classic motorcycle forum
Motorcycle Discussions => British Bikes => Topic started by: johnnyboy-wonder57 on March 08, 2012, 04:14:03 PM
-
Hi,
Anyone know of a place I could get a copy of a blue-print for a slimline featherbed-frame, also is there a practical limit on the power of the engine, the frame can contain happily without mishap?
All sorts of power units have been put in FB's, some people on some forums hint that above 50-60bhp you may have trouble! An all alloy Hillman Imp engine & a Norton gearbox was my plan!
Bomber of course will be asked to be in consultation when he has time.
Any thoughts?
Cheers
JBW
-
Why bother, everything's been done before?
-
You know my thoughts JBW... get on with it!
-
Roger..Reason
1; I haven't yet done a project quite like this myself, that is building a "special" Special, with real engineering problems & solutions;
2; Individual builders usually build, (if they have the brains to do it), better machines that what came out of the factories, through often Company budget cuts & consequent under-engineered products & a seemingly pathological aversion by the factories to upgrade their products and making them better by curing inherent faults, often demanded by loyal but frustrated customers, (such as too small final-drive chains, inadequate electrical systems, puny brakes, pressed- steel Primary covers, weak Swinging -Arms, barely adequate rear shocks), to name but a few engineering/production/ weaknesses. Incorporating modern materials make the machine more robust & better engineered for modern roads!
3; There's nothing like they feeling you get, when you have built up the machine and the day comes to fire it up & breathe life in the machine & IT "LIVES" & runs & moves off down the road! Created by one's fair hands & brain;
4; Because money is tight & I am personally not willing too spend what was a small fortune, not long ago; but is rapidly, becoming a increasingly ridiculously large fortune on an over-inflated priced, restored "Classic"; South Sea Bubble situation?
5; When I was younger, true motor-cycling was about, riding, restoring, racing and re-building & often re-engineering, sorry, but I was exposed to the VMCC @ a tender age!
6; Personal satisfaction, & a pride in what I possibly can achieve, remember, no two specials are alike, & a slight arrogance that I can do things better with hind-sight than the factories!
7; Turning a 1970's School-boys dream, (almost long-forgotten 40 years later), into a reality.
Roger, you really do leave yourself wide-open, have you built a special then?
Bomber; Point taken!
Only cash flow, delays the project, whilst the realisation that at least half of my natural time on Earth has passed me by, ( barring unforseen circumstances), this spurs me on to make the best of it & have some fun eventually running a bike of my own manufacture, hopefully by 2013. I figure from 80-100 life may be more difficult so everything physical needs to be done in the next two & a half decades! Although Governments Fuel policies could scupper said plans for FUN in the future, as prices rise almost as fast as Classic bikes. Economic situation, predicted £7 a gallon, by Easter?
Cheers
JBW
-
Pretty compelling arguments there, JBW. I suppose it's the same for most builders/restorers, that sense of satisfaction you get when "it lives and breathes and I made it happen" moment arrives and that alone makes it all worthwhile.
"All be done before" is a bit strange though. On that basis we all may as well just curl up and die.
Best of luck with it, moreso as you appear to have realised your own mortality and the clock's ticking... ;)
-
I have to say i'm not to keen on the look of the imp engine , i would rather see a Hesketh v twin lump or even a Honda CBX six as they are engines already made to be looked at .
But it's your time and money so if you even fancy a diesel sludge pump engine in it ,go for it !
-
runesika,
The castings are a lovely & surprisingly light, its a British product, from the clutch end, the engine is heavily shrouded, but some work on designing a casting & covers for the primary side, make the engine more aesthetically appealing , the fact that you bolt the sump to the frame, means you can be creative too, my intention is to angle the engine forward, like a Rocket Three, 15 degrees or maybe @ an angle greater than this, depending on the room in the FB frame; hence, saving Cornflake packets for templates!
One of the neatest car-engine bikes, I have ever seen in print, used a four-cylinder NSU Prinz engine mated to the sump of a Ford Anglia!
Perhaps design a smaller- version crankcase- cover /sump like on the Panther 100 with heavy finning underneath. Most engine geometries, on British bikes are either, egg-shaped, triangular , oval or round, its a case of working out on the Camshaft -side what will fit and appeal to the eye @ the same time.
I even had a idea about rubber- mounting the engine aka isolastic mounts, if the drive on the right-side of the crank is used for the alternator of water-pump a wing-shaped casting/casing will lend itself to the design. Most water-cooled engines are not as appealing as air-cooled ones, look @ the Ducati range!
