Date: Friday, February 18, 1994 2:35PM
From: Peter Aslan
Zippy the pinhead wrote:
Does anyone have a recommendation on a good project
bike?
A buddy just rebuilt a '79 Harley FLH to living-room
quality. I've a hankering to do the same,
but prefer big inline twins like Triumphs &
Nortons. Are parts available for these beasts?
I think I read an earlier posting to the effect
that Triumphs are still being made; are they
any good?
Peter Aslan replies:
Well, the Triumps being made now share only the
name with the Triump twins of the 60's and 70's. However, there is a big
following and therefore supply of parts for the older machines. I would
recommend the Norton, but then I own one. It is said that the Norton Commando
was the best British twin made, again, I own one.
But seriously, Norton parts are still being made, and in increasing numbers and to a higher specification than originally, thanks to new computer controlled machine tools. I would suggest you look seriously at the spare parts supply of the machines you are considering before purchase. Its always the 1% of the bike thats worn out that you can't find.
Also, draw up a short list and ask a few questions on the net of the bikes you are considering. finally, consider the value of the finished bike, this may not be on your mind right now, but when you have spent £5k on buying and rebuilding a bike and discover its only worth £3.5k it might.
1.1 Before you start... Pain and Suffering.
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 11:55:25 +0000
From: Cindy Grant
Subject: Pain and Suffering
Andrew Wolf , (>>) writes and Chuck Stringer, (>) responds:
>> So you wanna suffer the heartbreak of setting
up a BSA twin huh??
>WANT to? Hell no, but I got myself into this
so...
>> Well very fresh in my mind is this very task
>Nightmares?
To those of you who are having bike nightmares, you're not alone. I think my basket case Triumph is beginning to push me over the edge.
I'm having plenty of trouble with my bikes...
A few weeks ago, I received several boxes of beautifully painted Triumphbody parts from Andrew Wolf. Andrew is an amazing painter-- my Triumph parts turned out to be absolutely GORGEOUS!!! So, I was really excited about getting back to work on the Triumph...
The Norton sensed that the Triumph would be getting some attention and began to exhibit signs of jealously. I'm not going to go into the gory details, but the problem appears to be electrical. I spent a over a week fussing with the Norton and thought I had fixed the problem. Needless to say, the problem cropped up again. Grrrr.
I decided to ignore the Norton's temper tantrum and get back to work on the Triumph. I had removed the cylinder head a while back to fix a leaking pushrod cover seal. Of course, reassembly is never as simple as disassembly...I fought with the thing for hours last weekend and got nowhere. Something wasn't right--there wasn't a consistent gap between barrels and the cylinder head. I finally figured out that the pushrod cover tubes were _slightly_ different. No wonder the leak was so impressive...ARGH! I gave up for the day.
I do have a spare motor from my parts bike, but I had to make sure that the parts from the '65 motor were identical to what I needed for the '63. I figured this was worth checking into before ripping apart an intact motor, unfortunately it was Sunday so I couldn't phone the shop and find out...
I phoned Raber's on Tuesday. They told me that the pushrod tube covers between the '65 and the '63 are interchangeable. Good news--time to begin further disassembly of the parts bike.
So, the '63 Triumph is once again strewn across the living room. I am a basket case. The bike is still a basket case. After nearly four years of being tortured by this bike, I'm wondering when I'll actually get to _ride_ a Triumph.
Sigh. I guess I know what I'll be doing this weekend...
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 10:28:14 -0500 (EST)
Cindy Grant writes:
You're supposed to RIDE them? Damn, what an idea.I've
been doing this all wrong. I thought these things were a penance leftover
from my Catholic school days.
>Sigh. I guess I know what I'll be doing this
weekend...
Me, too. My plans for the weekend:
1. Install oil tank.
Gotta love it. Chuck (basket case) Stringer.
1.2 The Norton
Commando Model Range.
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 09:44:30 PST
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 93 09:43:15 CST
There was some interest about finding the Norton
Commando model from its serial number. The following is a list found in
Roy Bacon's Norton Twin Restoration. (A book I would recommend, BTW).
