What is wrong with the NOC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nortoniggy said:
If the NOC was bankrupted by legal action by ANIL that would be an extremely sad day, to say the least. I can imagine a large percentage of the 1,400 members buying from ANIL quite often. Do ANIL really want to hack off such a large number of customers?
Click to expand...
Sadly, for a majority of necessary parts, there is only one supplier or RELATIVELY decent ones...
 
The NOC had over £200K in their savings account according to the last published accounts, would have bought a lot of rare and unobtainable spares for members if they had ever got their act together.
 
Good Point, maybe that Soviet B-29 (TU-4) was actually better! ;) The fact that the TU-4 served in the Soviet Air Force for 20 years indicates they did a pretty good job with no original (Boeing) drawings! :)
 
Last edited:
And what about parts interchange? Was is like the BSA Bantam was to the DKW or more like the Ural to the BMW?
 
  • Like
Reactions: baz
ZFD said:
This thread has now been hijacked by people more desperate to discuss their own ego than being interested in the original subject matter. I will now stop commenting. If anybody is interested in my views- and some factual information I have documentary proof for- wait for the next "Source"
Click to expand...
Joe
You still have not stated why it is necessary for you to have the original drawings. If it is as you state:

ZFD said:
What is vital is to access the information on the (reputedly) 5000 drawings the NOC has been sitting on for 27 years. I am sure there is a lot of parts there that we could either re-manufacture, or check dimensions on for parts we have since, in desperation, made new drawings for.

Then copies would suffice.
The answer - “because we actually own them” does not cut it either. You are pursuing drawings for obsolete vehicles, the owners of which will gradually be gone over the next decade or two (or they will no longer be riding as they are unable or unwilling to do so). Pressure to use carbon free vehicles is mounting so the appeal of petrol driven motorcycles does not appeal to the younger generation - hencethe need for parts to maintain these vehicles will diminish.
I ask therefore, what is your end goal here?
It would help clarify the position if this was known.
John
 
Last edited by a moderator:
oldmikew said:
Now we know why no one toured the Soviet Union on a Norton... fear of reverse engineering
Click to expand...
I'm not afraid of a little reverse engineering. I know when I'm forced to park head down in a parking stall I'd appreciate a little reverse engineering. I'll show myself out, thanks.
 
Nice looking Commando TW , very nice .... any odd parts on her ?
 
Time Warp said:
1966 ? but that would mean nothing relating to the Commando (Most likely)
Some of the lustre has gone for me but wonder where they are and how they are stored given their age.
Click to expand...

I some how doubt that, the dates and part numbers that the NOC hold go through to the Commando bikes, so I doubt that Joe Francis had all of them in 1966.

Also, which manufacturer in their right minds sell off drawings that could be used to keep the old models on the road when they are trying to sell new models - never happens, some car manufacturers did it, like the Fiat 124 and the like, but even these were made under licence. The obsolete parts, jigs and dies, have been known to go for sale and scrap, but not drawings.

The reason this forum is as popular as it is, the NOC and other clubs, have the large membership they have, and at most classic meets old Nortons will usually be seen, is simple - parts supply. The level of parts supply for many of the Nortons models has never been so good, if you look at the poor parts supply that other classic makes have, then the corresponding club membership, technical support from all means and the resale prices of the bikes is usually lower than the Norton.

The classic Triumph is typical, considering they say they made roughly 10 x more than Norton produced in the 60's and 70's, and shipped a similar percentage worldwide, most classic meets I attend rarely have a T120, 140, etc, the law of averages says it should be far higher. It isn't because their parts supply has become ever worse in passing years. There is non-Norton parts supplier that need a part making, it could not be done in the UK for some reason, so it was decided to look to the far east, the company approached refused to quote but less than 6 months later the part was being sold online for a 1/5th the price that the last UK made parts sold for. It was short lived, even with the drawing in the far east the parts did not fit and the eventually disappeared from the web, this type of activity causes many to leave the parts business, so perpetuating the problem.

The NOC and AN have the same interest - to keep Nortons on the road, ridden not hidden, to do this needs parts supply, poor parts supply then potential Norton owners will look elsewhere, modern bike, retro bike etc, and will not join the club, with diminishing numbers, new potential owners will most probably think, that with a non vibrant club, a classic Norton is not worth buying.

Parts supply is one thing, control in the producing of the parts is another. If drawings, and to keep it fair from AN or the NOC, or anyone else, found themselves in the far east then the control is gone, many of you buy from many sources, Norvil, RGM, CNW, AN, all these companies would be affected, as would hundreds of workers and retailers supporting the industry. The retailers would give up as they would find it hard to buy parts from many different sources - and yes, China does not do returns, not even for Wassel as I have found out when I had to return parts to them. Once the far east manufacturers have moved onto the next fast buck, then no more will made, dealers will be gone and no one will want to risk or battle their way back into a changed market.

As for having a depository, it sounds like a good idea, but you may find that the depository will not take them as they then have to control the IP on behalf on the TM owner - This is not an easy task. The suggestion of giving out the same drawing to 3 different manufacturers is pointless, chances are they would end up using the same specialists to make the part and thus the price would be the same. As much as me Ken don't see eye to eye, I doubt he would be keen for someone to suggest that he should have given his tooling, machine data etc to 3 different companies, to get the heads made, it is not a viable option.

Despite the ongoing legal issue, one thing is for sure, both sides have similar objectives, to keep Nortons on the road, just how they could achieve this will be decided in due course. But make no mistake the CR of the drawings is owned and thus needs to be controlled - fact, subject to the 70 year law that is generally recognised worldwide, it cant be anything but owned. Design rights and patent are different issues to CR and subject to different timescales.

Some use the buying a book example, I have heard it many times. Providing you legitimately bought form someone allowed to sell it, and with books this by law includes the public, you own the book but not the content, but has anyone bought a book with a licence to copy it - I'd be surprised. This does not apply to drawings, if you give a drawing, hard copy or CAD digital format to an engineering firm to manufacture a part they neither own the drawing or the IP on it and thus can't sell it, this now includes machine code produced from the drawing, or copied from a customers disk / drive, also does not belong to the company.

A long post but may help to understand that drawings and the associated control is a little bit more involved than it first appears.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top