Featherbed frame Handling Qualities:

[johnnyboy-wonder57]

A dilemma of dichotomy  Wide or Slim?:

Which is the best choice of Norton's Reynold's frame or is there nothing between them?
Of the Wide-line:

Steve Wilson's book:
The 1950s version, was the so-called "Wide-line" variants,  rather broad for the rider as the seat & tank had to be wider than the frame rails.  The steering lock was restrictive, the seat was high, the suspension not soft...so therefore better ridden two up.

C.E. Titch Allen said, "...way ahead of anything else....a standard that became the yardstick by which other machines of the era werse judged...It did not have to be held on any line with a conscious effort.  The mere transfer of thought between machine and rider are merely enough......."

Steve Wilson's book:
Of the Slim-line:1960s: As fitted to Norton's 650SS.......
" The Slimline was said by some to cause a slight reduction in handling virtuosity, but if so, it was only at racing speeds"*,

Individuals, in the UK, have said to me that the Slim-line is more comfortable to ride & a better frame all round, yet lots of specialist builders still stick to the Wide-line!

Any thoughts or opinions, hopefully based on experience, before I purchase a frame this year?

I had more of less decided on a Slim-line, but.....* .  I know it says racing speeds, but I wanted something "on rails"  like the old trains!  Good handling, throughout the bikes full performance, so to speak, is a key necessity.

Cheers


John

[wetdog]

i like the slim line as the wide line i find to wide , but the best handling machine i have had is a 1979 moto guzzi and when you look at the frame its very much like the featherbed , but for a good thrash around with ok performance and it does handle the power its got i take this , and find it runs rings round any triumph i have

[johnnyboy-wonder57]

Wetdog,
Steve Wilson on Goldies....
" In their first years till 1954 Gold Stars had their own production line, staffed & manned by knowledgeable experts.  When demand meant production shifted to a regular assembly line quality suffered."
Around this time Turner a keen fan of twins, ( no surprises here, especially twins from the rival Triumph factory in Coventry), stopped further development of the Gold Star in 1955ish at BSA.

Sales of B31 350cc roadster peaked in 1955, Turner now head of BSA  Automotive Division, considered singles outmoded.
Apparently several mature & reflective riders, considered the 350cc Gold Star to be the pleasanter machine, more tractable at low rev's & faster through the gears.
However, when,(racing & chasing),  500cc, 600 & 650cc twins, it was considered you needed all the cubes you could get, even though some 350s clocked up to 90mph, (they couldn't reach the magic ton+), required by the "Fast crowd".
The cult of the DBD34 500cc model, it is stated, emerged from Eddie Dow's, Gold Star centre in Banbury Oxfordshire, the top speed & strength of a Race tuned DBD,  (paid dividends), especially with a Dow 10:1 Slipper piston, but tractability was lost at lower speeds......
I know that some competition Gold Stars had 531 frames.

Triumphs, were never renown for sure-footed, fail-safe handling.  I read somewhere that the 500cc Daytona,  was probably one of the best performing bikes of the later twins, but larger cc figures on side-panels, sells machines, so it was largely ignored.

Its never gone away the theory that, the size of your penis is directly related to the number of cc's on your side-panel, often though, when you meet the owner, (they do not realise it, but,) its an inverse relationship!

Now a 700-800 cc is considered a middle-weight machine!

OK then, 1 positive vote for the Slim-line is recorded!


Cheers

John

[wink]

In the early 70s I had a mate who drove a lorry round Manchester. One afternoon he called and said " There´s a skip full of stuff out the back of Reg Deardens". I gave most of it away to mates who had Nortons.

[wetdog]

Johnnyboy-wonder i have all that info also , this hack is a 1953 and dated on the cases as all where tested , was a scrambler but im to old so put it on the road for some fun (as i will my dbd) still on the 2446s , 0 to 70 is very good and handeling is excellent , and a lot smoother with the belt drive ,  triumph alterd the frames later as swing arm area was very poor as was head stock , i have found the bsa frame much stronger than the triumphs i have (up to 57) i would but this machine against any 500 triumph , norton of the same year for scrachablity / fun ........what are you going to but in your featherbed frame

[johnnyboy-wonder57]

The 875cc Hillman Imp engine I have got, one of two i am cleaning up & restoring at the moment!


