Good morning folks and thanks for the add
I am part of the V4SS Gen1 Owners Group and it would be connect with other owners who are yet to join the group.
The aim of the group is to get Norton to work with owners to restore this bikes to the roads, leaving such beautiful bikes consigned to garages or static display is an utter waste.
You will recall the statements made by Norton Motorcycles that state they are working with owners; as an owner, I can assure you this is about as far from the truth as you can get. I have seen some comments that suggest we are seeking to damage the new business, this is certainly not the case. In fact I would argue that by not putting these bikes back on the road is the only way to restore belief in the business.
Our analysis of the defects indicates that roughly half related to the same engine and gearbox they will be using in the second generation V4SS. We have sought to have Norton Motorcycles explain why defects that are resolved in Generation Two cant be resolved in the Generation One bikes. Robert and his team again remain silent on this. Perhaps because Robert was Head of Motorcycles at Ricardo when the Designed the engine for Stuart Garner & Simon Skinner, its not been confirmed but we have been told Ricardo also built the engines and Norton bench tested!
Turning to the non-engine and gearbox issues, we have clear concerns around the Swinging Arm and Frame, but again they have to be addressed in Generation Two motorcycles. And we believe that once Norton resolves these issues, fixes to the other matters should easily flow.
Norton Motorcycles is now part of a global automotive business with substantial resources; they are now free from the constraints of the previous company. Therefore with the wealth of Research & Development and associated supporting engineering capabilities at their disposal, the assertion that they cannot address defects in the Generation One bikes is absurd.
I would argue that not only are they capable of addressing Generation One issues, but they have most probably addressed every one of them on a mule bike. This assumption is not unreasonable; they would wish to ensure they understood the Generation One bike defects and verify fixes to extend into the Generation Two pre-production designs. Perhaps we will suddenly see Simon Skinners private V4SS restored to the road as a result of this engineering effort, which would be a cruel turn of events for each owner deprived of this use of their own V4SS.
Should this be true, then the refusal to address the Generation One issues is financially motivated. Let us not forget TVS Norton have not only sought to transfer the financial loss to owners of £2.4m while saying they would offer owners the opportunity to purchase a Generation Two bike at a special price. Considering inflation, a £44,000 motorcycle in 2016 would now cost £50,000, now allowing for a 25% discount; this means the owners can expect to pay circa £37,500 for a replacement Generation Two bike.
At face value, this may appear to be a generous offer on the part of TVS Norton; however, it is far from this; in one move, Norton avoids £2.4m in liabilities while generating £2m sales revenues against a bike that have a significant number of unallocated units. From an owners perspective it appears TVS Norton are simply looking to find the most cost effective and commercially beneficial resolution without any regard to the implications to any of the owners.
In closing, I wish to leave you with a question. Suppose a business as sophisticated as TVS Norton can not resolve the Generation One defects and restore these motorcycles to the road. Will people have the required trust to invest circa £50,000 in a second-generation superbike that had its entire first generation removed from the road with un-rectifiable defects?