Could Norton have succeeded?
Discussion
No, not while aiming at niche markets with small volume expensive bikes. It may have been able to last a couple years but selling "fashion items" is subject to the fickle whims of fashion and changing a motorcycle model line up, even when there are only 1 or 2 bikes in that line up, is expensive and time consuming.
Norton also made the mistake of going racing. Racing may look good as a marketing tool but you have to be competitive and a small volume manufacturer can't compete for any length of time with the R&D budgets of the volume manufacturers.
Norton also made the mistake of going racing. Racing may look good as a marketing tool but you have to be competitive and a small volume manufacturer can't compete for any length of time with the R&D budgets of the volume manufacturers.
gareth_r said:
Triumph and Indian are the only (mass market) manufacturers that have been successfully reincarnated.
All Norton needed was to be owned by a successful company like Bloor Investments (annual revenue £900 million plus) or Polaris (annual revenue more than $5 billion).
MV Augusta, Fantic, Benelli. Especially the latter 2 are aiming at large volumes in the mid to long term. Other examples are available.All Norton needed was to be owned by a successful company like Bloor Investments (annual revenue £900 million plus) or Polaris (annual revenue more than $5 billion).
It's a shame. As other have said the fact that the bloke heading the company was a crook rather than an astute business man couldn't have helped.
As for the products line-up I thought they were on the right track ish. The Commandos were I think well received and I seem to remember that they had a deal for their next gen Norton twins to be made by a Chinese manufacturer which would have helped democratised the brand a bit.
Unfortunately the glitz of racing and mega expensive (outdated already?) race bike must have killed the finances.
As for the products line-up I thought they were on the right track ish. The Commandos were I think well received and I seem to remember that they had a deal for their next gen Norton twins to be made by a Chinese manufacturer which would have helped democratised the brand a bit.
Unfortunately the glitz of racing and mega expensive (outdated already?) race bike must have killed the finances.
Personally I think they tried to do too much too soon and as a person who enquired about working there, did a bunch of research about the place and the way I was treated, I can now understand why the quality was often so poor, they paid very poorly and basically sweatshopped those things out.
That never works for a new manufacturer of niche products, you have to invest in your staff, use very clear production methods and quality procedures and they clearly did not do this. He shot for the stars and tried to do it by making bikes like the Chinese and Koreans. Seen it happen with tons of low end car manufacturers, why do you think people like Koenigsegg and Pagani achieve where other do not. Quality. that's why.
Maybe a victim of early success, bu that should meant a real buttoned down approach to quality, and it just meant, hey we made money let go racing, sign a Dunlop, sign a McPint. Woeful business acumen, did Bloor go racing that early? No, he made a basic range of bikes, raced the Speed Triple as one make then started to try and make race bikes at a low key level, got there eventually after years of trying.
That never works for a new manufacturer of niche products, you have to invest in your staff, use very clear production methods and quality procedures and they clearly did not do this. He shot for the stars and tried to do it by making bikes like the Chinese and Koreans. Seen it happen with tons of low end car manufacturers, why do you think people like Koenigsegg and Pagani achieve where other do not. Quality. that's why.
Maybe a victim of early success, bu that should meant a real buttoned down approach to quality, and it just meant, hey we made money let go racing, sign a Dunlop, sign a McPint. Woeful business acumen, did Bloor go racing that early? No, he made a basic range of bikes, raced the Speed Triple as one make then started to try and make race bikes at a low key level, got there eventually after years of trying.
NAS said:
gareth_r said:
Triumph and Indian are the only (mass market) manufacturers that have been successfully reincarnated.
All Norton needed was to be owned by a successful company like Bloor Investments (annual revenue £900 million plus) or Polaris (annual revenue more than $5 billion).
MV Augusta, Fantic, Benelli. Especially the latter 2 are aiming at large volumes in the mid to long term. Other examples are available.All Norton needed was to be owned by a successful company like Bloor Investments (annual revenue £900 million plus) or Polaris (annual revenue more than $5 billion).
MV Agusta and Fantic were founded post World War 2 and had no real history as manufacturers of road bikes, outside Italy at least.
