Norton

Don't worry, we figured this one out ourselves, but at certain times you
must ration the ratio and you were probably thinking of that.
H.


"Shane" wrote in message
...
Ha! Not surprising if I'm going on about compression *ration*! I've never
in
my life confused ratio and ration and I certainly wasn't thinking *ration*
when I typed it - but unusually I ran the spoilpicker before sending;
however, it didn't find anything, so I can't blame the stoolchicken!

Shine

Joan Archer wrote:
I hope you realise that you've completely lost her now Shane g


"Shane" wrote in message
...
Heather wrote:
He was half asleep when I asked him your question and he laughed and
said he did miss it.....lol. Haven't a clue what you two are
talking about!!



Being kicked up the arse by God!

Or. Supposing we're talking about an engine of sufficient 'bang',
which is a combination of cylinder capacity and piston compression
ration: a four cylinder (or more) layout such as the modern car has,
and most modern bikes have, divides said bang into smaller, more
rapidly delivered thumps than you get from the single cylinder
layout. A fairly high compression twin cylinder engine - such as in the
rock'n'roll era Triumphs, Nortons and BSAs, to name just most of
them, still packs a punch but is perhaps the perfect compromise
between what can become uncomfortable after a while and what can
seem so sanitised as to put one to sleep. Of course, a 750cc Triumph
(or a 1000cc triple or 1200 four) is like having two or more 350cc
single cylinder engines beneath one - but the thump is delivered in
more rapid succession than on a single, and that effects how one
'feels' about the ride. Kind of funny to think about it, as we have
long
talked of the old
(pre-Japanese) machines having 'soul', when actually I suppose it is
we who have it, just the bike brings it out! Like an elation
bubbling up as you realize - or remember - there is a valuable facet
of being, normally absent in everyday life. Helps you experience
life in the Now, I suppose, to wake from your somnambulist
existence. What motorcycling is about. I think a 350 is about the
lowest
capacity single you can have
without raising the compression ration that triggers this
bang-induced paradigm shift, while a high compression 250 is too
raw, the thump being so jarring as to be distracting. A big twin or
multi delivers a different stimulus (you appreciate I'm wildly
hypothesizing here!), but it seems to me that this is something to
do with frequency, as in the number of bangs within a timeframe
having the potential to alter consciousness (perhaps as a form of
autosuggestion, though that is more likely in a car :-)); you know,
because a twin of twice the capacity and the same compression at the
same rpm delivers two thumps to the single's one and the only
difference is they're closer together in time and somehow that makes
them more bearable? Maybe that is what to be concious is: to be
propelled from one
degree of altered state to another and that at any given moment we
are not precisely who we were just before. Anyway, there is nothing
quite like riding a 350 or 500cc old Brit single cylinder
motorcycle, and that part, at least, is not raving!

Shane


Figgs

"Shane" wrote in message
...
Does he miss the single cylinder thump? I know I do!

Shane

Heather wrote:
"Shane" wrote in message
...
Heather wrote:
LOL!! I have goofed on this one before and I will ask him when
he gets back. The Loon knows which one it is....being a *bike
freak*. The word Aerial comes to mind as well.


There were no shortage of Ariels. I would guess a Hunter of some
sort
(350 and 500 singles):

Good man!! He is standing behind me and says it was an "Ariel 500
Single" and he bought it here in Canada and it was a 1951 model.
Looks like that picture you posted the link for.

He almost ran into the back of a car and scared himself
****less....so
he sold it. (G)

Heather & the Old Guy

http://www.barkshire.co.uk/bikes/ima...2006%20008.jpg
but there were the square fours:

http://www.britishclassicmotorcycles...4522327139.jpg
another of those old Brit designs that the Japanese emulated
decades later and most people thought was new and daring. Not to
take anything away from the Japs though!




No, his name is *Renaldo y Jose y Maria y Smith*.....grin.

He must have been before his time in so many ways!