A modified all alloy car-engine, gives some advantages, low-down torque, which can be adjusted to where you want it in the rev band, proper filtration, low-state of tune that can be adjusted, Weber carburation, plenty of pre-manufactured goodies & mods, fairly cheap spares, plentiful tuners, & reduced stress of only having to move, (hopefully), a fully fuelled-up 450lb (max) solo motorcycle.
Seeing the Imp engine owed a lot in design to the S7/S8 Sunbeam unit which was the inspiration for the Coventry-Climax FWM (A) unit, which Mike Parkes selected as the basis for the Imp, it has links to the motorcycling world.
Further, research & development was carried out by Leo Kuzmicki, who worked with Joe Craig on Manx Norton's & was probably influential on the Norton-4 racer project, shelved in 1955/56
If the Imp-engine hadn't been forced into production too soon by meddling Politicians, the Rootes group may have been still in production today.
Lack of foresight by British motorcycle Companies allowed an opportunity to slip by, a 4- cylinder engine, modified & based round an FWM(A), could have been in production by the mid-sixties, being SOHC & over-square, it would have been a good start for the British Factories, to fend off the challenge from the land of the Rising Sun.
Incidentally the Imp engine main Achilles heal, was cooling, is not so much of a primary concern once in a motorcycle frame, increased air-flow across the cross-flow radiator, increased coolant capacity, oil-capacity & a thermostatically controlled oil-cooler, all should add up to an engine working well below its natural stress levels, which should lead to increased longevity of service.
The main reason is though it will be something different , maybe not too pretty- pretty, but attractive if you look beyond the glistening chrome of the four exhaust pipes!
Cheers
JBW
-
Well JBW you sound like you have more than made your mind up .
That's what i call a full answer !
Wishing you good luck with the project . Runesika
-
What's it like getting parts for Imp engines though? They must have been out of production for close on forty years now?
-
Here's my feeble effort, rally head which has been gas flowed, rally cam, probably putting out about 60 to 70 bhp and handling sweet as a nut. I love it to bits
(http://www.vintagebike.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/gallery/hybrid/norton-imp-2-760x570.jpg)
(http://www.vintagebike.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/gallery/hybrid/norton-imp-1-760x570.jpg)
(http://www.vintagebike.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/gallery/hybrid/norton-imp-427x570.jpg)
-
Rex,
Not as difficult as I initially thought! Its the parts for racing and Sports cylinder heads that cost the bigger money1
I picked up a Mark 2 cylinder block & cylinder head off ebay in 2009, a crankshaft in another cylinder block @ the Imp annual event, I picked up a cylinder block, sump- plate crankshaft, cam cover, cam plate & various valves, buckets & shims, & another, later cylinder head, pistons & con' rods, again on ebay & met the guy @ Lydden race circuit, no postage charges, even!
I hope to have two-engines, one spare, in case the main engine has a problem! An ex- sidecar racer, who raced Vincents & Imp-engined units, gave me a later modified cam-box cover, which sorts out engine breathing. For motorcycle use the stronger Mark 2 Imp engine is the one to use, however, the later oil-drain pipe, Imp cylinder-head is easiest to tune, if you are unwilling to part with the "wonga" for a genuine Sports head!
The Talbot B1 engine has the strongest cylinder block, but has a less potentially potent design of cylinder-head for tuning. A Sports distributor and Lumention ignition system, coils & leads should be used for trouble free running.
There are numerous tuners and engine builders & Bomber has met one @ an event somewhere!
The mistake I made is not buying the Norton frame 3 years ago, when I was better off, as prices seemingly increase every year!
The rest is fabrication & finding a place to cast a few things or adapting a previously engine part fabricated for something else, have alook @ this site...www.imps4ever.info/
I do not know when Bomber started to build his, but there is rumoured to have been perhaps around 25 plus machines built, using this combination of Imp engine & Norton/BSA/specially fabricated frame, over the years.
Cheers
John
-
JBW I built mine 2003-04, Reg Patten was the man, he sold prepared 100+hp engines for sale... one day (sighs)
-
A great build Bomber, some nice parts used, have you not been properly featured in a magazine yet, with the "wonga" paid for a feature article or two, you could upgrade your engine to a Patten special!
Cheers
JBW
-
Yes it was featured in an edition of Back Street Heroes some time ago and last year in the Cafe Racer magazine... Wonga... you have to be joking!
-
Maybe this guy could help?
http://jockeyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=89761
-
Thanks,
This looks a good project, not sure whether Avatar picture is the completed frame, I will check out the measuring instrument used, looks like headstock location & fix & getting the right specified angle, could be a difficult process needing great accuracy!
