Why did Nortons shift on the right?

norton bob said:

I had only ever had right change old brit bikes for 50 years then found myself at Donnington track on a brand new 600 CBRR with a left change upside down change going flat out 14k revs , being encouraged to give it more by the instructor. It did not feel right!!. Still Feels wrong 10 years later.

Click to expand...

Know your limits is also a good adage!

I have always avoided those at race tracks who boldy say...just follow me....

marshg246 said:

The real question is why did the world change to suit the Japanese?

Click to expand...

The world didn't change. If anything the Japanese changed the world, however......

marshg246 said:

Most bikes shifted on the right until the Japanese bikes started coming to the English-speaking world. You would think that all the manufacturers that started before 1950 would have more clout in the standards than the newly arrived Japanese!

Click to expand...

A considerable number of motorcycles from that era had left-foot shift, for instance, NSU the largest motorcycle manufacturer in the world produced 350,000 motorcycles in 1955. Also BMW and others, so bikes with left-foot shift were far more common than you think.

https://www.motorcycleclassics.com/wheels-on-reels/the-rise-and-fall-of-nsu-motorcycles

marshg246 said:

By 1974 when the US DOT dictated that change, BSA-Triumph/Norton/Villers were a self-inflected mess, Harley couldn't get out of it's own way, and so on. So, I supposed, no one.

Click to expand...

The writing was on the wall for BSA-Triumph before 1974 as the 1971 BSA Fury and Triumph Bandit would have been left-foot shift had they gone into production.

https://www.motorcycleclassics.com/classic-british-motorcycles/bsa-fury-triumph-bandit-zm0z13ndzbea


BSA had already gone bust (in '72), "Triumph/Norton/Villiers" (Norton Villiers Triumph = NVT) was in a precarious financial position (due to the Meriden sit-in) only making a few thousand Commandos and T150 Tridents per year.
Meriden made precisely NO motorcycles in the 1974 calendar year due to the sit-in and uncertain at that time if production at Meriden would ever resume so realistically how could they have come to any other conclusion than decide on left-foot shift?

Well they all made a mistake going left foot gear change, my Norton gear box is so smooth to change gears it don't clunl into gear it goes into first with a light click and is so smooth through all the gears whether upshifting or down shifting, my gear box has alway been like that since new, look at the shifting on some modern bikes they all mostly clunk into first and you can hear them when changing gears, look at the. big Harlies with their forward controls they make a big clunk when they are put in first gear.
So really I think they all got it wrong and Norton got it right with the pushing the gear lever down for quick gear up shift change, I have had more bikes with left change gears but my Norton has always been the smoother of them all and yes I can jump on all my bikes whether left or right change without stuffing up or forgetting which bike I am riding, so to me the right side is right.

Ashley

The Norton/AMC box had a good change.

I am adaptable for an old guy and can start my Ducati (in race tune) LEFT SIDE. kick start with either leg , But a left gearchange is a disaster in a crisis. Imagine changing down to second at 90 in third on a 99, Hello conrods!

Fast Eddie said:

Personally, I have no difficulty changing from ‘left to right shifts’ when swapping bikes at all. But if I add changing from ‘up to down shifts’ as well, it is enough to cause the occasional need to think, and the occasional mistake. Hence, I prefer my Commando in the ‘reversed’ shift pattern, then my ‘fleet’ is standardised in the ‘up for up’ pattern even though I actually prefer the ‘down for down’ shift pattern !

As an aside, I don’t think the real question is ‘why are Brit bikes gear levers on the right’... the Brit industry had basically ‘standardised’ this for decades. The real question is ‘why was it later put on the left’??

Click to expand...

As I told @MexicoMike the other day, your priorities are wrong. Change the shift pattern on other bikes.

Well, as I say, as an ex racer I actually prefer the ‘down for up’ pattern and I seriously thought about ensuring all my bikes were thus.
Then I realised that life is too short...!

L.A.B. said:

BSA had already gone bust (in '72), "Triumph/Norton/Villiers" (Norton Villiers Triumph = NVT) was in a precarious financial position (due to the Meriden sit-in) only making a few thousand Commandos and T150 Tridents per year.

Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to be precise or give a history lesson. That would be stupid for an American to do on a British bike forum!

