88 Frame

Sounds like someone has modified it to take an Inter or Manx engine which is taller and needs the clearance on the top rail. Just a guess on my part.

It's 60 years old; no knowing what engine might have been bolted in. Does it matter?

Sounds more like an ES2/Model50 frame with 88 numbers. Could be someone has substituted the frame after an incident in the past & altered the numbers or could possibly have left the factory like that. To flatten the top tube neatly after assembly would be quite difficult to make it look right, does it look like a factory job, or something done by a previous owner? Do the numbers look correct? As Alan says, at 60 years old, it's difficult to be sure about anything. I once had a Model 50 frame that carried Model 99 numbers untill I had it shot blasted, then the original numbers were revealed. Someone had skimmed over the original number with filler, then scratched the number they wanted it to show into the filler. With a few old coats of paint, it looked perfectly acceptable. As it was being used to build a Triton, it didn't matter too much, but might have proved embarrasing in different circumstances.

Just another thought, wouldn't a 54 frame have the bolt on rear sub-frame?

Regards, Tim

Sounds more like an ES2/Model50 frame with 88 numbers. Could be someone has substituted the frame after an incident in the past & altered the numbers or could possibly have left the factory like that. To flatten the top tube neatly after assembly would be quite difficult to make it look right, does it look like a factory job, or something done by a previous owner? Do the numbers look correct? As Alan says, at 60 years old, it's difficult to be sure about anything. I once had a Model 50 frame that carried Model 99 numbers untill I had it shot blasted, then the original numbers were revealed. Someone had skimmed over the original number with filler, then scratched the number they wanted it to show into the filler. With a few old coats of paint, it looked perfectly acceptable. As it was being used to build a Triton, it didn't matter too much, but might have proved embarrasing in different circumstances.

Just another thought, wouldn't a 54 frame have the bolt on rear sub-frame?

Regards, Tim

Bolt Up sub-frames where made up to September 1954 after this they where all welded jobs and the Stamp marks there should be at the top going across the number 122 then going down the the number started at something like 55xxx or 56xxx My bike 575XX yours anna j

This looks to me like a Dominator frame that has been modified to accept a single engine. Doing it the other way is rather easier!

Well done on keeping it all Norton Mark.

In fact you don't need the flat in the top right hand frame rail on the wideline on the model 50 or ES2. In fact my 99 slimline framed model 50 doesn't need one either. BUT it is advisable to have the flat when fitting an ES2 engine into a slimline, as I found. To do this job properly you need to make a jig to keep the shape of the outer rail. Yes, the flat can be made later to factory spec as on my 650 framed ES2.

Thanks again everyone. I mustsay that it's not my project but belongs to a couple of friends, Hawthorne & Beauchamps M/C and that I'd ask a few questions on their behalf until the membership details came through.(I suggested they become a member of NOC which they now have so will possibly take over the thread or start new ones). What do you make of the front bracket for the engine plates as I'd not seen them on the front cross tube before.TIA

Well to me it looks like some one has modified the frame to fit a over head camshaft motor like a Inter or even a Manx motor but abandoned the idea

but the best motor to fit in a feathered frame is a Z650 Kawasaki engine with four in to two pipes the Kawasaki motor are tough motor and I know them to do 100.000 mile with out any trouble. I had Kaws good bike shame about the handling but you do get use to the handling . but in a featheredbed they be a good caferacer or a good all-rounder bike , the other interesting engine is a Yamaha TDM and TRX 850twin with its 270 crank just like the 961 motor but better . its DOHC motor and not push rod motor. and the best way of fitting these motor is to have engine plates made that fit under the motor from front to back and fit the frame like in one go. your anna j

Know anyone has fitted trixie engine in featherbed, Anna

Know anyone has fitted trixie engine in featherbed, Anna

my number around in the web site . yours Anna J

Previously ajnna jeannette Dixon wrote:

Previously mark_savage wrote:

Thanks again everyone. I mustsay that it's not my project but belongs to a couple of friends, Hawthorne & Beauchamps M/C and that I'd ask a few questions on their behalf until the membership details came through.(I suggested they become a member of NOC which they now have so will possibly take over the thread or start new ones). What do you make of the front bracket for the engine plates as I'd not seen them on the front cross tube before.TIA

