Norton

[Guest Joan Archer]

Re: Norton

 

<lol> Thought so, don't worry I didn't follow it all it's a man thing <g>

 

--

Joan Archer

http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher

http://lachsoft.com/photogallery

 

"Heather" <figgyd@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:#ZB#2TxNJHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Yep....hence the silence......lol.

>

> Figgs

>

> "Joan Archer" <joanarcher@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:OchiHSuNJHA.3876@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>I hope you realise that you've completely lost her now Shane <g>

>>

>> --

>> Joan Archer

>> http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher

>> http://lachsoft.com/photogallery

>>

>> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:e6huyBqNJHA.4428@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>> Heather wrote:

>>>> He was half asleep when I asked him your question and he laughed and

>>>> said he did miss it.....lol. Haven't a clue what you two are talking

>>>> about!!

>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Being kicked up the arse by God!

>>>

>>> Or. Supposing we're talking about an engine of sufficient 'bang', which

>>> is a combination of cylinder capacity and piston compression ration: a

>>> four cylinder (or more) layout such as the modern car has, and most

>>> modern bikes have, divides said bang into smaller, more rapidly

>>> delivered thumps than you get from the single cylinder layout.

>>>

>>> A fairly high compression twin cylinder engine - such as in the

>>> rock'n'roll era Triumphs, Nortons and BSAs, to name just most of them,

>>> still packs a punch but is perhaps the perfect compromise between what

>>> can become uncomfortable after a while and what can seem so sanitised as

>>> to put one to sleep. Of course, a 750cc Triumph (or a 1000cc triple or

>>> 1200 four) is like having two or more 350cc single cylinder engines

>>> beneath one - but the thump is delivered in more rapid succession than

>>> on a single, and that effects how one 'feels' about the ride.

>>>

>>> Kind of funny to think about it, as we have long talked of the old

>>> (pre-Japanese) machines having 'soul', when actually I suppose it is we

>>> who have it, just the bike brings it out! Like an elation bubbling up as

>>> you realize - or remember - there is a valuable facet of being, normally

>>> absent in everyday life. Helps you experience life in the Now, I

>>> suppose, to wake from your somnambulist existence. What motorcycling is

>>> about.

>>>

>>> I think a 350 is about the lowest capacity single you can have without

>>> raising the compression ration that triggers this bang-induced paradigm

>>> shift, while a high compression 250 is too raw, the thump being so

>>> jarring as to be distracting. A big twin or multi delivers a different

>>> stimulus (you appreciate I'm wildly hypothesizing here!), but it seems

>>> to me that this is something to do with frequency, as in the number of

>>> bangs within a timeframe having the potential to alter consciousness

>>> (perhaps as a form of autosuggestion, though that is more likely in a

>>> car :-)); you know, because a twin of twice the capacity and the same

>>> compression at the same rpm delivers two thumps to the single's one and

>>> the only difference is they're closer together in time and somehow that

>>> makes them more bearable?

>>>

>>> Maybe that is what to be concious is: to be propelled from one degree of

>>> altered state to another and that at any given moment we are not

>>> precisely who we were just before. Anyway, there is nothing quite like

>>> riding a 350 or 500cc old Brit single cylinder motorcycle, and that

>>> part, at least, is not raving!

>>>

>>> Shane

>>>

>>>

>>>> Figgs

>>>>

>>>> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:ubmv8diNJHA.1228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>> Does he miss the single cylinder thump? I know I do!

>>>>>

>>>>> Shane

>>>>>

>>>>> Heather wrote:

>>>>>> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:uH75JMbNJHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>> Heather wrote:

>>>>>>>> LOL!! I have goofed on this one before and I will ask him when he

>>>>>>>> gets back. The Loon knows which one it is....being a *bike

>>>>>>>> freak*. The word Aerial comes to mind as well.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> There were no shortage of Ariels. I would guess a Hunter of some

>>>>>>> sort

>>>>>>> (350 and 500 singles):

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Good man!! He is standing behind me and says it was an "Ariel 500

>>>>>> Single" and he bought it here in Canada and it was a 1951 model.

>>>>>> Looks like that picture you posted the link for.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> He almost ran into the back of a car and scared himself

>>>>>> ****less....so

>>>>>> he sold it. (G)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Heather & the Old Guy

>>>>>>> http://www.barkshire.co.uk/bikes/images/ArielNH_1937/ArielNH_1937_Jan8_2006%20008.jpg

>>>>>>> but there were the square fours:

>>>>>>> http://www.britishclassicmotorcycles.co.uk/communities/4/004/005/355/724/images/4522327139.jpg

>>>>>>> another of those old Brit designs that the Japanese emulated

>>>>>>> decades later and most people thought was new and daring. Not to

>>>>>>> take anything away from the Japs though!

