75 Mk III shift quality?

I had my sights set on a 1975 850 and a supposedly very knowledgeable British bike guy told me the 75's are junk. That they ran a jackshaft to move the shifter to the left side and it required a lot of movement even lifting the knee similar to my 75 Sportster that did us a jackshaft that ran over to the passenger side. But I do not see that in the photos it looks like it goes right into the trans like most bikes. Cam someone who knows shed some light on whether or not. this is true or not. I would prefer right braking because I am 69 years old and every bike I have had (15+) the brakes are on the right hand side and obviously this is safer for me in the event of having to make a panic stop. Thanks, Terry

trstahly said:

I had my sights set on a 1975 850 and a supposedly very knowledgeable British bike guy told me the 75's are junk. That they ran a jackshaft to move the shifter to the left side and it required a lot of movement even lifting the knee similar to my 75 Sportster that did us a jackshaft that ran over to the passenger side. But I do not see that in the photos it looks like it goes right into the trans like most bikes. Cam someone who knows shed some light on whether or not. this is true or not. I would prefer right braking because I am 69 years old and every bike I have had (15+) the brakes are on the right hand side and obviously this is safer for me in the event of having to make a panic stop. Thanks, Terry

Click to expand...

" IF " you are looking at a 1975 Commando , the rear brake for what it's worth is operated from the right hand side . As for shifting ... they will shift as smooth as silk with very little effort . This coming from a soon to be 67 year old ..

I know that and that is what I want but this guy told me they shit very poorly I am not sure if he is trying to steer me towards a bike he likes or is telling the truth but you say they shift fine is that correct?

The Mk3 does have a countershaft for shifting, because the transmission is essentially the same as used on rhs shifters (i.e. pre-Mk3 models). This fact alone does not make the bike 'junk', if it works. Why not try one out? Is this feature your only criterion? A british made vintage bike will have lots of other quirks, and if you are used to jap bikes, it might be a better proposition to buy one of those (spares backup may be a problem), or a modern Triumph.

I've never heard of a "passenger side" in the context of bikes. Passengers are usually placed behind the driver. I guess you mean offside or r/h side.

- Knut

trstahly said:

I know that and that is what I want but this guy told me they shit very poorly I am not sure if he is trying to steer me towards a bike he likes or is telling the truth but you say they shift fine is that correct?

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure some MK3 owners will be along shortly with "advice" for this guy

Sounds like your friend is very dismissive of Mk 3's. They are a very well known and understood commodity these days, and there are lots of solutions to their various quirks available. I personally know of at least half a dozen that get ridden regularly in my area, and their owners love them.

From what you have described as your criterion for owning one, I personally would not be afraid of owning one.

FWIW

T140s, T160s, mk3 Commandos all employed crude cross over shaft arrangements.

But, provided you set up properly, they all shift superbly.

trstahly said:

I had my sights set on a 1975 850 and a supposedly very knowledgeable British bike guy told me the 75's are junk. That they ran a jackshaft to move the shifter to the left side and it required a lot of movement even lifting the knee similar to my 75 Sportster that did us a jackshaft that ran over to the passenger side. But I do not see that in the photos it looks like it goes right into the trans like most bikes. Cam someone who knows shed some light on whether or not. this is true or not. I would prefer right braking because I am 69 years old and every bike I have had (15+) the brakes are on the right hand side and obviously this is safer for me in the event of having to make a panic stop. Thanks, Terry

Click to expand...

I would not worry about the right /left braking issue. I am 68 and have bikes that shift both sides. It has never been a problem. If I have not ridden one style for a bit the shift pattern ( Nortons are up for first) catches me out once in a while but never the brake/ shift issue . Go for it .
Echo what others have said - Commando gearboxes shift sweetly.

trstahly said:

I had my sights set on a 1975 850 and a supposedly very knowledgeable British bike guy told me the 75's are junk. That they ran a jackshaft to move the shifter to the left side and it required a lot of movement even lifting the knee similar to my 75 Sportster that did us a jackshaft that ran over to the passenger side.

Click to expand...

If the pedal was badly positioned or the cross-shaft mechanism worn so the mechanism is sloppy then perhaps, however, if not then it shouldn't require any lifting of the knee or the foot from the footrest.

Shifting from neutral to 1st (down on Mk3), then up to 4th and back to neutral (turning the rear wheel with my hand as I do so to aid selection).

I have a MK3 with the cross shaft and also a couple of Nortons with the older direct right hand shift AMC box.
Some folks have tremendous sensitivity in their shifter foot toes and talk about things I don't understand, such as " shifter feedback".

For me the MK3 shifts perfectly, the same as the right sides AMC boxes. I can't recall ever missing a shift with it in 30,000 miles.
I don't even think about shifting that bike, it just happens when it needs to.
The MK3 has a lot of strengthened and improved items vs the earlier bikes.
The are plenty of threads here about conversions on earlier bikes to MK3 style items.
The swing arm and isolastics come to mind, but there are scads more, some quite small improvements that were deemed worthwhile.
It also has strengthened crankcases and crankshaft. Not so easy to convert the earlier bikes to that spec.

And when you stall in traffic or have an injured right knee/ankle/foot, the estart is awfully nice.
A couple of good estarts are now available for the earlier bikes, but plan on spending about 3 k CDN $ for the estart alone, no labour.

Glen

Hi,
well, this is my experience through some random facts, though I’m far less qualified than many who write on this forum.
# Over my life my main bike has been a T160 and to a lesser extent a T140V (45 years), both with LH changes complete with cross over shafts. I also spend half my life on a Yamaha TTR250 as my work bike on my farm (in very rough conditions).

# The Triumphs, particularly the Trident with well adjusted dry clutch, has the best gear change I have ever experienced.

#Fifteen years ago I bought a Mk2 850 roadster in excellent condition to complete my little stable. I didn’t purchase a Mk3 as I thought the early bike, minus electric start, had a cleaner lighter line to it. They somehow represented a more ‘classic’ era.

#I now rather wish I had chosen the Mk3. A little more technically advanced in most areas, though at the time the electric start wasn’t really a consideration as I (incorrectly) believed they rarely worked.

# i found he RH change on the Commando to feel rather antique compared to other bikes with a very long throw and slightly clunky feel. This is not a problem, just an observation. With only 4 speeds and plenty of torque, not many changes are required in my style of riding on the Norton. With spirited riding on the the Trident I’m always through the gears keeping her ‘on song’.

# It took me many years of ownership to really appreciate the Norton’s performance and handling after the more ‘urgent’ Triumphs, the Bonneville with her quicker handling (but shorter legs) and the (tuned up) 850 Trident with her snarling urgency and precise handling.

# Truth be told, I’ve never truly adapted to the RH upside down (for me) change and left hand brake. I guess this problem is exacerbated by spending so much time on the TTR. I find I really don’t use the (barely adequate) rear brake as much as I should. Others say you quickly adapt, not so for me.

# To say a Mk3 is rubbish in comparison to other Nortons is simply ridiculous. They are obviously more of the same only improved in a great many areas, so arguably the best Norton built. Most of their shortcomings can now be overcome, as they can with all our bikes.

# Of all the problems written about in this forum, issues with the crossover and LH change almost never appears.

# In retrospect I would have bought a Mk 3 Interstate but I’m still very happy with my 74 Mk2 roadster. My honest advice is to buy the best bike you can afford and if it’s a Mk3, all the better.

They are all really great bikes. Don’t assume I’m saying the Triumphs are better than Nortons, they are just different and I spent my formative years on them. the commando is every bit their equal only a little more archaic.

just some thoughts
Alan

And , on test back in the day, the Norton was just a bit faster than the Trident
In fact , for 1/4 mile acceleration, the Commando, was the World's fastest production bike in 1970.
( Cycle Superbike 7 Shootout)
It still amazes me that the ancient Norton parallel twin beat the then modern Triples and the new Honda 750 four.