The good news is that there is a bit of information
about 750 models, the bad news is that there is almost no information about
850 models. Hope this helps (but please dont flame me if everyone finds
out that they own converted Hi-Riders :-).
Commando
750 Models:
850 Models:
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 94 22:58:58 PDT
The microfilms of Norton's factory records for
the Commando series have finally arrived, and I took them down to the library
to have a quick peek and print off a few pages.
The roll I started with was for the 1972 models
starting with number 200,000. I spent less than an hour with them, and
discovered a number of very interesting things, including the fact that
the records seem to specify the model (Fastback, Fastback LR, Roadster,
Interpol, Interstate and Hi-Rider).
There were quite a few "R/D" designations as well.
One long run of Hi-Riders went to Jersey (begging the question, _why_).
But the _most_ interesting thing was that very few numbers were actually
used on motorcycles. A page could contain up to 30 motorcycles. Of the
50-odd pages I went through, three had nothing on them and at least a quarter
had only one or two entries (generally a "nice" number such as 201,750).
Ultimately I'd like to compile an XBase listing of the records, but that
may take some time... Fascinating stuff!
1.3 Diffrences
between the Mk2 and Mk2A Commando.
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 94 09:02:27 EST
I got a request a couple of weeks ago about differences
in the MK II-A Commando in '74. I found mention in a '86 USNOA newsletter
so I thought I'd post it. I cleaned out several hundred email messages
& lost the original request.
The quickest check is to look at the spindle end
of the swing arm. Prior models had grease fittings on the oil caps in the
head of a long bolt that went thru the middle of the spindle. Three
problems arose :
1. Grease fittings had to be removed to lube the
swing arm.
MK II-A's have a freeze plug in the end of the
spindle. Any time you order stainless swing arm/bush kits for a MK
II-A order the MK III kit.
MK II-A's also have inspection plug holes in the
rear brake plate to check lining thickness.
Another change is in the mounting of the alternator
to better support the rotor & put less stress on the woodruff key.
1.4 Buying
A 750 Norton Commano, the Combat Saga.
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 12:02:18 -0800 (PST)
I'm going to look at and hopefully bring home
a '73 Commando Roadster, supposedly all original and in excellent condition.
This will be my first Britbike, and I'd appreciate any advice, as I don't
exactly know what I'm doing. I understand there were some problems with
the Combat engine of '72-'73. How do I identify those engines, and should
they be avoided? Anything else I need to look out for?
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 08:50:24 GMT
Yes avoid Combat engines. My friend recently did
a ground up restoration on Combat engined 'mando. His theory was simple,
he's an experienced engineer, this is the 90's, you should be able to make
a Combat engine reliable.
Well, he built it (and didn't cut corners either,
it wasn't cheap), and sure enough, it exploded after less than 4,000 miles.
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 08:53:29 GMT
In responce to Steve Moseley question concerning
the aquisition of a
Combat engine specification was introduced for
a time when 750cc Commandos were being produced. The problem was in the
design of the engine and the fact that this 'strech' of the twin was a
step too far. So, what you need to do is identify if your prospective model
is a Combat.
Even if it is, a lower price could be negociated
and the engine converted.
If memory serves, the problem was with the increase
in loading on the Main bearings provided by the increase in Compression
Ratio, although this produced the Fastest Commando models. Flexing and
sideways movement of the crank also helped to destroy the mains, The solution
was to replace the roller mains with what has become known as superblend
Mains. Rather than sperical ball bearings in a cage, superblends contain
barrel shaped bearings which allow sideways movement.
I must say that if the bike is of combat spec,
and has been around this long and has more than about 10,000 miles on the
clock chances are it has already been converted, either before the bang
or after!
From the Norton Owners Club Handbook:
750 Commando Models:
Fastback 1967-73 Matching
tank and tailpiece
You don't say what the capacity is, but 850 Models
were never produced with a combat engine.
From The Norton Owners Club Commando Service notes:
Engine No Notes.
