Nomad Crankshafts, again !

Hello Eugene Yes I think I agree with you this is very important information and name calling is very immature. Research on Norton twins and their development should be cross-checked and shared with members that are interested in them like Me!

I am collating all its information and have a book written about them where other Norton writers did to get the right information on Norton rare models like the Nomad. So anyone who contributes the information will have their name in this book to say a big thanks for all your efforts and research. The book, called 'Norton's Rare Models' will be published by the Motorcycle writer, Peter Scatchard yours AJD my email address annajeannette@btinternet.com I thank anyone is able to contribute to this new book !

Skip, I have talked to Phil Radford many times over the years, he will tell anyone that he is not an expert on pre-Commando Nortons. Same with Howard Johnston, he will be glad to tell anyone that he is very far from an expert on what he sells, and the only reason that he listed the crankshaft you bought as being correct for a "Nomad, 650 or 750 Norton" is because it was in a pile of parts he bought from Radford along with a set of Nomad cases etc. and they just took a guess at it, period.

The crank you have photos of up, the same crank that Howard auctioned off on Ebay, is a regular mid-1960s 89mm stroke crankshaft of the type that was put in the Atlas and 750SS. Wrong stroke for a Nomad right? If it was a real Bracebridge Street crankshaft it would have the features of such a crank. It would have little square windows milled around the rod journal oil holes, it would have a full-circle flywheel with reliefs for the piston bottoms as all 99 and early 650 cranks do, and the holes drilled in it for balancing would be 7/8" in diameter, again as all Bracebridge Street cranks of that era had. Later cranks of the AMC era had 1/2" balancing holes drilled in the flywheel. So Skip you have no crank. You are a know-nothing that bought a crank from another know-nothing.

You keep on talking about Anthony Curzon backing you up, but this is an exact quote of what Anthony Curzon said about the subject on this NOC message board:

"As for the 1958 Nomads getting that larger crankshaft, i own an almost completely original 1958 600 Nomad and it was sold as a 1959 model year Nomad, and it has the smaller 99 or 1.50 inch size crankshaft fitted to it from when it was new. The later 1.7505 crankshaft according to Skip Brolund as he explained this to me, his 1960 600 Nomad came with that larger 1.7505 crankshaft."

So there you go just like I said, a dog chasing it's tail. You claim the information came from Curzon, he says he got it from you. I will believe Curzon if you don't mind... two down.

Sure, everyone knows that Norton, and all other vehicle factories build prototypes and it is common sense that they would not publish an owner's manual and parts list for these. A grade-school child would know that.

The Nomad however was not a prototype. It was a regular production bike of which hundreds were built, no rarer than the 650 Manxman or 99ss, so that is the third point of yours that is non-sense and irrelevant to the subject.

I have also corresponded with Phil Hannam through email about the Nomad and Norton Dominator crankshafts, you know, the holder of the Peter Roydhouse letters you have brought up. Phil has found no direct quote of Roydhouse backing up a large journal Nomad crank. So that is story #4 you have told.

No one will ever find a quote by John Hudson about a 1.75" rod journal ever being used in any Norton 500cc or 600cc twin. He surely talked about the Domiracer with it's special crankshaft.

So that is the entire history of how this entire Nomad crank farce started. An Ebay dealer who will admit he knows nothing about Nortons, bought a pile of parts and wrote a bunch of hype for his auction so he could make more cash, and he found a ready and willing sucker to not only buy his crankshaft, but to eat up his sales pitch.

You have nothing Mr. Brolund but a collection of very poor words, and I am sure that is all you will ever have, so by all means give us some more......

Ever hear of the word "bibliography" Mr. Brolund? It is a list of sources of information at the end of a work of prose which includes exact publications, dates and page numbers etc.. where the information was gotten from. I DARE you to list one single published source of information, or any first-hand source to back up anything you say about Nomad crankshafts at all. All you ever have offered is "he said/she said"......

Previously wrote:

Skip, I have talked to Phil Radford many times over the years, he will tell anyone that he is not an expert on pre-Commando Nortons. Same with Howard Johnston, he will be glad to tell anyone that he is very far from an expert on what he sells, and the only reason that he listed the crankshaft you bought as being correct for a "Nomad, 650 or 750 Norton" is because it was in a pile of parts he bought from Radford along with a set of Nomad cases etc. and they just took a guess at it, period.

