Norton P503

Anyone noticed the article in "Classic Bike" about the BRM designed 4 cylinder water cooled motor, that was being considered by Norton in the early 1970's? Looks well ahead of its time for back then, and had the British motorcycle industry not been bled dry by crooks such as the Dockers over many years, then I guess it would have been quite possible to produce something like that, which may well have saved the British M/C industry.

The british motorcycle industry failed because those in charge failed to give the public what they wanted and insisted on updating old designs and stretching them to the limit resulting in unreliable machines and fitting the same old Lucas ancillaries. They failed to invest in production machinery so tolerances became ever poorer. And they failed to understand the threat from japan until all was lost. If the Dockers played any part in it it was so miniscule compared to those in real power.

http://blog.cycleworld.com/2010/02/a-norton-four/

Drawing from Built for Speed, by John Griffith

What-ifs are so much fun. The one I’m enjoying at the moment is Norton’s planned liquid-cooled transverse Four, designed in the early 1950s by the same team that drew the 500-horsepower, 90-cubic-inch BRM V-16 Grand Prix car. If this date is right, design would have started at about the time it became known that Gilera was testing an air-cooled 500cc four-cylinder for GP racing.

All that came of the Norton project was a one-cylinder 125cc test engine and some castings for a prototype full-build engine. It’s intriguing to consider the advanced techniques chosen and the engine’s potential for power.

The probable designers were Peter Berthon, Eric Richter and Frank May. As for the V-16, they chose Vandervell three-layer plain journal bearings to support a one-piece forged steel crankshaft. One-piece construction would have eliminated all the backing-and-filling of the Italian four-cylinder builders, as they struggled to make some form of all-roller crankshaft reliable. Twelve thousand rpm? No problem.

Why did the BRM team choose journal bearings? Because the necessary know-how had been perfected through WW II on Merlin and Griffon V-12 aircraft engines.

The Norton’s wet cylinder liners were screwed into the head, thereby eliminating the head gasket and the distorting force of the bolts providing gasket clamp load. At Guzzi, Ing. Carcano would screw his fabulous V8’s liners into its heads in 1955. And today, screwed-in liners are considered an advanced technique in F1.

This engine was liquid-cooled. Big deal? A Norton Manx racing engine was chosen as a basis for the engine of an F1 car called the Vanwall. During testing, it was given a water jacket. Result? The water-cooled engine could steadily deliver 4 hp more than the air-cooled could give as a flash reading. Why? Because it could safely tolerate more compression.

British designers knew by 1950 that more compact combustion chambers with narrower valve angles burned faster, wasting less heat. The Norton-4 was drawn with a 60-degree valve included angle—not the 80-, 90- or even 100-degree included angles of the Italian fours, whose designs were inspired by 1930s auto racing engines.

The Norton-4 came to nothing because the company was faltering and R&D money was drying up. But imagine a 10,000-rpm 500cc four-cylinder with the same cylinder-filling ability as the Manx Single. The result would have been 75 hp, a power level not reached by the Italian fours until 1965! What if?

—Kevin Cameron

Without having seen the article in question, the watercooled 4 that Norton was pondering was an early 1950s design, not a 1970s. Apart from Nortons having financial difficulties about then (and being sold to AMC in 1953)(and quitting GP Racing not long after, due to cost), the slave single cylinder engine that was built and RUN as part of this 4 project had quite a poor power output, and was quite inferior to even the then Manx racer. So don't count too many chickens before they hatch ?

There is also the minor matter that it was designed with the carburettors in front - just behind the radiators. That would have cuased major difficulties somewhere down the road, gulping in hot air is no way to run a race motor.

Interesting design though - would could have been, x design versions later...?

P.S., BRM were famous for producing a large range of V16 and H16 engine designs - that almost never won a F1 race. They were famous for never winning races.... !

PPS. The Rondine was a 4 cylinder engine from the 1930s, predecessor to the race Gilera and then MV 4s, everyone had time to see the future in action...

The Norton P503 engine project was apparently undertaken for Dennis Poore of NVT fame by BRM in the 1970s. The line drawing of the motor which was made from original blueprints at the time by technical illustrator Bill Bennett, shows an engine which was perhaps 20 years ahead of its time, with features such as 30 degree valve angles, hy-vo chain primary drive from crank centre, and four valve cylinder head.