I admit I'd forgotten about Benelli, although I don't think that the original company had much international recognition, other than for racing (and for the Mojave tank that's fitted to 90% of Yamaha XV café racers
), and the current company, at least in "the West", seems to be at the same level as WK or Hyosung.Edited by gareth_r on Monday 3rd February 12:50
It's a bit of an open question, but essentially there's no reason why not.
Low-volume bikes will always be in demand for those that want exclusivity. And personally I think it looks like more and more people want that.
There's numerous examples of low-volume vehicle manufacturers succeeding. Morgan, Brough Superior and Hesketh are a few examples. I remember reading an interview with Charles Morgan where he said he put Morgan's survival down to never trying to develop their own engine. I think that's key; know your limitations. Norton went too far and aside from the obvious dodgy dealings, trying to manufacture your own V4 performance engine was madness.
If Norton had stuck to a bit of a lazy parallel twin that looked good and they had an options catalogue the size of the phone book I reckon they'd have survived. They may not have grown much, but there's enough interest to sustain that kind of bike in limited numbers and with a decent mark-up. Almost like an affordable Brough Superior model.
Low-volume bikes will always be in demand for those that want exclusivity. And personally I think it looks like more and more people want that.
There's numerous examples of low-volume vehicle manufacturers succeeding. Morgan, Brough Superior and Hesketh are a few examples. I remember reading an interview with Charles Morgan where he said he put Morgan's survival down to never trying to develop their own engine. I think that's key; know your limitations. Norton went too far and aside from the obvious dodgy dealings, trying to manufacture your own V4 performance engine was madness.
If Norton had stuck to a bit of a lazy parallel twin that looked good and they had an options catalogue the size of the phone book I reckon they'd have survived. They may not have grown much, but there's enough interest to sustain that kind of bike in limited numbers and with a decent mark-up. Almost like an affordable Brough Superior model.
Here's my thoughts...
They sign an engine deal with a bigger manufactuer - the most expensive thing to develop is a Euro-[i]n[/i engine]. They stick to single or twin arrangement.
They design a modular tubular steel frame - cheaper and easier than Cast ally as jigs are cheaper than tooling.
Their first product is an homage to a manx with high spec suspension and brakes. They take it to the manx and do some demo laps with someone like Peter Williams (if he's still able) aboard. Far far cheaper than racing and just as good publicity wise. Ago on the MV - made grown men weep.
Second is a de-specced version for the masses.
Then comes a range of flat-tracker / scrambler variants using the same engine and frames. These are suppored by a huge range of affordable aftermarket shiny trinkets to customise your bike. Get bored with your scambler - 4-5k buys you a kit to turn it into the cafe racer / vice - versa. Expensive enough for good margins - cheap enough to catch those who can't stretch to a brand new bike but could stretch to 4-5k.
Norton was killed by hubris... You would think they would have learned from the Al Melling V8 norton days. Obviously not.
They sign an engine deal with a bigger manufactuer - the most expensive thing to develop is a Euro-[i]n[/i engine]. They stick to single or twin arrangement.
They design a modular tubular steel frame - cheaper and easier than Cast ally as jigs are cheaper than tooling.
Their first product is an homage to a manx with high spec suspension and brakes. They take it to the manx and do some demo laps with someone like Peter Williams (if he's still able) aboard. Far far cheaper than racing and just as good publicity wise. Ago on the MV - made grown men weep.
Second is a de-specced version for the masses.
Then comes a range of flat-tracker / scrambler variants using the same engine and frames. These are suppored by a huge range of affordable aftermarket shiny trinkets to customise your bike. Get bored with your scambler - 4-5k buys you a kit to turn it into the cafe racer / vice - versa. Expensive enough for good margins - cheap enough to catch those who can't stretch to a brand new bike but could stretch to 4-5k.
Norton was killed by hubris... You would think they would have learned from the Al Melling V8 norton days. Obviously not.
Theres a link on the other thread explaining why they are a doomed failure.
The bikes were poor and underdeveloped and it takes money to fix that.
It had one niche. The old boy with too much money looking back with nostalgia. I bet a lot of the owners just look at it
in the conservatory. Its just shot up in value without a wheel turning.
The bikes were poor and underdeveloped and it takes money to fix that.
It had one niche. The old boy with too much money looking back with nostalgia. I bet a lot of the owners just look at it
in the conservatory. Its just shot up in value without a wheel turning.
