Technical specifications

Raphael,

I would suggest that the early bikes were subject to a different test regime (SVA) in the UK. The current bikes have to comply with international standards including catalytic converters which would change power charachteristics and also the fitting of exhaust sensors (LAMDA) may change power and torque curves.

Dont know why the wheelbase would change though!

David

Previously raphael_vonaesch wrote:

To direct the focus in this forum a bit more on technical issues again, I have a simple question:Can NORTON or anyone else explain why they recently changed the technical specifications compared to the ones published first?Below one can see the differences (in brackets are the values of first publication):Dry weight: 205 kg / 452 lbs (188 kg / 414.5 lbs)Wheelbase: 1423 mm (1420 mm)Power: 80PS @ 7700RPM (80PS @ 6500RPM)Torque: 80Nm @ 6000RPM (90Nm @ 5200RPM)Have there been any modifications for the U.S. market (17 kg more weight, less torque...)?By the way, fuel tank capacity is a bit above 13 litres and not the stated 17 litres...Raphael

Hi Raphael,

regarding specs and weight, I can only see the bikes hold 17litres as being a coward I always fill up ASAP when the light comes up! Normally with about 10 litres so it could be right they only hold 13 litres. My bike does about 50 mpg. That leaves the 4 litres in reserve.? With regard to the weight when I last spoke to the factory mark fisher, I queried the weight change and he said all the makers had been given a different criteria in arriving at these figures. Funny thing when it went up from 188kg it felt heavier getting it the out the garage! The old weight and specs seem to have been given to the SF model. I shall have to phone and find out. Hoping to visit the factory soon as a friend of mine rode my bike as he is thinking of having one, loved it to bits and wants to go and order one!

thanks. Clive W illis

I manage to average about 130 miles between low fuel warning lights. A top up of fuel then being 11 to 12L. I have never chanced going more than 20 miles after the light appears. The tank looks huge but obviously does not hold much (if any) fuel. For long trips an extra 5L would be really handy.

The bike always appears very heavy to manoeuvre but some of this can be put down to binding of the disk brakes.

Has anyone else got a speedo that says your doing 80mph while hoards of grannies in Micras are passing by on the inside?

Previously Phil Hannam wrote:

I manage to average about 130 miles between low fuel warning lights. A top up of fuel then being 11 to 12L. I have never chanced going more than 20 miles after the light appears. The tank looks huge but obviously does not hold much (if any) fuel. For long trips an extra 5L would be really handy.

The bike always appears very heavy to manoeuvre but some of this can be put down to binding of the disk brakes.

Has anyone else got a speedo that says your doing 80mph while hoards of grannies in Micras are passing by on the inside?

Phil,

your pads should not be binding on the discs so as to affect moving the bike around, my bikes are all around 190-200 kg and the 961 feels by far the lightest to push around but that might be down to weight distribution.

There was a time when I got passed by very little, generally faster bikes with braver pilots I'm still fast on the road maybe a little slower but not much, however smaller cars are easier to drive fast and all too often I back off in case the car coming up on me is the law only to be passed at a ton by a 19 girl driving a Corsa etc..

Sign of the times ! ride fast ride safe.

Previously raphael_vonaesch wrote:

To direct the focus in this forum a bit more on technical issues again, I have a simple question:Can NORTON or anyone else explain why they recently changed the technical specifications compared to the ones published first?Below one can see the differences (in brackets are the values of first publication):Dry weight: 205 kg / 452 lbs(188 kg / 414.5 lbs)Wheelbase: 1423 mm (1420 mm)Power: 80PS @ 7700RPM(80PS @ 6500RPM)Torque: 80Nm @ 6000RPM(90Nm @ 5200RPM)Have there been any modifications for the U.S. market (17 kg more weight, less torque...)?By the way, fuel tank capacity is a bit above 13 litres and not the stated 17 litres...Raphael

Interesting!

That's a 9% increase in the dry mass of the machine, coupled with an 11% reduction in torque.

A rather unwelcome double whammy!

Iwonder what the all up weight of the bike is with a gallon of fuel?

Would be good to know whether the power figures are measured at the crankshaft or at the rear wheel.

Can someone please tell me what engine speed the 961 redlines at?

And yes, I am still interested in possibly buying one as second handprices seem to have fallen a bit, to a level I would begin to regard as afffordable - if the bike proved reliable.

Just asking....!

Hold on a moment....

Raphael - where did your figures come from please?

Just had a look at the Norton website and it seems to be still quoting the power and torque figures (and engine speed) which you describe as "published first"

Where/when did you see different data please?

Thanks very much.

Charles