850 Mk2 & Mk2A Discussion Split From Another Thread

[marshg246]

Yes I have seen it, mentioned it in public and it was dismissed.
It is a copy/paste of the info you have.

Not a copy paste of mine - it was already there when I joined the forum! It is the basis for my third table with every row checked for some sort of logic. Since the certification label dates, books dates, factory info people have stated, all conflict and no one is sure what any of the dates actually mean, of course there are weird things there.

Mk2a 311032 built December 1973, purchased out of Pennsylvania.

View attachment 13967

Interesting. In theory, there were no MK2As with that low a serial number in the US other than those imported by individuals. I'm sure my stepson's 320520 was a MK2A Interstate and originally sold in Michigan. So, are you sure yours started life as a MK2A and was imported directly to the US? If so, it's the earliest I've heard which is a nice data point. I don't doubt you - just asking.

Your picture helps with another silly thing. Several have told me that the removable black part at the end of my chainguard doesn't belong because it was either 1) a MKIII change 2) a late 74 MK2A change. Since you have it and I have it and my serial is about 700 less than yours, it may be that all MK2As came with it. AN only seems to list it for MKIII.

 

[L.A.B.]

said Mk2/Mk2a had a Start date of Jan74 but we know as a fact that is not true

No, we don't know it's "not true" as it's unclear what the"Jan '74" date actually refers to but it's obviously not the start of production. As I've stated previously there are no factory records for this period therefore, how can Jan. 74 be a 'production' date when the dates are not known?

our bikes prove it and there is no current documentation to disprove it.

If it is the new model release date as I believe it to be and not the beginning of Mk2/2A production which is (as yet) unknown and obviously would have started some weeks prior during the latter part of 1973 so absolutely no argument that there would be early Mk2/2As with 1973 date stamps.

Why that book or source also stated Mk1a production was overlapped with Mk2a production is no different, be it misinformed or speculation at the time.
It says Mk1a production was very short but overlapped the start of Mk2 (including the near same bike Mk2a) by one month ?

Once again, you are thinking in terms of production dates. As the dates clearly overlap then it seems there must have been a reason. Stating that the dates overlap, therefore "must be wrong" is no more correct in my opinion.

It says Mk1a production was very short but overlapped the start of Mk2 (including the near same bike Mk2a) by one month ?
Does that mean there are Mk1a's with Mk1 engine numbers with Jan74 / Feb74 tags to go along with the proven here Sep73/Oct73/Nov73/Dec73 Mk2a's ?


850 Roadster 1A Sep-73 Feb-74

850 Roadster 2/2A Jan-74 Feb-75.

Is that not a red flag ?

Yet again, you are interpreting the book dates as production start-end dates which they probably aren't.

Yes I have seen it, mentioned it in public and it was dismissed.

Yes, as mentioned, saying the dates "must be wrong because they overlap" doesn't prove or disprove anything.

 

[L.A.B.]

Several have told me that the removable black part at the end of my chainguard doesn't belong because it was either 1) a MKIII change 2) a late 74 MK2A change. Since you have it and I have it and my serial is about 700 less than yours, it may be that all MK2As came with it. AN only seems to list it for MKIII.

According to Norton Service Release N3/55, May 1973, the 064837 chainguard with extension was introduced from 307091.

Edit:
Chainguard 064837 is listed in the Mk2/2A supplement but was superseded by the slotted 065818 chainguard in "Jan. 74".
https://andover-norton.co.uk/en/shop-details/16639
Although it says "Mk2a" it should be Mk2 and Mk2A as stated in the parts supplement.

The 850 Mk3 reverted to the 064837 chainguard due to the rear disc brake, the drum brake lining inspection slot wasn't required.

 

[marshg246]

According to Norton Service Release N3/55, May 1973, the 064837 chainguard with extension was introduced from 307091.

Thanks! I forgot about reading that in the service bulletins. I'll go back through them for more tidbits and I'll let AN know.

 

[L.A.B.]