200967 First COMBAT engine. Compression ratio
raised to 10:1 by machining head, double S camshaft fitted. Black barrels,
32mm carbs. Disc brake right hand side behind fork leg. Models now 'Fastback
and Roadster.'
212278 Interstate. Larger black or blue (5gal)
tank, seat longer. Low level interstate silencers. (Most Combat Engines
were later modified to standard engine specification and stronger main
bearings fitted, ie Superblends (Barrelled Rollers). Small sump plug introduced,
later models with car type Oil Filter. 16H Type (pre-war) front Brake shoes
with speedo drive clearance no longer used in Commando rear Wheel.
220000 COMBAT Engine abandoned but 32mm carbs
retained. Roadster Mk. V. Interstate Mk. V Only. No More fastbacks. Black
instrument pods.
230935 Last 750 Commando Produced, (unless
you know better).
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 08:05:03 -0600 (CST)
Fastback
1967-73 Matching tank and tailpiece
Apparently there were several Interstate tanks
made. I've seen some references to fiberglass ones. Mine is steel, and
though I've never run it dry, I've gotten as much as 6.5 gallons in it.
I figure it holds about 7, for an effective cruising range of around 300
miles.
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 09:30:00 -0800 (PST)
In response to Steve Moseley's question concerning
the aquisition of a 1973 Norton Commando:
I agree with Peter Aslan that just because the
Commando has a Combat engine is no reason to avoid it. What you want to
do is make sure it is mechanically sound, and that you aren't stuck with
the task of rectifying either the factory's mistakes, or the last
bozo's best efforts. By now if the engine is mechanically sound,
unless you ride like an rabid animal, it is likely that all of the combat-related
surprises have occurred.
Small point of clarification regarding the Superblend
bearings. Yes they are barrel shaped, and yes they went a long way to solving
the problem with the combat spec engine. This was accomplished not by allowing
sideways movement but accomodating the non-axial rotation of the crank.
Think of the crank whipping like a skipping rope as it rotates. The barrel
shaped rollers of the superblend allowed the inner race to track/support
the crank as it whipped around. Sounds Mickey mouse but it worked. Buried
in the Norton Technical notes is a small warning that various superblends
are available, but that only one is right for the job. I believe it is
made by FAG and the part number is in the notes.
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 18:09:15 -0800 (PST)
Thanks to all for the excellent advice. I bought
a really clean '73 Commando 750 Roadster. The bike apparently had
a pretty thorough restoration in '87, and the guy had all the original
bearings and isolastics that were replaced then. He claims the engine has
not been rebuilt, and there's no obvious (to me, anyway) evidence that
it has been. The bike runs great. It was 28 F this morning and it fired
up on the second kick. Throttle response is very good, so I assume the
carbs have been tended to. The bike shows 12,000 miles. So here's the thing
that really concerns me: the serial number, 211139, would seem to but the
bike smack into the Combat engine period. However, the guy insisted to
the point of becoming beligerant about it that the engine was NOT a combat
engine.
This is a 750 with a front disk brake, and given
the serial number, it seems to me it is probably a Combat. It runs great.
Do I just forget about it and ride it, or do I really tear down a nice
looking, nice running engine to see what kind of bearings are in there
and replace them if they are the original Combat roller bearings? I wanted
to avoid the Combat engine, but this bike was so clean and obviously well
maintained, and ran and handled so well, that I couldn't pass it up (at
$1950). I searched the head for a C stamp, but didn't find anything.
Thanks again to all who responded with advice.
It's really entertaining to go from a bike with left side shift lever,
to one with right side upside down shift lever, to one with foot clutch,
tank shifter, and front brake lever on the left side.
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 21:08:15 -0800 (PST)
Steve,
According to Roy Bacon's 'Norton Twin Restoration',
serial number 211110 was the 'first detuned engine', so maybe you got one
of the first few after they stopped the Combat series...
Sounds like it's a good runner anyway. Congrats!
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 08:05:20 -0600 (CST)
>Thanks to all for the excellent advice. I bought
a really clean '73
Mine is also a '73. The only thing I don't like
is the big square tailight, but around town it's probably more functional
than the more traditional Lucas unit, so I've kept it.
