Monday, 28 October 2013
I'm still here!
Sorry for the lack of posts recently but I've started a new job that required me to be away from home for a couple of weeks on a training course. Hopefully things will get back to normal soon and I've be posting more drivel awe inspring articles.
Saturday, 19 October 2013
Friday bike
This week's is another 'almost' story that I remember following back in the 70s.
1976 Norton 750 Cosworth Challenge
Norton’s last stand
The last racing Norton with a conventional power unit – rather than a rotary – was the Cosworth-powered Challenge of 1975.
New Start for Norton
Its history began in 1971, when Dennis Poore, who had just bought Norton after the failure of the Associated Motorcycle Group, tried to promote the marque by returning in 1972 to competition in the livery of John Player.
25 Percent of a GP Engine
The old Commando wasn’t powerful enough, so Poore decided to buy time with specially tuned versions, while waiting for a design study from Cosworth, known for its racing automobile engines. The Cosworth-Norton JA engine – code-named “Challenge” – was a racing-plus-production design. The road JAB version was to develop 65 hp and the racing JAA “whatever we could get out of it,” recalled Keith Duckworth of Cosworth. The engine was designed to be part of the frame, but there were cooling problems and by the time the engine was tested and ready, Norton-Villiers-Triumph was in financial trouble. Cosworth built 30 JAA prototypes, the production bike was canceled and an underfunded racing program ended. In 1984, a couple of JAA engines were bought by Quantel, and four years later, the JAA engined Cosworth Quantel proved the worth of the design by winning at Daytona.
SPECIFICATIONS
Engine: 747cc (86×65mm) water-cooled Cosworth JAA 360-degree parallel-twin four stroke
Power Rating: “at least 110″ hp @ 10,500 rpm
Valves: twin overhead-camshafts driven by cogged belt
Fuel System: twin Amal carburetors (988, fuel injection)
Transmission: 5-speed, chain final drive
Suspension: telescopic forks (front); cantilever with monodamper under the engine (rear)
Brakes: twin discs (front); disc (rear)
Wheels: magnesium; 16 inch (front); 18 inch (rear)
Weight: 375 lb
Maximum Speed: 171 mph
The Norton Challenge was brought down by the failure of NVT.
Engine was fairly interesting:
The bike basically didn't have a frame as such, rather front and rear subframes along with the swingarm attached directly to the engine.
Found this sad picture of a couple of Challenge engines, don't know what happened, but they look like they've been left lying out in the open for 20 years.
1976 Norton Cosworth 'Challenge'.
From here
Norton’s last stand
The last racing Norton with a conventional power unit – rather than a rotary – was the Cosworth-powered Challenge of 1975.
New Start for Norton
Its history began in 1971, when Dennis Poore, who had just bought Norton after the failure of the Associated Motorcycle Group, tried to promote the marque by returning in 1972 to competition in the livery of John Player.
25 Percent of a GP Engine
The old Commando wasn’t powerful enough, so Poore decided to buy time with specially tuned versions, while waiting for a design study from Cosworth, known for its racing automobile engines. The Cosworth-Norton JA engine – code-named “Challenge” – was a racing-plus-production design. The road JAB version was to develop 65 hp and the racing JAA “whatever we could get out of it,” recalled Keith Duckworth of Cosworth. The engine was designed to be part of the frame, but there were cooling problems and by the time the engine was tested and ready, Norton-Villiers-Triumph was in financial trouble. Cosworth built 30 JAA prototypes, the production bike was canceled and an underfunded racing program ended. In 1984, a couple of JAA engines were bought by Quantel, and four years later, the JAA engined Cosworth Quantel proved the worth of the design by winning at Daytona.
SPECIFICATIONS
Engine: 747cc (86×65mm) water-cooled Cosworth JAA 360-degree parallel-twin four stroke
Power Rating: “at least 110″ hp @ 10,500 rpm
Valves: twin overhead-camshafts driven by cogged belt
Fuel System: twin Amal carburetors (988, fuel injection)
Transmission: 5-speed, chain final drive
Suspension: telescopic forks (front); cantilever with monodamper under the engine (rear)
Brakes: twin discs (front); disc (rear)
Wheels: magnesium; 16 inch (front); 18 inch (rear)
Weight: 375 lb
Maximum Speed: 171 mph
The Norton Challenge was brought down by the failure of NVT.