Fundoreen said:
Theres a link on the other thread explaining why they are a doomed failure.
The bikes were poor and underdeveloped and it takes money to fix that.
It had one niche. The old boy with too much money looking back with nostalgia. I bet a lot of the owners just look at it
in the conservatory. Its just shot up in value without a wheel turning.
Not that I'd wish to admit that in public, but I'd sadly fall in to that category. I had a Commando in '75 as a yoof and I have very fond memories of it. A few years back when I heard Norton were re-manufacturing again I would have been perfectly happy to put my money down. But, my Norton was a Fastback with regular bars and regular pegs; and with the isolastics actually very smooth. With bones and joints 40+ years older I certainly wasn't in the market for anything that 'sporty' in the seating position department (or as rough!). I'm guessing quite a few of the 'old' Norton brigade would have felt the same.The bikes were poor and underdeveloped and it takes money to fix that.
It had one niche. The old boy with too much money looking back with nostalgia. I bet a lot of the owners just look at it
in the conservatory. Its just shot up in value without a wheel turning.
Had I been a Triumph guy I could have thrown my leg over a Bonneville and despite more power, more weight, better handling and better brakes I could have convinced myself this was just a continuation and more of the same from the 60s/70s. But Norton missed that trick by building a bike where only the badge on the tank would appeal to most of the older guys, and it would mean precious little to the younger folks. Had they build a Commando 'Bonneville style' as a proper retro then that would at least have captured the older folks wanting some notalgia; as it is, they didn't - so very much a bike range to appeal to younger sportier riders who for their sins had little affinity to the brand of old. Had they got a proper foothold in the nostalgia market I think they would have been far placed to then expand the range into progressively more sporty stuff.
As it is, all this talk of Norton has me hankering for another one (circa 1971 or so) and I've started scanning the small adds. Interestingly 70s Commandos are mixing it price-wise with second hand 'new' Commandos. I know where my cash would go...
tvrolet said:
Not that I'd wish to admit that in public, but I'd sadly fall in to that category. I had a Commando in '75 as a yoof and I have very fond memories of it. A few years back when I heard Norton were re-manufacturing again I would have been perfectly happy to put my money down. But, my Norton was a Fastback with regular bars and regular pegs; and with the isolastics actually very smooth. With bones and joints 40+ years older I certainly wasn't in the market for anything that 'sporty' in the seating position department (or as rough!). I'm guessing quite a few of the 'old' Norton brigade would have felt the same.
Had I been a Triumph guy I could have thrown my leg over a Bonneville and despite more power, more weight, better handling and better brakes I could have convinced myself this was just a continuation and more of the same from the 60s/70s. But Norton missed that trick by building a bike where only the badge on the tank would appeal to most of the older guys, and it would mean precious little to the younger folks. Had they build a Commando 'Bonneville style' as a proper retro then that would at least have captured the older folks wanting some notalgia; as it is, they didn't - so very much a bike range to appeal to younger sportier riders who for their sins had little affinity to the brand of old. Had they got a proper foothold in the nostalgia market I think they would have been far placed to then expand the range into progressively more sporty stuff.
As it is, all this talk of Norton has me hankering for another one (circa 1971 or so) and I've started scanning the small adds. Interestingly 70s Commandos are mixing it price-wise with second hand 'new' Commandos. I know where my cash would go...
As an owner of a 70's Commando I can tell you that the spares situation is amazing with a massive choice from the "factory" - Andover Norton and a variety of UK and other suppliers. Even leccy start conversions, which seem increasing popular - for a combination of the owner's demographic and ease of use in modern traffic. Easy to spend as much as on a "modern" Norton.Had I been a Triumph guy I could have thrown my leg over a Bonneville and despite more power, more weight, better handling and better brakes I could have convinced myself this was just a continuation and more of the same from the 60s/70s. But Norton missed that trick by building a bike where only the badge on the tank would appeal to most of the older guys, and it would mean precious little to the younger folks. Had they build a Commando 'Bonneville style' as a proper retro then that would at least have captured the older folks wanting some notalgia; as it is, they didn't - so very much a bike range to appeal to younger sportier riders who for their sins had little affinity to the brand of old. Had they got a proper foothold in the nostalgia market I think they would have been far placed to then expand the range into progressively more sporty stuff.