The crank you have photos of up, the same crank that Howard auctioned off on Ebay, is a regular mid-1960s 89mm stroke crankshaft of the type that was put in the Atlas and 750SS. Wrong stroke for a Nomad right? If it was a real Bracebridge Street crankshaft it would have the features of such a crank. It would have little square windows milled around the rod journal oil holes, it would have a full-circle flywheel with reliefs for the piston bottoms as all 99 and early 650 cranks do, and the holes drilled in it for balancing would be 7/8" in diameter, again as all Bracebridge Street cranks of that era had. Later cranks of the AMC era had 1/2" balancing holes drilled in the flywheel. So Skip you have no crank. You are a know-nothing that bought a crank from another know-nothing.

You keep on talking about Anthony Curzon backing you up, but this is an exact quote of what Anthony Curzon said about the subject on this NOC message board:

"As for the 1958 Nomads getting that larger crankshaft, i own an almost completely original 1958 600 Nomad and it was sold as a 1959 model year Nomad, and it has the smaller 99 or 1.50 inch size crankshaft fitted to it from when it was new. The later 1.7505 crankshaft according to Skip Brolund as he explained this to me, his 1960 600 Nomad came with that larger 1.7505 crankshaft."

So there you go just like I said, a dog chasing it's tail. You claim the information came from Curzon, he says he got it from you. I will believe Curzon if you don't mind... two down.

Sure, everyone knows that Norton, and all other vehicle factories build prototypes and it is common sense that they would not publish an owner's manual and parts list for these. A grade-school child would know that.

The Nomad however was not a prototype. It was a regular production bike of which hundreds were built, no rarer than the 650 Manxman or 99ss, so that is the third point of yours that is non-sense and irrelevant to the subject.

I have also corresponded with Phil Hannam through email about the Nomad and Norton Dominator crankshafts, you know, the holder of the Peter Roydhouse letters you have brought up. Phil has found no direct quote of Roydhouse backing up a large journal Nomad crank. So that is story #4 you have told.

No one will ever find a quote by John Hudson about a 1.75" rod journal ever being used in any Norton 500cc or 600cc twin. He surely talked about the Domiracer with it's special crankshaft.

So that is the entire history of how this entire Nomad crank farce started. An Ebay dealer who will admit he knows nothing about Nortons, bought a pile of parts and wrote a bunch of hype for his auction so he could make more cash, and he found a ready and willing sucker to not only buy his crankshaft, but to eat up his sales pitch.

You have nothing Mr. Brolund but a collection of very poor words, and I am sure that is all you will ever have, so by all means give us some more......

Ever hear of the word "bibliography" Mr. Brolund? It is a list of sources of information at the end of a work of prose which includes exact publications, dates and page numbers etc.. where the information was gotten from. I DARE you to list one single published source of information, or any first-hand source to back up anything you say about Nomad crankshafts at all. All you ever have offered is "he said/she said"......

Hello Ben And Eugene May I step in the middle of this war of words . we need too be charm hear gents, First Ben Its is what I was thinking that the Nomad Had 1:5 Big end Journals, But if some one else can verify, Witch Crankshaft they had would be a good thing but lets not lose our heads over this . all this is good debate and this is what the Norton Web pages are about, But name calling we can do with out . lets concentrate On getting the facts of the case .As For The 650 Manxman the Figurers, Of how many were built have been given to me by Chris Streather & Dave Catton Factory records Dating officers The Number is 654 Machines Built For 650 Manxman, Before the 650SS stamp mark went on them, The De-lux Models had 18D Stamp Marked on them and the, Standard Machine Had 650 Stamp mark . All Manxman,s had 65or65C Stamp Mark . How many Nomads where Built is Not know has yet, But We do know there was some built with the 500cc Twin Fitted in them, As for the factory records These can be a week be-hided hand before it was recored, And research and Development work, Most of this was not recorded at the time. So we do know there was some fun and games went on at Bracebridge Street Factory .And There was Development work done under Doug Hele ,Some of this is what we are trying to find out, Before its lost in the mist of time . Now lets all shake hands on this and we will find the truth out in the end . also we Do know about a number of Development twins built in 1946 by Jack E Moore . as Bottom End parts Have turned up in Austria and they did not know what they where, And I have identified, The parts in question. And confirmed by Phil Hannah, As being From The Development work of Jack E Moore the Chef Engineering designer at That Time For Norton Motors Bracebridge street Aston . So Any More Information We would gratefully like to know-about so it can be recored in this Book . Yours Anna J Dixon