Some facts I have found out doing a bit of research!
40 feet of tubing is required!
All the joints were Sif-bronze welded, except for the sub frame which were initially bolted on but also welded in later versions.
The steels used varied with purpose, for racing was T531, 16- Gauge Reynolds 531, a high-tensile manganese-molybdenum steel alloy, similar to British BS970 En 16/18 steel
1953 OHC singles, road version frames were made from Grade (a) mild steel.
According to the US NTNOA:
a.The Manx racer frame was made in Reynolds 531 chrome-moly.
b. The single overhead cam International's frame in grade (a) mild steel.
c. The Dominator twin frames made in grade (b) mild steel.
There where 2 subdivisions in category (a). 16 gauge tube for the 500cc and the 17 gauge tube for the 350cc. Tube gauge is important so NTNOA recommend not putting a 500 in a 350 frame!
in about 1959 or 1960, Norton put the old single cylinder Model 50 (350cc) and the ES2 (500cc) into the featherbed frame to rationalize production.
1960 was the year the top rails were waisted, (narrowed), was when what became known as the the Slimline, was introduced on Norton twins.
Some people claim that the mild steel Grade (B) variant is more suited to road use than varieties made in fancier grades of steel!
Incidentally if you have a replica frame in the UK, how do you go on with Historic vehicle status & are you for construction purposes, under the 1971 construction rules for registration & MOT?
Cheers
JBW
-
All the joints were Sif-bronze welded,
According to the US NTNOA:
a.The Manx racer frame was made in Reynolds 531 chrome-moly.
Just to keep the record straight, only the 531 (race) frames were Sif-bronze welded.
And all featherbed frames were built up by Reynolds - who had a sizeable welding shop from wartime days making airframes, and were looking for more tubing work post-war.
The NTNOA is a bit off the mark calling it 'chrome moly', your call of manganese moly is accurate. Incidentally, the steel came from Sweden - same as during the war all the ball bearings, on both side, were good swedish steel. What did they know about steel making that others didn't ?? Cheers.
-
R,
I once saw an historical programme about Medieval & later armaments manufacture and Sweden was way ahead in the extraction & treatment of ferrous metals, leading to very high quality iron & steel products for making for weapons and cannons. We have the religious wars in Europe to thank for that; incidentally I didn't realise, till recently, the close link, that guns & canons & the workings thereof & technology involved, have to the origins of our beloved internal combustion engine being developed in the first place!
Not sure if it was the quality of the coal/coke, the ore itself, or a new process of working the metal, only Japan, apparently, had similar lead in manufacturing very high quality steel products.
Also, in an earlier post I put Achilles heel as "heal", I often do not spot errors on a screen that I would spot easily on paper!
The first frames as most people would know, were hand-manufactured by the McCandless brothers & reputedly Freddie Dixon had some influence there too, Reynolds also were limited in capacity & couldn't manufacture the frames needed as quickly as everyone would have liked.
Incidentally the frame was offered to other manufacturers & one of the Dixon family, told me that that Edward turner turned down the frame because he was still angry at Ernie Lyons using non-standard motor vehicle pistons in the TT winning Triumph of 1946! Because Lyons Dixon & the McCandless brothers were mates & associates, Turner took a dim view of their activities & turned the prototype frame down, famous for being opinionated & stubborn, he dismissed the FB & this led to the featherbed being snapped up by Norton.
So because of one man what would have been a Triumph development production & development was blocked at Meriden, the featherbed became, thankfully for Norton, a Bracebridge Street development project & this act probably saved Norton from an even earlier demise from racing & manufacturing motorcycles, of course later AMC later bled the Norton concern dry as well as eventually transferring Norton production to Plumstead!
Cheers
JBW
-
All those stories about "this country this" and "that country that" seem to change with the times and according to who's doing the telling.
Reminds me of that apocryphal story of the cowboy who went toe-to-toe with the Samurai "warrior" (if you could ever really term them as such).
The poor old cowboy was scared due to having heard those wonderful tales of the craftsman-made swords that "couldn't be resheathed until they'd drawn blood", made of the finest tempered steel, and all the rest, so when a quick death seemed imminent due to decapitation, he pulled out his cheap and cheerful monkey-metal Colt and shot him.
Once the "secret" of steel production was out, everyone did it, and probably the country which most advanced bearing ball production (as an example) was Nazi Germany...a case of necessity.
