certified quarter-mile time.

An aspect being missed is the influence major investors and Int'l banksters had on which nations got favorable support. There is some long history of European and UK banksters in Asian affairs. US banksters were the first to pump Japans industry back up then UK banksters. Japan also declared economic war on the rest of the world with home grown think tanks that cooperated with globalist think tanks to jump ahead of cameras, then electronics then small vehicles. This hardly ever involved fair play but bribes and fraud and taking advantage of the work force with types of mind control for work ethic that made workers self policing to their disadvantage.

As far as superior engineering goes, UK was left with pre WWII power plants and tooling but boy howdy they had the chassis and handling down. I went through some great depression 5 yrs learning to re-build a Combat and in interim getting me a balloon tyred sports bike then taking a corner school, to cause me to think I'd be stuck with a quaint Harley like antique that could only wave the hot shots by, as no way to hang with them in speed and handling games. Not No More, now I see all them moderns as corner cripples and my hobby this decade is proving it and wiping smirks off superior attitudes.

BTW Matt, I see riding THE Grit as a type of dry land water skiing, once you get up on a hard plane speed wise, whooWhee!

I guess the US helped out Japan financially in the same way it assisted Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, which were other SE Asian countries who had later on also tasted the might of the US military?

Murray B said:

Recently I read a claim that a stock Mach IV was capable of running a 12.0 second quarter-mile. Back in the day this was also often said but I am unaware of any stock bike that ever did it. If memory serves the Mach IV was not even as fast as the Mach III but I could be wrong.

Does anybody know the track certified time for the fastest stock Mach IV compared to the fastest stock Mach III?

Click to expand...

MCS or motorcycle specifications , google , rates the 500 at 13.0 & the 750 at 12.3 @ 105

http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/ ... 0%2070.htm

The nutter I knew with the 750 said I think 12.5 and 12 even with the pipes replaceing the mufflers .One run a unrepeatable 11.8 .
He would ascertain improvements at a strip .
Dual Exhaust , Extractors and 4 barrel improveing the 265 Chrysler Charger 265 Auto by 2 secons and 10 mph in the Quater .

Coincedently he provided me with some of the Commando improvement information . His father being a Teacher he thought he had to know everything .
Helpfull but insufferable .

The 12.0 sec ' STOCK ' H2 is regarded as a myth .( without altered port highs . ( 2 mm is the figure ))
12.4 being thought ' the average attainable ' .Obviously the simplicity in altering the port timing
was relevant to any ' questions ' as to the exact performance .
However , typically to be thorough , a machine would be run 10 to 12 times ( as in a brakeing test ) to note ' fall off ' or ' improvement '
Perhaps with a rest of half an our for first to second ' set '. ( after 5 to 6 runs )

Therefore some define times and speeds ' Average ' , and ' Best ' of all runs . Typically .25 to . 3 sec & 2 to 5 mph seperation best to avg .

Fitting a trans , driving to strip ( an hour ) one Sunday at a club meet , waved in and onto strip :shock: on arrivall , waved forward , GREEN & off ,After
removeing Jack & tools etc from boot , checking pressures & scrutineering , Lost me 0.2 seconds . :lol: Mustve run better temperatures stable from trip .

Got to the gate 3 mins before qualifying closed at 10:00 A.M.

Thing is Matt how many full power 1/4 mile passes do you think you could make on your Norton reliably and without problems? The fact that the Brit bikes werent that reliable, is born out by the ease with which the Japs took a very large share of the big bike market in the 70s, with bikes that didnt fall apart or break down regularly.

I put it together , A seasons .Perhaps a overhaul mid season if after the Championship . After al , a carefully run in Trident blew of a GS 1000 , Mine Carefully built maintained and operated , held a XS 1100 , ( and outlasted it ) detuned back to S cam from SS .Knowledgeably Maintained , problem Free .

PRATT got the Speedway Sidecar title two years with a ' Hot Rod ' 850 , SS cam & Head specs . NO BLOWUPS . Vincents were getting scarce / valuable .
Thats around 1980 .

I think theyed be better advised to put the Mk II back in production . Haveing a formal education in Engineering . Than what they have , to me , Miscontrived .

As someone says , Dead Fish go with the flow . Unit Constuction ? Hpow Bizzare . Theres as many reasons against as fore .

The could have four cylinders , two cams , and 16 valves . etc etc etc .

BRITTEN built the ' New Vincent ' everbody had craved since production was CANCELLED . As I said . Perry Cannced the standing Order for A DOZEN ,
First Thing monday morning , when he heard production was to stop , ' Existing Orders ONLY fufulled ' . And couldnd get away from the phone for two weeks with people wanting to reserve one . Full Cash price deposit in 50 % of cases .
But he'd canncelled the order , hadnt he .

They could have maintained production at the existing rate and increased the price 50 % . People who bought Vincents wouldnt Quetion it , or need to .