>The bike apparently had a pretty thorough restoration
in '87, and the
If the mileage is correct, I'd expect the carbs
to go maybe another 10,000 if they haven't been sleeved. Grease the speedo
drive immediately. It's probably the most neglected maintenance in Brit
bikes, and these units are getting a bit scarce and expensive. There's
a fitting on the bottom side.
>So here's the thing that really concerns me:
the serial number, 211139, would seem to
It is not likely a Combat. You appear to be under
the impression that all engines built during the time of Combat production
were Combat spec. That was not the case. The Combat was a distinct model
in the line. Standard tuned engines were built during the same time period,
and apparently in far greater numbers.
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 93 09:18:55 PST
Further to the Combat engine issue.
The first Combat engine was basically a 750 engine
with a hotter cam and higher compression. It was an option and coexisted
with the standard-tune 750.
It wasn't long before Norton discovered that the
Combat engine was a disaster of major proportions, at about the same time
that they started having financial difficulties (1971-72). They corrected
the problems in the second run of Combat engines, primarily by replacing
the roller bearings with barrel rollers (the Superblends), and _*_these_*_
Combat engines were, simply put, excellent. In 1973, the 850 was introduced,
so you had the option of the 750 Combat or the 850 engine. Either one was
a fundamentally sound engine.
1.5 Buying
a Norton Commando Hi-Rider.
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 13:18:09 -0500 (EST)
John Kula writes:
I've seen a couple of these for sale lately for
a lot less than the usual Commandos, Is there something wrong with them
other than the seat and bars? Can they be easily modified to look like
the other models or is the ugly to the bone?
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 13:38:35 -0600 (CST)
The gas tank is also a very small (about 2 - 2
1/2 gallons) fiberglass unit, similar in appearance to a 441 Victor tank.
But that's about it. Commandoes of this vintage can be easily converted
to Hi-Riders, Interstates, Roadsters if you got the bucks for the seat,
tank, bars, cables, and in the case of the Interstate, sidecovers.
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 08:31:08 +1100
Chuck Stringer writes:
>> Hi-Rider
1972-74
If you can get the tank, seat, side covers, h/bars
and exausts for the
Also you need to fit control cables of the correct
length for the new h/bars.
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 23:11:01 GMT
I have owned a Norton High-Rider for the past
17 Years.
All the above notes refer to a 1974 850cc Commando
and one of the last Hi-Riders. Once the seat and bars were changed I found
I had a great bike. The tank actually looks OK with a roadster seat, but
it's capacity is a bit of a pain with around 100 miles between fill ups.
So, there you are. If you can get a Hi-Rider chances
are you'll have a bargin. Hard to imagine anyone thrashing any bike with
bars that high and they were built largely for export. The model of Comando
you would like to make it into, is largely down to getting the bits and
bolting them on.
Hardest to find are Interstate tanks and steel
side panels. I do know of a company that will fabricate an interstate tank
in aluminium for about $140 pounds however.
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 16:31:54 CST
Chuck asks:
>I've seen a couple of these for sale lately for
a lot less than the usual Commandos, Is
Funny you should ask. Im turning a '71 750 Hi-Rider
into a fastback by ordering the bodywork from fair-spares. The Hi-Rider
tank and seat on my bike were junk anyway so I figured I could build the
bike I really wanted. The hi-rider headlamp is smaller than normal, and
the cables are longer (duh!). Norton tanks and seats are bolt-on items,
other changes like cables handlebars and hydraulic hoses should get you
to a roadster/fastback/ prod-racer/interstate look-alike. Unfortunately,
the serial numbers will give away a conversion.
I dont believe there were any mechanical changes
made for the Hi-Rider, just cosmetic changes. And the most amazing thing,
there seems to be a bunch of them around!?!
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 16:31:54 CST
>handlebars and hydraulic hoses should get you
to a roadster/fastback/prod-
Nay, Nay - the factory never kept track of serial
no.-to-model. You can convert an Interstate to a Roadster with no traceability.