Sadly by the 1970s the British motorcycle industry was pretty much finished, and having to use power units which even then were 40 years out of date, that in the face of competition from machines like the CB750 and Z1, meant it was pretty much the end of the road for British manufactured motorcycles! There was a 4cyl NVT machine made but this was based on tacking an extra cylinder on the already antiquated Triumph triple, and was laughable in the face of the Jap fours.

Almost complete lack of investment in the periods when the industry was doing extremely well, linked to greed and failure to recognise the threat posed to British made machines by the Japanese, were all factors which meant it would have been impossible to actually make more modern power units, as some of the machine tools being used were pre-war, and UK motorcycle manufacturers simply didnt have what was required to actually make anything more up to date.

looked through many classic bike type mags today. All but six raised my Ire , as do these to a degree , with there hypothosis , supositions , agrandisements , and perponderance of poorly blueprinted ,
overpainted , seldow entirely to factory standard machines appraised.

Just Thinking , 20.000 Lancasters , x 4 ( engines) X4 Valves , x 12 ( cylinders) . Thats one or two tappets to set acurately . Or they didnt come back . The ' Air ' of ' unreliable old rubish ' perpetrated , meand I would avoid the mechanics of there aquaintance .Or check which aeroplanes they worked on , and avoid suspect characters.

There were also about 15.000 Ea Spitfires , P-51s , P-47s , or more , and a good few other aeroplanes , 35.000 Mikun powered Il2s , 20.000 Yakovlev fighters , 15.000 or more Lavohkin ditto ,

The chances of all the mechanics / fitters at that stage being useless , are somewhat remote. Though they mightve been a bit sick of setting valve clearances, they shouldve had plenty of practise.
As did the machineists and production workers . Something like 100.000 man hours per Lancaster .

Perhaps hitting the turps to forget things was understandable , but didnt nessesarily improve the abilities of the Designers. Or the apptitude of the Jouralists , a state that continues to this day .
When did you last read a critical appraisal of the abilities and parameters of a new motorcycles performance . ' Type Test ' & ' performace Envelope ' in Aeronautical terms .

Those inline fours have wierd vibratory characteristics . The 500 & 600 Aerials with the o.h.c. and dual crank Square layout , and the Matchless Silver Hawk V4 , were decades ahead of the Jap Gillera / MV Augusta Copies . THRRRRRPPPPPP >

Matt Spencer said:

Those inline fours have wierd vibratory characteristics . The 500 & 600 Aerials with the o.h.c. and dual crank Square layout , and the Matchless Silver Hawk V4 , were decades ahead of the Jap Gillera / MV Augusta Copies . THRRRRRPPPPPP >

Click to expand...

Unfortunately Matt all the bikes you mention suffered from major design related problems, and in terms of long term reliability and performance couldnt really be compared to twin cylinder designs, which seemed to be much more effective. The example of the Norton P503 certainly shows the British had talented designers, but simply didnt have the infrastructure or finances to put anything like this into production.

The term is ' underdeveloped ' . Scared of seeing what broke before they produced it .
In the Pre Motorway Era , they considered pottering around country lanes to be ' normal ' rideing .

Except for Vincents . :wink:

But CONCEPTUALLY , the Square four was Adopted by Yamaha in the notorious TZ ,and the RG or whatever it was by whoever it was , Triples by Kwakersaki and Suzooki ,
And the V4 is alll the rage for 4 stroke raceing now.
With the straight fours obsolete for anything but docile old tourers .

Now , If somebody had a brain , Theyed be Developing a Double flat four dual crank H 8 ,
as the vibration could be got at near nill , the valve area large , and the power unit copact and durable,
AND you could get a few r.p.m.s out of it .Might pay to have hydraulic tappets though . 32 Valves to adjust ! :roll:

Matt Spencer said:

The term is ' underdeveloped ' . Scared of seeing what broke before they produced it .
In the Pre Motorway Era , they considered pottering around country lanes to be ' normal ' rideing .

