New generation Norton head (theoretical)

Status
Not open for further replies.
If it was possible to get a commando engine to rev over 8000 RPM, lighter valves might be desirable. Titanium oxidises, 4 valves per cylinder can be revved higher then 2 valves per cylinder. But the costs involved in getting the bottom end to cope might be significant.
 
acotrel said:
................ I have a problem with historic race classes in that they limit development......
Click to expand...

I have a problem with those who cannot understand that limiting development is actually the whole point of historic race classes.....It becomes a bigger problem when development is not limited!

The trick of managing development is deciding how to structure rules that allow some innovation to solve problems of unavailability of parts and reliability and maintaining some form of baseline that competitors can accept as reasonable. Organisers and clubs struggle with this all the time, it isn't easy and unfortunately they often make poor judgements based on autocratic management, insufficient knowledge or failure to canvas potential entrants.

If you wanted unlimited development opportunities you could have gone Supermono, except the totally free rules drove the required budget way beyond what most were prepared to invest, and it killed itself off!

If the rules don't let you do something, you have to accept that, be smarter and find a work around, or spend more money with someone who is.

But here we have the problem with Norton twin racing. You have to be a dyed in the wool Norton nut to do it. Why build a Norton when you can buy a Weslake?, why build any twin when you can build a triple!

Witness the rise and now fall of Rob North triples......lots of of em out there, they work extremely well, much better than they ever did in private hands in the '70s (when Nortons were comparatively very cheap) but they have now become beyond the means of most racers. 3 turned up at the last CRMC round. I haven't seen one being raced in France.

If you can develop a Norton head that delivers more power it will need to look like a Norton head for it to sell in anywhere near a viable volume, because you need all the market you can get to cover your costs.
 
swooshdave said:
I thought someone bought FA and I assume will resume production?
Click to expand...

Yep, we are waiting, but there will be set up time.

Of course if someone else decides to enter the market that would take even longer and have to share the agreed tiny market.

I suspect jseng1 is pitching his requirements for a modified Fullauto design ;)
 
Um, ask the new FA guys to put inserts in the exhaust and same with the studs topside. I fear if not a case of do it now or do it later.
 
Onder said:
Um, ask the new FA guys to put inserts in the exhaust and same with the studs topside. I fear if not a case of do it now or do it later.
Click to expand...

Maybe as an option since it must cost to make and install inserts, even if less than doing it on a used head. For some those extra dollars will be the go/no go point.

Some people have gotten several years use of a standard head through care and attention. Of course you are right, likely to get us all sooner or later.
 
Yes, FA new owner was waiting for enough castings to put together a machine run of heads to make it viable, this as you can imagine would need to be planned in and around other work. The ideal time to have any changes to the head would be the casting and machining stage, both easy to do if the volume is enough, as various port cores could be made and used as needed, machining, another 10 at the end of a batch would help keep the overall numbers up and the changes needed machined on the last ten or so, so it could be possible to keep both track and road users happy.
As yet, we still wait to see what the new heads will cost, hopefully cheaper than what the last batch cost. Otherwise the boss may take my handcuffs off and let me progress what I started when we could not have the amount heads that we wanted from the old supplier. The reason I was handcuffed was to honour the existing supplier at the time, and when it was sold, to see if the volume to meet orders and the price would improve - we and all others are still waiting.
 
SteveA said:
I have a problem with those who cannot understand that limiting development is actually the whole point of historic race classes.....It becomes a bigger problem when development is not limited!

The trick of managing development is deciding how to structure rules that allow some innovation to solve problems of unavailability of parts and reliability and maintaining some form of baseline that competitors can accept as reasonable. Organisers and clubs struggle with this all the time, it isn't easy and unfortunately they often make poor judgements based on autocratic management, insufficient knowledge or failure to canvas potential entrants.

If you wanted unlimited development opportunities you could have gone Supermono, except the totally free rules drove the required budget way beyond what most were prepared to invest, and it killed itself off!

If the rules don't let you do something, you have to accept that, be smarter and find a work around, or spend more money with someone who is.

But here we have the problem with Norton twin racing. You have to be a dyed in the wool Norton nut to do it. Why build a Norton when you can buy a Weslake?, why build any twin when you can build a triple!

Witness the rise and now fall of Rob North triples......lots of of em out there, they work extremely well, much better than they ever did in private hands in the '70s (when Nortons were comparatively very cheap) but they have now become beyond the means of most racers. 3 turned up at the last CRMC round. I haven't seen one being raced in France.

If you can develop a Norton head that delivers more power it will need to look like a Norton head for it to sell in anywhere near a viable volume, because you need all the market you can get to cover your costs.
Click to expand...


If you look at Supermono in particular, the thing which kills it is the lack of upper capacity limit. In Australia we had sounds of singles which had only one rule - the bikes' motor had to be a single cylinder four-stroke. The smarties bought the big Japanese MX motors, won everything - so anyone wanting to be competitive had to have one. The big motors died very easily - 500cc is about the limit where reliability starts to become a big problem. The only reason Manx Nortons were ever successful was they were fast and RELIABLE. Any Triumph required regular motor rebuilds , where a Manx motor would last a whole season.
If Supermono was going to be sensible, you would be able to use Jawa speedway motors, TTI gearboxes and Seeley frames to make something which would be a delight to race with. Those three items cost $15,000 in total, if you buy them brand new.
 