Engine was fairly interesting:
Note leading link forks
Can't help but feel that if Norton had put their money and effort into developing this bike further, especially the road version, rather than into the Rotary, the story would have ended differently. After all, this was all proven technology whereas the Rotary was a technology almost everyone else had experimented with and rejected. Had they built this engine into a conventional chassis (again all proven technology) they could have experimented further with a working bike. I can't help but feel they were trying to do too many things at the same time with very limited resources.Found this sad picture of a couple of Challenge engines, don't know what happened, but they look like they've been left lying out in the open for 20 years.
Friday, 11 October 2013
Friday bike
Sometimes a bike just 'jumps out' at you, and this weeks Friday bike is one of these. Found this on the Pipeburn site, and it's a street scrambler based on a Yamaha Star Bolt (no, I hadn't heard of it either!)
The Star Bolt is one of those dreary Indentikit bobber/cruiser things so popular in the US and I'm sure you'd agree this is a vast improvement on the standard bike.
The Star Bolt is one of those dreary Indentikit bobber/cruiser things so popular in the US and I'm sure you'd agree this is a vast improvement on the standard bike.
See what I mean?
Styling is based on the 70s Yamaha DT400, and I think they've done a really good job.
Builder's website.
Friday, 4 October 2013
Friday bike
1962 Junak M-14 Iskra prototype
In 1962, Polish firm Junak showed this prototype bike. Just look at that styling! Looks like something Dan Dare would have ridden! Needless to say, it was just too groovy to reach production. Engine was a 350cc SOHC twin producing 24 bhp, and top speed was 140 km/h (87 mph).
Tuesday, 1 October 2013
Friday, 27 September 2013
Friday bike
Most of you will know of Maserati as builders of exotic cars, but at one time they built bikes as well.
The 'Rospo' was a production racer built between 1956 and 1959 for the 'town to town' races popular in Italy at the time. It was sold as a road bike, hence the artificially large silencer, designed to make it look like a bigger bike. Anyone else think it looks like a trumpet with a mute? Also, notice that it has bicycle pedals, I'm not sure if this was so it could be classified as a moped, a bit like the bikes sold in Britain in the 70s.
Although this was a production racer, the 50cc engine only produced 2.82 bhp, giving a top speed of 70 - 75 km/h (43 - 47 mph). However, a British seller was less than honest over the top speed!
The story behind the name 'Rospo' is interesting:
The unusual 'back-bone' design of the 50/T2/SS gave rise to its nickname which originated in the premises of Lina and Guido Borri at Via Mazzini 54 in Bologna; the Borris were formerly dealers for Italmoto but now Maserati. When they took delivery of the new model, Lina took one look at the it and exclaimed: "Ma cos'è questo brutto rospo? ("What is this ugly toad?"). From then on, the 50/T2/SS was nicknamed 'Rospo' (toad) and Guido even attached specially designed decals to his bikes depicting a toad 'ready to pounce'.
Whilst looking up information on this bike I came across this photo:
The rider is Beryl Swain, famous for being the first woman to compete on a solo bike at the Isle of Man TT. Soon after, Beryl had her International Race Licence (necessary for racing at the TT) withdrawn as the race was 'too dangerous for a woman'! Male riders being embarrased at being beaten by a woman is a more likely explanation.
Maserati 50/TS/SS 'Rospo'
The 'Rospo' was a production racer built between 1956 and 1959 for the 'town to town' races popular in Italy at the time. It was sold as a road bike, hence the artificially large silencer, designed to make it look like a bigger bike. Anyone else think it looks like a trumpet with a mute? Also, notice that it has bicycle pedals, I'm not sure if this was so it could be classified as a moped, a bit like the bikes sold in Britain in the 70s.
The story behind the name 'Rospo' is interesting:
The unusual 'back-bone' design of the 50/T2/SS gave rise to its nickname which originated in the premises of Lina and Guido Borri at Via Mazzini 54 in Bologna; the Borris were formerly dealers for Italmoto but now Maserati. When they took delivery of the new model, Lina took one look at the it and exclaimed: "Ma cos'è questo brutto rospo? ("What is this ugly toad?"). From then on, the 50/T2/SS was nicknamed 'Rospo' (toad) and Guido even attached specially designed decals to his bikes depicting a toad 'ready to pounce'.
