Norton Glory Days

lcrken said:

With the infamous Mr. Jags Norton on the left end. Can't remember who the rider was for that race.

Those were the glory years for a lot of us. This is a picture of our bikes in the pits at Daytona in 1984 for my first AMA Battle of the Twins races. The yellow production racer and the black wideline featherbed were my bikes, and the red Commando in the front was Chris Scott's (owner of Supertwins shop in North Hollywood) ride. Chris and I had trailered the bikes out from California on a small 3-rail trailer meant for dirt bikes, blowing out the 12" trailer tires multiple time on the way there and back.

View attachment 111535

Fast forward a few years to 1990, and this is another shot of Nortons in a row at the Daytona AMA National. The two yellow bikes (including the ex-Jim Schmidt monoshock) are mine, the silver one belonged to my friend and racing buddy at the time, Mark Field, and the black one was Rob Tuluie's.

View attachment 111536

By the end of 1990 the glory days for Nortons were pretty much over in AMA road races. This is a picture of the monoshock bike with it's third place trophy at the 1990 AMA National at Willow Springs. That was the last Norton to finish on an AMA road race podium. Rob Tuluie was riding the bike for me (he was way faster than I was). That's him with the bike, and his girl friend standing behind. The half a guy on the right is me.

View attachment 111538

By 1991 AMA had cancelled the Pro-Twins (previously Battle of the Twins) classes, and AHRMA had taken them over. Nortons were always well represented in the AHRMA twins classes, and still are to this day.

Ken

Click to expand...

Awesome Bikes Ken! Love the number 39 that was my dads and later mine!

As far as racing Norton twins is concerned, I would just like to race in a class for air-cooled twin cylinder machines up to a capacity of 1000cc. I would not care what they were, and they could have 4 valves per cylinder. A commando-based bike in such a class would always do very well. And it could be a development class.
I do not know what the rules for BOTT were, but I suspect they allowed water cooling. A BOTT class which permitted methanol fuel and water cooling for non-methanol motors, could be good.
A really good fun race class will usually stand on its own two feet.
A mate of mine has one of those 1000cc Suzuki V twins. It seems to be fast.
A lot of guys get paranoid about race rules before they even race - but it is always 'suck it and see'.

This might be the ultimate - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_TL1000R
There could be two divisions.

The trouble is Al race organisations are moving to E fuel, methanol is never mentioned along with avgas etc. If your a front runner your mainly buying specialist fuel in 25 gallon drums. Unlike me using the local supermarket & octane booster. (Frowned upon)
your wish list class is just that! You can't get enough twins out at anytime.

acotrel said:

As far as racing Norton twins is concerned, I would just like to race in a class for air-cooled twin cylinder machines up to a capacity of 1000cc. I would not care what they were, and they could have 4 valves per cylinder. A commando-based bike in such a class would always do very well. And it could be a development class.
I do not know what the rules for BOTT were, but I suspect they allowed water cooling. A BOTT class which permitted methanol fuel and water cooling for non-methanol motors, could be good.
A really good fun race class will usually stand on its own two feet.
A mate of mine has one of those 1000cc Suzuki V twins. It seems to be fast.
A lot of guys get paranoid about race rules before they even race - but it is always 'suck it and see'.

This might be the ultimate - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_TL1000R
There could be two divisions.

Click to expand...

I fail to see why anyone should get “paranoid about race rules before they even race” unless one is following the “suck it and see” approach, in which case you get what you deserve.

A more sensible approach is to read the rules and build a bike accordingly. It’s not really rocket science or guesswork.

Fast Eddie said:

Absolutely Ken.

It’s been my conclusion / belief for a long while that the light crank vs heavy crank ‘thing’ is basically down to rider preference.

For me, I do not believe one or the other would make an iota of difference to lap times !

As I’ve mentioned before, personally I prefer the feel of a lighter crank, to me it makes the motor feel more crisp / free / eager and I like that.

But, I can definitely see how some would feel that it detracted from an important part of the Commandos character.

To summarise in a Norton context, if I had an 850 mile muncher, I’d want a stock heavy crank in it. If I had a 750 Combat, I’d want a light crank in it.

Click to expand...

detracted from an important part of the Commandos character?

74ok said:

detracted from an important part of the Commandos character?

Click to expand...

The heavy flywheel ‘torque storage’ effect is reduced.

How many of the people in the glory days pics that may have finished on the podium used heavy stock cranks in their race bikes?

acotrel said:

With motorcycles, it is worth always taking everything you hear with a grain of salt. Most opinions are subjective. The theory is the best motor in the best frame gives the best bike. But it does not quite work like that. What you see is not what you get. The worst historic racer is probably the Norvin.

