Ready to Race Finally

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks John, meeting new people with a common interest, having fun and a few laughs!!!
I guess others didn't think we were taking it serious when your friends turned up with a full size coffee machine.
So what go fast bits do you have in your box of spares?
Regards Mike
 
Brooking 850 said:
Thanks John, meeting new people with a common interest, having fun and a few laughs!!!
I guess others didn't think we were taking it serious when your friends turned up with a full size coffee machine.
So what go fast bits do you have in your box of spares?
Regards Mike
Click to expand...

Go fast bits? ......none as yet. Looked at this

http://www.motorcycleparts-hornig.com/B ... _PLUS.html

$ 3600 NZ, plus shipping, plus Customs plus

Yeah.....na....... :cry:

Going to work on my R50/5 rule bender instead.


Yeah the coffee machine was good, even the take away cups.....no jaffas but.

cheers

John

Wheres the piccys. Email them and I'll post them if you like. :p
 
Will post them , just sorting through them.
It is only $$$$ , go for it !!!!
Off to work Monday , so will miss Manfield, bummer!
Regards Mike
 
" ....the UK CRMC Eligibility Officer is one Gordon Russell! "
Ready to Race Finally


see here ; armstrong-t17789.html . : apparently its an ARMSTRONG , and THATS . . . .
 
acotrel said:
Thanks for that, it was Dave Croxford I was thinking about. I still cannot date the drainpipe Norton. Does anyone have a record of when it was first raced ? Was it a late 60s bike ? I believe the Seeleys started mid 60s, mine is 1966 and it is a Mk3. It is useless thinking about building a bike with the drainpipe frame, if the idiots are going to can it. CRMC seem to have some smarts about them, if they allow a margin which helps guys to get racing. Was the drainpipe 'one off' ?
Click to expand...

Around 1969, http://motorbike-search-engine.co.uk/cl ... norton.php
 
SteveA said:
Bernhard said:
The Dunstall Drainpipe 750 Norton was originally a tuned Atlas engine, which was found to have too much power for the f/bed frame on British short circuits.
Click to expand...


I have seen this comment before, and won't argue that Dunstall drew this conclusion, what seems odd is not only that others disagreed at the time, but some are racing Featherbed Commando's today with apparently higher power outputs than Dunstall was achieving....

Dunstall was involved with the early Rickman Metisse twins, by reputation a frame less flexible than the Seeley, anybody know why he forsook that for the Drainpipe?
Click to expand...

The same reason he abandoned the Norton frames for his tuned 750 Atlas motor. They were getting a claimed 70+ BHP form these engines. The F/Bed was not designed / built for this amount of HP especially at flat out racing speeds.
 
I've ridden about 3 different wideline featherbed framed twins, and an original manx - my Seeley 850 is much better. You don't feel as though you are riding an elephant who is bashing all your pointy bits with a hammer. You guys talk about isolastics, it is difficult enough to keep a featherbed frame together with a vibratory 60 BHP twin cylinder motor, while you try the keep the rear wheel from moving in the wrong direction to the steering. One of the common mods to featherbed frames was to fit bronze bushes to replace the silentbloc bearings in the swing arm, to get a better feel. What do you do when your frame cracks at the front engine mounts, or in the loops where the pivot plates mount ? Mine had patches welded on to distribute the loads at the stress raisers.
 
Bernhard said:
The F/Bed was not designed / built for this amount of HP especially at flat out racing speeds.
Click to expand...


Joe Craig and Doug Hele would be amused at that statement ?
Thats precisely where featherbeds originated. ??
Not to mention numerous builders of Norvins....

It was only an afterthought that got them into roadbikes.
 
Judging by the few featherbed race bikes I have ridden, I can't see that 70 bhp would be a problem. In my opinion the deciding factor with featherbed handling is weight distribution, particularly the height of the engine. The best handling ones have all been singles which have their engine tucked down between the lower frame rails. Twins have to have the engine higher up because they are too wide to fit down between the frame rails.

I don't think it's a power issue since even when you are going reasonably slowly the twins just didn't steer so precisely and had to be persuaded to turn unlike the singles which just went where you pointed them.
 
pommie john said:
I don't think it's a power issue since even when you are going reasonably slowly the twins just didn't steer so precisely and had to be persuaded to turn unlike the singles which just went where you pointed them.
Click to expand...

