Skip to main content
000000 000003 000006 000009 000012 000015 000018 000021 000024 000027 000030 000033 000036 000039 000042 000045 000048 000051 000054 000057 000060 000063 000066 000069 000072 000075 000078 000081 000084 000087 000090 000093 000096 000099 000102 000105 000108 000111 000114 000117 000120 000123 000126 000129 000132 000135 000138 000141 000144 000147 000150 000153 000156 000159 000162 000165 000168 000171 000174 000177 000180 000183 000186 000189 000192 000195 000198 000201 000204 000207 000210 000213 000216 000219 000222 000225 000228 000231 000234 000237 000240 000243 000246 000249 000252 000255 000258 000261 000264 000267 000270 000273 000276 000279 000282 000285 000288 000291 000294 000297 000300 000303 000306 000309 000312 000318 000321 000324 000327 000330 000333 000336 000339 000342 000345 000348 000351 000354 000357 000360 000363 000366 000369 000372 000375 000378 000381 000384 000387 000390 000393 000396 000399 000402 000405 000408 000411 000414 000417 000420 000423 000426 000429 000432 000435 000438 000441 000444 000447 000450 000453 000456 000459 000462 000465 000468 000471 000474 000477 000480 000483 000486 000489 000492 000495 000498 000501 000504 000507 000510 000513 000516 000519 000522 000525 000528 000531 000534 000537 000540 000543 000546 000549 000552 000555 000558 000561 000564 000567 000570 000573 000576 000579 000582 000585 000588 000591 000594 000597 000600 000603 000606 000609 000612 000615 000618 000621 000624 000627 000630 000633 000636 000639 000642 000645 000648 000651 000654 000657 000660 000663 000666 000669 000672 000675 000678 000681 000684 000687 000690 000693 000696 000699 000702 000705 000708 000711 000714 000717 000720 000723 000726 000729 000732 000735 000738 000741 000744 000747 000750 000753 000756 000759 000762 000765 000768 000771 000774 000777 000780 000783 000786 000789 000792 000795 000798 000801 000804 000807 000810 000813 000816 000819 000822 000825 000828 000831 000834 000837 000840 000843 000846 000849 000852 000855 000858 000861 000864 000867 000870 000873 000876 000879 000882
English French German Italian Spanish

BSA Triumph Conical Hub Brake Twin Leading Shoe adaption:

Hi,

Does anyone know whether the later 8" BSA/ Triumph Conical Hub Twin Leading shoe brake plate unit and shoes, can be adapted for a Dominator full width 8" drum?

Cheers

John

Permalink

Previously john_hall1 wrote:

Hi,

Does anyone know whether the later 8" BSA/ Triumph Conical Hub Twin Leading shoe brake plate unit and shoes, can be adapted for a Dominator full width 8" drum?

Cheers

John

I have a brake from a 1968 to 1970 Triumph/BSA on my 99. I've asked the fellow who made the mod if the conical one could be fitted as well. He fit one to his RE Interceptor. I'll let you know.

Bruce

Permalink

Unfortunately he is currently too busy to provide much of an answer but it doesn't sound good.

"I've looked at using the conical brake, but there was a snag which I can't fully recall. Seems to me that it was a clearance issue with the hub, or in arranging an abutment for the torque stop peg."

I might be able to get more out of him in a week or so....

Bruce

Permalink

The Tri/BSA conical hub brake didn't have a particularly great reputation. Not generally thought of as better than a Norton TLS setup. Is it worth the effort?

Permalink

I have one fitted to my BSA Triple, many owners of these bikes upgrade them to a disc setup but I wanted to keep the 'authentic' look of the bike. When purchased the comical front brake had very little retarding affect (downright scary!). I changed the brake linings, had the drums skimmed and fitted 'Mutz-Nutz' brake arm extenders. After careful set-up the brake actually works quite well. Opinion is that the earlier BSA/Triumph full-width TLS of the late '60s was a much better brake - better than the Norton TLS design fitted to the early Commandos.

Permalink

Found some Brake tests in which the Conical hub comes out quite well, with an equal rating to the 1968-1970 BSA Triumph brake, only Moto Guzzi V7 , Benelli Tornado, Suzuki GT's and Harley Davidson twin drums fairing better, except for exotic stuff, 10 inch drums, Fontana, Ceriani, Grimeca, Oldani & Yamaha Race drums, often which are 4 shoe units!