Yes BSA quit making bikes because only Triumph was selling. Yes, the workers didn't want to lose their jobs which certainly cost all of their jobs. Since BSA owned Triumph I grouped them into the overall severe downturn of the British motorcycle industry. In fact, BSA silliness about destroyed Triumph, the only British motorcycle that was actually selling in the US. In 1970, The Triumph Bonneville was well sorted out and selling. So, of course, BSA decided to force the ridiculous frame changes on Triumph for 1971.

Apparently at the time AMC closed down the Norton factory at Bracebridge St ,Norton was profitable and had a war chest to invest in new machinery. All sucked into the AMC money pit!!.

I think the problem with Norton was they were enthusiasts rather than calculating business people. Friends of mine actually had the keys to the factory in the 1950s, some of their bikes are a bit special. - You cannot run a business that way. A lot of it has got to do with being British - I love their values and their cynicism. There have never been better spies or politicians.

Probably the same reason why the put the steering wheel on the "wrong" side.

Re; “since new, look at the shifting on some modern bikes they all mostly clunk into first and you can hear them when changing gears, look at the big Harlies with their forward controls they make a big clunk when they are put in first gear.”

With a crash gearbox, most bikes will give a loud clunk when stationery as the gearbox 1st gear is not going round at the required engine speed - but then I’m nit-picking the clunk is to remind the rider when he/she wants to move off.

Slightly related topic - i was out on my ES2 today and at a lunch stop chatted with a guy on a Suzuki who had started on ES2's, 88's etc back in the day but had many years ago moved on to Jappers. BUT every Japanese bike he had bought (many it seems) had been converted to right foot change, the world might have moved on but he was not going to.
I do like a free spirit.

My first motor vehicle was a Vespa 150. It had a left-side shift, but it was also the left handlebar. My personal bikes (an Ariel "Leader" and a BSA A-7) and the Nortons I rode for a living were all right shift, one up/three down.

I never believed in Aerial Leaders. However in a video I posted about the Thruxton production race in about 1960, Aerial Leaders were up with the front-runners until they stopped.

In 1974, American safetycrats got a law passed dictating hand and footbrakes must be actuated on the same side of the machine, so it was actually the footbrake lever that swapped sides and the gearshift lever followed suit.

Acotrel:

I got my "Leader" mainly because it looked more like a scooter than a motorcycle. Mom banned motorcycles for me. I eventually overcame the ban and got the BSA A-7.

The main problem with the Leader, initially, was the tremendous amount of exhaust smoke. The owners' manual specified a 16:1 gas/oil ratio. After a query to Ariel's tech action line, I got a reply that "after more endurance testing, we're now recommending 48:1" - much less smoke after that.

When I started dating the young lady I subsequently married, she heartily hated the Leader. Because of the monocoque frame design, the passenger foot-pegs were attached to the rear swing-arm - not a comfortable ride! The Leader was sold off and replaced with the A-7. I switched to a car a year or so later and only got back into motorcycles after joining N-V's R&D group. I emigrated to the US after 18 months with N-V, in July 1968. I haven't owned a motorcycle since. At 77 years old, there's not much chance of one in the future.

Incidentally, Norton weren't the only UK brand with right-side shift - they all had it. Triumph were different because their shift pattern was one down and three up. All the others were one up/three (or four) down

Another point is that many British riders pulled sidecars with their bikes. Because we drive on the opposite side of the street than here in the US, the sidecar was on the left of its power provider, and most of them had their own wheel-brake, It was possible to get extended pedal spindles so the bike's rear brake pedal and the sidecar brake pedal could be mounted closely side-by-side and used together. I used my A-7 for sidecar work for a brief time and I added that pedal arrangement. I returned it to a solo set-up when my significant other decided the sidecar had to go away.

Danno said:

In 1974, American safetycrats got a law passed dictating hand and footbrakes must be actuated on the same side of the machine, so it was actually the footbrake lever that swapped sides and the gearshift lever followed suit.

Click to expand...

Many European brands had RH gearchange and LH brake pedal, over here, rumour had it that these American "safetycrats" were payed by the Japanese Industry.

Peter R said:

Many European brands had RH gearchange and LH brake pedal, over here, rumour had it that these American "safetycrats" were payed by the Japanese Industry.

Click to expand...

Conspiracy theories aside, I think they just looked a the raw numbers of imports and it was an easy decision as to who had to change and who would stay the same.