Shane



"Shane" wrote in message
...
I'd guess an ES2 then. Can't imagine an Inter on Jamaica
somehow. Last time
I saw one of those was at Bracknell Motorcycle Auction in about
'76. Or
rather parked outside. I went up on the back of a mate's 350
Matchless. Very
pretty in the stately silver way Nortons of the pre-rocker era
usually were!
And the guy who took me to that auction is the only one besides
myself I
knew from the old days who still rode a Bonnie in the 21st
Century.

Yes, do ask him what it was.

Sure his name isn't really Ernesto?

Shane


"Heather" wrote in message
...
I think Ron had a Norton bike in Jamaica......I will have to
ask him. Whatever he had, he messed up and never rode one
again. Wussie!! (G)

Figgs (and we are talking *OLD* here.....this would have been
late
'40's)

"Shane" wrote in message
...
No Joan, unfortunately not. And they don't even make the
rotary-engined
Command-er that did so very well in the road racing not so
long ago!

Even when we can *still* make something really well the
powers-that-be
allow
it to fail.


Shane

"Joan Archer" wrote in message
...
Do they still make them ?

--
Joan Archer
http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher
http://lachsoft.com/photogallery

wrote in message


...
On Oct 22, 3:32 pm, "Heirloom"
wrote:
"Norton for Dummies"............what's wrong with that???
Who else
would
anything Norton be for?


Norton for Commandos?

Now that is a bike!

Shane

Yep....hence the silence......lol.

Figgs

"Joan Archer" wrote in message
...
I hope you realise that you've completely lost her now Shane g

--
Joan Archer
http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher
http://lachsoft.com/photogallery

"Shane" wrote in message
...
Heather wrote:
He was half asleep when I asked him your question and he laughed and
said he did miss it.....lol. Haven't a clue what you two are
talking
about!!



Being kicked up the arse by God!

Or. Supposing we're talking about an engine of sufficient 'bang',
which is a combination of cylinder capacity and piston compression
ration: a four cylinder (or more) layout such as the modern car has,
and most modern bikes have, divides said bang into smaller, more
rapidly delivered thumps than you get from the single cylinder
layout.

A fairly high compression twin cylinder engine - such as in the
rock'n'roll era Triumphs, Nortons and BSAs, to name just most of
them, still packs a punch but is perhaps the perfect compromise
between what can become uncomfortable after a while and what can seem
so sanitised as to put one to sleep. Of course, a 750cc Triumph (or a
1000cc triple or 1200 four) is like having two or more 350cc single
cylinder engines beneath one - but the thump is delivered in more
rapid succession than on a single, and that effects how one 'feels'
about the ride.

Kind of funny to think about it, as we have long talked of the old
(pre-Japanese) machines having 'soul', when actually I suppose it is
we who have it, just the bike brings it out! Like an elation bubbling
up as you realize - or remember - there is a valuable facet of being,
normally absent in everyday life. Helps you experience life in the
Now, I suppose, to wake from your somnambulist existence. What
motorcycling is about.

I think a 350 is about the lowest capacity single you can have
without raising the compression ration that triggers this
bang-induced paradigm shift, while a high compression 250 is too raw,
the thump being so jarring as to be distracting. A big twin or multi
delivers a different stimulus (you appreciate I'm wildly
hypothesizing here!), but it seems to me that this is something to do
with frequency, as in the number of bangs within a timeframe having
the potential to alter consciousness (perhaps as a form of
autosuggestion, though that is more likely in a car :-)); you know,
because a twin of twice the capacity and the same compression at the
same rpm delivers two thumps to the single's one and the only
difference is they're closer together in time and somehow that makes
them more bearable?

Maybe that is what to be concious is: to be propelled from one degree
of altered state to another and that at any given moment we are not
precisely who we were just before. Anyway, there is nothing quite
like riding a 350 or 500cc old Brit single cylinder motorcycle, and
that part, at least, is not raving!

Shane


Figgs

"Shane" wrote in message
...
Does he miss the single cylinder thump? I know I do!

Shane

Heather wrote:
"Shane" wrote in message
...
Heather wrote:
LOL!! I have goofed on this one before and I will ask him when
he
gets back. The Loon knows which one it is....being a *bike
freak*. The word Aerial comes to mind as well.


