Taper versus spline

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fast Eddie

VIP MEMBER
Joined
Oct 4, 2013
Messages
20,642
Country flag
I've often wondered about this, and wondered what the collective opinion might be...

Triumphs have a splined crank and a tapered main shaft (the main shaft taper is considered a weakness in tuned motors).

Norton’s have the opposite.

Why?
 
Depends on the angle and the width of the taper, the Norton crank one is more than double the width of the Triumph, not measured the angles but shallower ones grip more but also harder to part.
 
The Triumph taper is quite shallow as I recall. But perhaps just not a large enough diameter for the later 650s and 750s, though I’m sure it was fine for it’s originally intended sub 30bhp application!

I could understand it if one bike had both tapers and one bike had both splines, that would just show the original engineers preference.

But I don’t understand why both bikes have taper and spline... and in opposite locations...
 
2 engineers working independently will come up with different solutions, sometimes 1 or both will get it wrong.
 
I've often wondered about this, and wondered what the collective opinion might be...

Triumphs have a splined crank and a tapered main shaft (the main shaft taper is considered a weakness in tuned motors).

Norton’s have the opposite.

Why?
Interesting question - no real answer here.

However, the Norton engine and gearbox were made by different companies. AMC used splines for the main shaft and high gear. My assumption is that it's easier to cut the taper than the spline so Norton cut a taper.

So part of the question becomes, why did Triumph mix it for the main shaft and high gear. Their high gear and crank are splined and their main shaft is tapered on the drive side and splined on the timing side.
 
As an aside, the AMC box was based on the Norton box not an AMC box, one of the spoils of AMC's purchase of Norton was a better gearbox for AMC, the redesign being to standardise it for both ranges. The Norton gearbox has its origins via several versions back to the original Sturmey Archer gearbox that they bought in and then when Sturmey got out of gearboxes Norton paid for the design rights and got Burmans to make them at their Kings Norton factory. So the design of the mainshaft splines could have been any of these companies.
 
As an aside, the AMC box was based on the Norton box not an AMC box, one of the spoils of AMC's purchase of Norton was a better gearbox for AMC, the redesign being to standardise it for both ranges. The Norton gearbox has its origins via several versions back to the original Sturmey Archer gearbox that they bought in and then when Sturmey got out of gearboxes Norton paid for the design rights and got Burmans to make them at their Kings Norton factory. So the design of the mainshaft splines could have been any of these companies.

Never knew that - thanks!
 
I've often wondered about this, and wondered what the collective opinion might be...

Triumphs have a splined crank and a tapered main shaft (the main shaft taper is considered a weakness in tuned motors).

Norton’s have the opposite.

Why?
okay so you lost me, Norton has a taper on the crank output shaft, so what spline are you referring to?
 
I think it is a matter of torque. The gearbox and primary ratio is a torque multiplier. Nortons have a spline under the clutch, Triumphs have a taper. When a Triumph breaks a clutch key, it makes a mess of the taper on the gearbox mainshaft. The key on the Norton crank is much less likely to break then the key under a Triumph clutch. I use a Manx clutch with single row primary on my 850. I had an adaptor made which accepts Jawa speedway sprockets which float on a spline. It allows the clutch and engine sprockets to align without changing the gearbox mainshaft. The other thing is that the Norton engine sprockets with the 5 degree taper are not readily available second-hand, and those you can get usually all have different offsets. Each Norton model is different. And how many people race Nortons and change the overall gearing a lot ? The Jawa sprockets are cheap and readily available. To replace them you simply drop the chain, slip the clip off, pop the new gear on and adjust the gearbox position etc. The adaptor and puller cost about $200. I have not even hardened the spline, it was made from strong stuff. If it buggers-up, I will just have another one made.
When I change the overall gearing, I usually do it at the engine and countershaft with odd numbers of teeth on the sprockets, rather than by changing the rear sprocket. My rear sprocket is a 38 which is fairly high. I usually try to keep the primary ratio high to save the gearbox. If it spins faster, the internal loads are smaller. My countershaft sprocket is a 17 and the engine sprocket is a 24 - the clutch never gets altered, I think it's a 48. For a big circuit, I would have to go up on the countershaft.
I think 4 Jawa sprockets cost about $60 and the Manx clutch does not slip. The diaphragm clutch is probably overkill and it is too heavy anyway. A single row primary is adequate for racing as long as you wire the clip.
 
I've got three single row engine sprockets off Nortons. Only one of them gives the correct chain alignment on a Commando with a Manx clutch. How many Norton models have triplex primary chains ? If you are racing and your gearing is not right, you usually go backwards. With a Commando, you don't know how much torque your engine has, until you raise the gearing and the bike accelerates faster. They won't spin-up fast on the throttle.
 
Last edited:
okay so you lost me, Norton has a taper on the crank output shaft, so what spline are you referring to?

Gearbox mainshaft...

Norton have a taper on the crank and a spline on the gearbox.

Triumph have a spline on the crank and a taper on the gearbox.
 
I could understand it if one bike had both tapers and one bike had both splines, that would just show the original engineers preference.
This won't answer the question why Triumph one way Norton the other. I suspect there is only one tapered shaft rather than both has to do with alignment. If both were tapered the shaft rather than the sprocket would have to be shimmed to get sprockets aligned with each other.
 
Nice one oldbeezer.

I think that’s a very good point, and well put.

And I think you have answered the question.

Like most good answers, it seems rather obvious now !
 
Nice one oldbeezer.

I think that’s a very good point, and well put.

And I think you have answered the question.

Like most good answers, it seems rather obvious now !

Most Japanese bikes don't have tapers, but still get alignment. I think the tapers were intended to make a weak point in the transmission. Breaking a key is not as serious as breaking a gearbox or over- revving and destroying a motor. In the old days, nobody had slipper clutches.
 
Most Japanese bikes don't have tapers, but still get alignment. I think the tapers were intended to make a weak point in the transmission. Breaking a key is not as serious as breaking a gearbox or over- revving and destroying a motor. In the old days, nobody had slipper clutches.

Japanese bikes have what we call “acceptable tolerances”. :rolleyes:
 
Japanese bikes have what we call “acceptable tolerances”. :rolleyes:

Do you mean acceptable tolerances or tolerable tolerances ? - It is much more difficult to get alignment with a taper than it is by fitting shim washers behind a sprocket on a spline.. Only the British would put the engine sprocket on a taper and make it different for every model of engine the company makes. It is like cricket and morris-dancing and Amal GP carbs - designed to send you insane.
 
I thought a taper was an incredibly strong connection and the key was mainly for alignment. Sure seemed incredibly strong when I went to remove the sprocket.:rolleyes:
 
When you fit the sprocket to the taper, it is normal practice to use coarse and fine grinding paste. Coarse at the near side, fine towards the inside. That way when you put the sprocket on the inside is tight and the outside is slightly looser. As you tighten the nut the sprocket then tightens on the taper. As I said - designed to drive you insane - like Velocettes. Whoever invented those should have been murdered.
 
When you fit the sprocket to the taper, it is normal practice to use coarse and fine grinding paste. Coarse at the near side, fine towards the inside. That way when you put the sprocket on the inside is tight and the outside is slightly looser. As you tighten the nut the sprocket then tightens on the taper. As I said - designed to drive you insane - like Velocettes. Whoever invented those should have been murdered.

As I recently found out if the taper is off you are limited on what you can do. I would not use grinding paste unless I was afraid of slippage. Considering the amount of force required to remove a Norton sprocket from the crankshaft I'm not worried about it moving.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top