Quantal Cosworth Norton

acotrel said:
I knew 'The Ant' - Paul Lewis fairly well years ago, he was a top rider however I think he crashed badly and slowed down later.
Click to expand...

Top rider on a bad day given he took the first generation Britten V1000 to a second at Daytona in 1991 (against Doug Polen) and iirc went well on the Vee Two Australia Alchemy Ducati at Daytona also in the early 1990's.
 
I've seen Lewis race a fair bit, he looks very small on a big bike. He was always fast, however as I said I think he had a career limiting crash some time - he had a lot of potential. He was racing in Victoria at the same time as Ray Quincey - both ended up in Europe. Ray quickly ended up in a wheel chair. (He rode at a rain-soaked meeting, and water caused the slides to hang up in the carbs, he was bounced off the Armco.) I'm interested in the comment about Gary Flood, I knew his brother Trevor better. He was very good on a YZR750 Yamaha, however I cannot remember Gary ever road racing here. There was a bit of tradition involved with those guys. Their father Bert was an excellent tuner of Bultacos, Ginger Molloy raced one of Bert's bikes here many times in the 70s and did very well. My involvement with the Floods was more about tuning Bultaco MX bikes.
 
Interesting that Ducati Paningale using engine as stressed member and triangulated rear suspension, making out like it is a brand new idea when this Cosworth bike had the same design concept 25 years ago.
But I have seen all of that somewhere else on a much earlier model-

Quantal Cosworth Norton
 
You could say the same about the 1910 ASL = Air Springs Limited ?
Thanks to Pete Youngs webpages.
And this was old stuff even then...

Quantal Cosworth Norton
 
Don't think that one has the engine as stressed member Rohan, but other than that, very Quantal Cosworth/Paningale like :mrgreen:
 
There is no steel tubing or plates under the engine.

In fact, without the engine in there, if you sat on it the frame will usually break in half !
Thats the ultimate 'stressed member' design....

Its not actually clear how you'd get the engine into that space either,
things look a little cramped. ?
 
Looks to me that the motor is just hanging off the frame and that the frame is a complete monolith without the motor. The horizontal frame piece at bottom is the stressed member. Interesting design for 1910
 
I can't understand why many Ducatis have the swing arm mount on the back of the gearbox. I would never do it that way. If it stuffs up - that could mean new crank cases. Built-in obsolescence ? With a Vincent only half the load goes through the crankcases at the rear mounting points.
 
worntorn said:
Looks to me that the motor is just hanging off the frame
Click to expand...

Thats how motors were mounted in many bikes for many decades where the engine was an integral/stressed part of it, up until after WW2 in fact.
Couple of engine plates from motor to frame, fore and aft, thats it !
Look at how a WW2 16H Norton or M20 BSA are set up.
That ASL frame looks to be a bit more substantial than many of them, granted.

Probably wouldn't say that if you were riding it, and took the time to observe the frame behaviour.
I recall riding something considerably later, and noted that the clutch housing touched a frame tube on hard acceleration = yikes !
A lot of girder forked bikes were noted as stepping sideways a little on hard cornering - the forks flex....
Didn't Vincents claim the much vaunted girdraulics were free of this vice ?

But we diverge from Cosworths...
 
Theres a few corners , where ' they all do that ' . Which are a good test if its sorted and doesnt .

The right hander of the Grandstand at Puke. , observeing Surtees on his 1000 & Comet last Centurie , Er - It / They DID .
One quick SLAP Id say was the right word . a half Cycle . ( NO not the Comet ) more noticeable aft but induced front .
As he pushed the front down to counter the aft ( rear pivot ) pivoted . We assume Il Grande John did a grand job on the
chassis . So think it inherant , at a fair crack of the whip into a decelerateing bend . Couldve been power transition -
he had to back off somewhere as its into a slower left . But I had the distinct impression the cylinders were leading
perhaps as the brakes were applied . though it seemed that was as he had brought it up briefly before exiting left .
 
A standard Vincent can be quite nasty if not kept up to scratch. A friend of mine was chucked onto his head off one, at 70 MPH on a straight road. Apparently the fork bush clearances, and the dampers under the seat are critical. An Egli Vincent is a much better deal.
 
Rohan said:
You could say the same about the 1910 ASL = Air Springs Limited ?
Thanks to Pete Youngs webpages.
And this was old stuff even then...

Quantal Cosworth Norton
Click to expand...

That looks like a short trailing link on each side, aft of conventional rigid chainstays.

Could be poor at keeping the rear wheel in line and certainly nothing like a Vincent, Yamaha or Any other triangulated fork.
 
It was 1910, so didn't really have to cope with doing 120 mph.

Quite forward thinking really, given that most were rigid frames.
And it hadn't been long since the front was the same... !
 
What is really a crying shame is that there was never really a decent frame for the thirties V twins. A friend on mine has so far made about 8 Anzani engines. He has had one in a featherbed frame for historic racing, however it obviously looks completely wrong even though it goes OK. I've seen an 880 JAP motor in a featherbed frame being raced. With the torquey motor and the bad weight distribution it went nowhere. Something like the Vincent frame would have been much better. Pity it never existed. A Mk3 Seeley frame fitted with an alloy 880 JAP motor and a six speed box might be OK - wouldn't be eligible for many race classes these days.
 
You keep applying modern go-fast thinking to old machinery ?
Why not just accpet them as they are, and race them as such.
It took real gonads to go fast back then, none of this grandma thinking....

Having said that, Indian frames back then (20s and 30s) were a full double cradle tubular steel frame.
Plenty strong - and heavy.
Except the steering head was about unsupported.
They hadn't yet twigged this was the important bit, which the featherbed introduced....
 
Rohan said:
You keep applying modern go-fast thinking to old machinery ?
Why not just accpet them as they are, and race them as such.
It took real gonads to go fast back then, none of this grandma thinking....

Having said that, Indian frames back then (20s and 30s) were a full double cradle tubular steel frame.
Plenty strong - and heavy.
Except the steering head was about unsupported.
They hadn't yet twigged this was the important bit, which the featherbed introduced....
Click to expand...

We have a guy building V twin motors in Victoria. He started with an Anzani engine, and using the same crankcases has built a 4 valve Indian Motor. The performance is similar to that of a very good 1000cc Vincent. Would you really like to ride that fast using a rigid frame ? It is quite spectacular to watch, and that's about as close as I want to get to it. He has had the Anzani engine in a featherbed frame for historic races - I don't know why - the bike probably never existed as such in the old days.
If you think back to about 1920 and the attitudes towards safety - they simply seemed to accept guys getting killed using bikes with in-built defects. Rigid frames and very powerful motors are not a good combination, and the riders back then were not stupid. Drum brakes, pudding basin helmets, rigid frames - all good stuff - NOT ! ! You are a long time dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxUSXpNlz5U
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top