- Joined
- Nov 20, 2004
- Messages
- 20,082
Time Warp said:Its simply a poor design and failed in use for what ever reason.
Agreed, the underlying problem was the design of the frame.
Again, to quote Ken Sprayson:
Testing was to be carried out at the military vehicle proving ground at Chobham in Surrey. This had similar facilities to MIRA, including a Belgian pavé track on which the Commando would be tested. Tony [Dennis] suggested that I went along to see the tests. The outcome was conclusive - the original design only completed 23 laps before failure occurred. The best of the heavier top tubes managed 120 laps, whilst my modified design did over 400 laps with no problem. The modified frame was also subjected to the scrambles course, again without failure......
Whether the apparent rough handling of the crates did actually accelerate the rate of failures or not, I guess we will never know for sure, but: "induced weakness initiated by unsatisfactory crating and warehousing procedures" does seem to be the official explanation.
Time Warp said:Where is the US court case of the day for compensation by Norton UK ?
No "court case" that I'm aware of, although a US recall was (eventually?) issued.
http://www.recallrecord.com/auto/norton ... ecalls.php
Norton campaign no n/a. Possibility that the large diameter top tube of the main frame, may fracture in service due to unusual conditions of use following an induced weakness initiated by unsatisfactory crating and warehousing procedures. (corrective action, on machines affected, within the series of engine numbers 126125 to 128634, the frame should be changed in accordance with the instructions given in the 750cc model workshop manual (part no. 063419). )
Time Warp said:Who payed for the recalls ?
Norton, as far as I know.