Well Skip, how about telling us about the special connecting rods your Nomad would need to make a 82mm stroke crankshaft with 1.75" rod journals work with Model 99 Nomad cases and cylinders?

I just talked to Phil Radford, proprietor of Fair Spares America on the phone. He said that he would like to be completely disassociated with this subject. He said he has never seen a Norton Nomad or any 500cc or 600cc Norton with 1.75" rod journals, has never heard of one, never sold one and has never told anyone that Norton Nomads or any other 500cc or 600cc Norton twin ever came with those size rod journals.

I thanked Phil Radford for wasting time during his business hours to confirm and talk about the subject. He said the only Nomad engine he ever sold Howard Johnston was the one very recently that had cracked crankcases and a 1.5" journal crankshaft.

If Howard Johnston or anyone else claims that Phil Radford ever told them anything about Norton Nomads having 1.75" rod journals they are lying.

I am sure it is just a matter of time before the rest of the people who's names have been used by Eugene Skip Brolund in this farce also confirm they have never told him or anyone else anything about 1.75" rod journals for Norton Nomads or for any other heavyweight 500cc or 600cc production twin.

"You are asking us to believe aconversationyou supposedly had with Phil & we are to believe you at your word. I shall not, & stand by my earlier post as it stands."

That sentence could equally apply to you Mr. Brolund could it not? All you have to do to convince me that 1960 Nomads came with 1.75" journals is do something about it besides talk, but you never have done that.

Norton flywheels with no balancing holes are not uncommon. I have one sitting on a shelf in my basement. It simply means the flywheel was replaced at some point or that the factory decided it's balance was close enough that it did not need drilled etc.. I have never jumped to the conclusion that it was a special factory or works crankshaft or anything wild like that though.

Produce a photo of your special crank sitting next to an Atlas crank so everyone can see the difference in stroke, and produce a photograph of one of your special rods sitting on top of an Atlas rod so everyone can see the difference in length. You could even put a machinists scale next to them for added kick. If you say you have special pistons, then set one of them beside a regular production piston so the special features it possesses will also stand out like a sort thumb.

In fact produce anything at all besides words, speculation, hearsay and opinion......

This is all becoming rather too combative. Remember, the forum is a showcase for the Norton Owners Club where people can offer advice and exchange views. I think we would all be relieved if Benjamin in particular would be a little less agressive in his posts. I appreciate his enthusiasm and depth of knowledge but I do not appreciate his tendancy to insult.

Mr. Brolund, it would be a refreshing change if you would actually do just that, "offer information". Please show the Norton community proof that the 1960 Norton Nomad motorcycles had 1.75" connecting rod journals.

If you can do that, I will make any public statement or apology you want me to. If however you finally discover for yourself that you are in error then I will expect you to do the same for me.

So you allegedly have these special parts, lets see you put them up in a way that will be indisputable. I live close by to you and I have many precision measuring instruments I will be glad to bring over and help you.

Benjamin Gradler

Skip and Benjamin

It would be greatto hear thatyou two get together and after shaking hands over this, both work together to solve some of these Norton mysteries. Then share your findings with us all. That would be a great ending to this thread. You never know you may even become friends! You both are passionate enough about Nortons (I hope you agree on that).

Kind regards,

Alan Throssell

Eugene Brolund: "As to proof, I keep giving all the proof that I have at this time, there are 2 other members that are going through archive trying to find out if there is any additional corroboratingevidence."

"we had a long discussion on a previous thread confirming this fact last winter on this very forum"

Well if you would be so kind, could you please give us a link to the place on "this very forum" where Anthony Curzon is "confirming" your claim? Because I can not find it. Also, another one of the same people you have been corresponding with has done the same with myself also, sending me photographs of notes by John Hudson and Peter Roydhouse, and none of those notes specifically mentions a 600cc Nomad with 1.75" rod journals.

