Norton Manx and 88 twins at Daytona.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
by Rohan » Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:39 pm
Nothing too standard about them at all, apart from maybe the frame ?
Click to expand...

by Bernhard » Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:48 am
If it’s just a Dunstall bike, it may not be as good as you might hope it would be, as these engines were generally standard Norton 88ss
Click to expand...

Frame had brackets welded on for the Amal Gps remote floats and oil tank mounting.

Engine was standard 88ss with milled cylinder for high compression, standard cam, K2FR mag, flowed head, polished rods, pressure-fed rockers, enlarged oil galleys. Dyno sheet shows engines made 52hp.

Berliner, who sold the bulk of Norton production wanted race bikes, AMC had just sold some of the works twin stocks to Dunstall and contracted him to build the bikes.

Information is from first hand inspection of the six page letter of specs signed by Dunstall and Williams from AMC along with original dyno sheets for bikes and one of the four bikes.

by Rohan » Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:39 pm
Since the race report lists that some of the Nortons had 'engine troubles' (including Franks), then the chances of the engine still being original in any way are rather slim - especially after 47 years !! Presumeably it raced again too ?
Click to expand...

All four Berliner bikes finished the race, 7th and 8th in the 200 miler, and 1st and 3rd(Scurria) in the 100 miler.

On Scurria's bike the head-steady broke and some of the exhaust came loose, held in place only by the fairing.(from a first-hand conversation with Frank Scurria).

A fifth Norton 88 racing bike, a bike entered independently by Dunstall and ridden by Dick Mann dropped out and did not finish the 200 mile race.

After Daytona Scurria took his racer out west and raced it with some success there using both 500cc and 750cc engines installed. Bike was crashed at one point. Scurria took his Manx to race over in England and sold the Daytona 88 to Angel who still has it.....

Lastly, in the early sixties there was more than one "Daytona" motorcycle race each year. There was the AMA sanctioned race run with AMA rules, and also the USMC ran a race there that had an affiliation with the FIM and ran with international rules. Hailwood etc. showed up more than once for the USMC Daytona on both Nortons and MV Agustas. Some bikes and riders in different years rode in both the USMC and AMA Daytona and some just one. So in looking up information on early sixties Daytona races this has to be considered in the research.....
 
beng said:
Rohan, you have done the same thing again. You found a photograph somewhere and claim the ability to identify metal type and presence/absence of silver paint from bare aluminum from it, that is real talent! Maybe the police could use you in criminal cases along with those other psychics?

You clog up and ruin threads on Norton forums worldwide with your hearsay and assumptions, that is what you are known for.. Learn to use the PM (personal messaging) systems maybe until you come up with something real?

As it is most of the time when I read any thread I save lots of time reading here and elsewhere by simply skipping over your posts, easy to do because thankfully you use the same name everywhere.
Click to expand...

Ben, suggest you look at Page 188 of Mick Woollett. Shows a "standard Inter engine" (their words) with crankcases exactly as shown. You suggesting these are magnesium ?

Folks who can regularly post utter rubbish mixed with good info on the net are a dime a dozen, sadly you regularly fall into this category, and appear to not even be able to recognise it when corrected.

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTA2NlgxNjAw/ ... ~~60_3.JPG
 
Ok, keep flipping a few more pages in your book while you are sitting in your armchair and look at the photo of the catalog of the 1939 Inter. You see a book is like a gun, it is only as good as the person using it, not too good in this case. The page you are looking at simply has an error on it that you were not sharp enough to pick up on. ....

He Roh, I looked at a photo today of a solid gold Matchless G50 engine! Never knew they made those......
 
If you'd cut the personal abuse and stick to 'facts' we'd all think more highly of your opinions.
And if I can pick holes in your 'facts' and point this out then 100% accuracy is not your strength - we should just all learn and move on. ?