British machines were held in high regard , though the dealers on the whole , wernt . The opposite with Jap Stuff . The virtue was price and availability to less well off types .

The motorcycle trade never became cohesive untill forced to to fight govenment intentions of regulateing it ( out of existance virtually ) A concerted Legal
representation was then engaged Vs the Legislators . of ' Finiss ' . They can catch busses .

If a 650 Bonneville can regularly in excess of 8000 rpms assembled as a first motorcycle , and be the fastest machine in town ( when there ) Z1s were only
run by Well Off Tourers , seldom seen , seldom thrashed . Long time till I saw one off . :lol: No Problem . IF unbelievable . So's 8500 and no ' Grenade ' .

The reputation of most things exceeded the facts . Triumphs dont brake cam chains . Cant figure that one out , Either . Bulletproof as a Kwacker .

I get the feeling that if even half the content of your posts was even vaguely accurate Matt, that the Brit bike industry would still be going strong today and producing the very best bikes in the world! History seems to suggest something else entirely occurred though....................

Matt Spencer said:

...MCS or motorcycle specifications , google , rates the 500 at 13.0 & the 750 at 12.3 @ 105...The 12.0 sec ' STOCK ' H2 is regarded as a myth. 12.4 being thought ' the average attainable...

Click to expand...

Thanks for the information, Matt.

The only stock Commando capable of 12.30 was one with the Combat engine option. The standard 750 could run 12.70 or so at best. The Mach III Kawasaki was not in the same league but it was just a 500.

The 12.00 second stock Mach IV only existed in Kawasaki marketing literature and none even came close to that time in the real world. In fact I don’t ever remember one running within a tenth of a second of a Combat. The 750 triple was a disappointing bike that was only available for three or four years before they discontinued it. The first stock bike to actually break 12.00 was a Kawasaki but it was a four-stroke four-cylinder DOHC 1000 in ’77 or so. [The 850 “Combat” was also capable of 12.00 but that engine was never offered as an option on a stock bike.]

Internet sources regarding the Commando are horrible because they only write about two of the five available engines. Many times Combat results are shown for the standard 9.0:1 compression engine or vice versa. What is even more confusing is that some engines came with noise control equipment that reduced performance. This would make how many different engine configurations, maybe eight? These online sources are trying to condense all of them into just two or three?

Murray B said:

The only stock Commando capable of 12.30 was one with the Combat engine option. The standard 750 could run 12.70 or so at best. The Mach III Kawasaki was not in the same league but it was just a 500.

Click to expand...

Cycle Magazine seems to rate the Commandos and Mach 3 as awful close together.
http://file.walagata.com/w/ilbikes/Tool ... _Stats.JPG

Or maybe you don't want to notice ??

P.S. There are not many bikes on that chart in the 12.x sec bracket.
That Norton Metisse must have low gearing, but goes like the clappers ??!

Murray B said:

Matt Spencer said:

...MCS or motorcycle specifications , google , rates the 500 at 13.0 & the 750 at 12.3 @ 105...The 12.0 sec ' STOCK ' H2 is regarded as a myth. 12.4 being thought ' the average attainable...

Click to expand...

Thanks for the information, Matt.

The only stock Commando capable of 12.30 was one with the Combat engine option. The standard 750 could run 12.70 or so at best. The Mach III Kawasaki was not in the same league but it was just a 500.

The 12.00 second stock Mach IV only existed in Kawasaki marketing literature and none even came close to that time in the real world. In fact I don’t ever remember one running within a tenth of a second of a Combat. The 750 triple was a disappointing bike that was only available for three or four years before they discontinued it. The first stock bike to actually break 12.00 was a Kawasaki but it was a four-stroke four-cylinder DOHC 1000 in ’77 or so. [The 850 “Combat” was also capable of 12.00 but that engine was never offered as an option on a stock bike.]

Internet sources regarding the Commando are horrible because they only write about two of the five available engines. Many times Combat results are shown for the standard 9.0:1 compression engine or vice versa. What is even more confusing is that some engines came with noise control equipment that reduced performance. This would make how many different engine configurations, maybe eight? These online sources are trying to condense all of them into just two or three?

Click to expand...

Sadly the Combat spec motors seemed to spill their guts on a pretty regular basis, and were nowhere near as highly tuned as the race motors fitted to the magazine "test" bikes, which set the 1/4 mile times which seem to be getting referred to on posts here! In the real world a bog stock 500 Kawasaki would easily shut down any stock Norton over the 1/4, and wouldnt spill its guts in the process. The Z1 would also beat any stock Norton, but as these are far easier to ride than the 2T bikes, this is something that didnt need that good a rider.............again the Z1 wouldnt spill its guts when being raced over the 1/4!

Ya wanna see how some people ride them . Phil Hill wound a car off the top of the dials at 175 mph . Shouldve known better .

