Hi all,
After reading this thread I am increasingly feeling rather foolish and dudded.
For years as a young bloke I hankered after a Commando but fell for the very prevalent belief that a MkIII was over weight, poorer performing and less reliable than the svelte and nimble MkII. I really thought that the earlier bike was the better bike. It has dawned on me that I was just a victim of the anti-British propaganda that was very common in the late seventies and beyond.
Particularly after reading this topic I realise now that I was duped. The MkIII was the arguably best of the bunch, as it should be being the last made and the beneficiary of all the previous experience from earlier bikes. Of course it’s a bit heavier, it has a starter strapped onto it. Yes, the black cap exhausts were restrictive but a change to other pipes would have been an obvious improvement and yes, I’m sure many were delivered with manufacturing faults as a result of the antiquated production process and perhaps the fact the company was in dire straights. These issues would have been rectified by the time I was in a position to straddle one of my own.
Anyway, I have no complaints with my late MkII roadster which just seems to get better and better the longer I own it and the more I ride it but I recognise how easier it is to be influenced by false news, back then and now today.
As a last thought, it’s probably important to realise that the anecdotal performance of a bike, as described by ordinary owners, not by professional riders and testers, is greatly influenced by how noisy the exhaust is. A rorty snarling exhaust gives the impression of more performance whereas the constipated hissy black cap mufflers gave the impression of a greater loss of performance than they actually created.
Every time I see a MkIII now I kind of wish I had bought one.
regards
alan
)
)
