John Martin wrote:
Eric R Snow wrote:


Tha Norton weighs 385 lbs. A car would weigh about 1200 lbs. I think
that the Norton tranny might fail pulling that much weight. And it's
such a cool tranny.
Eric


Sure, it might fail, but it might fail on the bike too. I don't think
the weight of the car has a thing to do with it.

Think about it in terms of the "weakest link". If the Norton spins the
wheel on dry pavement now, then a heavier car will put more force on
the transmission. If it doesn't, though, it's limited by the torque of
the engine and not the weight of the car. The gearbox can take
anything the engine can throw at it, and that won't be any more with
the car than it would be with the bike or a bike with sidecar. Oh, it
might wear a bit quicker because you'll always be running at more
throttle due to the heavier and less streamlined car, but that will
wear the engine as well.

The clutch will wear out quicker, because you'll have to slip it more
to get the thing rolling.

You may also want to gear it a bit lower in the final drive than with
the bike, which would help the clutch. I'm not sure that you'll want
the top speed of the bike with a 1200 pound homemade car.

John Martin

The weakest link is the transmission case sideplate that holds the
shaft bearings. There is a bit less than adequate amounts of material
between the two bearings, and it tends to go it's own way at a bad time.
The mainshafts tend to flex rather more than is good as well. Ugly.
The additional weight of a car vice a bike would add even more stress
on an already marginal component, if the original AMC transmission were
to be attempted.

I would start wandering the rows of a U-pick wrecking yard, to see if
any of the subcompact car trannies could be carved free of their cases
and grafted into use.


Cheers
Trevor Jones

Jan Howell wrote:
In article , Eric R Snow says...

Hey, it's made of metal so it's on topic. Anyway, I've been thinking
about a new project (dangerous!), more of a mental exercise really.
Putting together a car powered by a Norton 750 motorcycle engine.
Since it runs great and the bike is wrecked the motor should go into
something. So I have been looking around for a 4 to 6 speed
transmission with reverse that weighs less than 60 pounds. No luck
yet. Crosley transmissions are pretty light I think. But hard to find.
And not cheap. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Eric



Eric:

I assume the Norton is a "unit" (engine and transmission in the same casting)?
If you change transmissions, please remember the potential clutch problems.
That would make a "metermaid" bike transmission atractive idea

Not a Unit. Norton held on to its separate trans and engine till they
died of natural selection in the seventies.

Makes it a great component source for building Bitza's or specials.

Cheers
Trevor Jones

"John Martin" wrote in message
oups.com...
So, Chris, just where does that extra torque come from?

The increased drag will cause the transmission to wear faster. But it
won't cause it to break. Nor would putting it in a semi, although the
clutch wouldn't hold up.

John Martin


You are basing your thinking that the motor is putting out its entire torque
curve in the bike at all times, which it is not. In order for it to move a
heavier machine more of the torque will be required from the motor at a more
consistent curve. Bike motors are built for HP not torque, although there is
still an inherent amount of torque there, that is not really called upon.

At the extreme, take the driveshaft from the motor and tranny and weld it to
a 20,000lb weight. Then you will see what the consistent full torque from
the motor will do to the tranny. Better yet take the original bike and have
it drag around a 1200lb trailer. Tranny should not last that long.

You are correct increased drag will kill the tranny faster. Drag means more
torque to overcome = more torque being passed through the tranny. In the
same regards weight will require the same. To overcome the weight more
torque will be needed. More torque being passed through = greater
deflection = failure.

Look down a couple of posts, seems like there was even an issue with the
tranny not holding up in a 385lb bike.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:34:28 GMT, Ken Sterling (Ken Sterling) wrote:

Hey, it's made of metal so it's on topic. Anyway, I've been thinking
about a new project (dangerous!), more of a mental exercise really.
Putting together a car powered by a Norton 750 motorcycle engine.
Since it runs great and the bike is wrecked the motor should go into
something. So I have been looking around for a 4 to 6 speed
transmission with reverse that weighs less than 60 pounds. No luck
yet. Crosley transmissions are pretty light I think. But hard to find.
And not cheap. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Eric
Get a nice little tranny (5-sp) out of an old Geo Metro at the
junkyard.
Ken.
I thought about those but they are all transaxles. I would rather have
a rear wheel drive. For no good reason though. Except rear wheel drive
cars are easier to do doughnuts with.
Eric
How 'bout a Model A Ford? It's only a 3 speed, but they've lasted a
long time - and even with a hopped up A engine, they seem to take the
beating.
Ken.

Chris wrote:
"John Martin" wrote in message
oups.com...
So, Chris, just where does that extra torque come from?

The increased drag will cause the transmission to wear faster. But it
won't cause it to break. Nor would putting it in a semi, although the
clutch wouldn't hold up.