The Commando unit rates much lower down, plus anything designed that needs a stiffening plate means essentially something inherent in the initial design must be inadequate.

People in the UK make silly rhymes up and believe this as truth! In most cases it is bad maintenance or people who just don't grasp how things can work more effectively when time is taken to adjust and maintain them properly Having said that often with a little thought manufactured units can be improved on, even after sadly, 50 years factory inspired development!

Permalink

I had an A65 with the late '60s TLS on the front for a while, I remember having no complaints about it. The brake, that is â the vibration, on the other hand ... I've also heard that the conical hub TLS just needs setting up right. If the Commando TLS works better with a stiffener, would that be the easiest and cheapest option?

Permalink

Previously john_hall1 wrote:

Found some Brake tests in which the Conical hub comes out quite well, with an equal rating to the 1968-1970 BSA Triumph brake, only Moto Guzzi V7 , Benelli Tornado, Suzuki GT's and Harley Davidson twin drums fairing better, except for exotic stuff, 10 inch drums, Fontana, Ceriani, Grimeca, Oldani & Yamaha Race drums, often which are 4 shoe units!

The Commando unit rates much lower down, plus anything designed that needs a stiffening plate means essentially something inherent in the initial design must be inadequate.

People in the UK make silly rhymes up and believe this as truth! In most cases it is bad maintenance or people who just don't grasp how things can work more effectively when time is taken to adjust and maintain them properly Having said that often with a little thought manufactured units can be improved on, even after sadly, 50 years factory inspired development!

hello john you have forgotten one maker of racing brakes Robinson10inch 4leading shoe and 12-inch leading shoe 4 LS the best TLS brake and self-adjusting were on my Wartburg353mk1 estate it stopped thatwell it would throw you through the windscreen if you were not careful, and these engines could be tuned quite easy if you know what your doing the engines were very robust and would takelots of hammer on the motorways as longas you were using the rightoil and mixed well I always used morris 2T oils and clocked up over 200,000 with no bother engine were easy to strip aside of the road you could remove them in 20 minuits and remove the crank and pistons without removing the cylinder head, you turn in on its head and remove six m8 bolts and then 8 x m10 bolts removed the chrankcase bottom half and then the crank and pistons and refitted them the same way I nad a number of cranks and piston sets all new one crank I fitted had kawasaki z1000 race bearing fitted and the bloc reported and tunend it was really fast hit 110 easy and stayed there all days if you wanted to I fiitted a duel currcet and servo braking system with new copper pipes made a big diffrence very keen brakes then I do miss the old burg it was a very usfull motor and had a lot of carring space, in the back you could get a double bed inside, away keep doing your resceach yours anna j

Permalink

Hi John, when you mention Harley Davidson, I guess you refer to H-D Aermacchi. Remember the 350 racer had more than adequate brakes. Front was the best 4LS I've ever tried. Rear was a bit scary so we disconnected one shoe. I've read that they was made by Fontana.

Permalink

Hi John

Are these the brake tests you are referring to?

http://victorylibrary.com/brit/2LS-table.htm

Very interesting reading and I'm happy to 'stand corrected' on the performance of the conical hub 2LS. You can't beat some real data.

I do remember at the time that these brakes were not well received - I had a 1969 650 Triumph with the earlier 2LS - but some of this looks to have been the usual resistance to change and self-criticism that Brits sometimes thrive on.

All the best with your endeavours.

Andy

Permalink

That table is interesting but just gives theoretical performance. As I remember it, one of the main gripes with the conical hub was the short cam length which didn't give enough mechanical advantage. As the outer cable operated one cam and the inner the other, effective travel was double what it would have been with a link rod as on the earlier Triumph brake (and indeed the Norton one). Hence mechanical advantage was about half.

http://sumpmagazine.com/classic-bike-workshop/images/conical-hub-brake-complete.jpg

http://www.anglo-bobbers.com/Triumph_1969/images-tr0009/1969_Triumph_Trophy_Bobber_468x366b.jpg

Permalink

Previously Mikael Ridderstad wrote:

Hi John, when you mention Harley Davidson, I guess you refer to H-D Aermacchi. Remember the 350 racer had more than adequate brakes. Front was the best 4LS I've ever tried. Rear was a bit scary so we disconnected one shoe. I've read that they was made by Fontana.

The Test data was based on the units of the Big twins.

