Norton Production Racer

Status
Not open for further replies.
How can you rubbish Norton Commandos any further when they are rubbish already ? Doesn't matter what you do you won't make a Paton or even a Laverda 750 SFC out of one. I love my Seeley Commando 850, but I'm not deluded about it. One day the crank will come bouncing out of it, and I'll end up lying on the ground like Doug MacRae at Daytona. They are really good things but they have their limitations. I think James plays with H2 Kawasakis - they have the potential to grab you by the throat big time too, and the way they feel when you ride them - you would not go there .
 
Matt Spencer said:
Not sure anyone over 10 stone ever did well one one of the tidlers .

Long Range Norvil tank . Were three capacity options , I believe .

Norton Production Racer

I do not think it is a Norvile tank and seat.
I have one set like the same (i could sell it) from many many time and people sell me said it was Gus Kunh endurance kit.
If you pay attention, in the rear of seat there is not the bolt to fit on the frame (like norvil) because it is fitted like Commando roadster/ fastback so that you do not need to cut the tail light (this in photo is entiere one piece not kike Norvil).
Ciao.
Piero
 
pierodn said:
If you pay attention, in the rear of seat there is not the bolt to fit on the frame (like norvil) because it is fitted like Commando roadster/ fastback so that you do not need to cut the tail light (this in photo is entiere one piece not like Norvil).

Good catch!

Small, but important, difference.
 
Can anyone quote the capacity of that tank ?

Would have to be seriously strong to support itself, full of fuel...
 
Classic Motorcycle Fibreglass
Moto Tumbi

states ,

6 gallon competition tank
3 gallon production racing tank

Depends on the Gallons though , doesnt it . :wink: Imperial or Short Measure . :P :oops: . Id thought 2 1/2 , 5 & maybe 8 . :?

Young Murry had a Brochure , back then . Or was one listing them , Illustrated .
 
acc / " I think James plays with H2 Kawasakis " probly better to stick to what he knows . The learning curve / cost & results could be satisfactry .

could describe it like tstes in music . I know damn well the H2 is just as much a disaster as the Norton Twin . aussies had a good result with them.
attention to detail , & maybe the climate suited them . Without a apptitude for them , I would think a bulletproof Norton somewhat unlikely .

Correctly set up & operated within its design criterior , I personally regard breakin them uncouth , loutish , and careless . A Ign. / rev limiter SHOULD
solve any unintentional overrevving . Unless the drivers completely incompatent .

Earier Dustall comp bikes were run to 7.5000 with their H.D. ball races , and broke cranks ; due to NOT allowing the crank to flex .
The whip overpowered stock ball races , so they collapsed . The superblends SHOULD be the Answer to BOTH problems . The darn
things are BARRELED , or a large raius poller , on a matching radius track . Much like a sperical bearing , allowing formialignment .
or in this case ' Bowing ' along the Axis .

Theres been few bikes made , last century at least , that DIDNT have ' issues ' if overused . H2s faults wernt singular either . No ( successfull )
P.R. one was ' STOCK ' . :wink: :wink: Old Kiwi weekly rag gave all the tweaks , at the time they were the current hot shit .
 
Standard PR tank, p/n 063710, was 3.5 imperial gallons. Optional p/n 064709 was 5 imp. gal., and optional p/n 063708 was 6 imp. gal., all available from Norton as part of the 750 Racer and 750 Formula Racer kits.

Ken
 
Matt, I know where there are two H2R replicas, one with the aircooled clutch. They could be worth playing with, however I would never try to race an H2 with a standard frame.
 
Matt Spencer said:
Earier Dustall comp bikes were run to 7.5000 with their H.D. ball races , and broke cranks ; due to NOT allowing the crank to flex .
The whip overpowered stock ball races , so they collapsed .

Interesting theory there Matt. Care to expound a bit on this BUT before you do I am struggling to see how the antiquated thin crankcase side walls could possibly handle any bending moment coming even close to causing a crankshaft to break. Radial loading - they are fairly stout but bending about the main bearing boss - weak as wet tissue.
 
Matt Spencer said:
. The superblends SHOULD be the Answer to BOTH problems . The darn
things are BARRELED , or a large raius poller , on a matching radius track . Much like a sperical bearing , allowing formialignment .
or in this case ' Bowing ' along the Axis .
.
To add to this.

Haven't we since read that this whole subject of "superblend bearings" and 'barrel-shaped' rollers was complete horsesheet - they are slightly bevelled on the ends of the rollers, so the ends don't dig into the tracks, but that was the extent of it. The Extra Heavy Duty bit was this, and an extra roller (or 2 ?), and slightly more internal clearance, that gave them the extra load bearing capacity. Standard practice from bearing makers, in many bearings, for many applications ?

Of course, cynics might say that the designers should have known that stretching the design beyond the 500cc these bearings were originally specified for may have been pushing the boundaries more than a little, and specifying stronger main bearings would have been a prudent move a long time before it happened - or was forced to happen ... !!?
 
