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

Status
Not open for further replies.
'After the Norton Manx and Matchless G50 were both out of production and the might of Japanese motorcycle manufacturers was brought to bear on the USA and the AMA, the AMA started to let OHC engines and racing frame options into it's racing program.....And then it was left to Honda, Yamaha and Suzuki to battle in the board-room with Harley Davidson and each other over racing rules....'

You must have had the same sorts of idiots running your racing as we still have in Australia. They still think it's OK to run four cylinder superbikes and two strokes against air cooled fourstroke singles, twins and triples - 'thunderbikes' ! So our historic racing has become instant crap ! Very few people here ever race old British twins or triples, or even early Ducatis or BMWs or Guzzis - all redundant, not worth bringing out to race !
 
Aco, didn`t a Laverda just show those Schwarzenegger-pumped Hondas they way around recently, was it a case of cubic $ vs cc?
A Nippon manufacturer didn`t win the AMA No 1 Championship `til an Aussie bloke by the name of K. Carruthers showed Yamaha how to produce the right machines for K. Roberts, so the AMA changed the rules...
 
Oh, yeah, I should add, the AMA changed the rules for the National Championship [excluding bikes with more than 2 cyls, & roadrace points inclusion] but Yamaha kept doing Daytona, despite Honda putting mega-buck efforts into 4-strokes, until - yep you guessed it - the AMA banned `em...
 
A four cylinder Honda with four valves per cylinder must beat any two valve triple or twin Laverda of the same capacity, just on horsepower. There is a fundamental difference in technology which affects brake mean effective pressure. A laverda twin or triple, a commando, a Triumph twin or triple, an aircooled Ducati, a two valve BMW, are all 'thunderbikes'. They all face the same technology wall. If you w ant to beat, them all you need do is buy yourself a throw-away two stroke or four cylinder Japanese bike. It's a comparison between apples and oranges. I love my Seeley commado, but I know it's limitations - they are the same for every 'thunderbike'. There should be race classes which promote competition for only that type of bike, it would create a 'level playing field', and it would look and sound superb.
This Ducati is a two valve, aircooled retro of 1000cc, The rider beat several four cylinder superbikes at the meeting, but crashed later trying too hard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMkLu0ZNtRc
 
Aco, it seems to me that modern tyres have made it too easy for massive power footprint/ adhesion roadholding [& unrestricted use of top braking componentry] by the Honda & other brute force bikes to overcome the traditional finesse points of steering/handling/braking that twins intrinsically have, so perhaps some control tyre level/playing field approach could work , as in WSBK?
 
Phil Schilling, in his 1974 book 'The Motorcycle World' devotes several illustrated pages to the `40s Norton efforts at Daytona, commenting that it was a combination of factors including American "goodwill..or..ignorance" about Manx racing attributes but largely the "foot-shift, 4-speed, close-ratio Norton gearbox" by which "the Norton could accelerate cleanly away from the domestic competition on the 2-mile straights" that, together with allowing more positve rider control - both hands on bars - made the winning difference.
 
The following has been “pinched” from the NOC website;
The cam followers look nothing like the ones of the Domiracer engine……

Hello Dunstall story in the Classic bike this month says that when Paul Dunstall went the Bracebridge street Experimental work shop He found a number of Short stroke twins in airspace alloys and Not one nut bolt or screw would fit a production machine , there were crankshafts with 1.75 journals for short stroke 500cc twins and 600twin a 650 twin short stroke motors and he found 600cc Nomad motor with 1.75 journals , and two BRM DOHC liquid cooled 4 cylinder experimental motors along with 2 single cylinder 125cc Dohc motors and there wooden patents, He filled two Ford Thames vans with the experimental part and three race bikes in bits and he had a tailer for the frames etc what happen to this lot we will never know , Paul said there was stuff all over the place it was heart breaking too see ,



OK Finally as promised, pictures of the works Norton 1.6 crank and what looks like an experimental works barrel.
The crank has small internal oilway and has been left oversize at 1.6" on the external of the journal. The drive web has been machined back for drive sprocket.
It looks to me that they have adapted castings, to build a stronger crank, rather than build a completely new crank, which is exactly what I would have expected, given the state of Norton's finances, and that the race dept. was being run down.
The barrel equally looks like an original item that has been modified. The aluminium mounting block with needle rollers for the "flippers" may be an idea borrowed from AMC and would just have needed longer push rods. The whole tappet tunnel has been machined away into the barrel, possibly for pushrod clearance. The whole flipper design takes some of it's heritage from overhead cam design, again quite likely from a factory that had concentrated on overhead cam engines.
The barrel top also gives a hint of the valve size/angle of the associated cylinder head as you can see where the barrel lip itself has been recessed to allow clearance for both inlet and exhaust valves. I thank Benjamin Cradler for his confirmation of these cutaways on the works barrels.
Sorry about the state of the barrel. It's as is, when unearthed from the depths of my spares garage.
Not pretty, or earth shattering, but at least there is now one 1.6 factory crank known to be in existence, and also an interesting factory barrel.
My next job is to try and unearth the eccentric rocker spindles and the bucket cams that I know are in there somewhere.I hope the attached pics work.
http://www.nortonownersclub.org/noc-cha ... ld1656.jpg

http://www.nortonownersclub.org/noc-cha ... ld1655.jpg

http://www.nortonownersclub.org/noc-cha ... LD1670.JPG

http://www.nortonownersclub.org/noc-cha ... LD1671.JPG
 
Bernhard said:
The following has been “pinched” from the NOC website;
Click to expand...