-
Rex,
Well apart from some later historical inputs, ancient history puts the Hittites as the first serious master-craftsmen of iron, once their Empire collapsed, the secret of iron smelting disseminated & spread westwards to Europe, the Celts carrying them across Europe from the Danube to dear old Albion!.
One of the funniest experiments I ever saw on TV, was when some archaeologists had iron & bronze weapons made and fought with them & the bronze weapons pulverized the iron ones, leading to a few previously touted embarrassing assumptions made about the superiority of iron weapons, being left high & dry!
Must have been a shortage of copper & tin!
Re-previous question some posts back:Has anyone using the site registered a replica frame ?
Cheers
JBW
-
"Shortage of copper and tin"? Maybe they had the Pikies around in those days too... ;)
-
Incidentally the frame was offered to other manufacturers
Apparently BSA was also offered the featherbed frame design, and for whatever reasons also turned it down....
-
Once the "secret" of steel production was out, everyone did it, and probably the country which most advanced bearing ball production (as an example) was Nazi Germany...a case of necessity.
The British Navy apparently did some blockade running to obtain much needed supplies from Sweden. Nazi Germany also sourced the best ball bearings from Sweden....
-
of course later AMC later bled the Norton concern dry as well as eventually transferring Norton production to Plumstead!
Some would disagree with that 'bled dry' comment. ?
Norton flourished under AMC - Norton production into the USA really got going with the AMC connection. And Norton was the only marque to survive as a brand under AMC, so maybe that statement is a little harsh ???
-
R,
Have you read Bert Hopwood's book, it leaves you in no doubt that AMC stopped the purchase of a new factory for Norton in the Midlands, through the transfer of Norton's profits to the parent company, Norton should have stayed in production in the Midlands.
AMC were a desperate concern in the early 60s, their road machines were dated by enlarge
or included specialist small volume sales of heavyweight machines.
For whatever reason, the evidence suggests that the AMC Management would rather keep the shareholders happy, rather than re-invest in products for the future & have lower returns until things picked up, ( a re-occurring problem in the British Automotive industry, generally)!
In the 40 & 50s it was a different picture, A.M.C's range was viable & ahead of Norton for road machines, but by the 60s their range was looking tired. The GLC in 1969 compulsory purchased the factory ending production in the old London plants!
Norton machines did benefit from a superior AMC gearbox though!
The fact that the Norton based derivatives were the only machines to survive, into the NVT era can also indicate a different tale, surely, that AMCproducts were not up to the developmental process!
Cheers
JBW
-
To be fair, the large singles which were AMC's bread and butter, were obsolete in the mid/ late 1950s, never mind into the 1960s, so to keep producing them with nothing new or viable on the drawing boards was commercial suicide.
But then "short-termism" is a blight of politicians (and certain older businesspeople) in this country.
Superb designers and engineers often led by blinkered bean-counters....
-
Without wishing to denigrate the achievements of Bert, or any of the designers of the period ( or the british motorcycle industry), who were clearly on a steep learning curve (look where motorcycles and engine design are/is today), Berts book has been described by those in the know as a self-serving case of writing with 20/20 hindsight. And covering his own backside ?
It is worth noting though that the canteens of the worlds larger motorcycle makers today operate on a budget considerably larger than the entire years income for almost all of the british manufacturers back in that era. !!? AMC, and Norton, had any number of factory developments and new models under development, almost none of which came to fruition or market. The same could be said of most brit manufacturers - looks at all the models that disaapeared into obscurity, which Classic Bike magazine keep unearthing - unit contruction Nortons, OHC race BSA's, four cylinder Nortons, Enfield, Triumphs, etc etc etc. Big vision and no money in the budget to do it....
Whereas now, Honda etc can produce a fully developed 'concept' model of anything you like, and show it as a one-off, fully ready for production. ?
If only the brit factories had had that sort of money and budgets...
-
R,
British motorcycles
Production numbers Export
1936 64,800
1945 49,000 3,948 £202,835
1946 82,240 53,486
1947 111,600 55,367
1948 130,800 75,136 £6,350,672
1949 154,800 65,269
1950 171,270 73,959 £6,979,661
Not insubstantial figures so where did all the money go?
Cheers
JBW
-
In the case of BSA, Lady Docker's silver-plated Daimler...?
-
1950 171,270 73,959 £6,979,661
Not insubstantial figures so where did all the money go?
And that output is spread across how many factories, and brands ?
(I'm impressed you found those numbers).
Doesn't work out at much profit, each, does it....
Which the shareholders eagerly awaited, no doubt, in most cases.
When you compare with H*nda, which last year produced 18+ million motorcycles and ATVs, for a reported quarterly PROFIT of $250+ million, you see where motorcycles have become big business.