Except for Vincents . :wink:

But CONCEPTUALLY , the Square four was Adopted by Yamaha in the notorious TZ ,and the RG or whatever it was by whoever it was , Triples by Kwakersaki and Suzooki ,
And the V4 is alll the rage for 4 stroke raceing now.
With the straight fours obsolete for anything but docile old tourers .

Now , If somebody had a brain , Theyed be Developing a Double flat four dual crank H 8 ,
as the vibration could be got at near nill , the valve area large , and the power unit copact and durable,
AND you could get a few r.p.m.s out of it .Might pay to have hydraulic tappets though . 32 Valves to adjust ! :roll:

Click to expand...

Try riding a modern Japanese bike................there is no problem with vibration, but this was something that is very difficult to deal with on twin cylinder motors designed in the 1940s, hence the Norton rubber mount system.

Ideed . So why have they DROPPED It . Is it still a Commando ? ?

More concerned with the plastic and bling , not to mention the weight , something the Japanese were never very good at .

TWINS ! This is why theyve doubled up the V twin for a V four , better tourque and response with a V engine .

You want Vibration ? try a Bonniville at 8.000 rpm , but then , it does have its phases , and smooth out at times .
Tweaked up , the pre unit started running straight at about 80 mph . But on the Gravle , it wasnt a worry . unlike a
Katana 1100. The amplitude of the ossilation increaseing to about 20 foot side to side at 60 mph on gravle .
Might be low frequency but its unequivical . Now the Bonnie'd run 115 on fresh gravle , hands off at 100 on it .

Cant see why the fit the gearboxes in the engine cases , unless its to save money . Theyre much better of seperate .

Gee , and did you see how the Japs welded there stampings together . You could hardly call it engineering . or welding .

Try that at Triumph , and you wouldve got the sack .

The press was the biggest sabatoure of the British industry , or why are the Japs makeing all these obsolete twins and singles ?

The BRM produced either no power , or to much . with a bang . usually at the rear tyres . Gonzales was the only driver who thought it manageable or drivable ,
but that didnt stop it tearing the rear tyres to pieces , possibly the only driver fast enough to swap in the opposite lock repeatably as it atempted to swap ends.

The design evolution had more to do with the old boy network , and class system ( dont talk back , youre just the draftsman etc ) than reason .

The proverbial camel . Look where Williams and Crighton got . Shoulderd out untill desperation feel in , then expected to alleviate ( good word that , no approach to sort things out ) it .

Nevertheless , raceing improves the breed . Untill certain people get their prototypes evelated under race or endurance race conditions , they arnt proven for that use.
Once , motorists were expected to have a degree of mechanical sympathy , and a degree of mechanical copetance & understanding . Vehicals were a privlage . The Coachman became the Cheufer , whos job was to maintain the vehical. Factory Trained , in the case of Rolls Royce . Times have changed .
Anyone who thinks the reliability of older british machines is other than a reflection of the mechanics and riders competance is better to stick to mass produced consumer appliances . If theyre svcared of a bit of maintanance , the normal schedules for the era they were produced , in that part of the world anyway.
If you wanted something ultairian , you bought a old slugger , like a M 20 etc , or a oriental wonder .

The improvements werte more in the line off production engineering ( volume ) emenateing from the rebuild plan of the vanquished axis industry and the exhaustion and anhilation of the British workforce and
small industry. Triumphs factory was flattened in the Covetry Blitz. At that stage the largest bombing offence in History . And Mariden and any investment in the British industry was directly war related . Vis W.D.
bullet proff dungers . Unfortunately not cannon shell proof .The uncle still rode Nortons dspite the schrapnel .

To sugest the wonderous japanese devises were superior , other than in servicability and oiltightness is ludicrist .After the British industrys demise , the Japanese produced there big 1000 cc road burners .
Superior for a comutor or travler to A Laverda triple , but a embarasment if you met one in the mountains .

Eight out off ten triumphs in N.Z. in the late 70s didnt run as well as they might , as parts were scare and mechanics at best indiferant , or gone with the Jap stuff for secure employment ,
or some idiot had left the baffles in the mufflers , though the 71 BSA mufflers worked O.K. :shock: :lol: :lol:

1970 in Aus. the Bonneville blew of the Honda 750 in the Castrol 6 hour.Next year they insisted he fit unworn footrests, which stumped him. A more resourceful bloke wouldve reworn them to half length in the first 1/2 hour , and got underway .Or fitted the hinged US market ones .Thus a dealership / importer ovcersight .