So besides a link or directions to Anthony Curzon's "confirmation" could you please put up photographs of the unique John Hudson and Peter Roydhouse notes that you have so that all NOC members can see first-hand this indisputable evidence you have been talking about for months?

Thank you very much in advance Mr. Brolund.........!

Previously wrote:

Eugene Brolund: "As to proof, I keep giving all the proof that I have at this time, there are 2 other members that are going through archive trying to find out if there is any additional corroboratingevidence."

"we had a long discussion on a previous thread confirming this fact last winter on this very forum"

Well if you would be so kind, could you please give us a link to the place on "this very forum" where Anthony Curzon is "confirming" your claim? Because I can not find it. Also, another one of the same people you have been corresponding with has done the same with myself also, sending me photographs of notes by John Hudson and Peter Roydhouse, and none of those notes specifically mentions a 600cc Nomad with 1.75" rod journals.

So besides a link or directions to Anthony Curzon's "confirmation" could you please put up photographs of the unique John Hudson and Peter Roydhouse notes that you have so that all NOC members can see first-hand this indisputable evidence you have been talking about for months?

and see if we can all find out in some way . Yours Anna J Dixon

Thank you very much in advance Mr. Brolund.........!

Hello Ben & Eugene Since we are looking back well over 50 years now to see what the Guys that Bracebridge Street Did, In the Race Work shops, Engines were pulled of the line at times to work on them, And there was No Notes or Records Left To verify What work had been carried out .There may be a Case there when did Norton engineers start to use 1:75 Crank shafts, They must of been some development work done before the The 650cc Machines where put on the market . So let keep our heads here

Anna, this thread deals with a production bike, not works racers. It is common knowledge that the racing shop put some cranks in road-racing twins that had larger than stock rod journals, but probably in no more than a dozen bikes with spares.

The Nomad was a regular production machine, with 180+ sold on the USA West Coast alone, and more sold in the east and in Canada. The Nomad engines had regular engine shop numbers stamped into them along with all the other Model 99 600cc engines.

In 1962 and earlier, when Norton started production of a new engine, it would start the engine shop number at "1" and go on indefinitely. This is why when the first 650 Manxman bikes were kicked out of the crib around November 1960, the engine shop numbers are very low like the one I have here stamped #2, and also the 1962 Atlas cases I have that are Stamped "2". At the same time Norton was putting these very low numbers on the new 650/750 engines, the engine shop numbers on the 500cc and 600cc twins was up in the thousands, as they had been in production for quite a number of years at that point and had each taken their turn being the flagship of the fleet.

Lastly, if Mr. Brolund wants to measure the stroke of a crankshaft, it can be done in 30 seconds with a 2-3" micrometer or dial/vernier caliper. After one of the crank throws is off, push either one of the .500" flywheel dowels, or a .500" drill bit shank or other .500" precision metal rod into the dowel hole of the crankshaft half so that it pokes through parallel with the rod journal.

Measure from the outside of the dowel to the outside of the rod journal. The measurement you get will be half the actual stroke+half the diameter of the flywheel dowel(.5")+ half the diameter of the rod journal(.875" for a 1.75" journal, .750" for a 1.5" rod journal). I did this both with an 89mm stroke Atlas style crank, and a generator-style Model 99 crank and got a measurement of within a few thousandths of an inch of what I should have got, confirming my measurements. So it is a very accurate method that will easily show the roughly 1/8" difference in the throw between a 600cc crank, and the later 650/750cc crankshafts.....and certainly the roughly 1.4" difference in their strokes. Knife-edges, lathes and other fancy and complicated maneuvers are not neccessary at all......

The same numbers that are on a 89mm crank I took out of a standard-bore 750cc 1968 Commando engine this spring....... A 600cc Nomad or Model 99 would of course have a 82mm stroke.....didn't I read something recently where someone predicted your crank was going to have a 89mm stroke???