There were no shortage of Ariels. I would guess a Hunter of some
sort
(350 and 500 singles):

Good man!! He is standing behind me and says it was an "Ariel 500
Single" and he bought it here in Canada and it was a 1951 model.
Looks like that picture you posted the link for.

He almost ran into the back of a car and scared himself
****less....so
he sold it. (G)

Heather & the Old Guy
http://www.barkshire.co.uk/bikes/ima...2006%20008.jpg
but there were the square fours:
http://www.britishclassicmotorcycles...4522327139.jpg
another of those old Brit designs that the Japanese emulated
decades later and most people thought was new and daring. Not to
take anything away from the Japs though!




No, his name is *Renaldo y Jose y Maria y Smith*.....grin.

He must have been before his time in so many ways!


Shane



"Shane" wrote in message
...
I'd guess an ES2 then. Can't imagine an Inter on Jamaica
somehow.
Last time
I saw one of those was at Bracknell Motorcycle Auction in about
'76. Or
rather parked outside. I went up on the back of a mate's 350
Matchless. Very
pretty in the stately silver way Nortons of the pre-rocker era
usually were!
And the guy who took me to that auction is the only one besides
myself I
knew from the old days who still rode a Bonnie in the 21st
Century.

Yes, do ask him what it was.

Sure his name isn't really Ernesto?

Shane


"Heather" wrote in message
...
I think Ron had a Norton bike in Jamaica......I will have to
ask
him. Whatever he had, he messed up and never rode one again.
Wussie!! (G)

Figgs (and we are talking *OLD* here.....this would have been
late
'40's)

"Shane" wrote in message
...
No Joan, unfortunately not. And they don't even make the
rotary-engined
Command-er that did so very well in the road racing not so
long
ago!

Even when we can *still* make something really well the
powers-that-be
allow
it to fail.


Shane

"Joan Archer" wrote in message
...
Do they still make them ?

--
Joan Archer
http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher
http://lachsoft.com/photogallery

wrote in message

...
On Oct 22, 3:32 pm, "Heirloom"
wrote:
"Norton for Dummies"............what's wrong with that???
Who else
would
anything Norton be for?


Norton for Commandos?

Now that is a bike!

Shane

lol Don't worry we'll forgive you, she'll still be lost though g

--
Joan Archer
http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher
http://lachsoft.com/photogallery

"Shane" wrote in message
...
Ha! Not surprising if I'm going on about compression *ration*! I've never
in my life confused ratio and ration and I certainly wasn't thinking
*ration* when I typed it - but unusually I ran the spoilpicker before
sending; however, it didn't find anything, so I can't blame the
stoolchicken!

Shine

Joan Archer wrote:
I hope you realise that you've completely lost her now Shane g


"Shane" wrote in message
...
Heather wrote:
He was half asleep when I asked him your question and he laughed and
said he did miss it.....lol. Haven't a clue what you two are
talking about!!



Being kicked up the arse by God!

Or. Supposing we're talking about an engine of sufficient 'bang',
which is a combination of cylinder capacity and piston compression
ration: a four cylinder (or more) layout such as the modern car has,
and most modern bikes have, divides said bang into smaller, more
rapidly delivered thumps than you get from the single cylinder
layout. A fairly high compression twin cylinder engine - such as in the
rock'n'roll era Triumphs, Nortons and BSAs, to name just most of
them, still packs a punch but is perhaps the perfect compromise
between what can become uncomfortable after a while and what can
seem so sanitised as to put one to sleep. Of course, a 750cc Triumph
(or a 1000cc triple or 1200 four) is like having two or more 350cc
single cylinder engines beneath one - but the thump is delivered in
more rapid succession than on a single, and that effects how one
'feels' about the ride. Kind of funny to think about it, as we have long
talked of the old
(pre-Japanese) machines having 'soul', when actually I suppose it is
we who have it, just the bike brings it out! Like an elation
bubbling up as you realize - or remember - there is a valuable facet
of being, normally absent in everyday life. Helps you experience
life in the Now, I suppose, to wake from your somnambulist
existence. What motorcycling is about. I think a 350 is about the lowest
capacity single you can have
without raising the compression ration that triggers this
bang-induced paradigm shift, while a high compression 250 is too
raw, the thump being so jarring as to be distracting. A big twin or
multi delivers a different stimulus (you appreciate I'm wildly
hypothesizing here!), but it seems to me that this is something to
do with frequency, as in the number of bangs within a timeframe
having the potential to alter consciousness (perhaps as a form of
autosuggestion, though that is more likely in a car :-)); you know,
because a twin of twice the capacity and the same compression at the
same rpm delivers two thumps to the single's one and the only
difference is they're closer together in time and somehow that makes
them more bearable? Maybe that is what to be concious is: to be
propelled from one
degree of altered state to another and that at any given moment we
are not precisely who we were just before. Anyway, there is nothing
quite like riding a 350 or 500cc old Brit single cylinder
motorcycle, and that part, at least, is not raving!

