Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-18-2008, 05:25 PM   #11
sachiwilson
Women Riders Moderator
 
sachiwilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seruzawa View Post
The Norton reliability problem in the 60's/70's was not the robustness of the basic design as much as it was the poor quality metals the British companies were forced to use because of the Labor Govt's protectionist policies for the domestic steel industry.
Where is your source for this? I have not heard that in anything I've ever read about the British industry, and I read a lot. From the sources I read, the reliability problems were caused by pushing the (very dated) designs beyond their strength limits, exacerbated by tooling that was too worn to make parts to proper tolerances. Both of these problems were at base caused by Britain's lack of investment capital stemming from WW II and its aftermath.
__________________
Frappé LaRue
*Safety Queen*
Are you a Rounder?

Sarnali: "what could be more useless than arguing with a deaf female lawyer????"
sachiwilson is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 12-18-2008, 05:54 PM   #12
mscuddy
MODERATOR X

 
mscuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Next to my still checkin the temp.
Posts: 5,449
Default

Just an afterthought but the same guy who designed the isolastic suspension motor mount system on the Snortons designed the motor mounts on the later Buell XB models. Mine was about as relaible as a Norton too. Some link maybe?
__________________
A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.
mscuddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 08:21 PM   #13
newagetwotone
Registered Member
 
newagetwotone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,302
Default

Wow... i can think of worse ways to spend 18 large...
newagetwotone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 09:26 AM   #14
sarnali2
Aging Cafe` Racer

 
sarnali2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sittin' down by my window, lookin' at the rain.
Posts: 8,719
Default

Using Triumph as an example if you want to resurect a dead brand then you need to come up with some current models. Selling retro models only will get you the same place it got the various Indian resurrections and the ill-fated Exelsior Henderson debacle.

If someone wants to bring Norton back (which I would love to see) they should buy up the patents for the '80's rotory engine and use it as a base powerplant. That was a bike that by all accounts ran like poop through a goose and was easy and cheap to produce, using the rotory as a base and building a rep. with an ST , naked and Sports version would offer something unique and get their name back out there, worry about the retro stuff later.

It helps if you have deep pockets like John Bloor too..
__________________
"Carpe` Throttelum -Loud Suits Save Lives"

"He said he's farting because of his medication"...
sarnali2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 09:27 AM   #15
longride
Super Duper Mod Man

 
longride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Anywhere they let me
Posts: 10,479
Default

All that modern stuff is fine, but nobody wants a Norton that doesn't look like a Norton. It would be lake remaking the Dodge Charger and not looking like the old Charger. What the hell was Dodge thinking on that one? Anyway, I believe Triumph's best selling model is the Bonnie, which is what everyone remembers them to be. If I was going to buy a new Norton I want it to look much like the old one with modern reliablity.
__________________
I'm a knucklehead
longride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 09:53 AM   #16
longride
Super Duper Mod Man

 
longride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Anywhere they let me
Posts: 10,479
Default

They were very sweet handlers. I'd imagine they could do even better with modern suspension and tires. This new one is styled the way it needs to be too. I think it looks great.
__________________
I'm a knucklehead
longride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 09:56 AM   #17
seruzawa
The Toad

 
seruzawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 8501 ft.
Posts: 17,461
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by longride View Post
All that modern stuff is fine, but nobody wants a Norton that doesn't look like a Norton. It would be lake remaking the Dodge Charger and not looking like the old Charger. What the hell was Dodge thinking on that one? Anyway, I believe Triumph's best selling model is the Bonnie, which is what everyone remembers them to be. If I was going to buy a new Norton I want it to look much like the old one with modern reliablity.
The thing about Norton is that when they went out of business they were still selling the best handling bikes you could buy. Japanese bikes took many years to finally equal the handling characteristics of those old Snorters. A new Norton with that frame design would still hold it's own. So buying a new Norton with modern components would likely give you a bike that hung quite easily with many of the latest and greatest. Its not like buying a cruiser.. another clunky bike like the "new" Indian. A Norton even after all these years is still a sweet ride and a ball on a twisty road.
__________________
"Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."
seruzawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 10:11 AM   #18
BrowningBAR
Snuggles

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In a really, really, really old farmhouse
Posts: 4,369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by longride View Post
It would be lake remaking the Dodge Charger and not looking like the old Charger. What the hell was Dodge thinking on that one?
You know the worst part of all that? The Charger concept car would have sold like hotcakes, but Dodge/GM's marvelous marketing department decided to make it into a sedan for 'broader appeal'. The is a perfect example of why GM is failing; completely missing the mark on a product and refusing to change direction. Still claiming they make the best cars that Americans want...but just aren't buying them.

Original Charger concept (add an 'h' to the beginning of the link):
ttp://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2006/2006-Dodge-Challenger-Concept-SA-Top-1024x768.jpg

And here is what Dodge thought we really wanted (add an 'h' to the beginning of the link):
ttp://www.carprices24.com/cars/dodge/charger/dodge-charger-2.jpg
BrowningBAR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 10:18 AM   #19
longride
Super Duper Mod Man

 
longride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Anywhere they let me
Posts: 10,479
Default

I think he is using that example of US 'Auto Think' as a whole. I would agree that most of what comes from US is bland and dumbed down stuff that could be truly exciting if they would cut loose.
__________________
I'm a knucklehead
longride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 10:20 AM   #20
sachiwilson
Women Riders Moderator
 
sachiwilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowningBAR View Post
You know the worst part of all that? The Charger concept car would have sold like hotcakes, but Dodge/GM's marvelous marketing department . . .
GM? Have you been partaking of Cuddy's Best this morning?
__________________
Frappé LaRue
*Safety Queen*
Are you a Rounder?

Sarnali: "what could be more useless than arguing with a deaf female lawyer????"
sachiwilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off