So what are those crankcases ?
Have 1936 numbers, look aluminium in the closeup pic - ebay auction.
Norton had lots of stuff, when you look in depth and talk or read of folks who were there (since most of them are now gone) , al sorts of stuff happened. If you claim to know it all, we are just wasting our time here...

"in the 100 amature (sic). Kenny Hayes won his race, Scurria's bike slowed as the race went on as the motor started to go bad."
 
When did you pick a hole in anything?

I originally started this thread because in another thread you ASSUMED that the Daytona Nortons were Internationals and not Manx bikes, a deduction you made because you saw a kick-start lever on the bikes! This is in contrast to my ability to drive over to a friend's house any time and sit on a mag-cased plunger Manx, with Manx numbers and a kick-start. The other reason for the thread start was Matt Spencer's hearsay about Daytona 88 twin racers. You both are absolute equals at what you do..

Once your kick-start theory was shot down, you jumped to your next brilliant argument; that the crankcases on those Manx bikes were aluminum, a statement you made because in photographs they looked silver and like aluminum. You never knew or thought that they might be painted magnesium, a common practice on racing bikes.....

Despite your ignorance and error you continue to hold up more photos you have found on the internet or books of silver-colored parts and you repeat the mistake and assumption that you already made.

You never present anything besides assumptions and hearsay based on third-hand information.

You can not even find obvious errors, contradictions and discrepancies in printed material(Woollett) sitting in your hands.

When you come up with a set of alloy Manx cases in your hands or any information on anything instead of hearsay and gossip THEN come on back and show everyone.

You are still doing it!:

by Rohan » Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:12 am

look aluminium in the closeup pic - ebay auction.
Norton had lots of stuff, when you look in depth and talk or read of folks who were there (since most of them are now gone) , al sorts of stuff happened.
Click to expand...

After your interpretation of Woolletts book, how can you talk about "looking in depth" at anything? Your statement that "Norton had lots of stuff" and "al sorts of stuff happened", that is pure comic gold. You are presenting THAT?
 
Update - seems the 2 engines shown P188 were out of the 1940 catalog. ?
"the first time I can trace that this material (magnesium) had been specified on a Norton to be sold to the public"

So all previous offerings to the public were aluminium ??
Now we are actually getting somewhere...
 
While we are here, these are a magnesium and an aluminium part.

Spot the difference, in a raw state. You just cannot polish magnesium to look like aluminium.
Norton Manx and 88 twins at Daytona.....


Now, Francis Beart prepped the 1949 Daytona bikes. While we will probably never know, unless we have them in our hands if the crankcases were aluminium or silver painted magnesium, a few comment may be in order. Francis was charged with WINNING the Daytona race - Nortons had only come 2nd the previous year (different tuner). Its not impossible that Francis used prewar parts, which he knew well, to ensure a win ? Or that Nortons, not wanting to draw attention to the rather special magnesium cases, had them painted in silver. We will never know ??

Cheers.

P.S. I see some posts above keep being added to.
Hard to respond to changing abuse with no factual content....
 
beng said:
I originally started this thread because in another thread you ASSUMED that the Daytona Nortons were Internationals and not Manx bikes, a deduction you made because you saw a kick-start lever on the bikes! This is in contrast to my ability to drive over to a friend's house any time and sit on a mag-cased plunger Manx, with Manx numbers and a kick-start. The other reason for the thread start was Matt Spencer's hearsay about Daytona 88 twin racers. You both are absolute equals at what you do..
Click to expand...

Read again what I said about kickstarters.
And you didn't know that the US brochure for Nortons had that neat little line about adding road equipment to Manxs - that only came to light because of this thread. And some sleuthing....

I've had Francis Bearts book for donkeys years, and knew they (Daytona bikes) were fitted with kickstarters. Like Geoff Dukes Inter had a special long kickstarter for the (amateur) Manx GP races.

If the brochure says Manxes could be supplied with lights and all road equipment, were they then stamped as Inters or Manxes. Still be interesting to see the factory records for these Daytona bikes, no-one has come up that that as proof of what the factory did.