( H*nda is the biggest motorcycle maker though )(alternately with Y*m*h* ??)
Lotta spare cash for R&D, and new 'concept' models....
-
British Motorcycles:
Total Production:
1945 49,000
1946 84,240
1947 111,600
1948 130,800
1949 154,800
1950 171,270 for motorcycles, 43% + of production was exported, if you add bicycles to the value of exported goods the total rises to £32,172,197!
Four biggest markets in 1950;
Australia 22,171 @ £2,041,923; There must be quite a lot of stuff out there in Aussie-land!
USA 8,582, @ £987,700; Bit of a surprise here the USA resisted importing machines as much as possible!
Canada 6,225, @ £500,160;
Switzerland 4,338 @ £495,690;
Now you know why, some years later it made so much sense to abandon the Commonwealth & other trading partners & join the Common Market, look at our trading partners in 1950!
Well R, I know monetary values have changed, but I would be more than happy now, today, to be producing & exporting that number from (1950) of motorcycles from Blighty!
Firms: BSA, Triumph, AMC/AJS/Matchless, Norton, Ariel, Velocette, Vincent, Royal Enfield, P & M & Douglas would be your main 4 stroke suppliers, plus many Villiers-engined derivatives Ambassador, Norman, e.t.c.
BSA was by far the largest motorcycle producer in the World in 1950, by a big margin, aided by war reparations & and copying & mirroring of the German DKW engine, that became the beloved Bantam & this model had a massive effect on BSA in the 1950s, as most of you would know!
Sadly it all went "titsup", if you are not born with wealth already there, it only comes through work & a Nations prosperity mainly comes through real jobs in real production, they may go on now in the News about how much the "City" brings in, but the real cost of investment abroad, to the Country is massive in British jobs & a skewed wealth distribution & this seems to be not really accounted for, most wealth created @ present is limited in circulation & not distributed as evenly as in early post-war Britain, jobs in production allowed wealth to filter down, through the respected social hierarchical groups.
Admittedly modern production techniques are not labour intensive, but surely something has to be done, otherwise most of us and our children in the future, will only know an England with part-time jobs in Supermarkets a very shaky retail sector and extremely badly tarnished & corrupt? Financial Services & Insurance sector & the disappearance of Small Businesses & pubs on a scale last seen in Cromwellian times!
Anyhow a new series on China on Monday nights is interesting in that Niall Ferguson on the "nature of the Beast" is informative about the Modern Global World!
And Mary Portas's Bottom Line has given light at the end of the tunnel to some.
As Peter Kay says "you can't go back"! But is he right?
Cheers
JBW
-
Hi JBW,
"Quote" from previous post
""Norton machines did benefit from a superior AMC gearbox though!""
To the best of my knowledge, and experience the Norton box is derived from the original Sturmey Archer
4 speeder, later the Dolls head , upright/laydown and finally the version which was fitted on Nortons AMC's etc from the late 50's through to the Commando
The late Norton gears will fit a 30's box, which is very good news for restorers ( maybe not all the ratios identical, but it will work)
AJS?Matchless models used Burman gearboxes up till they took over Norton (maybe later??)
I felt this correction needed to be made
Regards
John
-
I stand corrected, in misleading fellow enthusiasts:
Yep, AMC fine-tuned the Norton design for a better gear-change experience, I should have put that AMC developed the Norton gearbox, having said that the box is often (probably incorrectly), referred to as an AMC gearbox rather than an Norton product refined through an AMC redesign!
"The Norton Commando 4 speed gearbox is an ancient design that dates to 1935, with a revision in 1956, it became the ubiquitous AMC gearbox. It was designed for a 30hp, 500cc engine." Originally.
It seems most people at that time in the mid-50s regarded the redesigned gearbox as a better product especially for building race-derived bikes or slightly later on the hybrid , like Tritons e.t.c.
For my Imp-engined creation, a Norton/AMC box has been recommended, so post 1956, with a Norton Commando clutch, triplex primary drive & counter-shaft for lining everything up.
Sorry to mislead with sentence-structure & incorrect wording, so as you rightly say & according to Legend, AMC revised the Norton product & made it better/superior, rather than fitting an AMC gearbox to replace the Norton original!.
Cheers
JBW
-
Hi JBW,
Thanks for all the history on the AMC / Norton developments
I read in a recent mag that Andover Norton have a heavy duty casing available,
might be required with all that power????
Cheers
John
-
John,
I have emailed Andover- Norton for a catalog!
Cheers
JBW