Permalink

Previously ian_soady wrote:

That table is interesting but just gives theoretical performance. As I remember it, one of the main gripes with the conical hub was the short cam length which didn't give enough mechanical advantage. As the outer cable operated one cam and the inner the other, effective travel was double what it would have been with a link rod as on the earlier Triumph brake (and indeed the Norton one). Hence mechanical advantage was about half.

http://sumpmagazine.com/classic-bike-workshop/images/conical-hub-brake-complete.jpg

http://www.anglo-bobbers.com/Triumph_1969/images-tr0009/1969_Triumph_Trophy_Bobber_468x366b.jpg

The results came I believe from a variety of sources, I know there Conical hubs theoretically could suffer from lack of bulk and metal in the hub part, for heat to be dissipated through, this is why the Conical brake plate in combination with a Norton full width hub it might produce an amazing unit!

There are extended brake cam arms available for the conical hub brake plate, for greater leverage. However, perhaps the whole mechanism could be redesigned with an adjustable 8mm link bar and a different cable run, almost like a combination between the Conical Hub and earlier unit. The strength of the Conical hub over the Commando unit is the brake plate itself is of a much stronger construction and does not need a stiffening plate!

if i find an answer and a better Unit amalgamation it could help save riders of old classic machines having to spend a lot of money at M&S on new underwear!

Permalink

Previously Mikael Ridderstad wrote:

Hi John, when you mention Harley Davidson, I guess you refer to H-D Aermacchi. Remember the 350 racer had more than adequate brakes. Front was the best 4LS I've ever tried. Rear was a bit scary so we disconnected one shoe. I've read that they was made by Fontana.

as far as I can tell it's all Big Twin data!

See table link http://victorylibrary.com/brit/2LS-table.htm

Permalink

Thought I'd have a look for some road test braking distances to contribute some practical data to the debate. This is the best I've found so far from this thread http://www.britbike.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=322268

February 1968, Cycle, 1968 TR6R Acceleration 0 - 60 ...................5.9 sec Standing Start 1/4 Mile ..............14.2 sec @ 92.1 MPHMarch 1969, Cycle World, 1969 TR6R Stopping Distance from 30 MPH .........38 Ft Stopping Distance from 60 MPH ........147 Ft Standing Start 1/4 Mile ..............14.85 sec @ 89.28 MPHFebruary 1970, Cycle Guide, 1970 T120R Stopping Distance from 30 MPH .........33 Ft Acceleration 0 - 60 ...................5.1 secJune 1972, Cycle World, 1972 T120RV Stopping Distance from 30 MPH .........29 Ft Stopping Distance from 60 MPH ........118 Ft Acceleration 0 - 60 ..................5.7 sec Standing Start 1/4 Mile ..............13.91 @ 94.53 MPHMay 1973, Cycle World, 1973 T140V Stopping Distance from 30 MPH .........30 Ft Stopping Distance from 60 MPH ........117 Ft Acceleration 0 - 60 ..................5.1 sec Standing Start 1/4 Mile ..............13.65 @ 93.94 MPH

The 69-70 bikes would have had the original 2LS, the 72 bike would have had the conical hubs, the 73 bike the standard front disk. Although riders and conditions will vary, on the face of it the conical hub TLS braked bike compares well.

Andy

Permalink

Previously Colin Peterson wrote:

I had an A65 with the late '60s TLS on the front for a while, I remember having no complaints about it. The brake, that is â the vibration, on the other hand ... I've also heard that the conical hub TLS just needs setting up right. If the Commando TLS works better with a stiffener, would that be the easiest and cheapest option?

I don't like the idea of having to re-engineer a manufactured unit with an add on stiffening kit. RGM do a manufactured stiffer Brake plate which is a better option, but at I think £350 + VAT, I may be able to come up with a cheaper solution using a more interesting route!

