Ducati Monster Forum

Anyone have any prior knowledge of these bikes. I happened to stumble on one on a bike sales website in Australia and the asking price is  :o $39000! Apparently only 3 were imported into Australia.

Link (http://www.bikesales.com.au/all-bikes/dealer/details.aspx?Cr=0&R=7551933&keywords=&trecs=4&__Ns=p_RankSort_Int32|1||p_Make_String|0||p_Model_String|0||p_YearMade_Int32|1||p_PriceSort_Decimal|1&__sid=120385217A08&__Nne=15&__Qpb=true&seot=1&__N=1432%20604%201430%201429%201428%204294965920&silo=1400)

Didn't even know they existed. But my knowledge of all things motorbike is sad.  :P

$39,000 is a lot of dough, even in dollars. Don't know how much is urban legend, but I always liked em and heard they were hell for strong performance wise. I have always had a soft spot for Norton.

I'd like to see a new model rotary offered now.  I'm sure advances in basic engine tech have been made in all those years.

LA

How 'bout this one?

(http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss294/make the beast with two backsphoto_bucket/039.jpg?t=1259204529)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Motorcycle_Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Motorcycle_Company)

Norton NRV588 Test at Donington (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph-n7-naQxo#normal)

^^^Holy ShIT!  [evil]

Look at that header glowing!  :D

Snetterton Race of Aces 1989. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBg86bjr8l0&feature=player_embedded#normal)

Damn those Nortons looked BAD ASS in all black.  They look like Team Evil in blacked out leathers and helmets with dark shields.  They passed the Jap bikes like they were standing still.
Great video man....I would love to see more racing with those Norton's in it  [evil]

next year michael dunlops supposed to be racing it, a 600 with 170bhp!  [evil] [evil] [evil]

I got to see the Dunlop bike at this years TT, the sad thing was that it let him down both times he tried to do a lap [bang] but it sure looked the part [thumbsup]

When the F1 was first shown at the british motor cycle show I was lucky enough to see it and boy did it look good, infact it would still wow the crowds today  [bow_down]

 [coffee]

I'd think a rotary would be good for a motorcycle application since it's lack of torque can be offset with the lower weight of a two wheeled vehicle.

What keeps rotary engines out of the mainstream?

The amount of fuel they drink?  ???

I'm guessing.

Maintenance as well I think.

And the fact that the added gyrospcopic effect of the engine would make it a real pregnant dog to turn in.

Steering a gyroscope don't work so well.


Possibly with multiple rotors, that turned opposing.


Given the amount of HP one is getting out of an I-4, I don't see the point.

Look up :D

All I saw translated to "I haven't made any more cowls and my new truck still needs work".  :P

The truth as to why you don't see rotary Nortons (or any other build) make it in competition is because they are rated differently.

Rules often states rotaries be classified as having 3 times the cc's they claim. This is not without some reason though, as the norton claims to be only 588 cc, but that is because they only consider the combustion space/chamber, not the other two sections.

Personally I love the look and technology of the Nortons, not to mention that I just always love to see a different approach to motorcycling in general.

In fact, along with our representation of Vyrus, NCR, and CR&S, we have already had contact with the new Norton and hope to be adding them to the lineup of machines we offer within a week.

So, I take it a Wankel engine has more rotational mass that a piston engine? I had assumed the mass to be comparable since a piston engines crankshaft needs to be stronger to transfer the reciprocal force or the pistons to rotational force.


I knew they did that for the RX-8, and assumed that it pertained to motorcycle racing as well.

That makes sense as well. I forgot a Wankel was quite thirsty for it's displacement as well. And in motorcycle racing with limits on the fuel you can carry, I would imagine they'd have a hard time finishing a race on one tank.

Alan Cathcart wrote an article in Sport Rider some time back.  165 HP 82 lb.ft. and 285 lbs.

http://www.sportrider.com/features/146_0803_norton_nrv588/index.html (http://www.sportrider.com/features/146_0803_norton_nrv588/index.html)

Initially we will be doing a limited edition production, these will all be hand built in our new factory at Donington Park in 2010.

http://www.nortonracing.com/road/ (http://www.nortonracing.com/road/)

LA

Rotaries are hard to compare directly to reciprocating engines.  They may have high fuel consumption per unit of displacement but that is comparing them to conventional motor consumption/size.  Also the apex seals are a reason they aren't more mainstream in cars or bikes.  I'm not sure how the new RX-8s are but the old RX-7s needed a motor about every 80k miles.

(http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn247/quantum_flux/Animations/Engines/3aWankelCycle.gif)

1) 80k is probably a bit pessimistic.
2) the increased pressure/heat from the turbos had something to do with that. i had a non-turbo with 140k+.
3) how many people actually put 80k+ miles on their bikes?

That totally reminds me of my old Spirograph.

(http://lauriekendrick.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/spirograph.jpg)

IIRC 80k was the magic number for the RX-3 and RX-4, but I think Mazda had fixed the problem by the time the RX-7's hit the market.  My Dad had a '74 RX-4 that lost compression in one cylinder right around 80k.  He and I swapped in a new short block in the early '80's and I drove the car for a few years after that until it pretty much rusted away.  What a blast!

the apex seals were the issue with the early Rotaries. The newer engines have much more advanced seals leading to increased reliability.

True. Also the new RX8 has an improved port design, which allows less fuel to be wasted through the exhaust. Also improves performance to the point that the RX8 is making as much naturally aspirated HP as the old Turbo RX7.

Close.... 238hp for the Renesis as a opposed to 255hp for the 13BTT..