Well to me it looks like some one has modified the frame to fit a over head camshaft motor like a Inter or even a Manx motor but abandoned the idea

but the best motor to fit in a feathered frame is a Z650 Kawasaki engine with four in to two pipes the Kawasaki motor are tough motor and I know them to do 100.000 mile with out any trouble. I had Kaws good bike shame about the handling but you do get use to the handling . but in a featheredbed they be a good caferacer or a good all-rounder bike , the other interesting engine is a Yamaha TRX850twin with its 270 crank just like the 961 motor but better . its DOHC motor and not push rod motor. and the best way of fitting these motor is to have engine plates made that fit under the motor from front to back and fit the frame like in one go. your anna j

There will be a Norton 88 Engine going in.....of all things.

Anna J

Thanks Anna but no thanks, if I wanted to fit an outdated Japanese engine I'd have joined one of those cafe racer sites filled with bobbers (whatever they are). I want a Norton and this being the NOC site perhaps that might be fairly self evident. Why don't you do what you're suggesting with your Manxman? I feel you're hijacking this thread.

I don't believe that the frame has been altered in the past as the flat in the top right-hand tube is identical to every other Featherbed I've seen with this detail. The frames I have seen which have been altered are usually cut and a section welded in as pressing a flat would prove quite difficult to do without distorting the tube.The frame number does look original as there's no sign of over-stamping or grinding and re-stamping, also the the patina of pitting over the surface of the gusset is uniform. The gusset is back to bare metalThe front engine mounting lugs do appear to be original in that they're stamped rather than cut out and filed. There is also no sign that any wider lugs have been removed in the past. My theory is that for some reason, perhaps a supply issue, Norton ran out of twin frames and simply spaced the front engine plates in order to use the otherwise identical frame for heavy twin production. It wouldn't be the first time I've heard of such an expedient being used within the motor industry after all.I'm sure I've come across other twins in the past bearing the redundant flat but the front lugs are still a bit of a mystery.

Sophie, My 650 slimline framed ES2 has a flat. It was put in by a mate who made a jig to make the flat to exact factory specification. How do you think Norton / Reynolds did it?

But as said before, although the wideline singles came with the flat in the R/H top rail ; it really isn't necessary on the model 50 and ES2and so the OHC idea makes sense.

Stick with your 88 project and AJD, disappointed in you suggesting an oriental motor in a Norton frame. Bad enough seeing so many Triumphs in them!

I'll eventually get to the bottom of the mystery Neil. Being a historian I just enjoy digging that little deeper particularly when there appears to be an anomaly of some sort. Of course I'm aware that it's not impossible to recreate a flat to the same spec as Reynolds but in my experience not many people do go to the trouble of making a jig for a one off job... obviously. Funny you should mention that the flat isn't necessary to fit the ES2 or Model 50. I was aware that it was a modification to clear the bolt on the cammy motors. It's also odd the number of frames I've come across over the years which do have the flat. One always thinks of Manxs and cammy Inters as relatively rare.I do suspect the frame has been raced in the past as there are signs that a front fairing mount had been welded onto the steering head and later removed. I have to admit that it's a pleasant thought that at sometime my chassis may have been racing with a Manx engine. I had my first sit on a genuine Manx which will be racing at the Classic TT this year. Very evocative for someone who is a Norton enthusiast.I want this bike to stay as 'Norton' as possible and agree that there are too many bitsas running around. Some of them aren't too bad, the pre unit Triumph motors don't seem bad but as I say, I'm a Norton enthusiast which is why I'm here.

Previously Sophie Hawthorne wrote:

Funny you should mention that the flat isn't necessary to fit the ES2 or Model 50. I was aware that it was a modification to clear the bolt on the cammy motors. It's also odd the number of frames I've come across over the years which do have the flat. One always thinks of Manxs and cammy Inters as relatively rare.

All featherbeds intended for a single engine had the top tube flattened out but as Neil rightly points out, for model 50's & ES2's it's not necessary. They also all had the front engine mounts as your photo's show. If your frame looks that original, & I'm sure if it had been modified there would at least be some evidence in the welding & fabrication of the engine mounting lugs, it most probably was built as a single frame. How it comes to wear model 88 numbers may always remain a mystery. Ignor advice to the contrary & build it with your 88 motor & enjoy the thing, numbers & detail changes don't make a whole heap of difference when you're riding it down the road with a big grin on your face.

Regards, Tim

The first thing that I'd do would be to contact Dave Catton, the Club's twin-cylinder Records Officer. You'll need to do this at some stage anyway if a registration has to be applied for. He probably has more experience than anyone in assessing the originality of number stampings.

Although it's true that pre-war numbers were not always chronological, in my experience this does not apply to the post war 'matching numbers' machines.

The 'J' prefix frames (i.e. September 1953 - September 1954 / 1954 Model year) that I recall looking at have all had bolt-on subframes. A number as high as 60000 would seem to date from 1955 which would be more than three months after delivery of the 'K' prefix frames commenced.

Is there a date stamped on the head steady mounting lug ?

Sorry, I should have made it clear that all the singles frames, as far as I am aware came with a flat in the top R/H rail. This does help though with the slimline ES2 being 12mm taller.

Now, that top lug is very important, it was put there (I was told a long time ago) to help police identify the true number where identity is in doubt. Be careful with it and use a magnifying glass.

Thanks Anna but no thanks, if I wanted to fit an outdated Japanese engine I'd have joined one of those cafe racer sites filled with bobbers (whatever they are). I want a Norton and this being the NOC site perhaps that might be fairly self evident. Why don't you do what you're suggesting with your Manxman? I feel you're hijacking this thread.

well there is no point in fitting a Japanese motor in a motorcycle with matched engine and frame number , where as to a Restorer this frame is know as a dead frame its lost its origial engine so there for you can use just about any engine that will fit the frame, Or try to find a engine with the nearest number to the frame if you can but this frame has obviously been messed with by someone in the past, anyway good luck with your project . yours Anna J

I'll eventually get to the bottom of the mystery Neil. Being a historian I just enjoy digging that little deeper particularly when there appears to be an anomaly of some sort. Of course I'm aware that it's not impossible to recreate a flat to the same spec as Reynolds but in my experience not many people do go to the trouble of making a jig for a one off job... obviously. Funny you should mention that the flat isn't necessary to fit the ES2 or Model 50. I was aware that it was a modification to clear the bolt on the cammy motors. It's also odd the number of frames I've come across over the years which do have the flat. One always thinks of Manxs and cammy Inters as relatively rare.I do suspect the frame has been raced in the past as there are signs that a front fairing mount had been welded onto the steering head and later removed. I have to admit that it's a pleasant thought that at sometime my chassis may have been racing with a Manx engine. I had my first sit on a genuine Manx which will be racing at the Classic TT this year. Very evocative for someone who is a Norton enthusiast.I want this bike to stay as 'Norton' as possible and agree that there are too many bits-as running around. Some of them aren't too bad, the pre unit Triumph motors don't seem bad but as I say, I'm a Norton enthusiast which is why I'm here.

Well there a lots of bits -as in this club even the ones that look original as nuts&bolts and small parts have been changed over the years even my bikes have parts on them that where not there when they where first built. and As every one knows in the Club original part are hard to come by so you ether do one of three thing the first one its to go down the caferacer route the other is to try get good copies, or make part your self like I do.

So you will need some good luck with it all , Yours Anna J

No Anna, I will need the skills and knowledge I have acquired over 30 years of variously working in the motorcycle industry and ridding and racing cars and motorcycles... luck has nothing to do with it. In short, don't patronise.

Do you ever read the OP? I wasn't asking for silly musings on what engine you think would be best to fit or what style of motorcycle I should opt for. With the greatest respect could you please stop adding irrelevant comments, down right guesses and hijacking threads. And a word of advice, the forum does have a spell checker and may I suggest it is always a good idea to reread your comment with a view to it's intelagability and acuracy before posting in the same way as it's advisable to think before speaking.

I am wondering if the factory ever had a thought about putting a Model 19 engine in the Featherbed frame. Would this have required the flattening of the top tube? Has anyone done it?

Mike

I have to admit the Model 19 is a grand looking engine but I imagine it had been largely phased out in favour of the ES2 by the arrival of the Featherbed. I have been thinking in advance myself due to a project my small company will be embarking on shortly. I was in a friend's workshop which is littered with various JAP and Weslake speedway engines and started to wonder what a Featherbed fitted with one of these would be like. I'm tempted by the tunability and the long stroke of engines like the Model 19... you never know

Sophie, My 650 slimline framed ES2 has a flat. It was put in by a mate who made a jig to make the flat to exact factory specification. How do you think Norton / Reynolds did it?

But as said before, although the wideline singles came with the flat in the R/H top rail ; it really isn't necessary on the model 50 and ES2and so the OHC idea makes sense.

Stick with your 88 project and AJD, disappointed in you suggesting an oriental motor in a Norton frame. Bad enough seeing so many Triumphs in them!

How about a Rover V8 in a Featherbed frame Well I have seen one just like this and he did not have to cut the frame ether, How did He do it, I know how but you work it out, Yours Anna J

Previously Sophie Hawthorne wrote:

No Anna, I will need the skills and knowledge I have acquired over 30 years of variously working in the motorcycle industry and ridding and racing cars and motorcycles... luck has nothing to do with it. In short, don't patronise.

Do you ever read the OP? I wasn't asking for silly musings on what engine you think would be best to fit or what style of motorcycle I should opt for. With the greatest respect could you please stop adding irrelevant comments, down right guesses and hijacking threads. And a word of advice, the forum does have a spell checker and may I suggest it is always a good idea to reread your comment with a view to it's intelagability and acuracy before posting in the same way as it's advisable to think before speaking.

O M G, a few years back I purchased a slimline jobbie and requested info, which many offered in abundance, thanks to all, but during the replies period began a load of arguemnets and 'bitching' about who knew what and who was wrong or right.................... I am jusT asking another question now..... but reading this saga................... i see nothing has changed in the NOC................ J C, GIVE IT UP GIRLS . LIFES TOO BLOODY SHORT, DONT YOU KNOW.

Previously adrian_gidney wrote:

O M G, a few years back I purchased a slimline jobbie and requested info, which many offered in abundance, thanks to all, but during the replies period began a load of arguemnets and 'bitching' about who knew what and who was wrong or right.................... I am jusT asking another question now..... but reading this saga................... i see nothing has changed in the NOC................ J C, GIVE IT UP GIRLS . LIFES TOO BLOODY SHORT, DONT YOU KNOW.

Back tousing an iron head 88 motor.... They aresweet sounding, easily modifiedandlacknothingagainstan ally head once you up the compression a little. I ran atlasvalves, SS camandtwin 276s.A silent lamb with thehowl of awolf..

Hi Sophie - I'm generally with you on this as you clearly stated what engine you intend to use -but spellchecker?? "Pot, kettle, black"! You've put your foot in it there! "intelagability" ? You need to spellcheck it

To be fair - many people are dyslexic so, yes, they should use one before posting.

Good luck,

Lionel

Previously Sophie Hawthorne wrote:

No Anna, I will need the skills and knowledge I have acquired over 30 years of variously working in the motorcycle industry and ridding and racing cars and motorcycles... luck has nothing to do with it. In short, don't patronise.

Do you ever read the OP? I wasn't asking for silly musings on what engine you think would be best to fit or what style of motorcycle I should opt for. With the greatest respect could you please stop adding irrelevant comments, down right guesses and hijacking threads. And a word of advice, the forum does have a spell checker and may I suggest it is always a good idea to reread your comment with a view to it's intelagability and acuracy before posting in the same way as it's advisable to think before speaking.

And Lionel can I ask how your most helpful post takes my frame question forward? You and your supercilious ilk are, in actual fact, the reason why people like myself will not be renewing their subscription to possibly the worst run and most disorganised so called owner's club in the known world. You are pedantic enough to point out ONE typo in the posts I've made? Then to make a comparison to the village idiot. On that point I feel quite justified in telling you to 'Go forth and multiply' you sad little man. And please do hang onto your luck, you are likely to need it more than me.

Oddly enough , after putting up with having threads hijacked and to all intents and purposes ruined, I don't have time to proof read rebukes to idiots and socially inadequate keyboard warriors. Please be my guest and spend a little more of your empty little life rummaging through this comment for typos etc. Sad acts like you and Anna have exhausted my patients with an owner's club which would struggle to organise a party in a brewery. Access Norton has proved itself to be a far more friendly and constructive site and I think the NOC needs to sit up and take notice before it's reputation is ruined by witless idiots who have nothing better to do than post their sad little jibes on other people's requests for help.

You're an utter prat Lionel but, to be fair, you probably know that don't you? While we're on the subject, your grammar and punctuation is appalling.

It really is about time these forums were moderated and off topic, plain stupid or indeed offensive posts were deleted and the originators sanctioned. Oh and for god's sake get an up to date platform. We pay good money to join and therefore deserve a decent service. Okay, loosing me as a member might be no big deal but remember I won't be the only one... and people are talking.

Until my membership runs out I may or may not choose to post questions or enquiries. I would politely ask people to try to stick to the subject, refrain from telling me what I should or shouldn't do with or to my own bike unless that is what I've asked.

My apologies to all the sane, kind and helpful people here but I'm afraid it seems the rule in most groups that the idiots always seem to have the loudest voices. I have no wish to alienate some of the lovely people I've had the opportunity to meet in person but I'm afraid I'm not going to lie down and take some keyboard warrior making an ill considered comparison to the illiterate, unintelligible, inaccurate and often rude ramblings of Anna.

On the frame identification front, it's still a bit unclear but I'm now past caring as I've found that I can obtain and age related registration number and will probably inquire through the Vintage Motorcycle Club who I'm told have to actual factory records. The rest of the build is progressing fantastically well and should be finished sometime next summer. Thanks to those who genuinely tried to help. Sorry about the long post but it's long overdue voicing a few of the issues which, in my opinion, need to be dealt with before things become irretrievable.

Sophie, it is sad to see any member leave what is, for most of us ,an excellent club.

But, reading back through this thread, it seems that your contributions and those of AJD share much in common, namely a tendency to display petulance and to be offensive.

Good luck with your project.

PS There are excellent courses in anger management available

Webmaster, are you really going to leave that troll's post up here? Such a vitreolic, bile-spewing diatribe has no place on this fine forum. No contributors here deserve such offensive insults, made from the cowardly safety of an anonymous keyboard. While you are at it, maybe a block could be put on any further posts from that author, all of which have previously included content in the same vein, to a greater or lesser degree. Ian

The point you miss Charles is that while most people contribute to threads when they have something constructive to say there does seem to be a contingent hell bent on ruining the discussion with off topic posts which do seem calculated to annoy. Or perhaps it really is down to social ineptitude. You cannot ignore the fact that Anna constantly upsets people and puts others who might have useful information off posting. For your information AJD actually did something in public while in public, while manning the Norton Owner's Club stand at the Birmingham show which was beyond offensive. This upset my partner and if I hadn't been so shocked I may have reported the incident. I have nothing in common with Anna and am a member of quite a few motorcycle forums I can honestly say I have never had the issues on any of them that I've encountered here. Anna simply does not listen when people ask politely for her to stop spoiling threads and you must be aware of this. I could point out half a dozen threads in which other people have lost their temper. Take the 88 main bearings thread, A thread way before I paid to join this club. The OP tried politely to reason with AJD but the thread in the end descended into an argument. Did you seriously think after EVERY thread I have posted has been hijacked I was going to simply ignore such a supercilious comment form Lionel? My reactions have been just that, reactions to people wrecking my posts. How you can draw parallels between the way I behave and the behaviours of others beggars belief. Please do point out other people's threads on which I have posted silly off topic nonsense on. What I see within this club is the constant 'brushing under the carpet' of problems.

Okay Ian, as you are calling me a coward and a troll from behind your faceless profile, I will be at the Stafford Show on Saturday if you wish to take the issue up with me face to face. Anonymity generally means being faceless and nameless of which I am neither. And remember Ian, I paid my membership fees and have every right to post and be annoyed when threads are wrecked. I do not wreck other people's threads I'll be heading over to the NOC stand at the show to take up the issues and how annoyed I am in person. I do hope to see you there Ian but I suspect I won't. The truth is that it's you who is the coward and will not face up to the problems here.

To recap the issue... each time I post the thread is hijacked by AJD and a few others then filled with spurious nonsense which puts people with helpful information of posting. As evidence there are many threads on which the same has happened and others have been equally annoyed. I have, in fact met members in real life, that's not anonymously Ian, who have exactly the same problems. Perhaps instead of moaning about people bringing up issues it might be useful to address solutions. The truth is, while many very well run and happy forums are free we have to pay for this on and should therefore expect higher standards. Perhaps adding the ability to block individuals who disrupt threads might help.

Is she/he still here? Yawn......