Help with dating Dominator please

Forums

Dear All
I have looked through the website to find the engine number list that I am sure I have seen but can't find it now!
So, If I am asking in the wrong place, I do apologise.
I have a Norton-engine special which has twin 376/40 carbs fitted on what seems to be an original 99SS twin carb manifold.
The engine number is pictured and is listed in the V5 as 91224. The bike was allegedly rebuilt and ready to ride but I found almost everything (with lots and lots of new parts from RGM etc) loose or badly fitted so I have stripped the gearbox - which has NA on the case but hasd the old 'hook' kickstart spring and earlier bush sizes in the outer cover. I am renewing most things in the gearbox. The engine will be next, for a full strip and rebuild although again, it is full of new parts.
The bike is registered as a 1964 but I understand that Dominator 99 models stopped in 1962... if anyone can point me in the right direction to a list that might tell me the actual year of the engine, or tell me the year, I would be very grateful. Thank you in advance. I am in Islington/ north London and if anyone wants to come round and jeer/congratulate me on my purchase the kettle is always on!
Simon Duval Smith

Attachments

ENGINE NUMBER AT FRONT.jpeg

ENGINE NUMBER BACK.jpeg

British motorcycle new…

British motorcycle new registrations fell off a cliff at that time. 350,000 in 1959, and only 150.000 in 1962. So Norton dropped the year letter from their numbers, to disguise the fact that the bike you were buying had been stuck in the showroom for a few years. My 1963 Dommie wasn't registered until 1964. Your number is mid 1960.

Thank you David, that is all…

Thank you David, that is all much clearer. Best, Simon

Ref. Your initial statement.

If you type in "Norton serial number" into your browser several lists are shown.
your machine would have had matching engine and frame numbers. As it doesn't any more it may be worth checking your frame number against the list. It has a higher status than an engine number when it comes to machine identity.

http://classicenglishbikes.com/tech_file/norton.html

Thank you. Very helpful.

99c would make it a coil…

99c would make it a coil ignition bike . most likely a 99 std or deluxe . Could have been supplied with twin carbs but not an SS . Probably started off with a single 1 1/16" monoblock .

Special

Simon's 99 was part of a batch sold to Kings who were a big Norton dealer in the 1960s.
All of the 99 twins in this batch of Nortons were listed as 'Specials', painted all Black but with Chrome Chain cases. They may have had Black painted mudguards, Siamese exhausts and twin carbs. Thereby making it an early form of 99SS. The first official 99SS arrived in March 1962 and was 14 96496.
The original 91224 was sold by Kings of Great Yarmouth to its first owner and registered for road use 3 months after leaving Bracebridge.

Thank you Philip, that is…

Thank you Philip, that is great information. According to the V5, the frame number is 104412; that seems to tally with 1962-1963. A special of sorts… The number can't be found on the frame, I have looked in the right places. As you can see from the pictures, it certainly is a Special! Apologies to Norton purists...

Rear brake rod..

..looks dodgy to me, with those 2 90 degree bends. Surely a lot of lost motion in operation, as they try to straighten out?

Yes, thanks, the rear brake…

Yes, thanks, the rear brake was on the bike when it came to me. The bends are not quite 90 degrees but still not ideal although not uncommon as an OEM system on Bultacos etc. I will probably engineer a disc rear using a cable from the forward controls I will make, going to a BMW 'undertank' master cylinder hidden behind the gearbox as I don't like a big ugly master cylinder on the pedal assembly. I've built a few choppers but I wanted this one as it is an Amen Savior 'plunger' rear frame and these are part of choppers history. And of course correctly set up girder forks are far superior to telescopic forks (see Britten, Vincent, Tony Foale etc) although perhaps not at this rake!

1960 Model 99

I'm surprised no-one has acknowledged the full engine number as per your photo. It reads "91224 14 R"- which clearly makes it from a 1960 model 99.

Thank you

Thank you Lionel, I have had some good answers. Great club, lots of friendly help.

Amen & Survivor

Hi Simon, as l have ridden some ol' skool chops, (very few) & causing a lot of laughs, this is not a critisism but an observation as l also have had some involvement in sidecars. Th steering head angle c/l extended to th ft.tyre contact patch may result in zero trail or less. th rotational force of wheel when underway will tend to hold it upright, l will leave you to ponder th potential here, it may be just an effect of th photo angle. l like your ideas on rear brakes, dont try to modernise th look too much. you may need to devise a head steady, engine-to-steering, without being ugly. My first thought was airfoil section aluminium yacht fixture. Maybe just putt around town slowly-but a 600 is capable of "cruising"at th ton.Hope that you dont mind th but-in, l just like chatting about these things. The frame no. could still be there under paint&smoothing filler. l like th yellow,it does go with th other colour.

Girder fork etc

Hi Barry, thanks for the reply. Yes, I am a big fan of girder forks, from primitive ones as on this chopper all the way to Britten and Hossack units. The trail is important - by steering head angle I presume you mean rake? This has been worked out to give as much trail as possible with an attractive rake and length of front end for the proper chopper look. As you probably know, too much trail and rake gives an unstable condition and the risk of 'flop' - the front wheel flopping to one side if unloaded and not held by the rider. The beauty of girder/Hossack etc forks is that everything can be fine tuned by altering the length of the links between the static and moving parts of the fork. It's worth reading Tony Foale's work on forks - he is probably the best suspension engineer for motorcycles. The rotational or centrifugal force exerted by the front wheel is much misunderstood - it really is not the answer to a stable front end.
I have a large and strong head steady in place already, between the cylinder head and the headstock.
Using an Amen Savior rear plunger set-up means a lot fewer undesirable forces being transmitted to the front end and fewer of the compromises of a swinging arm changing the geometry and chain tension etc.
The need for a disc rear brake is no criticism of the Norton rear brake but the majority of the braking on a chopper like mine will be done by the rear wheel, with a 5.00-16 inch tyre, the front tyre is 3.00-21 or 3.25-21 inch.
I won't be just 'putting' around town, I put a lot of miles on this below, my last chopper, which was built 35 years ago and is still able to cruise at 80 mph.
I'll have anther look for the frame number but there is no filler in this frame, it's either braze-filled or some leading - plastic filler always cracks and falls out eventually...