Attachments screenshot-at-2017-12-02-11-42-36-png
Permalink

Previously Andrew Heathwood wrote:

Thought I'd have a look for some road test braking distances to contribute some practical data to the debate. This is the best I've found so far from this thread http://www.britbike.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=322268

February 1968, Cycle, 1968 TR6R Acceleration 0 - 60 ...................5.9 sec Standing Start 1/4 Mile ..............14.2 sec @ 92.1 MPHMarch 1969, Cycle World, 1969 TR6R Stopping Distance from 30 MPH .........38 Ft Stopping Distance from 60 MPH ........147 Ft Standing Start 1/4 Mile ..............14.85 sec @ 89.28 MPHFebruary 1970, Cycle Guide, 1970 T120R Stopping Distance from 30 MPH .........33 Ft Acceleration 0 - 60 ...................5.1 secJune 1972, Cycle World, 1972 T120RV Stopping Distance from 30 MPH .........29 Ft

Stopping Distance from 60 MPH ........118 Ft Acceleration 0 - 60 ..................5.7 sec Standing Start 1/4 Mile ..............13.91 @ 94.53 MPHMay 1973, Cycle World, 1973 T140V Stopping Distance from 30 MPH .........30 Ft Stopping Distance from 60 MPH ........117 Ft Acceleration 0 - 60 ..................5.1 sec Standing Start 1/4 Mile ..............13.65 @ 93.94 MPH

The 69-70 bikes would have had the original 2LS, the 72 bike would have had the conical hubs, the 73 bike the standard front disk. Although riders and conditions will vary, on the face of it the conical hub TLS braked bike compares well.

Andy

Thank you very interesting. I left all my Bike magazines from the 70s and 80s at a mates and when i went back 4 them they had gone!

Permalink

Brilliant Anna, the original post was question about 8" brakes and suddenly we're onto 10" four leading shoes and dinosaur two stroke cars. Flux capacitors next.

Permalink

Previously Bruce Mitchell wrote:

Unfortunately he is currently too busy to provide much of an answer but it doesn't sound good.

"I've looked at using the conical brake, but there was a snag which I can't fully recall. Seems to me that it was a clearance issue with the hub, or in arranging an abutment for the torque stop peg."

I might be able to get more out of him in a week or so....

Bruce

Thanks would be a interesting development!

Permalink

Previously anna jeannette Dixon wrote:

Previously john_hall1 wrote:

Found some Brake tests in which the Conical hub comes out quite well, with an equal rating to the 1968-1970 BSA Triumph brake, only Moto Guzzi V7 , Benelli Tornado, Suzuki GT's and Harley Davidson twin drums fairing better, except for exotic stuff, 10 inch drums, Fontana, Ceriani, Grimeca, Oldani & Yamaha Race drums, often which are 4 shoe units!

The Commando unit rates much lower down, plus anything designed that needs a stiffening plate means essentially something inherent in the initial design must be inadequate.

People in the UK make silly rhymes up and believe this as truth! In most cases it is bad maintenance or people who just don't grasp how things can work more effectively when time is taken to adjust and maintain them properly Having said that often with a little thought manufactured units can be improved on, even after sadly, 50 years factory inspired development!

hello john you have forgotten one maker of racing brakes Robinson10inch 4leading shoe and 12-inch leading shoe 4 LS the best TLS brake and self-adjusting were on my Wartburg353mk1 estate it stopped thatwell it would throw you through the windscreen if you were not careful, and these engines could be tuned quite easy if you know what your doing the engines were very robust and would takelots of hammer on the motorways as longas you were using the rightoil and mixed well I always used morris 2T oils and clocked up over 200,000 with no bother engine were easy to strip aside of the road you could remove them in 20 minuits and remove the crank and pistons without removing the cylinder head, you turn in on its head and remove six m8 bolts and then 8 x m10 bolts removed the chrankcase bottom half and then the crank and pistons and refitted them the same way I nad a number of cranks and piston sets all new one crank I fitted had kawasaki z1000 race bearing fitted and the bloc reported and tunend it was really fast hit 110 easy and stayed there all days if you wanted to I fiitted a duel currcet and servo braking system with new copper pipes made a big diffrence very keen brakes then I do miss the old burg it was a very usfull motor and had a lot of carring space, in the back you could get a double bed inside, away keep doing your resceach yours anna j

Anna, Race drums are different beasts are they not, they aren't much cop for road riding too fierce and too big air scoops and full of holes!

Cheers

John H

Permalink

Previously david_evans wrote:

Brilliant Anna, the original post was question about 8" brakes and suddenly we're onto 10" four leading shoes and dinosaur two stroke cars. Flux capacitors next.

You rumbled a new book an Inter-Galactic Wartburg, powered by dead carbon life-forms, braked by servo-assisted drums, able to travel at warp speeds and manufactures spares for old Norton's as it transverses the skies, because the NOC can't seem to get their act together! Co-Pilot is Phil Hannam, it also has the ability to complete a return journey, unlike the technology riddled new cars and motorbikes being foisted on us by meddling politicians and self-interested parties and is not subjected to ridiculous EU Laws! Tesla rules and Brexit is emblazoned across the hull and anyone who mentions 961's and Limp mode are instantly vaporised!