Glen

hi Glen,
Yes, they did provide great performance. I think a combat commando would have been the quickest of the lot. My T160 has had a capacity increase and a few other mods so it’s not really fair to compare it with my bog standard commando
Interestingly, as a ten year old I can still remember the hype surrounding the launch of the 750/4. It was as if other large (higher performance ) bikes didn’t exist. There were news items questioning whether it was morally right to allow such a high speed bike. God, but the marketing department of British bikes must have been woeful, to allow them to get away with this.
How Commando managed to be bike of the year, year in and year out without getting a few of it’s problems sorted out to make it more accessible to the type of weekend rider for which the Honda was designed for is beyond me.
As I have mentioned on previous posts, Hondas didn’t present a problem to me on the T160 but I seemed to play catch-up to the Z900. By 1975 both Triumph and Norton needed a performance lift to say, 80 hp (with capacity increase as necessary) with a large increase in daily reliability to make it attractive to those who were not committed to the motorcycle , biker lifestyle but wanted something fast and reliable that didn’t put oil on the clothes.
Such a shame it never happened,
regards
al

The Combat did make an extra 5 bhp or at top vs earlier 750s, but lost some in the middle. Even so, it doesn't seem to show up as faster than the earlier Commando in period acceleration tests that I have here.
Then there was that little problem of keeping the Combat engine internals inside the crankcases!

The 1970 Commando was stripped after the Cycle test and found to be stock, other than some valve collars that Cycle did not see as performance enhancing.
The Harley was found to have many performance enhancing modifications, nonetheless it was pretty slow.
The Harley people, were sore losers. They complained loudly that the Norton had to be highly modified in order to beat their bike so soundly.
With all of their cheating they had fully expected to leave everything far behind.
Cycle called them on it and stripped all of the bikes. They found that Harley was the only cheater, so they were disqualified, slow times and all.
I still have the magazine.

Glen

One other MK3 item worth mentioning. The MK3s gained a reputation for being slow and heavy.
The actual weight difference has been measured and it's about 25 lbs, the weight of the Estart. 25 lbs will not make a noticeable difference to your riding experience.
I have played with adding weight to measure hill climb performance.
25 lbs made a barely measureable difference.
What really slowed the MK 3 were the whisper quiet black cap silencers, which were also fitted to the Mk2A.
Not many are using them today, but if they are fitted they will kill the performance, right thru the range.

Glen

Thanks I would remove or replace those kind of pipes. I am not looking at a Norton for speed not at all anymore than my old Alfa Romeos for speed. Because I like many things about a Norton, looks, legacy, torque, sound but I want a super well sorted or will do myself in a color that I like and I do not like black or silver. Having a hard time finding one or a cheap one to have restored. Does anyone know any restoration shops or dealers that deal in very nice Norton's besides Baxters I already know about them and their Nortons at bumping $20,000 I can get one done myself for that kind of money.

I don't consider the Commando a performance bike today either, however they definitely have enough grunt to leave everyday traffic far behind.


They offer the rider a lot of fun at slightly under insane speeds!

worntorn said:

I don't consider the Commando a performance bike today either, however they definitely have enough grunt to leave everyday traffic far behind.


They offer the rider a lot of fun at slightly under insane speeds!

Click to expand...

That is why I want one, I have had fifteen Harley's but my interest/involvement with older Alfa Romeo's Ferrari's and Packard's is not spreading to a Norton 850 I have always wanted a Norton and am now wanting one very much.

I have a Mk3. Gearchangs is good, as good as M8 Harleys I've ridden and less 'clunk'. I shift without lifting my foot from the peg and without noticing. Changing down to 1st from 2nd needs a bit of sympathy. I make sure I've slowed down so the bike's ready.

I also ride a modern Kawasaki, I don't find I think about the gearshift.

I also find the back brake works fine, just adjust the pedal height to suit your posture and that gives adequate leverage. The front brake is wooden though. It works, but lacks feel. Comfort is good, performance is plenty for the road. Handling is excellent. The sound is glorious. Unless you're lucky, gifted, or both, it will need maintenance time. Not a bike I've found you just ride and leave it alone between services. Not yet, anyway. Never left me stranded though. That's jinxed it Parts supply is very good.

I bought a MK3 that was dropped on the shift which cracked the primary around the shifter. This bike was sloppy shifting mess. But a new primary cover solved the problem. They are all great bikes with lots of character.