RE: PH2: Norton To Take On 2012 TT
Thursday 16th June 2011
Norton's 2009 TT contenderYou may remember that in 2009 Norton went to the Isle of Man TT with a bike and a bundle of old rotary race engines. The campaign did not go well. Records for the number of engines blown up in week were shattered and all the company got out of the exercise was red faces and a parade lap.
PH2: Norton To Take On 2012 TT
No rotaries this time - a 1000cc V4 is in the works
Norton's 2009 TT contender
Stuart Garner, the man behind Norton, is obviously not easily put off because he's just announced that Norton is returning to the Island next year to compete in the Senior race. No rotary again, this time a 1000cc V4. A brand new engine in other words, which is why the bike housing it will only be able to race in the Senior and not the production classes. Chassis experts FTR are building the chassis and Garner says that a machine will be built in time for short circuit testing to start in September. There's no word on who'll ride the bike at the TT but Garner says that it'll be someone capable of getting on the podium.
Glory at the TT would certainly put Norton on the map, but then so would developing a broader range of road bikes. Sales of European-built bikes have never been so strong with the Japanese manufacturers struggling to make new models that punters can get excited about. And Japanese bikes have never been so uncompetitive on price. Personally, I'm concerned that launching a racing effort could seriously take their eyes off the real business of building and selling road bikes. Look at (Hinckley) Triumph's history: no racing until the brand was solidly established and then a low-key approach with the Triple Challenge.
Discussion
rhinochopig said:
That just sounds wrong. like asbo wrong.Not sure if this is the best idea for them, though it would be great to see.
This smacks of MG when they built a Halo supercar and then went to Le Mans and spent more than Audi on hospitality, when they were running in the GP class not LMP1 i believe!
They tried to build a brand that was already there, when they were selling rebadged Rover 200/400 and 75's.
That money should have been spent on building a good MGF replacement and a hot hatch.
Norton have a great brand history, and the recent 'new' norton is a lovely thing, but developing a 1000cc V4 could be a good road bike, and using the TT as a development for that chassis is useful, but i dont want them to carry on as they are with talk of Moto GP team, when they only sell a 50 year old engine\frame wrapped in Ohlins bits.
Start small then work up, else it could end up like Ilmor.
This smacks of MG when they built a Halo supercar and then went to Le Mans and spent more than Audi on hospitality, when they were running in the GP class not LMP1 i believe!
They tried to build a brand that was already there, when they were selling rebadged Rover 200/400 and 75's.
That money should have been spent on building a good MGF replacement and a hot hatch.
Norton have a great brand history, and the recent 'new' norton is a lovely thing, but developing a 1000cc V4 could be a good road bike, and using the TT as a development for that chassis is useful, but i dont want them to carry on as they are with talk of Moto GP team, when they only sell a 50 year old engine\frame wrapped in Ohlins bits.
Start small then work up, else it could end up like Ilmor.
JHS said:
good to see a british motor bike company doing well.
Are they though ? 
I mean, looking at their website: hardly any interesting news, limited dealer network: who is going to buy a 18k€ bike in the south of France when the dealer is in Paris? I thought they've hired Terblanche...that was over 6 months ago and we haven't seen anything to drool over.I wish them all the best and I hope they'll soon be able to compete with the Ducatis of this world but ATM, like someone said above, they're not doing much more than bolting shiny bits on an old concept to sell to rich old born again bikers.
Stevie Mojo said:
What's wrong with that? If your customer base is 'rich' old born again bikers then surely that's a good thing?
Not at all what I meant. It's all good if it proves that the business is worth pourring money in. As much millions as he got, he'll still need outside investment if Norton are serious about developing a whole range - so no problem with that whatsoever.But, the people buying these Commandos probably won't be the ones buying the sportsbikes, modern naked, traillies or even supermotos (why not). Some might move onto a tourer... They need to broaden their customer base and start having people putting them on their shopping list. They need to start showing what they can do now. The point about Japan being uncompetitve at the moment is fair but they won't stay out for ever, there are opportunities to seize now but they should put their arse in gear.
My initial point about their reduced dealer network and lack of real world product development stands. Customers will soon get bored of old bikes and $$$$$$$ racing machines. Take the example of what Lotus are doing at the moment: like their new cars or not, they are moving. Some people don't like it but some definitely do and they are generating interest: this is what is missing from Norton from my point of view. I want to see more, something that's for me (as well as the old rich gentleman, let's not forget him either
)Edited by J B L on Thursday 16th June 12:37
Stevie Mojo said:
J B L said:
they're not doing much more than bolting shiny bits on an old concept to sell to rich old born again bikers.
What's wrong with that? If your customer base is 'rich' old born again bikers then surely that's a good thing?I really don't get this. The company currently builds a (admittedly very nice!) nostalgia fuelled naked bike, so where is the benefit in trying to grab a TT win with a setup that nobody can buy?
I'd love to see them back at the TT, but I'd rather see it in six or seven years time campaigning a bike that I can go and buy safe in the knowledge that the company is stable and here to stay. They'd be mad not to follow Triumphs model of developing an engine that can be used in a 'modular' approach; a series of different machines in different sectors allowing the development costs to be spread.
Oh, and wasn't the 2009 attempt by a completely different outfit? I thought it was a Roy Richards (the National Motorcycle Museums owner) funded project run by Brian Crighton (the man behind the F1).
I'd love to see them back at the TT, but I'd rather see it in six or seven years time campaigning a bike that I can go and buy safe in the knowledge that the company is stable and here to stay. They'd be mad not to follow Triumphs model of developing an engine that can be used in a 'modular' approach; a series of different machines in different sectors allowing the development costs to be spread.
Oh, and wasn't the 2009 attempt by a completely different outfit? I thought it was a Roy Richards (the National Motorcycle Museums owner) funded project run by Brian Crighton (the man behind the F1).
"They tried to build a brand that was already there, when they were selling rebadged Rover 200/400 and 75's."
Disagree, all three MG Zs were different from their Rover relatives, better handling, better equipment, etc, etc. Golf GTi's are based around normal Golfs, as are all of the other manufacturers' hot hatches as far as I know. No different to MGRs. However, point taken, instead of throwing money at Le Mans, international rallying, touring cars and the SVR, they should probably have kept to something that was more relevant, touring cars maybe? Oh, and that 'bike does look nice but is it actually the'bike that the article is about?
Disagree, all three MG Zs were different from their Rover relatives, better handling, better equipment, etc, etc. Golf GTi's are based around normal Golfs, as are all of the other manufacturers' hot hatches as far as I know. No different to MGRs. However, point taken, instead of throwing money at Le Mans, international rallying, touring cars and the SVR, they should probably have kept to something that was more relevant, touring cars maybe? Oh, and that 'bike does look nice but is it actually the'bike that the article is about?
sprinter1050 said:
Can anybody remember what the base for that Norton V4 motor is ?
I seem to recall that Pr1mo Racing ( Chris Walker's BSB Team) have something to do with building the motor but I also heard it was "derived" from a KTM ?
Maybe both connections are correct Hmmm -Whadda we know?
Thinking outloud, ktm had a 1000cc moto gp engine, perhaps this is based on that ?I seem to recall that Pr1mo Racing ( Chris Walker's BSB Team) have something to do with building the motor but I also heard it was "derived" from a KTM ?
Maybe both connections are correct Hmmm -Whadda we know?
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff