I just love the look and engineering skills of this. Quite possibly the Chief engine could by ex military anyway. I know how well these big engines pull as standard in a heavy Chief let alone one that's in a light bike and with possible tuning. To my eye it's perfect. Ron
PS. Why the kinell does Kin photobucket chop an important part of the pictures. GRRRRR!

%%htmlItem_1%%

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

If I know that I'm taking a picture for the forum, I take my pictures slightly to the left! Looks to fit together very nicely, do you have a picture of the primary side to see how he's mated up the gearbox?

email (option): davmax@ntlworld.com

Hi Dave. I don't take pictures especially for photobucket. I hate the stupid firm....who keep changing their format without even asking me

I'd like to see the other side of this special also. I'll ask my mate who sent me the picture. Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Got it! This side is not as pleasing to me. I'm not so keen on the primary case or air filter. Ron
%%htmlItem_1%%

%%htmlItem_2%%

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

I know I maybe teaching you to suck eggs but if you click on the forum picture you will get the photo bucket without a cut off picture

email (option): roger.beck@node6.com

It's very nicely put together but personally I don't like it...

To my mind large side valve V twins and the featherbed frame are from distinctly different periods and don't really go together comfortably...

A more performance orientated engine would be a better match for the featherbed IMO..., Manx or International Norton, Gold Star, various parallel twins and OHV V twins such as the J.A.P or Vincent to name a few.......

I think a rigid framed special would have made a better match for the Chief engine...even with tele forks fitted...and drum brakes...

However, when you build a special you mix and match the parts you like and that is an individual thing...Therefore, these sort of bikes should only be judged on the standard of engineering, not aesthetic considerations.

On that basis it looks like a well executed project....Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Have to agree, well put together, mostly, but pointless, a soggy side valve v twin in a frame orginaly designed for a four cyl race engine?

email (option): deadsheds [ at ] yahoo.com

I didn't know that the Featherbed frame was designed for a 4 cylinder engine Ken? It was first used on the Manx in 1950 but I'd like to know more about that.

Each to there own with a special, the Indian engine looks great whatever frame it's in. I know what you mean Ian/Ken about the performance, but not all the engines Norton put in that frame were very powerful. The Model 50 springs to mind..! Even going at 60mph it's good to have a bike that handles. I bet you haven't got to 60mph on your special Ron..?

The primary cover looks wrong and spoils this excellent looking bike. 1400..! Is that the cc..? Maybe not so sluggish after all

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

If I have got it right, the featherbed frame was meant to house an across the frame supercharged 4; banning of superchargers put an end to the idea so they bunges the manx engine in it instead; its teh reason why you can fit just about and engine in featherbed frame, lots of room.

I read somewhere that the guy who designed it reckos that when Norton made it they got the head angles all wrong.

email (option): deadsheds [ at ] yahoo.com

Quite right Horror. So far only about 55 mph, and I'm more than happy poodling about at 45-50. What I do like is the grunt on hills, the extra acceleration for overtaking, and the way it pulls from 15 mph it top. I also like having a rear view mirror which I somehow can't bring myself to fit on my military's.

Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

If I have got it right, the featherbed frame was meant to house an across the frame supercharged 4; banning of superchargers put an end to the idea so they bunges the manx engine in it instead; its teh reason why you can fit just about and engine in featherbed frame, lots of room.

I read somewhere that the guy who designed it reckos that when Norton made it they got the head angles all wrong.[/quote]

Thanks for that Ken, I'll have to try and find out more about it. The info I've found says Norton commissioned the McCandless brothers in 1949 to design a complete frame, incorporating a swinging arm for the Manx racer because the plunger frames were suffering from cracking. The Norton works was not well equipped so the sif-bronze welding was undertaken by the McCandless brothers who produced the eight frames for the racing team by hand. So if the head-stock angles were wrong, McCandles did it, not Norton.

I know there were various angled head-stocks on Featherbeds over the years and the same with the rear shocks. It was trial and error and developed mainly by racing on the Ise of Man. The rear shocks on the 1950's frames were up-right, this was found to put too much strain on it and break, so the shocks were inclined forward. The Reynolds 531 tubing could crack and had to be checked after races. I read somewhere that an even lighter frame was made but only on the condition it was only used for 1 race. I notice when I was at the Manx GP that lots of classic race bikes don't have any paint on the frames so it's easier to check. This of course would be no good for road bikes and those Featherbeds were made from mild steal.

Back to this Indian, I see the first picture it's in Manx trim with large tank and single seat and the next picture it's in Wideline Inter/Diommie trim with different tank and duel seat.

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

Yew da Norton Man Dave!
Yes I also noted that he'd had a change of mind about the saddle and tank. I like the Manx look best Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

I think the short circuit tank is easily the best looking of the featherbed tanks...Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

I agree Ian (although mine has the large tank), this is my favorite clip of a DOHC long stroke Manx with a short circuit tank. Turn volume up to 11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl6KQVq2OFw

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

I just love the look and engineering skills of this. Quite possibly the Chief engine could by ex military anyway. I know how well these big engines pull as standard in a heavy Chief let alone one that's in a light bike and with possible tuning. To my eye it's perfect. Ron
PS. Why the kinell does Kin photobucket chop an important part of the pictures. GRRRRR!
If you click the picture the whole thing shows up. I discovered this a few years ago!
%%htmlItem_1%%[/quote]

I'll try again! If you click the picture the whole pic shows up.

Sorry Rodger, I didn't go through all the messages first.

Yes Roger/Douglas. I do know about clicking the picture. But for one of the most complicated ways of posting pictures, it should be in the centre with a gilt edged frame if you ask me......I still hate photobucket!! Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com