In another altered reality, NOC Exec are instantly put in a state of stasis and Norvil & others, Ebay, prices have tumbled down to realistic values so Owners can have a spending binge!

Meanwhile in a another room, (the Boot), Pa Norton is resurrected cloned and reprinted on a 3D Printer and will save Norton yet again and a Blueprinted Geoff Duke is almost ready to roll, incidentally the Commando never existed either and has been wiped from history, whilst as "Warty1" blasts across the skies, Constellations are drifting past in the shape of feather-bed frames and Bracebridge Street Factory from various angles.....bliss

alls well that ends well......

Merry Christmas to one and all!

John H

Permalink

I once knew a race engineer who spent hours making a '68-70 BSA / Triumph 2ls brake plate into a conical hub, because the conical was such a bad stopper. It involved a lot of welding and re-machining. Actually, that '68-70 plate goes easily into a Norton alloy shell. That's what he would have done had he known. Machine off the outer rim of the BSA 2ls plate, and make a spacer between wheel bearing and plate, perhaps dress off part of the brake lining as it will run on the alloy on the outer edge of the shell, and make a brake torque pin to fit the forks

I used to have a BSA with the '68 type brake, and it was a real honey. So light that (stationary) you could squeeze the lever to the bars like a clutch lever, but you could decide exactly how much tyre squeal you wanted. I have never tried a more friendly yet powerful drum brake.

The real problem with the conical brake plate is leverage. That's why you can buy accessory brake arms which are 1.5 and 2 times standard length. Apart from that, it requires careful setting up, particularly to prevent the weight of the cable pushing on the upper cam. That done, it's quite OK as a brake. It may be significant that the late '60s / early '70s BMW bikes fitted with a similar cable arrangement have the cable approaching the brake horizontally.

Paul

Permalink

Previously david_evans wrote:

Brilliant Anna, the original post was question about 8" brakes and suddenly we're onto 10" four leading shoes and dinosaur two stroke cars. Flux capacitors next.

hello there is nothing wrong with remanissing the dinosaur two-stroke car were very reliable unlike cars of today that are not reliable and you pop the hud and you can'tfind the dipstick never mind the spark plugs, and as for fixing it at the side of the road forget it, phone the AA and take to the scrapyard, rock and roll old cars are better then the new ones my old Nissan Bluebird still passed an EUtype 6 emissions test in the mot withouta cat fitted it runs that clean and that dinosaur car blow off a v8 ranchcro on the m62 going over the peninens, the ranchcro set on fire from underneath it was in flames as I looked back in my mirror we were hit well over 110 mph that a tuned 353 wartburg 991 estate for you these cars have won the 1000cc class, thousand lakes rally many times the toughest rally in the world makes darkar look like a cake walk, yours anna j

Attachments P2140020%20thousand%20lakes.JPG wartburg%20rally.jpg
Permalink

Previously paul_standeven wrote:

I once knew a race engineer who spent hours making a '68-70 BSA / Triumph 2ls brake plate into a conical hub, because the conical was such a bad stopper. It involved a lot of welding and re-machining. Actually, that '68-70 plate goes easily into a Norton alloy shell. That's what he would have done had he known. Machine off the outer rim of the BSA 2ls plate, and make a spacer between wheel bearing and plate, perhaps dress off part of the brake lining as it will run on the alloy on the outer edge of the shell, and make a brake torque pin to fit the forks

I used to have a BSA with the '68 type brake, and it was a real honey. So light that (stationary) you could squeeze the lever to the bars like a clutch lever, but you could decide exactly how much tyre squeal you wanted. I have never tried a more friendly yet powerful drum brake.

The real problem with the conical brake plate is leverage. That's why you can buy accessory brake arms which are 1.5 and 2 times standard length. Apart from that, it requires careful setting up, particularly to prevent the weight of the cable pushing on the upper cam. That done, it's quite OK as a brake. It may be significant that the late '60s / early '70s BMW bikes fitted with a similar cable arrangement have the cable approaching the brake horizontally.

Paul

Yes,, from what I can gather it designed round BMW unit, I also heard the Brake shoes are a car type and the same as an MG! The slots in the shoes are thought to weaken the shoes and have no function on the BSA/Triumph unit!