The kicker with the stated Jan74 start, do you leave it, change it, don't worry about it ? Can you dispel it, confirm it to be true incorrect or otherwise.

Which "kicker with the stated Jan. 74 start" are you referring to?

The cranked 064249 (Mk3 style) kickstart lever was fitted to Mk1A and Mk2A models as listed in the Mk1A supplement also Mk2/2A supplement for Mk2A due to the black cap/bean can silencers fitted to those models (and Mk3).
https://andover-norton.co.uk/en/shop-details/17496


Mk2 models continued with the 061464 standard kickstart.
https://andover-norton.co.uk/en/shop-details/15636/kickstart-lever-assy-750-06-1059-
"750" And 850.


https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/20469/lot/345/

 

[998cc]

Russ,

I'm not disputing anything, Even when they were relatively new, parts would get swapped and 40+ years later it's often nearly impossible to know how they started life.

I know the life of my rider because I bought it from the original owner and he kept the MK2A parts he removed and told me how it got to the US, what he changed, and provided a good bit of documentation to prove it. It is a MK2A but a much lower serial number to those 74 MK2As imported directly to the US. Also, there is no doubt that is 310311 but has a 11/73 date on the certification label. In other words, everything about it says 1974 MK2A except the date on the certification label - what does that mean - I have no idea.

So, yours, like mine is a MK2 (or MK2A) number but the certification label is two months earlier than mine. If I were going by that date, I would say MK1 but the serial is generally accepted to be MK2.

Mine has an RH10 head. What does your have?

Good day, Greg.
This is all good information and is much appreciated. To the best of my knowledge and observation, my bike is mostly original and unmolested. According to the seller, it had not been ridden for about 30 years; it had gone down on the right side resulting mostly cosmetic damage. The air filter is a K&N, though the rear section of the original ham can is still present.

Mine also has an RH10 head.

Thank you.

Russ (998cc)

 

[marshg246]

A guy just came by for help with 308xxx - it too was marked 9/73. So, it's become quite clear that whatever that date means, 307311 was not the first bike Norton touched in Jan 74.

L.A.B,

Any chance that Norton started following a "model year" scheme like Triumph when they became one? Also, am I correct that there is no actual 1974 parts manual other than the MK2/MK2A supplement that mentions 307111? When you study that supplement, it appears that 307311 could have easily been around Aug 1973 - the supplement simply list a copyright year as far I know (I don't have that one).

 

[L.A.B.]

A guy just came by for help with 308xxx - it too was marked 9/73. So, it's become quite clear that whatever that date means, 307311 was not the first bike Norton touched in Jan 74.

Exactly. As I've said previously the "Jan.74" date is obviously not a production date as other dates in the list are not.

Any chance that Norton started following a "model year" scheme like Triumph when they became one?

Difficult to say Edit: but Norton continued using a 'date of manufacture' stamp and not a "model year" stamp or identification mark.

Also, am I correct that there is no actual 1974 parts manual other than the MK2/MK2A supplement that mentions 307311?

As far as I know, there is no other parts manual available for that period (or workshop manual).

When you study that supplement, it appears that 307311 could have easily been around Aug 1973

Yes, and once again, I don't dispute the fact that Mk2s and Mk2As were made prior to "Jan 74".

- the supplement simply list a copyright year as far I know (I don't have that one).

Yes, the parts supplement has a 1974 copyright.

 

[lazyeye6]

I have a Mk2 309643 with a build date of 10/73.
What is the argument being made on this thread?d. It sounds silly.
Ride it, don't talk it.

 

[marshg246]

I have a Mk2 309643 with a build date of 10/73.
What is the argument being made on this thread?d. It sounds silly.
Ride it, don't talk it.

No argument that I know of. People have different interests. For instance, at one time I wanted to do nothing but ride. Today, I rarely ride - not much fun the in traffic of Washington, DC. That doesn't mean that I'm not involved with my Nortons and Triumphs on a daily basis. I'm also interested in the history of the British motorcycle industry as are many others and I like to know things that some people think silly.