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> No, his name is *Renaldo y Jose y Maria y Smith*.....grin.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> He must have been before his time in so many ways!

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Shane

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:OR2xEHLNJHA.740@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>> I'd guess an ES2 then. Can't imagine an Inter on Jamaica somehow.

>>>>>>>>> Last time

>>>>>>>>> I saw one of those was at Bracknell Motorcycle Auction in about

>>>>>>>>> '76. Or

>>>>>>>>> rather parked outside. I went up on the back of a mate's 350

>>>>>>>>> Matchless. Very

>>>>>>>>> pretty in the stately silver way Nortons of the pre-rocker era

>>>>>>>>> usually were!

>>>>>>>>> And the guy who took me to that auction is the only one besides

>>>>>>>>> myself I

>>>>>>>>> knew from the old days who still rode a Bonnie in the 21st

>>>>>>>>> Century.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Yes, do ask him what it was.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Sure his name isn't really Ernesto?

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Shane

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> "Heather" <figgyd@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>> news:uIwtuWKNJHA.1160@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>> I think Ron had a Norton bike in Jamaica......I will have to ask

>>>>>>>>>> him. Whatever he had, he messed up and never rode one again.

>>>>>>>>>> Wussie!! (G)

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Figgs (and we are talking *OLD* here.....this would have been

>>>>>>>>>> late

>>>>>>>>>> '40's)

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>> news:eg6eufJNJHA.4456@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>> No Joan, unfortunately not. And they don't even make the

>>>>>>>>>>> rotary-engined

>>>>>>>>>>> Command-er that did so very well in the road racing not so long

>>>>>>>>>>> ago!

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Even when we can *still* make something really well the

>>>>>>>>>>> powers-that-be

>>>>>>>>>>> allow

>>>>>>>>>>> it to fail.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Shane

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> "Joan Archer" <joanarcher@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>> news:Oh0tvrINJHA.4716@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>>> Do they still make them ?

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>>>>> Joan Archer

>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher

>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lachsoft.com/photogallery

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> news:f7a00dce-cb0f-4d3d-9066-bcd58c4e0d69@q35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 3:32 pm, "Heirloom" <nobodyh...@noplacelike.hom>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Norton for Dummies"............what's wrong with that???

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who else

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything Norton be for?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Norton for Commandos?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that is a bike!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shane

>>>

>>>

>

>

[Guest Heirloom]

Re: Norton

 

Shane said, "I think a 350 is about the lowest capacity single you can have

without

raising the compression ration that triggers this bang-induced paradigm

shift, while a high compression 250 is too raw, the thump being so jarring

as to be distracting."

 

I have had some big thumpers and have always liked them. A really enjoyable

bike was the 250cc Yamaha MX that I raced (many moons ago, before there was

a moon). Being a two stroke, it did not have the 'distracting thump.'

 

Heirloom, old and still rides

[Guest Shane]

Re: Norton

 

 

"Heirloom" <nobodyhome@noplacelike.hom> wrote in message

news:O1B0w9dOJHA.1744@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Shane said, "I think a 350 is about the lowest capacity single you can

have

> without

> raising the compression ration that triggers this bang-induced paradigm

> shift, while a high compression 250 is too raw, the thump being so jarring

> as to be distracting."

>

> I have had some big thumpers and have always liked them. A really

enjoyable

> bike was the 250cc Yamaha MX that I raced (many moons ago, before there

was

> a moon). Being a two stroke, it did not have the 'distracting thump.'

>

 

One must say though, your 'loominescence, the 'stroker experience' is a

different one again, isn't it. There are so many variables! And a 2-stroke

single is somewhere between a 4-stroke single and a twin, of course - twice

the bang for a given rpm but without the rocking couple (can't think of any

of those offhand. More of a C&W thing isn't it?).

 

As for 4-stroke singles, in the other direction I think more than half a

litre is getting a bit OTT - and there are excellent reasons why our

motorcycle industry did virtually limit itself to 350 and 500cc in that

market. For e.g. I think the KLR650 is too light for relaxed riding (then

again it is not really *for* relaxed riding and maybe an offroader benefits

from a little spur-like 'insistence'?). Other, larger *multiple* single

cylinders, e.g. as on the modern Hog, are heavy enough to absorb the

harshness of the bang, both through the thickness of the castings and

through the weight of the crank webs. And the flywheel effect is of course

the fundamental difference between the 2-stroke and the 4 - though, as with

people, I expect the truth is they have more in common than differentiating

them.

 

To digress, I suppose over there the failings of the late sixties/early

seventies Japanese 2-wheeled missiles were rather less apparent than here,

their being crappiness in bends and on braking in the wet. Sure could go for

a blast on a green Kwacker triple or an (blue) RD400 Yam right about now

though!

 

Shane