Much later at Bathurst the Commando wouldve got it , against these wonderous japanese contrivances , other that ' the team ' neglected to fit new disc pads for the race, and landed on their ear. Looseing the equvilant of the laps ( 8 ) fitting replacements.

The TX 750s all blew asunder in there first 6 Hr. Next year it was only 8 out of 11 ,as the three that finished centuries behind were instructed to tour to finish . Having had to back off in a 1951 Rover 75
at 70 mph in a downhill bend to avoid running over the top of a XT750 snakeing through it, and generally forced to use the late 70s era japanese machines as chicanes , youre only respect as far as roadholding went lay with the Italian machineary , through the grim evadance.

Any Jap rider of the 70s , except the learbned or ralistic , thought the italian machinary a bigger p.o.s. than the British , with the exception of the Laverda Triple , which as yet , hadnt reached the shores .

A machine that STEERS, and DOESNT leak oil , AND its reliable . Whatever Next .Side Stand Lights . :lol: :roll: :wink:

The best 650 Bonniville , is still a 650 Bonneville , But its Obvious its the 1961 model . :lol:

Now , THOSE Nortons . . . yes . . . :mrgreen:

"A machine that STEERS, and DOESNT leak oil , AND its reliable"

The fact that the British motorcycle industry was quite unable to make such a machine, is one of the main reasons for its demise!

After a little over a year actually working in the UK industry, the biggest problems I saw were lack of leadership and shortage of funding. The one caused the other, in many instances.

The famous "Green Blob" was an attempt by the N-V/Manganese Bronze people trying to "re-image" the company. If memory serves me well, that PR exercise cost as much as the design effort on the Commando. Either one would have been a problem, but both together were a catastrophe. The disappearing funds made it very difficult to get things changed when testing showed a problem.

The engineering people tried to get the final drive chain increased from 1/4" to 3/8" wide for the best part of a year, but were repeat3edly told that it would cost too much to order the new-size sprockets. Only after we broke a chain at over 100 mph on the MIRA track did we get anyone to listen. I think even then it was more a result of destroying one of the test engines than the recognition that there was a potentially serios design flaw that resulted in the change. We'd been having to a chain adjustment after every two tanks of gas on those high speed tests.

Some of us down in the trenches could figure things out, but the Maharajahs running the company were so out of touch.

The "understabding" about the japanese was "They can make good "little" bikes, but they'll never be able to compete with us on the big stuff". Then the CB750 hit the street and the UK industry disappeared in a puff of smoke.

Err a not exactly in that order Frank, a bit earlier the Banksters created a no credit check credit card with $500 limit and the Nipponese suddenly had all these 50 cc scooters for $495 and Baby Bomber numbers of teens applied and got Japan rolling. If anything it was the Honda 350 twin that did in the image of Brit Iron as best there is for those who wanted to meet the nicest people. You've seen American biker movies of the era, they were pretty tame compared to the Brit versions they were modeled after. I saw that here, only the criminal hooligan element could afford the big BI twins and having one meant being associated with that crowd. 1972 was the top yr in cycle sales, the Combat was also the most sold C'do model, too bad it Bombed Norton to death or maybe they'd still be a present.

I think global investors had more interest in Assian Rim than Europe or UK too.

Having had to back off in a 1951 Rover 75
at 70 mph in a downhill bend to avoid running over the top of a XT750 snakeing through it, and generally forced to use the late 70s era japanese machines as chicanes , youre only respect as far as roadholding went lay with the Italian machineary , through the grim evadance.

Click to expand...

Matt you constantly pique my spider sense with you quips. If the Gravie = THE Gravel, then OMG, I only gotten to 100 so far in the short opens on Peel and did Not take my hands off what I want to test as the best load handling chassis ever fielded by man so far. Wes says he likes his '69 Bonnie better on THE G snot better than his '71 and I can believe him as factory C'do's feel strange on loose rumpy stuff.

