F1 prototype #2

[Richard Negus]

I've had an enquiry from a US resident regarding an F1 in the current Bonhams US catalogue. It is claimed to be the second prototype, numbered P55 004, which carried UK registration G574 MWD.The first prototype, registered G573 MWD, was sold complete, with all its development test records, before the demise of 'old' Norton Motors and I thought the other two, 574 and 575, were broken up and sold off as used parts.Does anyone have the engines or frames of these two, or know anything of them? They would be marked P55 004 and P55 005 respectively. As an aside, the difficulty in importing such a bike into the US, and the greater difficulty in getting it licensed, suggests that the Bonhams bike may have avoided the those procedures.R.

[kanonkopdrinker]

Hi Richard,The 'earliest' F1 of which I have details is P55-05005 ... G194 TFK last heard of owned by a one-time ROC member.DC

[Wayne]

Hi RichardI have frame 004, the frame was taken to spondon for evaluation to convert it to a 89 rcw frame, he commented my serial number stamped on the headstock was not std productionmy front engine mount plate was not welded on by themthe side bosses that the black plates holding thefaring were not welded by themi have decided not to convert the frame, the frame came from the f1 tank manufacturer and was belived to have been used as a test jig at some point possibly the f1 sport tanks. also note my frame has never had the std norton square black id plate.in perkins book john, pete, fread and otheres are stood behind a prototype f1 frame that dose not have the brackets that were aded later to my frame.its also worth noting the clay model f1 used a rc588 frame pre Spe/nor/a/389 and all these frames are accounted for all back in race form or onthe way to itRegards Wayne

[Nortonash]

We also owned F1 004 but it also had at least one other number, from memory 003 but I also recall it having 001 as well which had been stamped over with asterix. That bike is now in Australia.

[Richard Negus]

Hi Richard,The 'earliest' F1 of which I have details is P55-05005 ... G194 TFK last heard of owned by a one-time ROC member.DC

Hi David,There's a digit missing from the above number; it should probably be P55 050005, making it the 5th one completed towards the end of May 1990. It's not 050105 as that has a close, but different, registration number.Rgds,R.

[Richard Negus]

We also owned F1 004 but it also had at least one other number, from memory 003 but I also recall it having 001 as well which had been stamped over with asterix. That bike is now in Australia.

Hi Ash,P55 003, aka G573 MWD, was the first complete prototype bike. Before that there were two engines number P55 001 and P55 002; it's quite possible that the r/h plate stamped 001 found its way onto engine 004 and got re-stamped in situ. The usual practise was to remove the old number by machining or filing before the engine was built; re-stamping after assembly was a bit of a challenge.R.

[Nortonash]

Because, as you know, we built the bike from parts scavenged at the factory nothing actually matched number wise The frame had from memory 3 different numbers which was interesting. I have the UK registration papers somewhere but cant remember the registration off the top of my head.

[Nortonash]

Tracy is no telling me that herbike may have been 003 NOT 004 so not unusuaaly I am now totally confused. I wont know for sue without finding the registration paper.

[Nortonash]

Sorry NOW telling me. We need an edit function

[johnbirchjar]

Heavens to Murgatroid!!(to coin a phrase)Complicated or what?J.B.

[Richard Negus]

Tracy is no telling me that herbike may have been 003 NOT 004 so not unusuaaly I am now totally confused. I wont know for sue without finding the registration paper.

Not the real 003 - I knew where that was, the UK owner contacted me less than a year ago, telling me it's original and still complete.

[Nortonash]

So it seems there is an 003 on each side of the planet and in all likelyhood never the twain shall meet.

[Richard Negus]

Tracy is no telling me that herbike may have been 003 NOT 004 so not unusuaaly I am now totally confused. I wont know for sue without finding the registration paper.

Hopefully not, and I asked you not to call me Sue!R.

[Nortonash]

[Interpol2471]

I'm with John what happened to the two 004's?

[Wayne]

Hi inter plodusmy 004 frame is nestaling under three sets of forks my box of trumph spairs, well you did askmy daytona is worth bugger all i dont think the engine will fit a f1 frameRegards wayne

[Richard Negus]

I'm with John what happened to the two 004's?

I have no problem with enthusiasts assembling replica rotaries for their own amusement, but when those bikes are later publicised or offered for sale as original and even have particular rider's names associated with them, then I take exception. And obviously this type of fudging occurs all over; I've just been told about a KTT Velo in an auctioneers catalogue that had an identical twin with the same matching engine and frame numbers in another country, and that one was known to be the real thing. Auctioneers have no way of proving provenance of machines, relying solely on the integrity of the seller. As ever, buyer beware!R.

[Wayne]

Heavens to Murgatroid!!(to coin a phrase)Complicated or what?J.B.

not realy theres only 3or4 frames to 3 bikes the, race bikes now thats complicated thers gaps in the numbers

[bodgerbloke52]

The one listed at the recent Las Vegas auction has several claims to its provenance made by the auction house on its blurb. Some would seem to be the usual auctioneers hype and vague terminogical inexactitude. However some claims are very clear and specific. It states that the bike was acquired by Grahan Wilshire at Startright Cycles in Leeds from Norton in the late 1990's. He rebuilt the motor and moly coated it.It goes on to explain that the original radiator with small fan was changed to a factory WSB concave aluminium one with larger fan. (Did the genuine factory 004 have twin radiators with a gap for front tyre clearance)???It would be most enlightening if Gragam would toss in his two pennarth as to the accuracy of these claims and advise where and to whom the bike was sold onto.I am with Richard, fakes at auction are not uncommon and should be exposed.Roger

[bodgerbloke52]

Sorry Graham, my pork sausage like fingers triped in a G instead of a H in your nameR

[Wayne]

Hi AllThe plot thickensRegards Wayne

[bodgerbloke52]

The Thot Plickens.Wayne I see a frame head stock but it is too small to see any numbers of any sort.Needs a close up???R

[Nortonash]

It says P55 004.

[Wayne]

this may be a bit better, Richard pointed out the lower frame rail is differant profile to the production f1s, i have no idea how two frames were made with the same number ?Regards Wayne

[Nortonash]

I am interested to know why a frame would have been given one number and then given a second different number? I realise ours was a prototype but why change a number but leave the old one visible? Richard

[Richard Negus]

Ash, Photographs please, of your frame and engine numbers, to perhaps jog my memory.R.

[Nortonash]

Unfortunately Richard the bike is in Australia. I never took any photos of the frame numbers.

[Nortonash]

I just thought of something that might help shed some light on the identity of our F1, Norton did a lovely glossy brochure for the F1 where they had the bike where they had sort of photoshopped see through bodywork, you could see everything under the fairing. That was our frame.

[Wayne]

Hi Ashdose the lower frame holow tube below the swinging arm bolt, the top tube has above the swinging arm bolt has one row round it. the swinging in the picture is not stock F1 Regards Wayne

[Wayne]

the prevos post shold have saiddose the lower holow frame tbe have two rows of wellding round it