Shane


Figgs

"Shane" wrote in message
...
Does he miss the single cylinder thump? I know I do!

Shane

Heather wrote:
"Shane" wrote in message
...
Heather wrote:
LOL!! I have goofed on this one before and I will ask him when
he gets back. The Loon knows which one it is....being a *bike
freak*. The word Aerial comes to mind as well.


There were no shortage of Ariels. I would guess a Hunter of some
sort
(350 and 500 singles):

Good man!! He is standing behind me and says it was an "Ariel 500
Single" and he bought it here in Canada and it was a 1951 model.
Looks like that picture you posted the link for.

He almost ran into the back of a car and scared himself
****less....so
he sold it. (G)

Heather & the Old Guy
http://www.barkshire.co.uk/bikes/ima...2006%20008.jpg
but there were the square fours:
http://www.britishclassicmotorcycles...4522327139.jpg
another of those old Brit designs that the Japanese emulated
decades later and most people thought was new and daring. Not to
take anything away from the Japs though!




No, his name is *Renaldo y Jose y Maria y Smith*.....grin.

He must have been before his time in so many ways!


Shane



"Shane" wrote in message
...
I'd guess an ES2 then. Can't imagine an Inter on Jamaica
somehow. Last time
I saw one of those was at Bracknell Motorcycle Auction in about
'76. Or
rather parked outside. I went up on the back of a mate's 350
Matchless. Very
pretty in the stately silver way Nortons of the pre-rocker era
usually were!
And the guy who took me to that auction is the only one besides
myself I
knew from the old days who still rode a Bonnie in the 21st
Century.

Yes, do ask him what it was.

Sure his name isn't really Ernesto?

Shane


"Heather" wrote in message
...
I think Ron had a Norton bike in Jamaica......I will have to
ask him. Whatever he had, he messed up and never rode one
again. Wussie!! (G)

Figgs (and we are talking *OLD* here.....this would have been
late
'40's)

"Shane" wrote in message
...
No Joan, unfortunately not. And they don't even make the
rotary-engined
Command-er that did so very well in the road racing not so
long ago!

Even when we can *still* make something really well the
powers-that-be
allow
it to fail.


Shane

"Joan Archer" wrote in message
...
Do they still make them ?

--
Joan Archer
http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher
http://lachsoft.com/photogallery

wrote in message

...
On Oct 22, 3:32 pm, "Heirloom"
wrote:
"Norton for Dummies"............what's wrong with that???
Who else
would
anything Norton be for?


Norton for Commandos?

Now that is a bike!

Shane

Can't really remember much about them, I know the name Ariel sounds
familiar, that could have been another one of his g

--
Joan Archer
http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher
http://lachsoft.com/photogallery

"Shane" wrote in message
...
Basically, talking about the twins - which it sounds very much like what
your brother would have had, then, there was the 500 Dominator, the 600
Dominator, the 650 SS - and the 700 Atlas - which had a Matchless engine.
Then came the various 750 Commandos and eventually the 850 Commando. All
very wonderful machines!