The rider is Beryl Swain, famous for being the first woman to compete on a solo bike at the Isle of Man TT. Soon after, Beryl had her International Race Licence (necessary for racing at the TT) withdrawn as the race was 'too dangerous for a woman'! Male riders being embarrased at being beaten by a woman is a more likely explanation.
Friday, 20 September 2013
Plug problem
Anyone had a problem like this?
I've got a white Traveller that I bought about five years ago, but have never ridden. It was so cheap at the time that I couldn't pass it up, and over the years I've tidied it up. Because I haven't ridden it, I start the engine every two weeks or so to circulate the oil around the engine. I usually run the bike for about five minutes, or until the fans cut in.
Back in June when I was servicing the silver Traveller before its holiday, I also serviced the white bike, and thought I would try an 'Iridium' sparkplug in it (NGK DPR9EIX-9).
When I fitted it I checked that the gap was correct (0.9 mm), and the bike started and ran normally. Since then I've started and run the bike 4 or 5 times, so it's only run for 20 - 25 minutes since the new plug was fitted. However, last week it wouldn't start and only 'popped' a bit and wouldn't 'catch'. I tried three or four times, even spraying 'cold start' (Di-ethyl ether) into the airbox, but the battery would flatten without it starting.
I had time this week to have a look at it and took the plug out. The gap had increased to 1.5 mm! Here's a photo of it (cleaned up a bit) next to an ordinary plug.
If you position the plugs with the outer electrodes against the ceramic, you can see that the inner electrode has eroded away.
So why has it eroded so much after such a short period of running?
Interestingly, way back in 1979 when I had a Yamaha SR500, I fitted one of the 'super plugs' of the time. I think this was Palladium rather than Iridium, but it had a similar narrow central electrode.
A couple of days after I fitted the plug I was riding through town when the bike backfired then ground to a halt. I couldn't get it started again so pushed it about half a mile home. I took the plug out to find that the central electrode had completely vanished!
It's strange that so many years apart, the only times that I've used plugs with narrow electrodes made of exotic materials, they have failed the same way in a very short space of time. In both cases they were in Yamaha single cylinder engines, and both were the manufacturer's specified plug for that bike.
Any ideas?
I've got a white Traveller that I bought about five years ago, but have never ridden. It was so cheap at the time that I couldn't pass it up, and over the years I've tidied it up. Because I haven't ridden it, I start the engine every two weeks or so to circulate the oil around the engine. I usually run the bike for about five minutes, or until the fans cut in.
Back in June when I was servicing the silver Traveller before its holiday, I also serviced the white bike, and thought I would try an 'Iridium' sparkplug in it (NGK DPR9EIX-9).
When I fitted it I checked that the gap was correct (0.9 mm), and the bike started and ran normally. Since then I've started and run the bike 4 or 5 times, so it's only run for 20 - 25 minutes since the new plug was fitted. However, last week it wouldn't start and only 'popped' a bit and wouldn't 'catch'. I tried three or four times, even spraying 'cold start' (Di-ethyl ether) into the airbox, but the battery would flatten without it starting.
I had time this week to have a look at it and took the plug out. The gap had increased to 1.5 mm! Here's a photo of it (cleaned up a bit) next to an ordinary plug.
If you position the plugs with the outer electrodes against the ceramic, you can see that the inner electrode has eroded away.
So why has it eroded so much after such a short period of running?
Interestingly, way back in 1979 when I had a Yamaha SR500, I fitted one of the 'super plugs' of the time. I think this was Palladium rather than Iridium, but it had a similar narrow central electrode.
A couple of days after I fitted the plug I was riding through town when the bike backfired then ground to a halt. I couldn't get it started again so pushed it about half a mile home. I took the plug out to find that the central electrode had completely vanished!
It's strange that so many years apart, the only times that I've used plugs with narrow electrodes made of exotic materials, they have failed the same way in a very short space of time. In both cases they were in Yamaha single cylinder engines, and both were the manufacturer's specified plug for that bike.
Any ideas?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)