Yet another laydown gearbox question

If you're building a 'Dommieracer' then it ought to be using a works-type lowboy frame and incorporating a seriously modified engine. Anything else would really simply be a Dominator-based racer.

Based on my understanding of what I've seen of the factory records, a J122 frame should have a gearbox prefixed 'GB8'

Once again, the club can confirm exactly which model your box was originally fitted to.

Critical thing is going to be the spacing of the engine plates. All the rest can be changed.

A '54 Dominator was one of the best looking machines Norton ever built. Restoring one to its original spec, would be a much more rewarding project than a pseudo racer. The correct gearbox should indeed, be prefixed GB8, but, as standard, is certainly not up to racing spec.

Previously John Shorter wrote:

A '54 Dominator was one of the best looking machines Norton ever built. Restoring one to its original spec, would be a much more rewarding project than a pseudo racer. The correct gearbox should indeed, be prefixed GB8, but, as standard, is certainly not up to racing spec.

well every one as there own appinion on that one , do not forget own and have rebuilt these machine form ground up. and ridden them too there not the most comfortable Norton that one thing I do know. and the power is limited and top speed 102 if your lucky . they have there good points and bad points there is no perfect bike ever built yet there just what you get us too this like all bikes you either love them or loathe them but its dose not mean the a bad bike too me a motorcycle as to have something that little bit different about them to all the rest like there little quirks and something that keeps you interested in them . but there not that bad a looking bike as motorcycles go they where more advanced in there day, and they where raced with a lot of success , my one sound more like a racing motor that all down to how it was rebuilt and what I done to this motor. But yes John I can see where your coming from on this one, the paint work not easy to match as there that many shades of this metallic grey , the one thing I do like about these early Norton are the D shape foot rest there nice on your feet that why I fitted a pair on the Manxman but these fold up made in stainless steel by me , with D shape Norton Rubber fittings My gearbox as a Semi-close ratio Cluster fitted there higher geared than a Standard machine the Racing 54 dominator model88 had pair Amal T15GP' s fitted with a 190 main jet , I still have a pair, And the rear sets and the race pipes and silencer . for a Dominator Model 88 1954. photo below a 1956 version of a racing Dominator , They had the same layout on earlier 500 racing twins right from 1953 yours anna j

Sophie I support your response - where did you get your relevant comments - was it another forum.

cheers

Dear Sophie,

I too am appalled at the way in which threads are high jacked by Anna. You asked for information on the laydown box, not an harangue about the evils of your proposal. Yes the true domiracer as ridden to third place in the IOM Senior TT differed internally and externally from anything you can do, although no doubt Anna could run one up in a trifle , but what the hell . Call it a ' Clubmans Dominator '. You could have specified a Manx tank, mudguards, rear sets etc in 1954, so why not now. In those days we regarded the original spec as a starting point for the imposition of our personal preferences, not as holy script.

On the subject of your original query, there are differences in length between mainshafts for singles and twins, both are available. I have a copy of an article by Bob Proudman which details differences, the singles shaft has clutch splines which start where the shaft from the sleeve gear, the dominator uses a longer shaft which protrudes by about 1/4 inches. overall lengths are 8 5/8 in. and 8 11/16 in. respectively. Differences in castings are trivial.

Hope that this helps.

I don't know - a Norton chopper/bobber has a certain ring to it!!

Previously Sophie Hawthorne wrote:

Hi Stuart, I did actually find the relevant information I needed here on the NOC forumI found it quite quickly after I realized I'd been spelling 'Laydown' as 'Laid Down'. Silly error but once corrected the requisite information revealed itself.As for the Dommiracer nomenclature I just, wrongly perhaps, assumed that grown ups would automatically realise I was using it in the widely accepted generic sense. So much for assumption as we all know what it is the mother of. I will keep any more posts I make absolutely to the point in order to keep the rivet counters happy.On the subject of the original Dommiracer which I coincidentally have just finished reading an article about in Classic Bike Guide. I may adopt a few of the more sensible modifications, with regard to road going motorcycles, like the idea of eccentric rocker shafts to facilitate valve clearance adjustment. Seems like an interesting project. I do disagree about the assumption that the works Dommiracer contains any engineering which I cannot replicate from what I've read. It would not be a quick or easy project but he sad truth is that money would be more of a restricting factor in my case than anything else. I am very tempted to build up a Lowboy chassis though.As for Anna, I don't want to get onto anyone's case but I have paid for membership of the NOC and I do find it soul destroying when so many threads which interest me greatly are almost always hijacked and ruined in the ensuing bickering. A joke or banter I have no issue with as I'm not entirely without a sense of humour but I do get annoyed by the way a spanner seems to drop into the works every time. Anna's contributions a quite often not only completely off topic as in the case of this thread but more often than not contradictory and plain wrong.I do have an issue with the way Anna spoke and acted with regard to my partner and I which was a shock as they were a representative of the NOC at the time staffing the NOC stand. The only other gripe, right or wrong, is that I find it patronising and rude to make comments on the plans I have for my own project. I could imagine eyebrows being raised if I'd asked advice on turning it into a chopper but I do not take kindly to the way certain comments were worded.

I do not want to alienate people but this is an owner's club forum not a private fiefdom

I think we all know what you mean! Very little useful or correct information comes from this source. It's annoying that so many threads are locked down to this persons comments.

JMc