I'm working on two bikes for people now that have absolutely no interest in working on them, they only ride. A "young" (51) man came by today with his half done Norton. He's just getting into them, has no mechanical experience but wants to learn and he wants to ride.

If we were all alike it would be a very boring world!

 

[marshg246]

Made a few updates to https://www.gregmarsh.com/MC/Norton/CommandoID.aspx based on this discussion. Still looking for the earliest certification label month/year for bikes 307311 or later. So, far Aug 73.

 

[L.A.B.]

Made a few updates to https://www.gregmarsh.com/MC/Norton/CommandoID.aspx based on this discussion.

"307311 Note: You will find this number lots of places saying that it started 1974."

It depends if "it" (Jan.74) is interpreted as a 'start of production' date or not, which clearly it isn't but simply a noteworthy date likely to have been the 2A model launch date.
I see nobody has picked up on: "the 064837 chainguard with extension was introduced from 307091." being from a MAY '73 Service Release so either the number is wrong or they were already up to serial 307xxx by May '73.



If the list dates are going to be regarded as 'start of production' dates then others in the list will also be 'wrong', for instance:

"200001 Jan.72"
It was reported in the weekly motorcycle press that the model launch was the first week of January '72 therefore, "Jan" couldn't realistically have been the start of production and early '2' series models with (Oct-)Edit:'71 date stamps owned by forum members confirm that.



"750 MkV Mar. 73" (220000)"
March 1973 was the new model launch date and Oct/Nov '72 frame plate stamps on '22' series models as stated by forum members confirm that March '73 wasn't 'start of production'.

"219999"
I don't believe the '21' series continued much further than about 213/214xxx so I would question the 219999 number. 'Officially' (NOC list) the series ended at "216000" but I don't think the numbers even got that high.

"850 Apr.73"
March '73 (actually 7th March) can be confirmed from the weekly motorcycle press and 1973 issue of Roadholder magazine as being the US and UK model launch date. AN records show 850 production commenced on the 24th January '73.
I don't know why "April" but the author (Roy Bacon?) appears to have used 'noteworthy' dates as the Norton factory records now held by the VMCC/NOC dry up around the end of '72 and (he) almost certainly wouldn't have been aware the AN records existed so seems to have got at least some of his information from the motorcycle press.

No factory records exist between 305549 and 317848.


"850 Mk3" Feb. 75"Hi-Rider March '75

AN records show 850 Mk3 production started mid-November '74.

There were also 235xxx series Commandos which seem to have been mostly Hi-Riders and a few (drum brake?) Roadsters also 'short-stroke' engines and a few 850 Mk2s with '235' serial numbers exist!

 

[marshg246]

"307311 Note: You will find this number lots of places saying that it started 1974."

It depends if "it" (Jan.74) is interpreted as a 'start of production' date or not, which clearly it isn't but simply a noteworthy date likely to have been the 2A model launch date.
I see nobody has picked up on: "the 064837 chainguard with extension was introduced from 307091." being from a MAY '73 Service Release so either the number is wrong or they were already up to serial 307xxx by May '73.



If the list dates are going to be regarded as 'start of production' dates then others in the list will also be 'wrong', for instance:

"200001 Jan.72"
It was reported in the weekly motorcycle press that the model launch was the first week of January '72 therefore, "Jan" couldn't realistically have been the start of production and early '2' series models with (Oct-)Edit:'71 date stamps owned by forum members confirm that.



"750 MkV Mar. 73" (220000)"
March 1973 was the new model launch date and Oct/Nov '72 frame plate stamps on '22' series models as stated by forum members confirm that March '73 wasn't 'start of production'.

"219999"
I don't believe the '21' series continued much further than about 213/214xxx so I would question the 219999 number. 'Officially' (NOC list) the series ended at "216000" but I don't think the numbers even got that high.