Click to expand...

The worst historic racer!? Never heard of your fellow Australian pilot Eric Debenham?

Schwany said:

How many of the people in the glory days pics that may have finished on the podium used heavy stock cranks in their race bikes?

Click to expand...

Most used the stock heavy cranks. It was more important was to radius the PTO shaft to keep it from breaking. When I lightened my flywheel what I noticed was that it was easier to shift because I could blip the throttle and change RPM quicker to snick it into gear. And when I down shifted it would not slide the rear tire as bad as a stock heavy crank because it would spin up the flywheel instead of sliding the tire. Taking a couple pounds off the bike was another advantage. But I don't think I would bother lightening the crank on a street bike.

jseng1 said:

Most used the stock heavy cranks. It was more important was to radius the PTO shaft to keep it from breaking. When I lightened my flywheel what I noticed was that it was easier to shift because I could blip the throttle and change RPM quicker to snick it into gear. And when I down shifted it would not slide the rear tire as bad as a stock heavy crank because it would spin up the flywheel instead of sliding the tire. Taking a couple pounds off the bike was another advantage. But I don't think I would bother lightening the crank on a street bike.

Click to expand...

I don't see the difference in where the bike is used myself. The benefits of using a lighter crank assembly are the same. Same goes with your cams, long rods and pistons. Street or track the benefits are the same.

Cue Al and others

It does not matter whether the crank is light or heavy when everything else is adjusted to suit it. My Triton 500 was fast, but it needed a 6 speed gearbox. With the 4 speed close ratio box, I chose where I wanted to lose a race. If it was kept spinning high, it would be slow coming out of corners but power on forever, but with low gearing it would run out of steam on the straights, but accelerate like buggery coming out of corners. Low gearing was more fun, but dangerous - so I usually ran high.
With the Seeley 850 geared high and 4 speeds close, the bike was too slow at the start , unless I revved the tits off the motor and risked destroying the gearbox. With low gearing it does nothing. The motor always seems to spin up at the same rate. When I raise the gearing, the bike accelerates faster. With close ratios, crank inertia can be used to advantage. But the heavy crank means your throttle is usually affected by the lower part of the carb needles. as you accelerate - rich mixture means less power, so the rate of taper on the needles is important. What I like about the heavy crank, is it never scares me shitless. It is nice smooth and fast. When you are cranked over in corners and accelerating fast, you need smooth. With a Commando based bike, it can only ever be about the corners. Down the straights, it only needs to hold it's own. I have not raced with the 6 speed TTI gearbox, and I am unlikely to ever have the opportunity, but it should be excellent.
I am actually surprised that the heavy crank can work so well. With my bike, I feed the throttle on, as you would with a two-stroke.

If you want to ride inside 1000cc fireblades on bends what you need is a close ratio gearbox. Oh, and a different frame, suspension... or a CBR600?

I sometimes filter in between them whilst exiting the holding area.

Schwany said:

I don't see the difference in where the bike is used myself. The benefits of using a lighter crank assembly are the same. Same goes with your cams, long rods and pistons. Street or track the benefits are the same.

Cue Al and others

Click to expand...

I don't think I would spend money to lighten a crank for a road bike either. Yes, it might have some benefit, but I think the returns will be of less value than for a race bike, and there will be other things more worthwhile to spend on.

Bear in mind, I would also advocate retaining a standard cam profile for a road bike, so maybe what we expect from our road bikes differs!

Less reciprocating weight (long rods and light pistons) and a modest compression hike I would go for. As an alternative, I would probably spend the money on a Fullauto and fancy carbs!

SteveA said:

I don't think I would spend money to lighten a crank for a road bike either. Yes, it might have some benefit, but I think the returns will be of less value than for a race bike, and there will be other things more worthwhile to spend on.

Bear in mind, I would also advocate retaining a standard cam profile for a road bike, so maybe what we expect from our road bikes differs!

Less reciprocating weight (long rods and light pistons) and a modest compression hike I would go for. As an alternative, I would probably spend the money on a Fullauto and fancy carbs!

Click to expand...

I understand the leave things as they are reasoning for most Norton owners. We may have different expectations for how a road bike should perform. Although I doubt anyone with race experience would be unhappy riding my Norton on the street. Only thing on the go fast parts list I don't have installed in or on my little Norton engine is a FullAuto head. The combination of parts I do have installed works well enough for me.