Almost every modern advance in organic chemistry came from Germans while almost every modern innovation in engines had it source in an Englishman's mind. Too bad banksters and politicians and smug isolated management took the future out of it for the English and the rest of us too.

frankdamp said:

After a little over a year actually working in the UK industry, the biggest problems I saw were lack of leadership and shortage of funding. The one caused the other, in many instances.

The famous "Green Blob" was an attempt by the N-V/Manganese Bronze people trying to "re-image" the company. If memory serves me well, that PR exercise cost as much as the design effort on the Commando. Either one would have been a problem, but both together were a catastrophe. The disappearing funds made it very difficult to get things changed when testing showed a problem.

The engineering people tried to get the final drive chain increased from 1/4" to 3/8" wide for the best part of a year, but were repeat3edly told that it would cost too much to order the new-size sprockets. Only after we broke a chain at over 100 mph on the MIRA track did we get anyone to listen. I think even then it was more a result of destroying one of the test engines than the recognition that there was a potentially serios design flaw that resulted in the change. We'd been having to a chain adjustment after every two tanks of gas on those high speed tests.

Some of us down in the trenches could figure things out, but the Maharajahs running the company were so out of touch.

The "understabding" about the japanese was "They can make good "little" bikes, but they'll never be able to compete with us on the big stuff". Then the CB750 hit the street and the UK industry disappeared in a puff of smoke.

Click to expand...

That seems very much telling it as it was Frank.............but even if the Brit industry had bothered to look seriously at just how very good the small capacity Japanese bikes were, and taken on board the fact that the same engineering excellence could also be applied to bigger machines, I am not sure whether or not they would ever have been able to actually build anything to rival the CB750, Z1, or HI/H2?

Mike Jacksons series of pieces in CBG seem to suggest that marketing of Norton in the US (their biggest market!) was carried out in a very amateur fashion, with a yearly budget that equated to around one months spend by one the big Japanese factory's, which in combination with the introduction of the disastrous Combat spec motors, probably hastened Nortons demise notwithstanding the Japanese bikes which were then available.

Matt Spencer said:

Those inline fours have wierd vibratory characteristics .

Click to expand...

"In-Line 4" = front to back

"TRANSVERSE 4" = side to side, across the bike, like all the moderns.

I noticed that Matt speaks pretty good hobot...

That was roughly the sequence in the UK market, Hobot. The 250 "Dream" got the ball rolling. When I first started riding (58), a "good " 250 like the Villiers 2T twin put out maybe 12 horsepower. The licensing rules had just been changed to limit learner drivers to 250 ccs, then along comes the "Dream" with overhead cams, 12,000 rpm redline and about 35 horsepower, giving it a top speed well into the 80s. British-built smaller bikes disappeared in very short order.

The 305 version of the Dream was about as big as Honda initially sold in the UK market, and Yamaha, Bridgestone, Suzuki et al were just minor ripples. It was that concentration on the smaller machines that gave Honda such a presence in the UK market. To most folks, a 500 was a "big" bike and with the good performance of the Honda 250s, a lot of youngsters started out with one , because of the learner restriction, and remained loyal to the brand. When the CB750 hit the UK market, with electric start, excellent power and performance and a ready market among the Honda enthusiasts, BSA-Triumph and Norton were doomed.

I could never figure out why, if the original 850cc Mini engine had electric start, why the hell a 650SS Norton or an Atlas couldn't. I think it might be the result of Lucas not being interested in doing the development work. We used to have a very difficult time with Lucas because they really regarded us as a very small, nuisance customer. We'd get wiring harnesses that were full of errors and they wouldn't even talk to us.

I tried to get the company interested in Bosch and Wipac as alternatives, but management said that we were too small for them to bother with, and in any case, the US market insisted on Lucas (yeah right they did!).

Just a different perspective, looking from the right-hand side of the big pond!

Gosh Frank you are gemstone to have in our midst a feature missing on other forums. I'd never heard half of the intrigues and dead ends of poor ole Norton since reading all about it here.

Matt has a strong accent that's hard to interpret at my end but his general excessive experiences touches a common sense. I missed out for decades so soaking its scope up how ever I can.