Norton, but wich model? [Solved: It's a 1925 16H]

[teibet]

Hello everybody,
maybe someone here could help me identifying this Norton.
There is a badge on the front fender where '1920' is written.
On the Italian documents that the bike is registered in 1934.
The engine size reported on the documents is 490cc.

Thans to all the contributors.
Cheers,
Ivan

[L.A.B.]

I think it is probably a Norton '16H' model, as the 16H was also 490cc, but it may be earlier than 1934 (1929?, 1930?) as it has the pre-1931 engine with the magneto and dynamo in front of the cylinder.

The 'Monobloc' carburettor is not original.

If you can give the complete engine number, that will help to confirm the actual model, and identify the year of manufacture.     

[teibet]

Thanks a lot L.A.B. I will post the engine and frame numbers soon.
There is a page on wikipedia about the 16H with some external links.
Ciao,
Ivan

[Norton55]

L.A.B is right about the engine being pre 1931 as it has the magdyno in the front, but girders were fitted to the sidevalve Nortons only from 1931. Before 1931 they would have had the druid forks but it could have been updated later. Also, the oil tank looks like it could be from the earlier flat tanks nortons and not like those from the 1930's.

[teibet]

Thanks Norton55 for your contribution.
These are the numbers: engine 13695, frame 16369 (or 1G369 it is not clear).
Ivan

[L.A.B.]

These are the numbers: engine 13695, frame 16369 (or 1G369 it is not clear).

Those numbers would date the engine and frame to 1925.
 
http://www.bmh.com.au/norton/index.php?id=modelnum

However a 1925 16H would have been a flat tank model, so perhaps various other parts date from 1934?

1925 16H: http://motorbike-search-engine.co.uk/classic_bikes/norton_16h_combination.jpg
     

[cardan]

In the final photo, taken from the rear, we can see that the back wheel has an Enfield hub, with cush drive on the sprocket on the left and a dummy-rim brake on the right, attached to the spokes. This wheel was a feature of early to mid 1920s Nortons, so it is likely that we're looking at a most impressive modernisation of a 1920s bike to bring it up to 1930s standards. If so, it would be interesting to see what has been done to the flat tank frame and/or the saddle tank to get them to mate together.
I wonder what should be done with bikes like this these days? It would be nice to think it could stay in its present form as a monument to the imaginative owner who did the work, but what a lot of explaining would have to be done everytime it was brought out in public! Here in South Australia, our historic registration scheme would be in a spin because it is not an "original" bike.
Leon

[RichP]

It has quite a lot of fabricated parts on, doesn't it ? Handlebar clamps and things. The bolt-on saddle stays suggest that it has retained the original frame. I'm not sure that the fuel tank is Norton. It's too deep for an early thirties Norton.

I'm puzzled by the mirror-image logos on the drive side. I thought reversed negative at first but the lettering on the cardboard box is correct . Someone's little joke I think.

Bearing in mind the prices of flat-tank Nortons these days, I'd be surprised if it doesn't end up with one again.

[teibet]

Thanks a lot, L.A.B., cardan and RichP.
I'll shoot better pictures now that the bike is in my garage.
I'll tray to remove the gas tank too to have a view of the frame.
The reversed "norton" logo is really unexplicable.
Best,
Ivan

[RichP]

It's yours is it Ivan ? Well done. It's a fascinating thing.

Close ups of the numbers would be helpful, as would a photo of the underside of the fuel tank.

I'm expecting to be searching in the factory records again shortly and I'll happily check numbers and photograph pages for you if you haven't found out more by then.

[teibet]

Hello,
I have some better pictures to show that may help.
I try to post them on a viewable form, I hope to succeed.
The frame number I posted is from the documents (16369 or 1G369) and I don't find it on the frame. Where should it be?
The engine number is ok 13695.
Rich, could you really check the factory books to find out this bike? It would be great.
Here are the pictures. Comments are welcome!
All the best,
Ivan

[cardan]

Nice machine Ivan - although modified it seems to have been done with love and care! Try the seat lug for the frame number, but I see from the photos there has been some welding in this region of the frame to drop the top tube to fit the saddle tank. It's possible that the frame number has been obliterated in the work. Motor, frame and wheels look good for mid-1920s, magdyno is probably late 1920s or 1930 (Lucas stuff like this is always dated: 428 means April 1928, 1230 means December 1930 and so on), carb is "modern". The whole front end and tank are clearly later. Spend some time thinking before you decide what you want to do with it. If the registration issues can be sorted you might be best to enjoy it as is for a while...
Leon

[RichP]

What a fascinating piece, the more so now that we can see what has been done with the frame. The tank base looks to have a false bottom fitted.

The engine number would tie in with 1925 / 26 and those records do exist. I assume that the number stamped on the cylinder matches the one below it on the crankcase obscured by the oil line ?

The factory records are with the VMCC in the UK. It will be a month or so before I'm there but I'm happy to look up your entry and photgraph it for you, or you could try contacting them direct.

Leon, did you have any numbers that you wanted searching for ?

Rich

 

[cardan]

Thanks fopr the offer Rich, but I have my numbers sorted out now (except frame no 3007 which is before the records commence).
Leon

[teibet]

Thanks again Leon and Rich.
I checked the number behind the oil line and it matches the other printed on the cylinder.
Rich, If you could take a pic of the factory record it would really be good, whenever it'll happen, I'm not in a hurry. Thank you.

Another help you could give me is to send me links or pictures of what the shape of the gas tank, frame and front suspension is supposed to be.

Thanks again for your help.
Ivan