I *do* have a '73 Interstate which I bought from the original owner who
bought it new, and the title came from the dealer (ex-Boston Cycles). This
is the only way I know of to verify model authenticity.
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 17:00:01 CST
What you say about serial number-to-model is true.
However, there are two things to bear in mind: the first is the ability
of the dealer to make changes before you buy. The 1973 Interstate I bought
actually came from the factory as a Roadster, but because I wanted an Interstate,
the dealer "made" it for me by swapping tank/seat/side covers with someone
who had bought the last Interstate earlier and decided he wanted a Roadster
instead. So you can't _really_ rely on dealer records (although, for all
practical purposes, I suspect you could most of the time).
Secondly, there are times when it might be possible
to determine that a claimed model couldn't be, by the serial number. If
someone makes a Model "R" or Model "S" out of a 1971 or later serial number,
it would be incorrect since those models were made only during 1969. Again,
this is a dodgy thing because it's not universally true, but it will work
under certain circumstances.
In the official factory records, there are two
columns of data which I can't decipher. The data columns are: Serial Number;
an alphanumeric of forma K9999; Model (i.e., "Commando"); an alphanumeric
of format LA9999; Target Dealer; and, Date. It's the two alphanumerics
(which don't appear to be exclusive) that I have no idea about. Can you
help?
1.6 Building
a John Player Special.
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 10:34:33 GMT
I am currently building a Norton 750 Commando
for racing and am going to make it look like a john palyer? The discussions
have been very interesting about Nortons and I have gleaned a lot of information.
For info I am having the frame stove enamelled
red and going to use white bodywork. Does anyone have any info on
fairings. I am planning to use the "bullet" type fairing long thin
tank (glass) and the seat unit with number ovals built in but was offered
a full fairly big fairing.
The motor is a "COMBAT". Fair Spares in
UK say that anything could be called a combat with high compression and
ally rods but the previous postings about combat motors were right about
the first motors that would break up sometimes within 500 miles. I have
got superblends, medium compression (in racing terms) pistons, 4S
cams, the breather has been moved and a "ring" has been welded to the primary
side to stengthen the crankcase. This means I will have to use belt drive.
I am aiming to use a 4 speed box although I have got a full quaife box
and 5 speed cluster but was not going to use it to start with.
I would like to also put the bike on the road
but have no log book etc. does anyone know how I do it?
Any tips hints etc would be gratefully received.
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 17:41:57 CST
From John Pragnell:
This sounds more like a Norton Production Racer
than the JPN replica. As I remember, the JPN did not have the oval number
or the small fairing (it was more like a 3/4 fairing). The Production Racer
also had a long squarish gas tank where the JPN (again, if I remember correctly)
had a fiberglass cover over the gas tank. I think all the Production Racer
bodywork is available from Norvil and/or Norman Hyde in UK.
>I have got superblends, medium compression (in
racing terms) pistons, 4S cams, the
Sounds like a good combination. Where do you plan
to get the belt drive? Will you be keeping the stator and rotor, or is
this for racing only? You may want to check the gearbox to make sure everything
is still tight. I have seen several exploded Norton 'boxes.
A general question for brit-iron, has anyone ever
seen a real Norton Thruxton racer, made one year (1975)? If so, is there
a source for replica bodywork for that bike?
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 18:11:47 CST
I am planning to get the belt drive from Fair
Spares here in the UK. They seem to have a selection of different sized
drive "sprokets" any info on different gearings would be useful. (I know
size is not important!!). I will not have an alternator as someone has
already cut the end off my best crank. But for the road I was going to
use a large battery and for racing a smaller one to save weight.
Thanks for the info so far on bodywork I think
I now understand the different versions I have seen. The favoured kit (only
because I have the tank already) is the production racer version. All being
available from Fair spares again. (I would like to point out I do not work
for them but have found them exteremly helpful especially in taking my
money)
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 09:52:46 PST
Yup, the JPN bodywork was _completely_ different
from the Production Racer stuff. The JPN had a 3/4 fairing with twin 5"
headlights, and the fairing extended around and over the bar ends. It has
the more bulbous design similar to recent data from windtunnel testing.