As it is, all this talk of Norton has me hankering for another one (circa 1971 or so) and I've started scanning the small adds. Interestingly 70s Commandos are mixing it price-wise with second hand 'new' Commandos. I know where my cash would go...
From what I hear of the modern ones they do seem to have done an excellent job of engineering in the character that us Norton and TVR owners are used too
srob said:
It's a bit of an open question, but essentially there's no reason why not.
Low-volume bikes will always be in demand for those that want exclusivity. And personally I think it looks like more and more people want that.
There's numerous examples of low-volume vehicle manufacturers succeeding. Morgan, Brough Superior and Hesketh are a few examples. I remember reading an interview with Charles Morgan where he said he put Morgan's survival down to never trying to develop their own engine. I think that's key; know your limitations. Norton went too far and aside from the obvious dodgy dealings, trying to manufacture your own V4 performance engine was madness.
If Norton had stuck to a bit of a lazy parallel twin that looked good and they had an options catalogue the size of the phone book I reckon they'd have survived. They may not have grown much, but there's enough interest to sustain that kind of bike in limited numbers and with a decent mark-up. Almost like an affordable Brough Superior model.
I agree, the Norton V4 was never going to be a hit imo, far too expensive, and if you want a V4 superbike Ducati or Aprilia will sell you one which is going to be a better package plus cheaper and (usually) easier to get parts for, plus not cost nearly as much.Low-volume bikes will always be in demand for those that want exclusivity. And personally I think it looks like more and more people want that.
There's numerous examples of low-volume vehicle manufacturers succeeding. Morgan, Brough Superior and Hesketh are a few examples. I remember reading an interview with Charles Morgan where he said he put Morgan's survival down to never trying to develop their own engine. I think that's key; know your limitations. Norton went too far and aside from the obvious dodgy dealings, trying to manufacture your own V4 performance engine was madness.
If Norton had stuck to a bit of a lazy parallel twin that looked good and they had an options catalogue the size of the phone book I reckon they'd have survived. They may not have grown much, but there's enough interest to sustain that kind of bike in limited numbers and with a decent mark-up. Almost like an affordable Brough Superior model.
Them trying to develop their own engine was a mistake, much like it was when TVR did the same with the Speed 6.
srob said:
It's a bit of an open question, but essentially there's no reason why not.
Low-volume bikes will always be in demand for those that want exclusivity. And personally I think it looks like more and more people want that.
There's numerous examples of low-volume vehicle manufacturers succeeding. Morgan, Brough Superior and Hesketh are a few examples. I remember reading an interview with Charles Morgan where he said he put Morgan's survival down to never trying to develop their own engine. I think that's key; know your limitations. Norton went too far and aside from the obvious dodgy dealings, trying to manufacture your own V4 performance engine was madness.
If Norton had stuck to a bit of a lazy parallel twin that looked good and they had an options catalogue the size of the phone book I reckon they'd have survived. They may not have grown much, but there's enough interest to sustain that kind of bike in limited numbers and with a decent mark-up. Almost like an affordable Brough Superior model.
I don't think you could say Hesketh succeeded, they sold very few, and the gearboxes were terrible. They were pig ugly too (imo)Low-volume bikes will always be in demand for those that want exclusivity. And personally I think it looks like more and more people want that.
There's numerous examples of low-volume vehicle manufacturers succeeding. Morgan, Brough Superior and Hesketh are a few examples. I remember reading an interview with Charles Morgan where he said he put Morgan's survival down to never trying to develop their own engine. I think that's key; know your limitations. Norton went too far and aside from the obvious dodgy dealings, trying to manufacture your own V4 performance engine was madness.
If Norton had stuck to a bit of a lazy parallel twin that looked good and they had an options catalogue the size of the phone book I reckon they'd have survived. They may not have grown much, but there's enough interest to sustain that kind of bike in limited numbers and with a decent mark-up. Almost like an affordable Brough Superior model.
When I think of modern retro styled bikes. I think of triumphs (thruxton) and BMW's (RnineT). I dont think of Nortons. I havnt seen nortons in magazines or on youtube tests, they are just not there in the media reminding you they exist. I dont know what bikes they produce, I dont know how much they cost, I dont know where I could even buy one from.
So norton were doomed to fail, really.
So norton were doomed to fail, really.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff