A Manxman

Howard. To my mind, a 140 mile range is plenty for a vertical twin; in fact, most bikes. The rider would welcome the pit stop. This is normal range for many modern bikes, including my ex Yamaha Fazer 1000, which was actually quite a good tourer; and cruiser. I was nonetheless glad to dismount after 130-140 miles, which relates to 2-3 hours continuous riding. Anna describes the Manxman as a fast cruiser (in it's day), not a long range tourer, so her description is perfectly valid. As for the 'bar height, she has got one, so she should know.

What are those containers on Ann Margret and Bobby Rydell's bikes, then? Do share, as you obviously know what they are not!

Previously howard_robinson wrote:

Previously anna jeannette Dixon wrote:

Previously howard_robinson wrote:

Looks very much like an IED to me, which would have indirectly help to control emissions - by destroying 8said machine......Fast Cruiser indeed ? only if you calculate the average speed on a Manxman by detucting the time taken for the very frequent fuel stops. Should we now have a separate Message title for Manxman - then Dominator 88. 99 and 650SS people wouldn't have to read such garbage ?....Howard

Hello now witch part is garbage the bit were you put we should have separate messages ,and how would you know about the Norton Manxman if you not ridden one there just has fast has the 650ss if not faster and they did win many races in there day just because it got 8inch high bars dose not retract any speed for the machinewell you would not know this having not ridden one, and if you do not like them you do not have to read the threads the only garbage is what you put in your thread and for you information theManxman 650 will do 140 miles to a tank full there should afuel station with in this distance , I love the machine has its a bit different too the rest , now safe riding have fun yours anna j ladyNorton Manxman 650 owner

Dear Manx Maid, You clearly have no concept of drag which is more commonly known as air resistance. When I say 'garbage' it mostly refers to the inane statements you make on the message boards. I realise that you probably have good intentions but a lot of what you write is just your opinions and not based on any scientific fact. The definition of 'garbage' for your future reference is as follows; in general - worthless, useless or unwanted matter ; and in computing circles -invalid data . Please think before you write. Ride carefully, Howard

Previously ian_cordes wrote:

Howard. To my mind, a 140 mile range is plenty for a vertical twin; in fact, most bikes. The rider would welcome the pit stop. This is normal range for many modern bikes, including my ex Yamaha Fazer 1000, which was actually quite a good tourer; and cruiser. I was nonetheless glad to dismount after 130-140 miles, which relates to 2-3 hours continuous riding. Anna describes the Manxman as a fast cruiser (in it's day), not a long range tourer, so her description is perfectly valid. As for the 'bar height, she has got one, so she should know.

What are those containers on Ann Margret and Bobby Rydell's bikes, then? Do share, as you obviously know what they are not!

Ian - It seems that I may have to hold my arms up in submission. To return 56mpg in 'fast cruising mode' on a standard Manxman is no mean feat. Morover it astonishes me because on my own lighter , more streamlined Mercury with a meagre 47 bhp on tap I cannot match that. Similarly on my 650SS riding briskly (over 70mph) but no where near flat-out, I barely get 40mpg. I have an image of the ManxMaid sat bolt upright at 80mph hanging on to those ridiculous handle-bars, being forced by the wind to stretch out, like someone being newly introduced to the Spanish Inquisition, face distorted but managing to stay like that for two hours until the required fuel stop. Fortunately it is a dream - it cannot happen. Your figure of 56mph does seem like the sort of nonsensical figure that a manufacturer would proclaim following unrealistic testing at constant throttle openings at somewhere like the MIRA speed track. Certainly not on a road with other users and not with handlebars that reduce one's ability to control the bike the faster one rides. If the figure is correct, in spite of my misgivings, then I have to assume that the "secret device" under the gas tank to which you allude is in fact a powerful suction device. There must be a complementary nozzle somewhere under the engine - then as the bike advances over the road, oils and paraffins are sucked from the Tarmac and readily converted to hydrocarbons and alkanes for input as supplementary fuels into the carb. More likely however is that as the bike was designed for the female of our species, to ride up and down the Boulevard in LA, it's for her lipstick, eye-liner and hairbrush. This is the last I shall contribute to this thread. Cheers and ride carefully . Howard

I have rebuilt two 650 Nortons in the last 15 years. The first was a proper 650SS with twin Amal 376 carbs. It always drank fuel and I never bettered 45mpg unless I pushed it.

My more recently rebuilt 650SS actually has a genuine Manxman 650 Motor, shop number 430, residing inside its frame. This has now covered over 1000 miles using the same single 930 Concentric as fitted to a Mercury.

On the run up and back to the Cafe Race Bike day, I covered 150 miles and used 12 Litres of fuel. So around 56 mpg. I cruised at 65mph and was expecting at least 60mpg. My old Atlas had the same single carb set-up and easily achieved 60 plus mpg fast cruising on a motorway between 65 and 70 mph.

This conversation has in the most part stayed very well on message - well done chaps! It has however become rather long and I am terminating it here.

Please feel free to continue with a new thread if necessary and I will set up a link.

Webmaster