Are we comparing apples with apples here though ?
The race bikes were shorter wheel base than the roadgoing versions.
And also had shorter forks, shorter suspension travel, and lower ride height.

You see mention sometimes of folks spreading the lower chassis rails to get the engines lower in specials,
although you'd sure need to know what you were doing with this...
 
Speaking of Featherbed Nortons our chap cleaned up at Barber Festival.

AHRMA World Championship - Nick Cole - congratulations

AHRMA WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP
Premier 500 – Nicholas Cole
Formula 500 - Nicholas Cole

on an ES2 no less. :D
 
Rohan said:
Are we comparing apples with apples here though ?
The race bikes were shorter wheel base than the roadgoing versions.
And also had shorter forks, shorter suspension travel, and lower ride height.

You see mention sometimes of folks spreading the lower chassis rails to get the engines lower in specials,
although you'd sure need to know what you were doing with this...
Click to expand...


Really? Are you sure about the wheelbase and ride height? When you buy a featherbed you don't specify road or race or wheelbase. I thought ( and I'm not claiming to be an expert ) that you bought short or long roadholders... long being for Commando and short for featherbed. I wasn't aware there were other variations.
 
John, I agree with what you have said about the featherbed frames. They are best fitted with the manx engine. The one original manx that I rode in the 70s was about 5 mph slower than my Triton, however I was several seconds per lap faster on the manx on Calder Raceway. It inspired confidence , and if you got off line, you simply gave it more stick. I've often wondered about the 500cc domiracer , Tom Phillis was a great rider -he might have ridden around its misdemeanors. A commando engine should be good in a featherbed frame, however much better in a Seeley. My friend has a very good 650cc Triton - fast , however when I last rode it, it didn't feel positive enough in the front end. With my own 500cc Triton, I moved the engine forward until the mounts touched, became more positive, however it still did not feel as good as the 500cc manx. It was always a crash waiting to happen.
 
Matt Spencer said:
Ready to Race Finally


OH DEAR .

Ready to Race Finally


61 500 Domiracer , I.o.M. /




On all the pics I have seen with the late Top Phillips riding the works Norton 500 Domiracer, there was a bungee strap holding the rear part of the megga.
Click to expand...
 
More Hampton Downs Barry Sheene Trans Tasman Challenge Pics
Flying the flag for the forum
Ready to Race Finally

72 Combat's BMW
Ready to Race Finally

Full size coffee machine in the background!!!
Ready to Race Finally

Fast man Peter Tanner on the 630 Manx ran out of brakes
Ready to Race Finally

Ready for a start
Ready to Race Finally

Good start by the fast Triton of Cloud Craig-Smith
Ready to Race Finally

Diced with this HD 883 of Noel Howes all day, managed to get him over the hill to the start finish line every race.
Ready to Race Finally

Regards Mike
 
Wow, 454, you got big shoes to fill. That would be Todd Hennings old number. Jim
 
It is unusual for a Triton to lift the front, usually the rear wheel spins first if the weight distribution is correct ? While it is going up there, it is not moving forward. Looks good though, and that's important.
 
pommie john said:
Really? Are you sure about the wheelbase and ride height? When you buy a featherbed you don't specify road or race or wheelbase. I thought ( and I'm not claiming to be an expert ) that you bought short or long roadholders... long being for Commando and short for featherbed. I wasn't aware there were other variations.
Click to expand...

If you buy manx replica parts from Ken McIntosh, he won't sell you any roadgoing spec bits - manx stuff is all completely different.
And Ken can sell you exact stuff for each year of manx.
The frames are squarer and shorter, to start with.
And the suspension is all short travel.
Manx fork tubes are shorter than short roadholder stuff.

Print out the brochure pics onto clear transparencies, and overlay them.
Once you get the wheel diameters matching, the differences are obvious.
Manxes are a total breed apart, NOTHING is the same as the road versions.
The air in the tyres excepted...
 
Thanks Jim, certainly coincidental, the 4 is for the month and the '54 the year I was born!!
Not sure where Todd Hennings number was derived from.
Ready to Race Finally
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top