Hello To You all Firstly The Norton Manxman Was listed as a 600cc machine at first ,this is in the Book written By Burt Hopwood him self What Happed To The British Motorcycle Industry .It was The Berliner brothers that said they needed a bigger twin for export , so it was left to Doug Hele To come up with a New Type of Motor . For the New Twin All the Daytona race parts where reproduced To go into the New twin .IE 1:75 big end diameter So longer stroke and a shorter connecting rods. and a new Cylinder head ,This is where the power comes from, And This was a New Union with the USA. And The New Norton Motorcycle was to Celebrate this , The MANXMAN Name Came from The Berliner Brothers NOT anyone at Norton ,And the Name was used for the first export 650 twins to September 1961 when it was dropped for A Cheaper To Build 650SS .As far as I am aware The Unified Twin Experiment was to the end of 1961 into 1962.the same time that the P10 Dohc twin was been looked at .And it was found in the piles of junk and old experimental work done at Bracebridge street . when they close at the end of 1962 , And there is Not much know about the Nomad, but It set the way for Off road Motorcycles , Yours Anna J Dixon

Wow, how far are you going to carry this charade? First your "special" crank turns out to have the exact same stroke and factory markings as a 750cc 1968 Commando crank, how much do you want to bet that your "special" connecting rods turn out to be exactly the same as 750cc rods also?

Now you are telling everyone that the first Norton 650cc production bike was not the Manxman, but the 1960 Nomad. The first anyone has ever heard of that, but that goes for just about everything you have to say on the subject of Nortons doesn't it? See how many times you used the word "assume" in your last paragraph? It is all you are good for.

You have never produced anything but assumptions and claims, period. You feel free to make up and change the history of Norton motorcycles as you see fit so that it agrees with your stories, and they are stories.

There is nothing to piece together. You have put words in my mouth and the mouths of Phil Radford,Anthony Curzon, Phil Hannam, Peter Roydhouse and John Hudson.

You say that Anthony Curzon has confirmed your claim on this very forum, but for some reason you can not show anyone where.

Phil Hannam has shown me on request the John Hudson and Peter Roydhouse documents also, and none of them mention this subject specifically at all and YOU have never made public the alleged documents you claim to have on this subject.

The simple fact is, no one will ever see you produce anything but words on this subject, because all there ever was of a Norton Nomad with 1.75" rod journals was words.

You have produced no facts and nothing real Mr. Brolund, despite frequent requests to do so.

Still waiting.........

An 89mm 650/750/850 crank will fit into 1960 Model 99 crankcases, but once it has connecting rods on it, and the cylinder is installed with pistons, the rods will not clear the crankcase and it will not be able to turn. That is why 650cc crankcases are different than yours with a hump on the back, Norton did not go to the expense of altering the crankcases because they were bored and had too much money. Anyone familiar with Norton Dominators knows this.

I agree this is a silly display, who started this thread?

You have taken the erroneous text of an Ebay auction of a 750cc crankshaft and ran with it, starting the entire myth about 1.75" rod journals in a Nomad. Then when you actually find out that your crankshaft is 89mm(like I said it was all along) and not the 82mm stroke that all 600cc Model 99 Nortons have, you instantly make up another myth about Nomads with 647cc displacement!

It would be easy for you to put the photo of the John Hudson article Phil Hannam mailed to you up on your Photobucket account, but you have not and never will because it says nothing about Norton Nomads with 1.75" rod journals.

I did not take the Anthony Curzon quote out of context which is listed above, it is a complete statment which anyone who is literate can easily see:

Anthony Curzon: "As for the 1958 Nomads getting that larger crankshaft, i own an almost completely original 1958 600 Nomad and it was sold as a 1959 model year Nomad, and it has the smaller 99 or 1.50 inch size crankshaft fitted to it from when it was new. The later 1.7505 crankshaft according to Skip Brolund as he explained this to me, his 1960 600 Nomad came with that larger 1.7505 crankshaft."

Mr. Brolund has said that on this very message board Anthony Curzon confirms 1.75" rod journals in Model 99 Nomads, but despite being asked has never show anyone where this is, and he never will because it simply does not exist.

I am interested in the facts about Norton Model 99 Nomads and their history. Despite his claims Mr. Brolund has never produced anything real to back up his many words.

I invite everyone in the Norton community who is interested in these motorcycles to read every single thing he has ever written on the subject of Norton Nomads with 1.75" rod journals and please show me one single thing that is other than hearsay or opinion.