"850 Apr.73"
March '73 (actually 7th March) can be confirmed from the weekly motorcycle press and 1973 issue of Roadholder magazine as being the US and UK model launch date. AN records show 850 production commenced on the 24th January '73.
I don't know why "April" but the author (Roy Bacon?) appears to have used 'noteworthy' dates as the Norton factory records now held by the VMCC/NOC dry up around the end of '72 and (he) almost certainly wouldn't have been aware the AN records existed so seems to have got at least some of his information from the motorcycle press.

No factory records exist between 305549 and 317848.


"850 Mk3" Feb. 75"Hi-Rider March '75

AN records show 850 Mk3 production started mid-November '74.

There were also 235xxx series Commandos which seem to have been mostly Hi-Riders and a few (drum brake?) Roadsters also 'short-stroke' engines and a few 850 Mk2s with '235' serial numbers exist!

Les,

Lot to digest. I keep saying that I have no idea what the date on the certification label actually means. In fact, I think the meaning changed between 72 and 73/4 because the 72 hand written record I have is pretty specific that 201251 was the 25th built on Jan 4, 1972 but the one record I have from 74 shows multiple dates and they do not come close to the date on the certification label. Anyway, I left the table as it was but added a note to 1974 - that column still says model year even though I have no idea if that is a correct way to think of it. Casual visitors to the page need some way to understand what the rows and columns mean.

I would agree with Jan 74 as a launch date but it seems like they would have built 4000-5000 bikes by then. Could very well be a marketing launch date and have nothing to do with reality. It could also be that the frame was readied in Sep 73 and the bike actually built much later. Your guess is way better than mine.

As usual, I'm perfectly happy to make changes to try to make it better.

 

[jbruney]

I've been following this with more than just mild curiosity and find that I now know far less than I thought I knew when I began reading on a subject I knew little of.... I am beginning to believe chaos reigned the Commando years.

 

[L.A.B.]

I keep saying that I have no idea what the date on the certification label actually means. In fact, I think the meaning changed between 72 and 73/4 because the 72 hand written record I have is pretty specific that 201251 was the 25th built on Jan 4, 1972 but the one record I have from 74 shows multiple dates and they do not come close to the date on the certification label.

It does at least indicate the approximate build date plus or minus a month (or longer!) and therefore better to concentrate on the serial number and thus the mark number although some people have difficulty thinking outside the usual 'model year' box.

 

[MichaelB]

I've been following this with more than just mild curiosity and find that I now know far less than I thought I knew when I began reading on a subject I knew little of.....

Pretty much how I feel.

Just to sprinkler a little more gas on the fire my 74, Mk 2, 3077.., with a certification date of Sep, 73 shows on the title first year registered as 1974.
Renews in Sep, which usually means that is when it was first registered, Sep, 1974.
Not that any of it means anything. Would be interesting to know when the dealers first starting getting them.

Do I understand correctly that each Commando had a shake down, test ride?
Could that be the certification date?

 

[L.A.B.]

Do I understand correctly that each Commando had a shake down, test ride?

Apparently so.

Could that be the certification date?

More likely to have been done on the production line I would have thought.

 

[marshg246]

Do I understand correctly that each Commando had a shake down, test ride?
Could that be the certification date?

I believe they did, but I doubt that the date was stamped after the front end was on.

I'm most likely wrong and this is pure speculation, but I keep thinking that they might have partly finished the frame before putting it on the power unit. By having the number on them at the beginning of assembly, they could track them. Wouldn't matter if they were only making one model but used since they were making different models and colors at the same time it could have been helpful. Stamping the engine to match the certification label would have been easy later in the process.

 

[MichaelB]

What about the trans?
I would think think the matching engine and trans were installed then the frame plate to match.

 

[marshg246]

What about the trans?
I would think think the matching engine and trans were installed then the frame plate to match.

Good point!

Does anyone know how they were assembled. I've heard that they did it like me - power unit built -> rear isolastic installed in cradle -> power unit laid on it's side -> frame lowered over it -> rear isolastic stud inserted -> front isolastics installed -> set upright.