Joan Archer wrote:
I can't remember but I'm sure my brother had one, among others, I
remember hearing something about one that was a 700 something or
other, I was given a ride on that one. I know that at the time it was
supposed to be quite a powerful one. This is going back into the 50's


"Shane" wrote in message
...
No Joan, unfortunately not. And they don't even make the
rotary-engined Command-er that did so very well in the road racing
not so long ago! Even when we can *still* make something really well the
powers-that-be allow
it to fail.


Shane

"Joan Archer" wrote in message
...
Do they still make them ?

--
Joan Archer
http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher
http://lachsoft.com/photogallery

wrote in message
...
On Oct 22, 3:32 pm, "Heirloom" wrote:
"Norton for Dummies"............what's wrong with that??? Who
else would
anything Norton be for?


Norton for Commandos?

Now that is a bike!

Shane

lol Thought so, don't worry I didn't follow it all it's a man thing g

--
Joan Archer
http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher
http://lachsoft.com/photogallery

"Heather" wrote in message
...
Yep....hence the silence......lol.

Figgs

"Joan Archer" wrote in message
...
I hope you realise that you've completely lost her now Shane g

--
Joan Archer
http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher
http://lachsoft.com/photogallery

"Shane" wrote in message
...
Heather wrote:
He was half asleep when I asked him your question and he laughed and
said he did miss it.....lol. Haven't a clue what you two are talking
about!!



Being kicked up the arse by God!

Or. Supposing we're talking about an engine of sufficient 'bang', which
is a combination of cylinder capacity and piston compression ration: a
four cylinder (or more) layout such as the modern car has, and most
modern bikes have, divides said bang into smaller, more rapidly
delivered thumps than you get from the single cylinder layout.

A fairly high compression twin cylinder engine - such as in the
rock'n'roll era Triumphs, Nortons and BSAs, to name just most of them,
still packs a punch but is perhaps the perfect compromise between what
can become uncomfortable after a while and what can seem so sanitised as
to put one to sleep. Of course, a 750cc Triumph (or a 1000cc triple or
1200 four) is like having two or more 350cc single cylinder engines
beneath one - but the thump is delivered in more rapid succession than
on a single, and that effects how one 'feels' about the ride.

Kind of funny to think about it, as we have long talked of the old
(pre-Japanese) machines having 'soul', when actually I suppose it is we
who have it, just the bike brings it out! Like an elation bubbling up as
you realize - or remember - there is a valuable facet of being, normally
absent in everyday life. Helps you experience life in the Now, I
suppose, to wake from your somnambulist existence. What motorcycling is
about.

I think a 350 is about the lowest capacity single you can have without
raising the compression ration that triggers this bang-induced paradigm
shift, while a high compression 250 is too raw, the thump being so
jarring as to be distracting. A big twin or multi delivers a different
stimulus (you appreciate I'm wildly hypothesizing here!), but it seems
to me that this is something to do with frequency, as in the number of
bangs within a timeframe having the potential to alter consciousness
(perhaps as a form of autosuggestion, though that is more likely in a
car :-)); you know, because a twin of twice the capacity and the same
compression at the same rpm delivers two thumps to the single's one and
the only difference is they're closer together in time and somehow that
makes them more bearable?

Maybe that is what to be concious is: to be propelled from one degree of
altered state to another and that at any given moment we are not
precisely who we were just before. Anyway, there is nothing quite like
riding a 350 or 500cc old Brit single cylinder motorcycle, and that
part, at least, is not raving!

Shane


Figgs

"Shane" wrote in message
...
Does he miss the single cylinder thump? I know I do!

Shane

Heather wrote:
"Shane" wrote in message
...
Heather wrote:
LOL!! I have goofed on this one before and I will ask him when he
gets back. The Loon knows which one it is....being a *bike
freak*. The word Aerial comes to mind as well.


There were no shortage of Ariels. I would guess a Hunter of some
sort
(350 and 500 singles):

Good man!! He is standing behind me and says it was an "Ariel 500
Single" and he bought it here in Canada and it was a 1951 model.
Looks like that picture you posted the link for.