Should have left it there. Nothing by Anna Jeanette Dixon is worth the time it takes to read, she is a first-class butcher of Norton facts and history and is mostly incapable of reading with any comprehension or writing anything related to the real world.

The cylinder belongs to a Mr. Blayney, who in a letter to me had no idea if it was a Norton, Dunstall or someone else' experiment. The 62' Daytona 88 racers did use a 1.6" journal crank, so at least that is relevant to the thread. The crank is made of regular 88ss pieces just not ground down as far as standard, so nothing revolutionary.
 
Since even you don't have an entirely 100% accurate record of posting there Ben, be careful who you slander.

All provides vast entertainment for all the lurkers though !
 
Dunno if this is barking up the wrong tree .

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


http://www.etmoteur.fr/norton_domiracer.htm

May ? be a picture of Hele & Domiracer internals on desktop pre I.o.M. in
motorcycle . Was repeated inside info about the time , at that time .
One is a shot of flat single rod etc, but Im pretty sure one issue showed
the twin valvetrain & a few other bits .
 
Possum said:
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.
Click to expand...

Looks like a Jimmy Chan was in the 52 race, on a manx.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/DAYTONA- ... 1031600543

And was in the 53 race - and hit a spectator.
http://www.keatingwheelcompany.com/DSCN7078.JPG

Also a pic there with No 62 in the centre, for 1953 ? - if you can read the small print.
http://www.keatingwheelcompany.com/DSCN7076.JPG
 
Rohan said:
Since even you don't have an entirely 100% accurate record of posting there Ben, be careful who you slander. All provides vast entertainment for all the lurkers though !
Click to expand...

The words Slander and Libel are synonymous except that one refers to written and the other spoken words. It is making statements about someone which is not true.

Pointing out that other's statements are lies or errors can not be slander or libel as long as the statement is true.


____________________________
>
>
>
>
>
Deleted

L.A.B.
 
Ben Gradler was been banned from sites, had his posts deleted , and has on one site deleted them himself . All due to inaccuracy's, lies, name calling , & rants. He often trolls under various names & handles, the same derogatory remarks can be found on the various forums he lurks. Some of the info is interesting & accurate, some, not so much. According to one forum he re-appears with a new email address & new screen name to hide behind from time to time, but the imbecilic tone is unmistakable.
 
Mr Gradler, methinks you bring this Forum into disrepute.

Mr Moderator ??!!
 
Rohan said:
Mr Gradler, methinks you bring this Forum into disrepute.

Mr Moderator ??!!
Click to expand...

Yes, unfortunately I have to agree.
 
beng said:
Bernhard said:
The following has been “pinched” from the NOC website;
Click to expand...

The cylinder belongs to a Mr. Blayney, who in a letter to me had no idea if it was a Norton, Dunstall or someone else' experiment. The 62' Daytona 88 racers did use a 1.6" journal crank, so at least that is relevant to the thread. The crank is made of regular 88ss pieces just not ground down as far as standard, so nothing revolutionary.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that information maybe there is no way of knowing if this cylinder barrel came from the Norton race shop in the 1960s –do you happened to know if it was cast iron or alloy :?:

http://www.nortonownersclub.org/noc-cha ... ld1656.jpg

http://www.nortonownersclub.org/noc-cha ... LD1670.JPG
 
Yes, nice find for someone.
Most definitely numbered as a 1952 model, 1951 shouldn't come into it.
You'd wonder why the paint looks like its had more attention than the mechanics...
 
Bernhard said:
Thanks for that information maybe there is no way of knowing if this cylinder barrel came from the Norton race shop in the 1960s –do you happened to know if it was cast iron or alloy
Click to expand...

I have corresponded with the owner of that cylinder with the lever-followers and he can not remember if he got it from Paul Dunstall or some other period racer. But it is cast iron and is a production casting which someone has modified.

The 52' Manx did not meet the reserve price for it's auction, the featherbed Manx seems to be bringing more interest there lately. Personally I would rather have that 52' bike.

Since the production Manx had the featherbed frame already, the garden-gate machines assembled for Daytona for 1951 and 52' were special and rare machines put together just for AMA rules, just like the special 88 twins that were sent over for 1953 and later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top