The seat combo was a single seat with very high
back end (a good 9" high, if I recall). A twin seat came as an option,
but didn't tie in as nicely, I thought. The JPN also had all the excessively
restrictive stuff, like oil-bath air cleaner and those bazooka-like mufflers
(bean cans or black tops). The fibreglas bit over the gas tank didn't seem
to accomplish too much, so I removed mine, had the gas tank welded up and
finished (the original was a Roadster tank with the back cut off and another
6" of tank welded on, very sloppily). It didn't seem to effect the support
of the fairing in any way. Proddy racer plastic is still available
from a number of sources, both in North America and over 'ome. Much smaller,
lighter, and probably more sensible if you're really going to race and
weight is a factor.
1.7 Commando
v Royal Enfield Intercepter.
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 09:53:10 -0700
Stephen Hill asks:
Well I have riden both, back to back. The
Interceptor was a recent rebuild of a '68 with road-holder forks and British
650 Triumph tank. The Commando was a '71 750 Roadster with Dunstall pipes.
As I said the interceptor was on break-in miles
so I wasn't able to spin it much past 4000. From the brief ride that I
took it is no where as near as punchy as a Commando. From low rpm, the
Commando has much better pick up. By the seat-of-the-pants testing I'd
also say that the Commando is the quicker accelerator. Despite the Enfield
being dynamically balanced at the factory, the Commando also felt smoother.
The over all impression I got, was that the Interceptor
is a lumbering giant. It had a nice relaxing feel to it. You knew that
it could be made to fly, but why push it. I think that the brief ride of
the Interceptor cured me of ever getting one -the gearbox was the absolute
worst of any bike I've ridden. There were more false neutrals than gears
in the box. (I know it might just have been this particular bike
that suffered so.)
While I'm slagging off the Interceptor %), does
anyone else feel that the Royal Enfields have very poor quality welding
on their frames. I find the suspension mounting lug welds particularily
ugly.
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 94 10:26:55 -0700
Someone writing about the differences between
Snortons and Inteceptors metioned that the frames were ugly, especially
welding.
I have never seen 'good' welding on production
brit bike frames, every time I strip one for restoration I am appalled
at the weld appearence, spatter and brazing blobs. Although the welds to
penetrate they are ugly, and none uglyier than the BSA frames.
I resist the temptation to completely smooth the
welds, but I do knock off weld spatter.
Ever see a Seely frame??? Damn talk about beautiful
welds, damn near as nice as the ones on my 74 Ducati 750 GT. Seely is so
proud that they plate them instead of painting.
From: Chuck Stringer
>So, the '63 Triumph is once again strewn across
the living room.
>I am a basket case. The bike is still a basket
case.
>After nearly four years of being tortured by
this bike,
>I'm wondering when I'll actually get to _ride_
a Triumph.
2. Polish and wax rear fender.
3. Install said fender.
4. Solve head mystery (yeah, right) and install
head.
5. Assemble timing side.
6. Make valiant attempt to combine engine and
frame.
7. Fail miserably at at least two of the above
steps.
8. Retire to the lazyboy and consume massive
quantities of fermented beverages.
9. Make obscene jestures in the general direction
of Birmingham.
From: John Kula
The Combat engine was available in late 72 and 73
in all models available in the line. The early ones were disastrous --the
later were excellent.
From: Bruce Graham
prefix 20M3 - distributor model
prefix 20M3S - Camshaft end points model.