Strangely enough, sitting on a bike 60 years later doesn't tell us a thing about what was in it originally. OHC Nortons, and magnesium crankcases particularly, are prone to splitting across the timing side bearing, it could have had a dozen changes of cases over the years - Nortons didn't supply them as racing spares for nothing.. And the cases on it are no longer the colour they were at Daytona, so as a true Daytona bike restoration it leaves a little to be desired ? Which was my point, after all...
 
There is also the interesting shot of Billy Mathews hiding the cambox of his 1949 Daytona bike.
It seems the bikes for 1949 were sohc.

Were they hiding it because the 49 spec DOHC were about to appear, and didn't want to show it was the older model. Or ??

Norton Manx and 88 twins at Daytona.....
 
That's classic Rohan. At the bottom of the photo it tells exactly what Billy Matthews is doing. But as usual Rohan can't read what is in front of his face, so he makes something up or assumes something, then builds on it.....

At this point you have put down five pages of drivel defending your errors which were:

You stated that the bikes that raced at Daytona were not Manx Nortons when indeed they were.

You stated that their crankcases were not magnesium, when indeed they were.

You have been defending yourself over history supported by overwhelming evidence simply to protect your ego, and that is cretinous.

I know the regulars here and those with any brains know exactly who you are and what you do, and even the layman stumbling in and getting a load of your crap will be easily set straight by the mountain of evidence and common-sense that counters most everything you have to say.

You insist that no existing Manx Nortons have their original crankcases because they were so prone to crack. This is more nonsense which you have no proof or experience with for sure. For instance my families friend has raced his mag-cased plunger Manx almost every year for the last thirty including wins at vintage Daytona, holing pistons etc.., and lo and behold, all on the same crankcases , the original ones mind you, still in there.

Since Norton was racing with mag crankcases since the mid-thirties Joe Craig simply did not throw up his shoulders and do nothing about any problems like you have pulled out of a hat. The thousands of races won by Manx Nortons over decades was more likely because the engines did not crack and fall apart.

So forge on ahead with your misinformation, non-facts and non-history. The longer you do the easier it is for common sense and everyone else to show what you actually are.....

The only thing that is being abused is the history by YOU....
 
I think in the business thats called a "posed press photo with caption".
You really think that Francis Beart is going to let someone work on his prized race bikes ??

As this thread started on how race bikes were excluded from race events, thats not an unreasonable observation. Not that you appear to have any reasoning skills, all we get in exchange for discussion is abuse....
 
I think it must actually be an experimental Twin . But you can see from the photograph that theyve had to
put in a single , for the photo , so as no-one will know . :wink:
 
You're being silly Mat. hehehe.

Steady boys, lets not get abusive...... Nothing like a bit of friendly banter to keep us all intrigued.
Try to stick to the facts please gentlemen.
That might be a rediculous request as there seems to be so many different FACTS written over the years,
by so many different experts about so many different things.
Carry on gentlemen.
AC.
 
AussieCombat said:
Steady boys, lets not get abusive...... Nothing like a bit of friendly banter to keep us all intrigued.
AC.
Click to expand...

Someones just sore because he went on the NOC forum as an expert, and got demolished... ?
 
Does anybody have any actual hard data on the rigid-framed Dominator/s raced at Daytona in the early 1950's; as refered to by Rohan / Matt.

What Norton Racing History book (as referred to), is the photo in?

Possum
 
Nice find Matt. I know a gentleman that lives near Toronto who is restoring a 1955 Daytona 88 and if he does not have this photo he will be pleased to see it. I believe the correct name for the one rider should be spelled "McAfee

Hap Jones was a big Norton distributor in the West. I have tried to find out about his operations back in the 50s, but so far I have found all the employees from that era to be dead....
 
In that great archive of books, magazines, documents, photos etc. that we all seem to accumulate; can anybody identify who was riding Norton race number '62' in the 1953 Daytona race, and more importantly what model of Norton he was riding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top