Wanted Norton ES2

[dabull]

Hi

I am looking for a pre 1950 Norton ES2. Doen't have to be completely original,
just not a Bitser.

Any help appretiated.

Regards

Dabull

[Paul in NZ]

Ouch - tough to find.....

[jellywrestler]

Ouch - tough to find.....

poppycock, theyre out there. what s different about the pre 50 ones are they rigid or what?

[Paul in NZ]

poppycock, theyre out there. what s different about the pre 50 ones are they rigid or what?

Hmmm - I thought all ES2's had teles and plunger from 1947 as std spec? I suppose you could order one as a rigid though.

I guess my point was that compared to BSA B31/B33 etc and AJS/Matchy or even RE's there are less of them and they come up for public sale less often. Either way who wouldnt want one?

I have an odd hankering for a girder forked bike - I suspect my first port of call would be Mr Jelly then? :cool:

[short shins]

They are out there if you look

http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/motorbikes/motorbikes/classic-vintage/auction-479202367.htm

[Paul in NZ]

Yeah I was aware of that one and assume the OP was too. Even to my uneducated eye something looks a bit odd about that one but Mr jelly will know better????

[Voltaire]

Seems odd having plunger suspension and girders..... I thought evolution was girders/rigid....then tele/rigid...then tele/ plunger...
Looks like a 60 speedo too...Monobloc.....chromed oil tank....

[Ixion]

Not always. The 1939 ES2 had girders and plungers so presumably the first post war models did too.

The speedo is obviously modern. More concerning would be the gearbox. It's wrong for an ES2 and I'm not clear it's even a Norton box looks more like a Triumph.

I don't think the oil tank us rightveither the plunger ES2 should have an International style oil tank.

As for the " garden gate" claim - makes all the rest pretty suss.

[Paul in NZ]

Not always. The 1939 ES2 had girders and plungers so presumably the first post war models did too.

The speedo is obviously modern. More concerning would be the gearbox. It's wrong for an ES2 and I'm not clear it's even a Norton box looks more like a Triumph.

I don't think the oil tank us rightveither the plunger ES2 should have an International style oil tank.

As for the " garden gate" claim - makes all the rest pretty suss.


I think its a Pre Unit triumph oil tank - matches the PU Triumph slick shift triumph gearbox. Also the petrol tank isnt right despite someone adding a crinkly seam to the bottom of it. Lets not even discuss the muffler...... But there is something wrong with the way the bike sits - it might be the giant fuel tank or the photo but it just looks odd. Maybe the frames not Norton either?

Yes - they are out there but finding something good at a fair price is not that simple. As the OP mentioned - he does not want a bitsa.

[eliot-ness]

'The frame, with girder forks and plungers were for 1946 the same as the 1939 ES2.
The fuel tank, probably 1955 ES2
Oil tank, 1955 Triumph Thunderbird???
Gear box almost certainly Triumph Thunderbird, 1955.

[Paul in NZ]

Pretty sure that gearbox with the slickshift cover was 58 to 62.... Oil tank looks pre unit rigid frame triumph. A swing arm frame one is different so its pre 54

[Voltaire]

So if a Triumph motor in a Norton frame is a Triton....does a triumph slickshift box in a Norton frame make this a Norumph.....:lol:
sure is a swap meet special......
Still seller may not be aware of it......:rolleyes:

Off Topic
I'd like to build something like it....I've got a pre 54 Triumph frame, gearbox, wheels, forks, tank, fibreglass guard and nacelle.....working on motor parts and primary drive. Would have no real value but offer the same amount of fun building and riding.

[eliot-ness]

Woops, Your right Paul. I should have gone to Specs Savers. The oil tank and gearbox are from 1952, not 1955.

[Paul in NZ]

Woops, Your right Paul. I should have gone to Specs Savers. The oil tank and gearbox are from 1952, not 1955.

Close - that gearbox in the image you posted is different from the one in the Norton. The Norton on trademe has a small chrome plate where the slickshift mechanism could be accessed for adjustment. The (then) unpopular slickshift box was 1958 to 1962 (I'm pretty sure). I know a lot of people disabled it back in the day but can't recall if the non slick shift equipped bikes shared that peculiar end cover.

Apart from that, to the best of my memory the only other big change in PU gearboxes was when the sprung hub came out. The mainshaft of the post sprung hub boxes was longer and most of the internal gears were slightly different meaning they were not interchangeable despite being the same basic layout. (I think these were NA and TA gear boxes??) I got caught out badly by that when I blew second gear in a old scrambler. In the end it was easier to make new engine plates for the other box....

All the rigid frame oil tanks are similar except there was one with an extended back that wrapped behind the seat post allowing extra oil to be carried. That was fitted to the GP but I've seen it on a humble 5T as well (ie the one I owned) and it had the 'Monza' filler cap as well (if only I'd known at the time)

I've been scratching my head over the petrol tank. I don't think its a norton one at all.

