G85/P11 used 1-1/4 teledraulics. Pre-interim hub G80s may have used 1-1/8 tubes - I'm not too familiar with the older models - but I know the G85 and P11 series used the 1-1/4 fork tubes. I had to replace one slider on my Ranger, and got a pair from a 1964 G80CS, which were 1-1/4, just like my P11. The P11 and G85 (all 130? of them) shared most components except the engine, oil tank, intake and exhaust systems

I think the main reason that the P11 series used the teledraulics was for the two-way damping and the more robust hubs. 7-inch brakes are not a liability on a scrambler. The rear spokes are massive on these things, and lacing up a wheel is what the Brits would call a doddle - just push the spoke through and it goes to the hole in the rim its supposed to go to.
 
First off, thanks for a very informative couple of posts. i spent many hours online and never came up with nearly so concise a bit of information. So, thanks for that, I now sort of know what I have. Even though it seems designed to be as confusing as possible, the way they did the numbers and such.

It is a G15CS #124335.

11 caveat though. Mine has a straighe, low set of exhaust. I don't know if that is significant or not. They seem to be origonal.

It's a project in the works
 
Kneepuck said:
11 caveat though. Mine has a straighe, low set of exhaust. I don't know if that is significant or not. They seem to be origonal.
Click to expand...

Something like this ?
N15CS Thread


An N15CS or G15CS should indeed be like this.
As googling on this subject would show...
 
Yeah, mine looks something like that...

N15CS Thread


Got over a hundred miles on it, now. Starting to run cooler - think the rings are bedding in and getting a little better heat transfer.
 
BillT said:
The G80/G85/P11 used 1-1/4 teledraulics. Pre-interim hub G80s may have used 1-1/8 tubes - I'm not too familiar with the older models - but I know the G85 and P11 series used the 1-1/4 fork tubes. I had to replace one slider on my Ranger, and got a pair from a 1964 G80CS, which were 1-1/4, just like my P11. The P11 and G85 (all 130? of them) shared most components except the engine, oil tank, intake and exhaust systems
Click to expand...

I am sorry Bill, but you haven't done your homework. The G85CS used fork tubes p/n 016377 which is the heat-improved 1-1/8" type developed in 1954 to combat some of the flexibilty problems. I can prove my point because I have the G85 lugs on the shelve. The G80CS & P11 used fork tubes p/n 022823 which is the beefed-up 1-1/4" tubes introduced for 1956. You also seem to mix up G80CS and G85CS. These are two very different motorcycles.

The reason why AMC put the thinner tubes on the G85 is simply to save weight. On the motocross track, flexibility isn't an issue, wherease on the road it is.

-Knut
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top