Permalink

One things for sure the BSA/ Triumph Conical Front Brake plate is massively webbed, has pillars and has adjusters too it also relies on sliding housed tappets, activated by cams to get movement which can be greased and has a scoop and cooling slots cast in it, on the grounds of strength alone it should make for a better option! Cable runs can be tailored to some extent too.

Some B25 owners and B50 owners both of which I think have the slightly smaller 7" unit, claim they can virtually stand their bikes on the front wheel! Okay, I know the weight is down on a 4 cylinder Special based round a Dominator, but I will have the larger 8" unit to play with if needed!

Cheers

John H

Permalink

There was a 6" conical front for off road bikes like the B50 and B25

Paul

Previously john_holmes wrote:

Pre conical the TLS on B25 and B44 was 7", all conical front TLS are 8" even on the B25.

Permalink

Previously Bruce Mitchell wrote:

Unfortunately he is currently too busy to provide much of an answer but it doesn't sound good.

"I've looked at using the conical brake, but there was a snag which I can't fully recall. Seems to me that it was a clearance issue with the hub, or in arranging an abutment for the torque stop peg."

I might be able to get more out of him in a week or so....

Bruce

I thought I had replied, cheers any information would help!

Permalink

Previously john_holmes wrote:

Pre conical the TLS on B25 and B44 was 7", all conical front TLS are 8" even on the B25.

I had a 1970 B44SS with the 7" TLS unit fitted. I didn't know that there was only one size of the conical TLS, I thought I had seen that in the Conical hub brake, there was two units, but it would make sense to only make one larger unit! Guess the smaller capacity machines got a good deal!

Permalink

Previously anna jeannette Dixon wrote:

Previously david_evans wrote:

Brilliant Anna, the original post was question about 8" brakes and suddenly we're onto 10" four leading shoes and dinosaur two stroke cars. Flux capacitors next.

hello there is nothing wrong with remanissing the dinosaur two-stroke car were very reliable unlike cars of today that are not reliable and you pop the hud and you can'tfind the dipstick never mind the spark plugs, and as for fixing it at the side of the road forget it, phone the AA and take to the scrapyard, rock and roll old cars are better then the new ones my old Nissan Bluebird still passed an EUtype 6 emissions test in the mot withouta cat fitted it runs that clean and that dinosaur car blow off a v8 ranchcro on the m62 going over the peninens, the ranchcro set on fire from underneath it was in flames as I looked back in my mirror we were hit well over 110 mph that a tuned 353 wartburg 991 estate for you these cars have won the 1000cc class, thousand lakes rally many times the toughest rally in the world makes darkar look like a cake walk, yours anna j

Love the flying Wartburg, was this before of after orbiting the "Domed" Earth!

Permalink

Went down to where my wheels are at the present, the BSA/Triumph brake plate fits and rotates with no problems, no sure if the Triumph BSA front axle is a different width, but bushing would cover any discrepancies here!

A slight hurdle are Brake shoe widths which I think on a Norton are an Inch and and an 1/4 (31.8mm), even on the TLS Commando unit" This compares to the BSA/Triumph smallest shoe width on 7" units of (34.9mm) to an inch and 5/16, (41.3mm), on the 8" TLS Conical unit.

My composite drums through the bolt together mechanism and nuts standing proud will definitely only take an inch and a quarter width shoes.

None of these obstacles are essentially a definite spoiler to the project. Still looking at link up and adjustment mechanism possibilities. Perhaps a different lever and solid adjustable bar type.

I am surprised that Norton drum drakes were of the narrow shoe width type when compared to Triumph and BSA, obviously swept volume of the drums internal diameter x brake shoe width x Pi @ 3.142 is then therefore reduced from the BSA Triumph value of approx 40.8 to 31.4 square inches on Norton machines!

Perhaps that is where the better braking coefficients come from on the BSA /Triumph machines, but working against this is the more friction you have, the more heat you produce, which then leads to brake fade if not cooled appropriately so then there is a greater need for cooling fins and air scoops too!

Looking for some pics I saw of cooling fins cast in Manx Norton Racer brakes hubs, even on the rear brakes, I think the photo I saw was a Francis Beart machine.

Gold is an par excellent conductor of heat, but I guest gold-plated drum hubs would attract the wrong type of attention!

Cheers

John H

 

Norton Owners Club Website by White-Hot Design

Privacy Policy