[Paul in NZ]

So if a Triumph motor in a Norton frame is a Triton....does a triumph slickshift box in a Norton frame make this a Norumph.....:lol:
sure is a swap meet special......
Still seller may not be aware of it......:rolleyes:

Off Topic
I'd like to build something like it....I've got a pre 54 Triumph frame, gearbox, wheels, forks, tank, fibreglass guard and nacelle.....working on motor parts and primary drive. Would have no real value but offer the same amount of fun building and riding.

You have too many nice bikes as it is - let me take the worrisomeness away and sell me the rolling chassis... I'd love to recreate the little rigid triumphs I grew up with. ( :rolleyes: ah hem....)

[Ixion]

Fuel tank is definitely wrong for an ES2, should be lower at the rear, and not have that notch/step at lower rear.

[Paul in NZ]

Fuel tank is definitely wrong for an ES2, should be lower at the rear, and not have that notch/step at lower rear.

Poor guy - we are being a bit mean about his bike....

[Ixion]

Not really. Personally I quite like these "creative" bikes - a bit of this , a bit of that. I even managed to introduce a bit of 1926 James into my XT600 Yamaha.

But the OP specified he didn't want a bitsa.

[Voltaire]

From memory the slick shift arrived in 1958 as Paul stated, proved unpopular and was discontinued from 1960 (?) but cover remained in use.
I have a 58 that one day I'll get back on the road, temped to get the slick shift operational.
The swingarm gearbox has a different mounting system to the rigid....I gather the internals are the same....TE ??
The tank has the wavy Norton solder pattern going on....I thought that was only on the flat tankers....
I bought some years ago from Ken Mc for a 29 I was tinkering on......( first year of the saddle tanks).

[Paul in NZ]

I even managed to introduce a bit of 1926 James into my XT600 Yamaha..

Steady on old chap - there are limits you know.....

[Ixion]

Having said that, I've found a picture of an International with a very similar looking tank, the 'notch' being necessary to clear the high angled GP carb.

Perhaps it really is a garden gate frame , with assorted other bits.

It's actually quite good value, if it were 100% anorak correct he'd want far more for it.

[Brian d marge]

You have too many nice bikes as it is - let me take the worrisomeness away and sell me the rolling chassis... I'd love to recreate the little rigid triumphs I grew up with. ( :rolleyes: ah hem....)

That was a nice wee bike

if you can cope with an enfield , you still can make an english chop, quite cheaply


Stephen

[Brian d marge]

Not really. Personally I quite like these "creative" bikes - a bit of this , a bit of that. I even managed to introduce a bit of 1926 James into my XT600 Yamaha.

But the OP specified he didn't want a bitsa.



"OP" ....old person?

Stephen

[Motu]

I don't mind bitzas, so long as they are improvements....and some of these look like they are. The pre AMC Norton box was a huge thing with a foot long lever....although the Triumph gearbox wasn't as good as a BSA or AMC, the clutch was better. Is that girders on a plunger, or plungers on a girder? If I had a set of telies and girders in the shed...I'd fit the girders. A monoblock is better than a type 6, and a monoblock is better than a concentric, that's a smart move. A Triumph oil tank ? It's chrome, so I'd fit that too.

[ntst8]

Having said that, I've found a picture of an International with a very similar looking tank, the 'notch' being necessary to clear the high angled GP carb.
Its possible, both the plunger frame and the Inter tank were listed as options for the ES2 in '39.
I have never seen a plunger/girder model but the forks look very steep and the gap between mudguard and downtube very small compared to my rigid/girder 16H.
And I thought had read somewhere that the drum changed from left to right for '39?

[Paul in NZ]

Its possible, both the plunger frame and the Inter tank were listed as options for the ES2 in '39.
I have never seen a plunger/girder model but the forks look very steep and the gap between mudguard and downtube very small compared to my rigid/girder 16H.
And I thought had read somewhere that the drum changed from left to right for '39?

Yep - there is something odd about the way the bike sits.

I have no detailed knowledge of Nortons of the era other than having ridden a few including a 37 International which stuck in my head as a true thoroughbred but....

Often you swapped out lower links of girders to alter the trail when a side car was fitted or the bike was ridden solo.

[eliot-ness]

This is the 1939 ES2. The 1946 model was identical from all info I can find.

[pinkynz]

Haha..I bought that bike!! Got a real good price in the end and like you all, I noticed a few things different. Nice to pin down the gearbox model. A friend pointed me in the right direction to 50's Triumph. The girder forks threw me but apparently they frame and forks are ok for the year as Norton factory used up spares and I understand the telescopic came out in 47, this is 46. Oil tank is an extra and Amal carb (you missed that one). Despite the bits and pieces, the bike rides really well, starts well and turns heads..The original parts will come later. Becoming a little more difficult finding post war bikes for a good price in original condition..