norman_wisdom

Hi Furse, Don't forget the 'cockup' theory....in this case that's the possibility (feint I know) that this was never intended or meant to be in there in the first place...crankcase sat under a bench for years and this little fella just fell in..... Do you know the history of the bottom end?

Hi Will & others, lighting kit and (relatively) modern switchgear etc suggests to me that it may well have had long-distance trials use??

Hi Charlie, I think there are a few places doing bits. Probably not the cheapest motor but what is these days? http://www.sachsparts.se/ http://www.pentonpartsusa.com/4A%20Sachs%20engine.htm

Hi Charlie, glad to have rekindled your interest with a little research into the inspiration for your own passion for trials. I had been looking for a rigid for a long time when the B4C came up and plumped for that. On the B4, the front part of the frame is lugged/bronze, while the rear (as you say) is made up of two welded-up triangles that 'push on' to a t-piece lug at the seat end of the top tube, with a rear mudguard stay bolting to the shortened seat tubes on either side. Interesting the idea (from another thread) re crank over wheel spindle height for 'Trad Trials' Eligibility. The B4 would probably fail this test and have to be classed as a 'special' (!!) as the motor is placed very high up in the frame on the deep engine plates, only problem these plates then project quite some distance below the engine (doubling up as protection for the low-slung exhaust front pipe) and leaving only around 9" of ground clearance under them. . I hope that Norman's aren't used to get into that little 'arms race'... I would love to build a rigid Norman, but originals are very very scarce. A replica frame would be nice, but as soon as that happens the temptation is to lift things up here, shorten them there, and suddenly you've got a 2016 frame rather than a '54. Some of the later roadster frames (including the very pretty B4) could be adapted (as 'Traf' here on TC has done), to make something a little different. Deryk's excellent thread and photos here http://www.trialscentral.com/forums/topic/48802-a-norman-trials-machine/shows some different approaches from the factory. As you say, there was definitely something right about the way they looked. Interesting that in the photos in the Deryk's thread the 'works' Ken Edwards bike is sporting a set of 'conventional' tele forks rather than Armstrong leading link, anyone recognise what the forks are, heavyweight Cub?? The frame itself on this bike doesn't appear to be a standard product either, with curved loops immediately in front of the rear shock top mounts. Many thanks for that and great idea! All the best, Norman

Hi Deryk, Many thanks for taking an interest and the time to reply, as always, your input is very much appreciated. As always these things are a bit of a long shot, but you never know who is reading with a nugget of information, hence the question. While the factory's team efforts in the 50's with the rigids meant a few of those were sold, the Norman B4 as a trials bike was only made in tiny numbers, so I was hoping there is a chance that it might jog some memories too, perhaps in the Otley area. Thanks once again, Norman

Hi all, My Norman trials was first registered (in mid 1962) to this dealership in Leeds, who kept hold of it for the first year of its life. Does anyone know anything about the shop itself or its owners? Norman competition bikes were only built to special order by this time, and its a little unusual that it was sold to a dealership so far away from Norman's backyard in Kent, although there is a possibility the bike was assembled by Raleigh/TI in Nottingham after their takeover. Bike was subseqently sold to a Mr. Kirkland in Otley. Norman's probably weren't the most competitive of bikes by the middle of '62, which might explain why the shop had it for a year, or of course, perhaps someone there was trialing it?

While I can understand the popularity of a desire to exclude 2 strokes based on their modern incarnations, pick up even the earliest editions of Max King's book and you'll see plenty of them, so why try and airbrush them out of 'TradTrials '? A simple rule that 2Ts are allowed, but only those with leading link forks (internal shocks/damping ONLY) or from specific manufacturers (Dunlop, like the early rigid James', Armstrong, Greeves etc) would allow a far wider range of bikes eligibility and be a better reflection of true period usage while not giving them an unfair advantage. Norman

Hi Deryk, It will be very interesting to see the level of support for this. One thing that might worth considering is where the two strokes (mainly villiers engined bikes) go? One of the reason the 'tiddlers' (Bantams included) have gained such popularity over the last several years is of course because of their weight advanages, giving older riders a fighting chance of a ride. I think these days we might have to accept that even with classic sections, there might be a higher proportion of 2 strokes than when you started things off, as well as the more trad-like events such as the Arbuthnot I think do not cater for them. I for one would like to see a higher proportion of Greeves out again, a bike that was ubiquitous in the period but which has been eclipsed by much of the pre65 scene. A specific 'Two Stroke' Cup might not be a bad start, obviously original (catalogue) frame and forks only though. Norman

Completely understand your point about reselling the bike, and it looks like you are taking a positive approach all round. Very best of luck with it!

Hi there. From what I understand from your introductory posts on this, the immediate purpose behind this project is as a dad and lad based thing aimed at satisfying some school/college coursework requirements. I know you are obviously keen to help the lad having got this far, but don't be tempted to plough on too far ahead yourself and try and sort it all for him. As someone who spent a while as an educator/trainer myself, I would recommend you start by reading and getting a grip on EXACTLY what the requirements are from the academic perspective: do they want to see him using particular pieces of software in creating his design for example, etc etc. Once you know where he has to get to then you can act as a guide. Surely if there is a question as to what grade steel needs to be used for the new frame section that is for him to discover? Google is a wonderful thing, and youngsters, from my experience, are pretty good with it. Or, is the idea that he is able to demonstrate some technical (eg brazing or welding) skills? There is a bicycle making academy down in the South West, maybe speak to them for a tailor-made short course for the lad, or google one of the pre65 frame builders and ask if he could go along for a chat and see how it is really done, perhaps with a little 'hands on' time?? As others have said, you've found a bike for a great price. Before going very much further I would at least consider selling it on for what its worth and then reinvest your total (proably approx 1K including your original budget) in something that is as cheap as the first, but now with a much bigger budget to play with (especially with what you have planned for it eventually)...... You might be able to create a rigid Bantam or James trials bike (with lots of jap parts, hubs/wheels/forks) for under a grand, or even compromise on this and send the lad on some practical training as above, to add to the the software that he is undoubtedly learning at school. Anyways, back to the main thread, set the lad up so that he is providing YOU with the answers, that way he's going to come away with some new found skills and confidence and a project that gets him some results. The last thing you want is to have to abort things for the sake of money when in fact you have plenty sat right in front of you now. Good luck

Hi Traf, What gearing are you running? NW

Hi Deryk, Enjoying all of the photos but the Normans are great! Haven't got any of the later (final) B4C model have you?? On a personal note, I always fancied a rigid Norman....even a frame would do....

That's a bit of a shame if they haven't got any more period photos. Should make a great project, be good to see some pictures of your progress.

Oddly enough, a quick check on their (new?) website reveals this very bike to be back in production, complete with a few period photos, though I'm sure they would help you with some more if you contact them, http://www.waspmotorcycles.com/wasp%20trials%20solo.html

Parkinson barrel (cast-in manifold) and DMW head (close-pitch fins)?