I found this picture on a forum, it says "Homeguard", can anyone tell me any more than that please?
A lovely selection of bikes they have, the first one is a CS1 or Inter, and that beautifully streamlined exhaust dates it at 1938. The second bike looks the same. They could certainly retreat faster than most

email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk

It's a photo which has appeared from time to time but I can't find the original source anymore. It probably is an HG unit as they are all private machines and although this occurred with Territorial units in the UK early on, the appearance of service crash helmets and 1940 pattern BD probably puts this photo as 1941 onwards.

The '38 camshaft job doesn't have the Inter's built-in brake drum so it's one of the touring models but I wouldn't know how to differentiate between a CS1 and a CJ.

Could be somewhere in the North West. The first bike has a Chester registration and I think I an spot a Manx one there as well.

All the Norton rolling chassis and cycle parts seemed to be the same for each model at that time. Well spotted with the drum Rik, the only difference between a CS and a CJ would be the number of fins I would guess, either way, a lovely bike to be issued with. The shop owner who had to "give up" those bikes must have been a very unhappy man. He probably is the man with it and he's made sure his sergeant has one too

I also noticed the different type of blackout masks fitted.
A great picture, I've never seen it before.

email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk

The 350 Model 50/55 had a different frame from the 500 OHV and the CJ also had a different frame from the CS1...However, forks and fuel tanks were the same so I'm not clear on whether they were physically smaller for the 350s or maybe lighter gauge tubing ?

I don't think that these are 'Impressed' or 'Local Purchase' machines as those vehicles were incorporated into the military system and no longer had to display number plates. More likely these were private owners who received a mileage allowance for putting themselves and their machines at the disposal of the authorities.

I copied this picture onto my file in March 2007 but I can't remember where from !

Oh yes, the Model 50/55 had the open frame like a WD16H and the CS/CJ/Inters had a cradle frame. I can't see any obvious differences between the CS and CJ's but the wheel base and over all length for the 500cc is 3/4" longer than the 350cc, and the same for the Model 30 and 40 Inters, which is odd. Do you know wherre this extra 3/4" is added?
The only thing I can think of is they've given the 500cc's 3/4" more to fit the engine. I don't think you'd see the difference by looking at the bikes.

I've just noticed the HP for these OHC engines..! Is that correct? That's less than a 16H

email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk

The only other difference that I can spot, bearing in mind that forks, wheels, tanks and saddles didn't alter is that the 350s had their own rear chainguards so the 3/4" off the wheelbase that you've mentioned might be the only difference and would be due to shorter rear chain and saddle stays.

The WD 16H had shorter front and saddle tubes but this gives higher ground clearance rather than a lower height.

The HP figures quoted in the brochure are a vestige of the old tax ratings. I'm not sure if they were still on the original RAC basis which took account of stroke or a way of stating cylinder capacity in the HP format as that was what buyers expected (none of that continental centimetres nonsense).

['The Japanese quote PS'].....(Pony Size)..

A look at the weights, stated BHP and performance figures of a selection of modern bikes will quickly throw up anomalies between different models and expose the farce that is 'stated BHP'....

Similarly weight figures themselves are also 'massaged'..dry weight, wet weight, gross weight, kerb weight etc..

Not to mention fuel consumption figures largely based on theory....

You would think most vehicle manufacturers would be wide open to action under the trade descriptions act but it doesn't happen...I guess everyone would rather to live in a world of fantasy......Ian

I always thought a Norton Big 4 was called that because of it's 4 HP. But it's also quoted as 14.5 BHP. The same as a 16H is quoted as 12BHP and not by it's HP. Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

I thought the big4 was Norton's big 4 stroke model

Rob

email (option): robmiller11(at)yahoo.co.uk

Wasn't it called a Big 4 after the RAC taxation class. 4 HP.

That's what I thought also. I said so in my last post. Those other Norton's in the catalogue are also advertised with their 'Horse Power' and not their 'Brake Horse Power' Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

The 82x120 Big 4 was 4 RAC (Tax) Horsepower and that rating was used for calculating tax until after WW2. This is the system that gave us 7 and 8HP Austins for example. However, at some point in the 1930s, manufacturers seem to have decided that the figures were too low to attract buyers and started taking cubic capacity in cc and calling them HP - Thus the 348cc engine became 3.48 HP.

I don't believe that it had any legal basis, simply that UK buyers were used to 'Horse-Power' and the RAC system which suggested power was made by longer stroke than bigger bores was becomming irrelevant.

Do some of the blackout masks have the Lucas Maxlite plate on the front of them?

James

email (option): jamescusteau@yahoo.com