I'm honestly surprised that road racers back in the mid-80's were using heavy cranks. I really did not expect that kind of an answer. I'm not recommending anyone lighten their crank in their street engines. I'm saying I like a lighter crank and it works fine on the street. I also liked the heavier stock crank with the JSM valve train long rods and light pistons, but my motor spins up quicker with the Molnar crank. I don't have a garage full of motorcycles anymore, so the value for money spent isn't a concern. It's just a toy.

With a close ratio gearbox, the heavy crank does not cause loss of traction at the rear wheel on down-changes, and the bike accelerates faster on up-changes. With wide ratios, on down changes - the heavy crank is forced to gain more revs in a shorter time. I was using a Manx cluster, and it was perfect everywhere but in a clutch start, unless I revved the tits off the motor and risked busting it.
A lot of guys speculate about close ratios, but have never used them. One of my mates said 'if you have a torquey motor, you do not need a close ratio gearbox' - he was very wrong. I knew it when he said that, but I did not wise him up. The close box made my Seeley 850 rideable and much faster.
Many years ago, I did a lot of racing in which I was always behind the 8-ball. I know when I have a problem and I know how to fix it. I would not spend $700 on a Manx cluster, if I did not know what it would do.
I do not recommend that anyone should race the way I did, but I learned heaps. If I raced a modern bike, I would become bored and go home.
With a Commando based bike - they respond to tuning very well - so are more fun.

Schwany said:

I understand the leave things as they are reasoning for most Norton owners. We may have different expectations for how a road bike should perform. Although I doubt anyone with race experience would be unhappy riding my Norton on the street. Only thing on the go fast parts list I don't have installed in or on my little Norton engine is a FullAuto head. The combination of parts I do have installed works well enough for me.

I'm honestly surprised that road racers back in the mid-80's were using heavy cranks. I really did not expect that kind of an answer. I'm not recommending anyone lighten their crank in their street engines. I'm saying I like a lighter crank and it works fine on the street. I also liked the heavier stock crank with the JSM valve train long rods and light pistons, but my motor spins up quicker with the Molnar crank. I don't have a garage full of motorcycles anymore, so the value for money spent isn't a concern. It's just a toy.

Click to expand...

The crank in my race bike in the '70s was a MkIII (in MKIII cases). It wasn't 'lightened'.

The shaft was trimmed to the end of the taper and tapped for an allen bolt and a large washer made to retain the sprocket.

The whole thing was 'polished' with a linisher and that probably reduced the weight a little, grams not pounds. The main objective was some stress reduction. It was then balanced.

But as an 850 it typically revved to 6800 max. It didn't fly apart with me on it! After 40 years of ageing, I guess it might have!

If I was to build a road bike engine today, it would be from scratch, so it wouldn't be a case of leaving things alone. More of choosing the parts for the job.

I would use all the premium parts I could afford. But it would not be a 'race engine'.

acotrel said:

If I raced a modern bike, I would become bored and go home.

Click to expand...

Wow! Ride at up to 200mph and get bored! I get bored and sleepy driving a car at 55mph. I never got bored/tired driving at 155mph when I lived in Germany. Never been bored/sleepy on a bike at any speed.

What would bore you about a modern bike? Handling too good? More power than needed? Not likely to explode?

marshg246 said:

Wow! Ride at up to 200mph and get bored! I get bored and sleepy driving a car at 55mph. I never got bored/tired driving at 155mph when I lived in Germany. Never been bored/sleepy on a bike at any speed.

What would bore you about a modern bike? Handling too good? More power than needed? Not likely to explode?

Click to expand...

Brainless exercise. What would be the point of it ? In Australia, there is nowhere anyone can really use a 200 MPH motorcycle. My mate bought a Hayabusa to find out what 170 BHP was like. It was useless. When he went out on a ride with his other mates, he kept up by blasting down the straight bits of road, after they had left him for dead in the curved bits. They are all road race riders. I would never ride with them on Sunday mornings.
When I drive on public roads the main danger lies in losing concentration - adrenalin is my enemy. I take medication to counteract it. On a race track, max speed is about 140 MPH - that is fast enough under the circumstances. Most guys these days, could not use a 50 BHP Manx Norton effectively.
With my mentality, I would destroy myself if I rode a really quick bike.
If you watch Moto GP - nobody ever does anything - simply because they cannot. The passing usually happens in slow corners. Most of the racing is usually line astern at full lean. You do not need to be smart to do that - just smooth and consistent.
Marquez is different - he tries a lot of different things - but it might be a career-limiting strategy - he crashes a lot. The speeds are too high for that.