John Martin


You are basing your thinking that the motor is putting out its entire torque
curve in the bike at all times, which it is not. In order for it to move a
heavier machine more of the torque will be required from the motor at a more
consistent curve. Bike motors are built for HP not torque, although there is
still an inherent amount of torque there, that is not really called upon.

At the extreme, take the driveshaft from the motor and tranny and weld it to
a 20,000lb weight. Then you will see what the consistent full torque from
the motor will do to the tranny. Better yet take the original bike and have
it drag around a 1200lb trailer. Tranny should not last that long.

You are correct increased drag will kill the tranny faster. Drag means more
torque to overcome = more torque being passed through the tranny. In the
same regards weight will require the same. To overcome the weight more
torque will be needed. More torque being passed through = greater
deflection = failure.

Look down a couple of posts, seems like there was even an issue with the
tranny not holding up in a 385lb bike.



You're missing the point. The transmission is the link between the
engine and the drive wheel. It doesn't matter how much the car weighs
- if the engine can drive it, the transmission can handle it. I'm
talking here about failure due to breakage, not to wear. The Norton
gearbox only has to be adequate for the Norton engine, not for the car.
That's what I meant by the weakest link.

Wear, as I said, is another question. The car is heavier and less
aerodynamic than the bike, so the engine will be required to run at a
greater throttle setting. Which will wear the transmission out
quicker. But it will also wear the engine out quicker. Which one goes
first is anyone's guess. Remember, the Norton engine is matched in
performance to the Norton transmission.

You want to take things to extremes, so let's put a truck transmission
in the 1200 pound car. Now what happens? The transmission will be
fine, but the engine will wear out, won't it.

Eric knows, I'm sure, that putting the Norton engine into a car will
wear it - and the transmission - out a lot quicker than on a bike.
It's that simple. He's no more likely to strip a gear in the
transmission, however, than he is to throw a connecting rod in the
engine. Unless that's the typical scenario with the bike as well.

Again, the torque comes from the engine, and is the same whether the
engine is in a bike or a car. If the engine can drive it, the
transmission can handle it. Although both will wear faster than they
will in a lighter vehicle.

John Martin

On 27 Aug 2005 00:04:13 -0700, "John Martin"
wrote:


Chris wrote:
"John Martin" wrote in message
oups.com...
So, Chris, just where does that extra torque come from?

The increased drag will cause the transmission to wear faster. But it
won't cause it to break. Nor would putting it in a semi, although the
clutch wouldn't hold up.

John Martin


You are basing your thinking that the motor is putting out its entire torque
curve in the bike at all times, which it is not. In order for it to move a
heavier machine more of the torque will be required from the motor at a more
consistent curve. Bike motors are built for HP not torque, although there is
still an inherent amount of torque there, that is not really called upon.

At the extreme, take the driveshaft from the motor and tranny and weld it to
a 20,000lb weight. Then you will see what the consistent full torque from
the motor will do to the tranny. Better yet take the original bike and have
it drag around a 1200lb trailer. Tranny should not last that long.

You are correct increased drag will kill the tranny faster. Drag means more
torque to overcome = more torque being passed through the tranny. In the
same regards weight will require the same. To overcome the weight more
torque will be needed. More torque being passed through = greater
deflection = failure.

Look down a couple of posts, seems like there was even an issue with the
tranny not holding up in a 385lb bike.



You're missing the point. The transmission is the link between the
engine and the drive wheel. It doesn't matter how much the car weighs
- if the engine can drive it, the transmission can handle it. I'm
talking here about failure due to breakage, not to wear. The Norton
gearbox only has to be adequate for the Norton engine, not for the car.
That's what I meant by the weakest link.

Wear, as I said, is another question. The car is heavier and less
aerodynamic than the bike, so the engine will be required to run at a
greater throttle setting. Which will wear the transmission out
quicker. But it will also wear the engine out quicker. Which one goes
first is anyone's guess. Remember, the Norton engine is matched in
performance to the Norton transmission.

You want to take things to extremes, so let's put a truck transmission
in the 1200 pound car. Now what happens? The transmission will be
fine, but the engine will wear out, won't it.

Eric knows, I'm sure, that putting the Norton engine into a car will
wear it - and the transmission - out a lot quicker than on a bike.
It's that simple. He's no more likely to strip a gear in the
transmission, however, than he is to throw a connecting rod in the
engine. Unless that's the typical scenario with the bike as well.

Again, the torque comes from the engine, and is the same whether the
engine is in a bike or a car. If the engine can drive it, the
transmission can handle it. Although both will wear faster than they
will in a lighter vehicle.