The facts and history of Norton motorcycles is the most important thing the NOC has. Please do not let it be destroyed and replaced with fairy tales and myths.

Thanks for letting me have the last word Eugene, you get one merit point, don't do something to lose it now.......

Hello Guys, I have found some new info about Domiracers. Doug Hele was trying out different (wait for it) Crankshafts... Short stroke, 500 and 600. And there is something about a short stroke 650 - would this be the Unit Twin? Also - a Nomad was tried out with a short stroke engine and enlarged big end journals - there would be only one or two made, same As the Domi-racers. There were 3 short stroke motors built for them - overheating was their problem. I also believe this was the case with the unit twin. Anyway it's all interesting stuff and what else was Doug Hele up to in the experimental department? All the records were destroyed so no one can tell what went on in there - and who can tell us all what was done or not done in there? I do know that some of the 650 Manxman motors were pulled off the production line and went to the experimental department. For what reason is not known, but its recorded in the factory records, experimental work started in 1958 on Domi-racers. There were some early 1954 race repaired machines that raced at Daytona and Pebble Beach. We are still looking for more information on these experimental machines, Yours Anna J Dixon

Anna

So glad that you are still digging into the paper archaeology and turning up the goodies. I have started to exhume my old communications with John Hudson in an attempt to clear up some of the confusion.

My old friend, Mike Bell, has rebuilt a considerable number of Nomads but says he has not come across any with the larger journal crankshafts. But he does agree that possibly some serious competiton engines were rebuilt with different parts in an attempt to improve their reliabilty as the crankshafts did have a reputation for failing. This is what John H told me he had actually worked onin the Factory experimental shop.

Also, I do get rather cross when I see people on these forums berating the accuracy of some contributions and then promptly posting blunders of their own.

You and I both know that you can build a 750cc engine using model 7, 88 or 99 crankcases and an 89mm stroke crankshaft.A couple of such motors have doing the classic racing circuits for a couple of years. It is just a question of getting a set of the right conrods. They are actually available now if you checkout some of the specialist part ads in Old Bike Mart. Paul Dunstall was performing similar tricks, in the early 70s,by turning 650 engines into 810cc beasts long before Norton built their own 850s. No rocket science required!!! Just a few special parts and some simple engineering.

Eugene Brolund on the BritBike Forum Website: "The crank diameter was also confirmed by Mike Bell, whose fully restored Nomad is on display in the National Motorcycle Museum in England. His is an earlier model with the 21" front wheel (later models used a 19" wheel), but in doing his research, he can confirm the crank dia. on the later Nomad engines"

Taken from this thread:

http://www.britbike.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=411817

Then we have Phil Hannam from earlier in this thread "My old friend, Mike Bell, has rebuilt a considerable number of Nomads but says he has not come across any with the larger journal crankshafts."

The above is typical of what Hannam, Dixon and Brolund do, and in fact is all they have ever done, run around in circles claiming "he said, she said" while at the same time offering no actual information or documentation.

Anyone that knows anything about Dunstall Nortons will know that Dunstall offered an 810 cylinder to fit on 750 Nortons. And they should also know that 650 and 750 Nortons have a different base bolt patttern and are not interchangeable.

Also Phil, the original debate for this very, very sad thread was Brolund's claim that his 1960 Nomad came from the FACTORY with 1.75" rod Journals, not what someone can do today with custom parts.

If you recall in one of your past emails to me, I showed you that you could not reliably remember facts. You stated that your friends used to make 500cc Norton engines by offset grinding 750 Norton cranks down to accept 1.625" Triumph rods. I responded as below and you agreed your memory was no good on such details:

" If a 750 Norton crank with 1.75" crankpins was offset ground down to 1.625" crankpins, that would only move the centerline of the crankpin about 1.6mm closer to the crank centerline, decreasing the stroke to only 85.8mm, which with a 68mm bore would give 622cc displacement.

The wall on the crankpin of the 89mm stroke 750 Norton crankshaft is only 3.8" thick. If someone tried to offset grind an 89mm crank down to 68mm using a 1.625 crankpin diameter the top of the rod journal would have to move .4745" closer to the crank centerline, which would grind completely through the rod journal wall by one tenth of an inch leaving a large hole in the top of the journal."