As far as Commandos are concerned, if the race class has an upper capacity limit is 1000cc and the motors are air-cooled twin cylinder four-strokes, the Commando should remain competitive provided they can be made reliable. Valve mass is a limiting factor. A 4 valve head would not in itself make the bike much faster, but the engines would be less likely to drop a valve if revved higher. The other thing is fuel restrictions are idiocy. Everyone should be using methanol and if they want to run nitro, it should be permitted. Some of the fastest bikes in Australia ran it in the old days. They also blew their motors apart. Commando engines love methanol and they have enough torque without using nitro.
I have been reading F.A.Hayek's 'The Constitution Of Liberty'. It is about the freedom of the freedom of the individual and the dangers which arise from officials using their powers of arbitrary coercion. To me racing is about having fun through applying my skills to make myself competitive. I built my bike using my acquired knowledge and it proves something to me about myself.

You do not need 100 BHP, if your bike has loads of torque and handles well and has the correct gearbox.
 
There is an interesting article in the latest Classic Racer about Eric Offenstadt. He raced a monocoque 500cc H1R Kawasaki in the 1970s at the time when the 750 two strokes were turning out 100 horses. Eric's bike had about 75 BHP and trounced many of the faster guys.
 
swooshdave i second that one concentrate on replacement OEM heads , good usable heads are becoming difficult to find

pandering to the racers requirements will not make the numbers required for a production batch

if i were the new owners of the Full Auto tooling i would also take a close look at my distribution network and look to get into some of the distributors
 
Full Auto heads might be viable in America, because the potential market is bigger. But selling anything like that is a thankless task. I admire Ken for what he achieved. I have friends who made and sold after-market parts, and found it extremely difficult. If I was making a head for a Commando, I would do it to improve my own bike. Anything else would be incidental. If it was wanted by others, I would then think about selling in volume.
 
One thing which puzzles me, is that Ken seems to have achieved a performance boost with his FA heads. I would have thought you would need to race using a prototype and develop it as you went, to get more performance.
 
acotrel said:
One thing which puzzles me, is that Ken seems to have achieved a performance boost with his FA heads. I would have thought you would need to race using a prototype and develop it as you went, to get more performance.
Click to expand...

I believe the performance boost was due to the ports, the design for which came from the brain of a certain Mr Comstock...
 
A Commando frame restricts the cylinder head as far as a down draught port.

Once you try to sell an item as some form of hobby or passion you are looking for failure.
Want to sell a head in numbers, do it as a business first and the dollar is the bottom line, you can worry about all the hairy fairy stuff once you are well into profit.
Like I said long ago, you can be all bleeding heart but unless you can get the highest profit margin with the lowest manufacture cost you are wasting your time and money and will most likely give up.

You also need 110% quality control, if the item is not up to scratch, throw it back into the next melt.
QC does not have to be done by Norton people or enthusiasts, it is done by people who know about QC ie casting and machining.

Most sales are US, because that is where the most Commando's went that means you want a replacement head in the US$1800 range.
Hello ? who is going to bolt a US$2500 /$3000 dollar head on a US$6000 bike when the return on that even if never started is maybe $800 to $1500 if you are lucky.
Let alone trying to sell 50 'new generation heads worldwide.

Sell to the masses to generate the funds to build the if only's.
 
Time Warp said:
A Commando frame restricts the cylinder head as far as a down draught port.

Once you try to sell an item as some form of hobby or passion you are looking for failure.
Want to sell a head in numbers, do it as a business first and the dollar is the bottom line, you can worry about all the hairy fairy stuff once you are well into profit.
Like I said long ago, you can be all bleeding heart but unless you can get the highest profit margin with the lowest manufacture cost you are wasting your time and money and will most likely give up.

You also need 110% quality control, if the item is not up to scratch, throw it back into the next melt.
QC does not have to be done by Norton people or enthusiasts, it is done by people who know about QC ie casting and machining.

Most sales are US, because that is where the most Commando's went that means you want a replacement head in the US$1800 range.
Hello ? who is going to bolt a US$2500 /$3000 dollar head on a US$6000 bike when the return on that even if never started is maybe $800 to $1500 if you are lucky.
Let alone trying to sell 50 'new generation heads worldwide.

Sell to the masses to generate the funds to build the if only's.
Click to expand...

From my experience, mostly incorrect.
 
Time Warp said:
...............
Most sales are US, because that is where the most Commando's went that means you want a replacement head in the US$1800 range.
Hello ? who is going to bolt a US$2500 /$3000 dollar head on a US$6000 bike when the return on that even if never started is maybe $800 to $1500 if you are lucky.
Let alone trying to sell 50 'new generation heads worldwide..........
Click to expand...

I think Fullauto went to market as a new generation head! I have #101 bought in 2014. There are more than twice that out there worldwide!

I think the basis of your opinion is that your understanding of current 'market value' is indeed in a Time Warp! As is your idea that these bikes are being built to sell immediately for profit.

What are you going to pay for an original 850 head? How many will you need to buy to get a usable donor? How much are you going to spend to get it to an installable condition?
 
SteveA said:
I think Fullauto went to market as a new generation head! I have #101 bought in 2014. There are more than twice that out there worldwide!

I think the basis of your opinion is that your understanding of current 'market value' is indeed in a Time Warp! As is your idea that these bikes are being built to sell immediately for profit.

What are you going to pay for an original 850 head? How many will you need to buy to get a usable donor? How much are you going to spend to get it to an installable condition?
Click to expand...

2014 is a long time ago for 30 heads or so a year since.

I payed $4000 for my FA head locally with all KibbleWhite valve train components from JC.

I payed a little over $1000 in total for a mint RH1 head (US eBay) with full rework by Jim Comstock including KW valves,guides along with exhaust and stud thread inserts.

If you think 250 heads over that time span for the planet is good don't go into business. :D
No one is denying Ken FA did not offer something of use but if you can not return a profit (unless you are a charity / very wealthy) it will become a white elephant.
I have a mint RH10 sitting on the shelf and would be lucky to get $500/$600 for it locally..fwiw.. so it remains on the shelf with all the other mint RH1's.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top