Hi


I have a friend who races & uses quality roller bearings stating that the quality now days is incomparable to old earings & that all rollers have a chamfer so wont "cut" the cages.

Chris

ps Personally I have played safe & stuck with superblends
 
Chris said:
Hi


I have a friend who races & uses quality roller bearings stating that the quality now days is incomparable to old earings & that all rollers have a chamfer so wont "cut" the cages.

Chris

ps Personally I have played safe & stuck with superblends

And why not, set of new cases, over £1100, new crank, over £1400.....set of superblends, just over £110! Some things you don't need to cut corners on even if you think something else will be fine...
 
When you rebalance the crank to suit 7,500 rpm, and use superblend bearings, you don't expose the crankcases to such destructive loads. Exposing a commando bottom end to over 6,300 rpm with big those pistons attached to a bolt-up crank, with a 58% balance factor is not really smart ? The standard crankcases are quite OK, but look at what some people expect of them. Every Triumph 650 that has ever been raced used balance factors up around 79%, or it went slow or stopped suddenly - what does that tell you ?
 
Gee Aco, you make it sound like just a different balance factor will make it go faster.

And we thought it was to give the rider a comfortable ride.... ?
 
frequencys of oscillations & materials influance theyre patterns of responce . Incompatable Vibes ( distortions ) would be cumulative . hence the B A N G .

" A Superblend is basically a roller bearing, but actually, its a barrel-race bearing. The 'rollers' are beer-barrel shaped and thus provide a broader surface of support than a simple ball bearing, whilst allowing for flex in the shaft they are supporting, a thing a plain roller can never do until it fails. Two Superblends offer nearly as much flex as the original ball/roller combination, but they also allow for uniform flex, along the length of the shaft, rather than isolating it towards the ball bearing end of things, like the combined bearing setup does. "

from our good friend , D.J. Walker .

" I'd think so, but if the crank gets really out, I've seen the roller bearings shatter their races. They can only accept so much runout. XR750's use those barrel shaped superblend bearings, to accept any deviations without incurring excess drag. "

Mr Hightop , from M D .

Barrel roller bearings are single row, self-aligning roller bearings. They comprise solid outer rings with a concave raceway, solid inner rings with two ribs and "

have a read .

http://www.m3.tuc.gr/ANAGNWSTHRIO/STOIX ... ARINGS.pdf

DUNSTALL ball races were the Deep Groove high capacity type . The high capacity deep groove , kept the ends of the cranshaft in alignment.
Unfortunately the main crank assembly still flexed , breaking off the mainshafts from the webs. Despite the cases ' flex ' .
Going from one extreme to the other , at 7.000 cycles a minute , ( or 7.500 ) apparently created some cumulative loadings .

Intrestingly , the std. ' ball races ' have a lower drag , thus less impediment to output.
However , unless you replaced them before theyre service life expired ( they failed , or started to produce high tensile steel ' Debri ' ), it would get expensive .

For a ' sprint ' 750 ' that is etting overhauled / stripped , at regular intervals , it could be worth useing them for the horsepower advantage .
Youd go through a fair stack of them though . & gasket sealant etc .

tecnically , its not really flex or whip , though theyre close . it osscilates about the axis of rotation . Probably the thrust a peak bmep period of rotation being maximum input loading , and maximum defection derived from that & rotational forces .

The barreled rollers let it run free while its doing it. the ball races ( particularly the deep groove ) restrain the deflecton .
This exceeds the side load capeability of the standard ball races . eventually .
The deep groove doesnt have that problem. Something else does .

We could call it a ' load flow path ' .

Tensile properties of the alloy cases , at high frequency ( 7.000 cycles ) are unlikely to match those in deflection , Static .

Then theres ' pre cambering ' the crank , to keep it nearer straight while at maximum deflection / strain .
 
To repeat - there is no such thing as "barrel shaped rollers" or "Superblend" bearings, these terms are unknown to the bearing industry.
They are simply a heavier duty version of the roller bearing that Nortons had fitted to twins, for decades.

It has also been suggested they don't allow any more 'crank flex' than any other bearing - the longer life was simply due to the fact they are a heavier duty bearing.

I eyeballed a set of superblends in an 850, ooh about 1977, and if there was anything barrel-shaped about them, it was at a microscopic level. (How would you machine, or manufacture, such beasts ??) Although the rollers did have visibly fractionally bevelled ends to them...

If you are going to repeat popular urban myths ad nauseum, best do some research/reading ??
The NOC website has chapter and verse on this subject, and has had for some years now.
 
Catalog from who - or where. ?
We are non the wiser ??
Doesn't even mention the roller bearing.
Nor the false info ye preacheth. ?

Just a heavier duty ball bearing.
Ball bearing was used on the timing side for quite some decades...
 
Could it, could it be you don't even know your ball bearings from your roller bearings ??!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top