Cheers

John

[johnnyboy-wonder57]

Remember this!

Peter Dent's machine!

The other photo is a Norton/matchless hybrid desert racer, build by my uncle in Tel-el-Kibir in Egypt in 1947, he was working with a team of ex-Rommel Panzer Grenadiers & they built quite a few bikes, converting side-valve Norton's to OHV machines & then raced them.  Dave Bennett was with him, he later raced for Norton & was killed in the 1952 Swiss Grand Prix.  I have a photo of him as a young man with my Uncle in the British Army posted on National service.

I did post about this subject before but no-one seemed to interested so I let the thread go!


cheers

John

[johnnyboy-wonder57]

Photos have disappeared!

[johnnyboy-wonder57]

http://suite101.com/article/dave-bennett-a162770
Dave Bennett was the very tall lad in the photo in Tel-el-Kibir!


John

[Bomber]

I have a couple of widelines... fitted with an Imp and a T150v, both of which manage to give me a little grief in the inner thigh dept, but I must say it's not of the order to make me unhappy about riding them and I'm 6'3". I have a Model 50 Slimline which is a bit more pleasurable to ride, but sadly a lot less enjoyable in grunt!

All three of the bikes handle impeccably and there is little to choose between them.

[wetdog]

there was a featherbed imp on ebay about two weeks ago , interesting but not buying anymore bikes for now , but the one i would be interested in is the sunbeam s7/s8 fitted with a vw engine , looked nice and id say easy to work on

[wink]

We had a VW in a Douglas once. will post funny things under Sport ,sandracing

[RichP]

I read somewhere, and it seemed to make sense at the time, that the change to an alternator with longer crank and altered weight distribution around the same time could have been responsible for a change in handling.

The fact that Manxes were wideline is always going to make the Wideline style more desirable.

[johnnyboy-wonder57]

Hi,
I love singles & fours, even though I have a lontitudinal in-line 3!  The Rondine, the Gilera & then the MV's, it was so obvious that the British factories need a 4 to race & I think/believe, because this did not happen, our industry later imploded!  An adapted Coventry Climax engine could have fitted the bill, who was running the industry idiots!

Somewhere, I have a road test of an early, MV Four & in it,  it states it shimmied in corners & they put it down to being a transverse- 4 arrangement, that is, the cause of the slight wobble was thought to be because  the engine was mounted across the frame.
When there wasn't, a lot of transverse- 4s around, people/riders, noticed this characteristic, compared to other engine arrangements. With the Imp engine you can take your choice where to put the alternator, on the crank or mounted some place behind it, on an auxiliary casting/ bracket and belt driven.

With a Featherbed frame you can also, (if clever), have some slight adjustment in longitudinal position, but generally I have been told the more forward the position of the engine the better the handling?
Phil' irving, had some constructive thoughts, about weight distribution and the height of engine instalment with regards to space available.
There's a theory that the Slimline came about, because they were going to "bathtub" the Dominator!  However, it is recorded that road riders complained that the Wide-line was uncomfortable over long distances.

How can I stop those old photos, pixelating?

On my K75, if I loaded a tank bag on it, full of stuff & it handled better!  Weight high up & forward of rider!

Now, there's so many 4's around, perhaps people do not notice, handling quirks any more.  However, possibly a narrowish engine width is a valuable asset, the thing about handling characteristics & building a special, is  that you can hopefully iron out any idiosyncrasies,  this is not  as easy with a bog standard, factory restoration.

Now going back to watching, Girl on a Motorcycle &The Wild Ones on YouTube!

Cheers


JBW

[wetdog]

"On my K75, if I loaded a tank bag on it, full of stuff & it handled better!" exactly the same on my k100 rat , now over 200,000 miles and going strong