John Martin


Not quite right, John. The norton bike limits the maximum torque that
can be deliverd to the rear wheel by the engine. How? By the
co-efficient of friction between the tire and the road, and the weight
acting on it. The Norton engine and transmission will spin the rear
wheel before it will break the transmission (at least in most cases).
In a car, there will be significantly more "traction" which will allow
the transmission to be subjected to more torque load on intial
accelleration - which is where it will break if it is going to break.

Norton Commando and Manx engines were used extensively in automobile
racing in the sixties in the "Formula Cooper" cars.

As for the truck trans in a 1200 lb car - I don't suspect it would
remain a 1200 lb car - and that would be the only factor causing the
engine to wear out faster.
Final Drive ratio is something else to consider - to keep engine RPS
and loads both in check.

wrote:
If you've got a working Norton 750 engine, it would
be a crime to trash it when some restorer would probably
pay you enougn for it to purchase an engine more suitable
to you needs,
MadDog


That's sort of my thought too, but for the fact that there's still lots
of stuff available for the English bikes expect for tin. Anything else
brings pretty low dollar, tanks and fenders are the stuff that's valuable.

John

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:03:24 -0400, JohnM wrote:

wrote:
If you've got a working Norton 750 engine, it would
be a crime to trash it when some restorer would probably
pay you enougn for it to purchase an engine more suitable
to you needs,
MadDog


That's sort of my thought too, but for the fact that there's still lots
of stuff available for the English bikes expect for tin. Anything else
brings pretty low dollar, tanks and fenders are the stuff that's valuable.

John

Anyone need a cet of cyls for an Aeiel Square 4?

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:04:31 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:03:24 -0400, JohnM wrote:

wrote:
If you've got a working Norton 750 engine, it would
be a crime to trash it when some restorer would probably
pay you enougn for it to purchase an engine more suitable
to you needs,
MadDog


That's sort of my thought too, but for the fact that there's still lots
of stuff available for the English bikes expect for tin. Anything else
brings pretty low dollar, tanks and fenders are the stuff that's valuable.

John

Anyone need a cet of cyls for an Aeiel Square 4?

I could use a tank and seat for a '61 Indian/Royal Enfield 750
Someone did a half assed job of chopping it..the cheap way with a
peanut tank and a pill seat.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On 26 Aug 2005 13:40:19 -0700, Jan Howell
wrote:

In article , Eric R Snow says...

Hey, it's made of metal so it's on topic. Anyway, I've been thinking
about a new project (dangerous!), more of a mental exercise really.
Putting together a car powered by a Norton 750 motorcycle engine.
Since it runs great and the bike is wrecked the motor should go into
something. So I have been looking around for a 4 to 6 speed
transmission with reverse that weighs less than 60 pounds. No luck
yet. Crosley transmissions are pretty light I think. But hard to find.
And not cheap. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Eric


Eric:

I assume the Norton is a "unit" (engine and transmission in the same casting)?
If you change transmissions, please remember the potential clutch problems.
That would make a "metermaid" bike transmission atractive idea
That's the problem with assumptions. They are often wrong. The engine
and transmission are two separate units.
Eric

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:31:18 GMT, "habbi"
wrote:

What about a tranny from an ATV Like a 4 wheeler.
They are available in auto and manual and they have reverse.
Or what about a torque converter such as a snowmobile has, some snowmobiles
have reverse as well.
That's the best idea yet! I'm gonna look at Bent Bike and see waht
they have.
Eric
"Eric R Snow" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:05:18 -0400, Artemia Salina
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 03:30:12 +0000, Eric R Snow wrote:

Hey, it's made of metal so it's on topic. Anyway, I've been thinking
about a new project (dangerous!), more of a mental exercise really.
Putting together a car powered by a Norton 750 motorcycle engine.
Since it runs great and the bike is wrecked the motor should go into
something. So I have been looking around for a 4 to 6 speed
transmission with reverse that weighs less than 60 pounds. No luck
yet. Crosley transmissions are pretty light I think. But hard to find.
And not cheap. Any ideas?

I still see Nash Metropolitans for sale occasionally on ebay, cheap.
Maybe you can find a junker with a good tranny. They had a 50 hp motor
and the car weighed ~1200 lbs.

Maybe you can find an old Albion tranny from a Rodley or something
similar. Seems that Albion is still in business. Only a 3-speed though.

http://www.microcar.org/carspecs/rodley.html

Personally, I'd like to put a big S&S V-twin with straight pipes in
one of these: http://www.cqql.net/bmw.htm
Thanks for the suggestions.
Eric

On 26 Aug 2005 16:01:06 -0700, wrote:

If you've got a working Norton 750 engine, it would
be a crime to trash it when some restorer would probably
pay you enougn for it to purchase an engine more suitable
to you needs,
MadDog
I won't trash it. Or even modify it. Just make it run better.
ERS