16H sidecar gearing/gearbox

Hi Mark,

I'm not sure if you have seen this page before but I found it extremely helpful when trying to work out which gearing to put back in a Dolls Head gearbox when I had a couple of disassembled ones. Also gives sprocket sizes. Can't help you with your box ID. http://www.wdnorton.nl/Gearbox%20and%20Transmission.htm

Regards Glenn

Previously wrote:

Hi Mark,

I'm not sure if you have seen this page before but I found it extremely helpful when trying to work out which gearing to put back in a Dolls Head gearbox when I had a couple of disassembled ones. Also gives sprocket sizes. Can't help you with your box ID. http://www.wdnorton.nl/Gearbox%20and%20Transmission.htm

Regards Glenn

Hi Glenn,

Many thanks, yes this is the article on which I've based my estimates. Is there anybody out there with a sidecar and 16H who has used these raios in practice. It seems 2 teeth down from solo is the general view?

All the best,

Mark

Previously wrote:

Hi Mark,

Looks like you have the totally correct gearbox for your 16h of 1934 which is the 4 speed, hand change Sturmey/Archer. You are very lucky as most owners have changed to the later Dolls Head gearbox which came out in 1935, made for Norton's by Burman and available in their thousands from the WD16H version. My ES2 lost its 4 speed, foot change Sturmey Archer gearbox in the 1950's and they are very rare beasts; basically if they become available they get snapped up by B* S* owners.

Regards Derek A.

Previously wrote:

I can't help from experience but have come across a number of references which suggest 17t engine and standard (19t) for the gearbox for sidecar work but there are of course a lot of variables such as type of chair, load carried and the area that you live in.

There is a world of difference between a sports chair on a lightweight chassis used for Sunday runs in Norfolk and a bike hauling a loaded large passenger sidecar in the Pennines.

There is also the distinct possibility that if performance had been tailing off, a smaller sprocket was fitted to maintain the hill climbing. The standard 'Doll's Head' is pretty good from third to top but there is a hell of a gap from second to third that a previous owner may have found inconvenient if he was running out of torque.

If it was me, I'd give it a try. RGM can supply engine sprockets in a range of sizes.

<!-- /* Font Definitions */@font-face{font-family:Times;panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;mso-font-charset:0;mso-generic-font-family:auto;mso-font-pitch:variable;mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}@font-face{font-family:Cambria;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;mso-font-charset:0;mso-generic-font-family:auto;mso-font-pitch:variable;mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal{mso-style-parent:"";margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}p{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ascii-font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}@page Section1{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;mso-header-margin:36.0pt;mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;mso-paper-source:0;}div.Section1{page:Section1;}-->

HiRichard,

Thanksfor that - your information confirms what I've heard so I think I'll go for a20 tooth engine sprocket to go with the 16 tooth gearbox sprocket which shouldachieve the same result.

Incidentally,apologies - I've realised that I never replied to your message a month or twoago re. the possibility of fitting a model 19 engine. Here are a couple ofphotos looking underneath the tank - does it look as if there would beclearance for a longer engine? I'm loath to source a new tank as mine is sowell finished.

Manythanks, Mark

Well since we have wandered on to the subject of tanks what do you make of mine ? This tank is fitted onto my 1938 ES2 at the moment and is a panel tank. It has had repairs at some stage although I reckon both cut outs look like they were there originally. One side is flat with the half circle cut out bit like Mark's, but the other side has the long cut out to clear top of rocker cover. You will notice that I have the tank sitting on quite high rubbers (from car suspension and steering) so the flat side doesn't foul the decompression lever. As it is it is still fouling the knurled adjuster. Even without the decompression bit there it still wouldn't clear rocker cover on that side to allow use of normal rubbers.

Now what do you suppose the half circle cut out is supposed to be for. Surely it is not there only for the speedo trip as in Mark's picture. Mine doesn't seem to line up with anything properly though. Even if tank was sitting down further it would be to far back for the decompression arm. Just seems to be in wrong place for anything useful.

These photos should show you that a flat bottom tank wont fit a OHV engine properly though. Mine is jacked up that high to clear on that left hand side that the clearance between bottom of handlebar mount and panel top is minimal.

Can't work out how to attach more than one photo so will attach in other replys to follow.

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

Previously wrote:

Well since we have wandered on to the subject of tanks what do you make of mine ? This tank is fitted onto my 1938 ES2 at the moment and is a panel tank. It has had repairs at some stage although I reckon both cut outs look like they were there originally. One side is flat with the half circle cut out bit like Mark's, but the other side has the long cut out to clear top of rocker cover. You will notice that I have the tank sitting on quite high rubbers (from car suspension and steering) so the flat side doesn't foul the decompression lever. As it is it is still fouling the knurled adjuster. Even without the decompression bit there it still wouldn't clear rocker cover on that side to allow use of normal rubbers.

Now what do you suppose the half circle cut out is supposed to be for. Surely it is not there only for the speedo trip as in Mark's picture. Mine doesn't seem to line up with anything properly though. Even if tank was sitting down further it would be to far back for the decompression arm. Just seems to be in wrong place for anything useful.

These photos should show you that a flat bottom tank wont fit a OHV engine properly though. Mine is jacked up that high to clear on that left hand side that the clearance between bottom of handlebar mount and panel top is minimal.

Can't work out how to attach more than one photo so will attach in other replys to follow.

Hi Glen,

Sorry, I'm still pretty new to Norton singles so not qualified to answer your queries though share your confusion. I had previously read and heard that the 16H, ES2 and 18 all shared the same panel tank and the 19 and OHCs used one with a deeper cut-out: I'm gutted if this isn't the case, (as Richards suggests) as my plan B was to replace my 16H engine with a 500 ohv...

Any thoughts, experts? Maybe we should start a new discussion strand?

Regards,

Mark

P.S. Despite you raising your tank with extra rubbers, it still looks correct, unlike some examples I've seen...I hate it when the horizontal line of tank and seat is wrong, as I'm sure would the original designers.