He almost ran into the back of a car and scared himself
****less....so
he sold it. (G)

Heather & the Old Guy
http://www.barkshire.co.uk/bikes/ima...2006%20008.jpg
but there were the square fours:
http://www.britishclassicmotorcycles...4522327139.jpg
another of those old Brit designs that the Japanese emulated
decades later and most people thought was new and daring. Not to
take anything away from the Japs though!




No, his name is *Renaldo y Jose y Maria y Smith*.....grin.

He must have been before his time in so many ways!


Shane



"Shane" wrote in message
...
I'd guess an ES2 then. Can't imagine an Inter on Jamaica somehow.
Last time
I saw one of those was at Bracknell Motorcycle Auction in about
'76. Or
rather parked outside. I went up on the back of a mate's 350
Matchless. Very
pretty in the stately silver way Nortons of the pre-rocker era
usually were!
And the guy who took me to that auction is the only one besides
myself I
knew from the old days who still rode a Bonnie in the 21st
Century.

Yes, do ask him what it was.

Sure his name isn't really Ernesto?

Shane


"Heather" wrote in message
...
I think Ron had a Norton bike in Jamaica......I will have to ask
him. Whatever he had, he messed up and never rode one again.
Wussie!! (G)

Figgs (and we are talking *OLD* here.....this would have been
late
'40's)

"Shane" wrote in message
...
No Joan, unfortunately not. And they don't even make the
rotary-engined
Command-er that did so very well in the road racing not so long
ago!

Even when we can *still* make something really well the
powers-that-be
allow
it to fail.


Shane

"Joan Archer" wrote in message
...
Do they still make them ?

--
Joan Archer
http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher
http://lachsoft.com/photogallery

wrote in message

...
On Oct 22, 3:32 pm, "Heirloom"
wrote:
"Norton for Dummies"............what's wrong with that???
Who else
would
anything Norton be for?


Norton for Commandos?

Now that is a bike!

Shane

Shane said, "I think a 350 is about the lowest capacity single you can have
without
raising the compression ration that triggers this bang-induced paradigm
shift, while a high compression 250 is too raw, the thump being so jarring
as to be distracting."

I have had some big thumpers and have always liked them. A really enjoyable
bike was the 250cc Yamaha MX that I raced (many moons ago, before there was
a moon). Being a two stroke, it did not have the 'distracting thump.'

Heirloom, old and still rides

"Heirloom" wrote in message
...
Shane said, "I think a 350 is about the lowest capacity single you can
have
without
raising the compression ration that triggers this bang-induced paradigm
shift, while a high compression 250 is too raw, the thump being so jarring
as to be distracting."

I have had some big thumpers and have always liked them. A really
enjoyable
bike was the 250cc Yamaha MX that I raced (many moons ago, before there
was
a moon). Being a two stroke, it did not have the 'distracting thump.'


One must say though, your 'loominescence, the 'stroker experience' is a
different one again, isn't it. There are so many variables! And a 2-stroke
single is somewhere between a 4-stroke single and a twin, of course - twice
the bang for a given rpm but without the rocking couple (can't think of any
of those offhand. More of a C&W thing isn't it?).

As for 4-stroke singles, in the other direction I think more than half a
litre is getting a bit OTT - and there are excellent reasons why our
motorcycle industry did virtually limit itself to 350 and 500cc in that
market. For e.g. I think the KLR650 is too light for relaxed riding (then
again it is not really *for* relaxed riding and maybe an offroader benefits
from a little spur-like 'insistence'?). Other, larger *multiple* single
cylinders, e.g. as on the modern Hog, are heavy enough to absorb the
harshness of the bang, both through the thickness of the castings and
through the weight of the crank webs. And the flywheel effect is of course
the fundamental difference between the 2-stroke and the 4 - though, as with
people, I expect the truth is they have more in common than differentiating
them.

To digress, I suppose over there the failings of the late sixties/early
seventies Japanese 2-wheeled missiles were rather less apparent than here,
their being crappiness in bends and on braking in the wet. Sure could go for
a blast on a green Kwacker triple or an (blue) RD400 Yam right about now
though!

Shane