Then there is the instance where in one of your Peter Roydhouse letters he states "The so called International to Racing specification beloved by classic bike exhibitors are a myth of their creators." which looks like a mistake on his part because in Mick Woollett's book it shows a piece of factory literature which shows an International to Racing Specification. Mr. Hannam took the Roydhouse letter to "I tookPeter's letter to my local NOC monthly meet-up last night and asked for opinions ". At that meeting Hannam and his buddies decided not to take the Roydhouse letter literally, but instead they agreed upon and assigned their own interpretation to it, which was "that Peter was alluding to the common practice, by exhibitors,of displaying bikes that have an appearance of being 'special' in 'historic' terms but are all too often nothing of the sort. ie. 'imposters" So not only is Phil Hannam incapable of remembering his own experiences with Norton motorcycles, he is taking the written notes of Peter Roydhouse and assigning other meanings to them than are literal. It would be nice of Eugene Brolund, Phil Hannam and Anna Dixon would simply post or link to the information they claim they have found so that people could look at it for themselves instead of just hearing their incompetent interpretations and opinions on what they allege. But this has never been the case, and all they have ever supplied is incompetent opinions and hearsay. So we are still waiting to be shown some real information on Norton Nomad cranks other than the easily accessed factory parts lists and repair manuals that all agree that Norton Model 99 Nomad Scramblers came with the exact same 1.5" rod journal crankshafts which Model 99 Roadsters were supplied with. Until someone comes up with something besides more opinions and fantasy, please let this farce of a thread die the death it deserves.....!

This has been a rather boring read. Put it together and make it run. Restorations don't interest me much. I buy anything Norton I find and make working bikes. Solid and dependable. If the parts go together, look goodand do the job, I am impressed.

Eugene,

What you and Phil Hannam have e-mailed, said and posted on Norton and British Bike forums is far from pointless, as in the end any literate persons can look at it and see how you and others all contradict yourselves, sometimes in the same sentence and diss-prove your own statements. Below, from one of Phil Hannam's emails which unlike you I will gladly forward to anyone who wants to read it in it's entirety:

"The Domiracer definitely used 1.75" crankpins and my notes from John Hudson mention this as a follow-on development from the 1959 88 Nomad which was produced in very small numbers. He does not specifically mention the 99 Nomad but it would make sense for both engines to share the same big ends and conrods.

I will contiue to dig deeper, as time permits, and get back to you whenI have more news.

Regards

Phil Hannam"

Hannam admits here that Hudson "does not specifically mention the 99 Nomad", but says that "it would make sense", which is just one more example of how he can not keep his own opinions separate from facts and reality. I am very sure that notes and quotes form John Hudson and Peter Roydhouse can be very useful and important documents in the role of Norton history, and it is a shame that people like Brolund and Hannam twist what they say to their own ends and put words into their mouths.

Eugene Brolund never produces any real information, he merely says he has things and has been told things but never shows anyone. If anyone points out his lack of facts and his contradictions then he side-steps the issue by crying about how he is being personally attacked. He has claimed I have made libelous comments about him, when all I have ever asked is for him to do is to back up what he says with documentation or facts or anything credible at all, which he has never done.

Eugene Brolund, Phil Hannam and others have done real damage to the history of Norton motorcycles with their unfounded hearsay and opinion.

This entire thread was a disgrace from the start and should have been deleted at once by the moderator and Brolund should have been at least issued a warning for starting it. It still SHOULD be deleted and a thread on Norton Nomads containing only facts and documentation should be started.

Previously wrote:

Eugene,

What you and Phil Hannam have e-mailed, said and posted on Norton and British Bike forums is far from pointless, as in the end any literate persons can look at it and see how you and others all contradict yourselves, sometimes in the same sentence and diss-prove your own statements. Below, from one of Phil Hannam's emails which unlike you I will gladly forward to anyone who wants to read it in it's entirety:

"The Domiracer definitely used 1.75" crankpins and my notes from John Hudson mention this as a follow-on development from the 1959 88 Nomad which was produced in very small numbers. He does not specifically mention the 99 Nomad but it would make sense for both engines to share the same big ends and conrods.

I will contiue to dig deeper, as time permits, and get back to you whenI have more news.