Month Year
Serial No. Model/Notes
Feb 1968
126125 First Production
Commando
Mar 1969
131180 Fastback
Mar 1969
131257 S with camshaft
end points
Sept 1969
133668 Fastback
134108 First Wolverhampton
engine
(P suffix Plumstead)
Mar 1970
135140 Roadster
June 1970
135008 Last S
Sept 1970
139571 Fastback MkII
Jan 1971
141717 Last Fastback MkII
Jan 1971
142534 Roadster MkII
Mar 1971
145234 SS
Apr 1971
144343 Fastback LR
May 1971
146074 Hi-Rider
Oct 1971
150723 Last SS
Jan 1972
200001 Fastback MkIV
Jan 1972
200001 Fastback LR MkIV
Jan 1972
200001 Roadster MkIV
Jan 1972
200001 Hi-Rider MkIV
Jan 1972
200001 Interstate
200976 First Combat engine
211110 First detuned engine
1973 212278
Interstate
Mar 1973
220001 Roadster MkV
Mar 1973
220001 Hi-Rider MkV
Mar 1973
220001 Interstate MkV
230935 last 750 Commando
Month Year
Serial No. Model/Notes
Apr 1973
300000 First 850
Sep 1973
306591 MkIA 850
Jan 1974
307311 MkII and IIA 850
Feb 1975
325001 First engine number
MkIII
F125001 Frame number MkIII
From: "John Kula"
From: arg2w@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu
2. End caps had trouble retaining oil.
3. Bolt could come loose & fall out.
From: Steve Moseley
From: Richard W
From: Peter Aslan
1973 Norton Commando:
Roadster 1969-74 Small
Tank
S Type 1969-71
Twin high exaust on left
Interstate 1972-73 Five gallon tank
Combat 1972
Tuned high compression bomb.
From: Jeff Achenbach
Roadster
1969-74 Small Tank
S Type
1969-71 Twin high exaust on left
Interstate
1972-73 Five gallon tank
Combat
1972 Tuned high compression bomb.
From: Stephen Hill
From: Steve Moseley
From: Ralph Merwin
From: Jeff Achenbach
>Commando 750 Roadster.
>guy had all the original bearings and isolastics
that were replaced
>then. He claims the engine has not been rebuilt,
and there's no obvious
>(to me, anyway) evidence that it has been. The
bike runs great. It was
>28 F this morning and it fired up on the second
kick. Throttle response
>is very good, so I assume the carbs have been
tended to. The bike shows
>12,000 miles.
>put the bike smack into the Combat engine period.
However, the guy insisted to the
>point of becoming beligerant about it that the
engine was NOT a combat engine. This
>is a 750 with a front disk brake, and given
the serial number, it seems to me it is
>probably a Combat. It runs great. Do I just
forget about it and ride it, or do I really
>tear down a nice looking, nice running engine
to see what kind of bearings are in
>there and replace them if they are the original
Combat roller bearings? I wanted to
>avoid the Combat engine, but this bike was so
clean and obviously well maintained,
>and ran and handled so well, that I couldn't
pass it up (at $1950). I searched the head
>for a C stamp, but didn't find anything.
From: "John Kula"
From: Chuck Stringer
> Hi-Rider
1972-74
From: Jeff Achenbach
From: Roy Armstrong
Commando model you like all the parts swap over.
From: Peter Aslan
No, it didnt stay with the wild seat and bars
for long, the differences
I have found so far are as follows:
As a previous item of mail stated, the basic bike,
frame, engine electrics and carbs all remain as standard.
From: Bruce Graham
>there something wrong with them other than the
seat and bars? Can they be easily
>modified to look like the other models or is
the ugly to the bone?
From: Bruce Graham
>racer/interstate look-alike. Unfortunately,
the serial numbers will give away a
>conversion.
From: John Kula
From: john@terminus.ericsson.se (John Pragnell)
From: Bruce Graham
>For info I am having the frame stove enamelled
red and going to use white
>bodywork. Does anyone have any info on fairings.
I am planning to use the "Bullet"
>type fairing long thin tank (glass) and the
seat unit with number ovals built in but was
>offered a full fairly big fairing.
>breather has been moved and a "ring" has been
welded to the primary side to
>stengthen the crankcase. This means I will have
to use belt drive. I am aiming to use a
>4 speed box although I have got a full quaife
box and 5 speed cluster but was not
>going to use it to start with.
From: John Pragnell
From: John Kula
From: Mark Williams
>Anybody else rode an Interceptor and care to
compare its performance to a
>Commando? I feel that the Intereceptor, once
it was rolling, could take a
>Commando.
From: Andrew Wolf