Regards

Phil Hannam"

Hannam admits here that Hudson "does not specifically mention the 99 Nomad", but says that "it would make sense", which is just one more example of how he can not keep his own opinions separate from facts and reality. I am very sure that notes and quotes form John Hudson and Peter Roydhouse can be very useful and important documents in the role of Norton history, and it is a shame that people like Brolund and Hannam twist what they say to their own ends and put words into their mouths.

Eugene Brolund never produces any real information, he merely says he has things and has been told things but never shows anyone. If anyone points out his lack of facts and his contradictions then he side-steps the issue by crying about how he is being personally attacked. He has claimed I have made libelous comments about him, when all I have ever asked is for him to do is to back up what he says with documentation or facts or anything credible at all, which he has never done.

Eugene Brolund, Phil Hannam and others have done real damage to the history of Norton motorcycles with their unfounded hearsay and opinion.

This entire thread was a disgrace from the start and should have been deleted at once by the moderator and Brolund should have been at least issued a warning for starting it. It still SHOULD be deleted and a thread on Norton Nomads containing only facts and documentation should be started.

Hello Ben Well I have been taking to men who worked in experimental workshop just this week end at The Footman James Classic Motorcycle Show at Birmingham NEC. and they tell me that Doug Hele Did a lot of work on short stoke engines and even a short stroke 650 in a unit construction in 1959 and from 1958 worked on domi racer 500cc twin short stroke engines with large 1.75 crankshafts . So I have To Disagree with you this time . you do not know everything. and one must have a open mine . and do the research ! Yours Anna J

Previously wrote:

Anna, this thread deals with a production bike, not works racers. It is common knowledge that the racing shop put some cranks in road-racing twins that had larger than stock rod journals, but probably in no more than a dozen bikes with spares.

The Nomad was a regular production machine, with 180+ sold on the USA West Coast alone, and more sold in the east and in Canada. The Nomad engines had regular engine shop numbers stamped into them along with all the other Model 99 600cc engines.

In 1962 and earlier, when Norton started production of a new engine, it would start the engine shop number at "1" and go on indefinitely. This is why when the first 650 Manxman bikes were kicked out of the crib around November 1960, the engine shop numbers are very low like the one I have here stamped #2, and also the 1962 Atlas cases I have that are Stamped "2". At the same time Norton was putting these very low numbers on the new 650/750 engines, the engine shop numbers on the 500cc and 600cc twins was up in the thousands, as they had been in production for quite a number of years at that point and had each taken their turn being the flagship of the fleet.

Lastly, if Mr. Brolund wants to measure the stroke of a crankshaft, it can be done in 30 seconds with a 2-3" micrometer or dial/vernier caliper. After one of the crank throws is off, push either one of the .500" flywheel dowels, or a .500" drill bit shank or other .500" precision metal rod into the dowel hole of the crankshaft half so that it pokes through parallel with the rod journal.

Measure from the outside of the dowel to the outside of the rod journal. The measurement you get will be half the actual stroke+half the diameter of the flywheel dowel(.5&quot+ half the diameter of the rod journal(.875" for a 1.75" journal, .750" for a 1.5" rod journal). I did this both with an 89mm stroke Atlas style crank, and a generator-style Model 99 crank and got a measurement of within a few thousandths of an inch of what I should have got, confirming my measurements. So it is a very accurate method that will easily show the roughly 1/8" difference in the throw between a 600cc crank, and the later 650/750cc crankshafts.....and certainly the roughly 1.4" difference in their strokes. Knife-edges, lathes and other fancy and complicated maneuvers are not neccessary at all......

hello your Norton manxman was the 3rd built as the first one was taken of the line and then put right and later stamp marked number 7 . I have all the Factory Numbers for the Norton Manxman's and there were 668 built a limited number . yours Anna j Dixon

I am rather put in mind of some extended and vitriolic correspondence regarding the correct background colour for the number plate of a restored Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway steam locomotove. Should it be red or black? Grainy black and white photographs were brandished as evidence. Lifelong friends parted acrimoniously. So trivial and utterly insignificant compared to the glorious restoration of the locomotive. How sad we all think.

I do hope we are not gaily trotting down a similar road...