Obviously sensible to design engines so they cant exceed there safe opperateing speed , A lot of the Kski racers disentegrated.

Any more of this'n will have to post the relevent info . :lol:

COMBATS , Rohan . Were a pig in traffic , if you took any notice of it . ALSO thats ' Pre Combat ' tho first of series usually quickest on Jap Machines .
Notable Z1 B s smaller carbs , but they all believed it was as quick as a Z1a , ALMOST as fast as the certtified 132 miles in one hour from out of the crate
as BSAs tended to say , ROCKET III . not the 2.300 one .

We will need to fit Extractors if we wish to double the output on that . :wink:

Like any machine , ussed hard , it will maintain its tune if maintained . RACVEIN M-X the Bro's CR 250 had new rings fitted Every Second Meeting .
Additions of say a quater or a tenth of a HP in several areas are cumulative . Then theres minimiseing losses .

Sure , AFTER it was introduced , the Cures were found ( the XR 750 needed barrel rollers too . . . ) FOR the price , for a hand made machine of that potential
anyone familiar with things wasnt to put of to be put off . :? FIXES were available that made long term use practicable .Still a few shitty fitments ,
but Jappers Chassis were regarded as suspect on ANY pre 80 machine , apparently , miss a shift on a GS 1000 S & the valves'd tangle , at max rpms too .

Basically , for the road , maybe 10 % if that of riders over 20 would consider or try 100 mph on the road . regularrly . or even be intrested .
The Italians were considered best for roadholding with the British a close second . Seely , Rickman & the like better still.
They made a good living selling chassis to big bore !! ? :? Jap Owners ., Sheene , Smart & most of the other G.P. & F-750 Riders . By the time the Kawaskis were reliable they were obsolete to the RW Yam , 1975 031 or something .

Unfortunately , there was great concern that the machines were beyond the skills of the Racers even , by then . Presumeably the power had been found , and they copied the . . . developed the Chassis and Brakes Suspension . Till in 1980 you could get something you could ride ' No Hands '. DONT try it on them tho . :|

You have to compare bikes of the same era.
There were no Combats when the H1 first came out.

So, on paper, they were pretty evenly matched....

Matt Spencer said:

COMBATS , Rohan . Were a pig in traffic , if you took any notice of it . ALSO thats ' Pre Combat ' tho first of series usually quickest on Jap Machines .
Notable Z1 B s smaller carbs , but they all believed it was as quick as a Z1a , ALMOST as fast as the certtified 132 miles in one hour from out of the crate
as BSAs tended to say , ROCKET III . not the 2.300 one .

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with the comment about pig in traffic. I bought my Combat new in '72 & it was our only transport. I went to work on it every day in all weathers & into the centre of B'ham, a large busy city, & it was never a problem in traffic. My wife & I used it for everything from shopping to holidays for several years.

Also ref Z1's. A friend bought one of the first Z1's in the UK. The engine was strong but on acceleration the Commando was quicker up to about 80, then the Z1 took over. On any road that involved bends the Commando was quicker. We went on holiday to Scotland. My wife & me on Commando, friend on Z1 & another friend on Triumph Trident T160. Any time we came to twisty roads the 2 Brit bikes left the Kwack trailing. He'd then catch up when we got to straighter roads. In the wet the difference was even more dramatic. He eventually bought a Rickman chassis for his Z1 after it tried to kill him one day!

As for the H1. Nobody would have bought one who intended to go more than 20 miles from home. Acceleration was about the only thing they had going for them. As an everyday practical bike they were a joke.

Ian

Nortoniggy said:

As for the H1. Nobody would have bought one who intended to go more than 20 miles from home. Acceleration was about the only thing they had going for them.

Click to expand...

They did have good acceleration especially for a 500 but still not equal to the standard Commando. A good source of information appears to be, ”The Big Seven: Superbike Comparison test!” in the March 1970 Cycle magazine. They obtained seven bikes from seven manufacturers which came with factory supplied mechanics. Each bike was taken apart and inspected by all the mechanics to confirm that each was stock. Then two professional drivers employed by the magazine tested all of the bikes.

For the standing quarter mile the results were by quicker to slower; Norton 12.69, Trident 12.78, Mach III 12.81, and CB-750 12.98.
In this rare fair test there was little chance of cheating or using lighter drivers. The Commando was a full tenth of a second quicker than the Kawasaki and almost three tenths better than the Honda. Those tenths speak volumes.

Sadly, Cycle Magazine did not maintain high standards and by the 1973 article, “Superbikes 1973” was claiming the “Combat” gave 12.896 and the Trident 12.718. It obviously was not a Combat at all if it ran two tenths slower than Cycle magazine’s own previous runs with the standard model.

But there was no Combat anymore in 1973.

Murray B said:

Nortoniggy said:

As for the H1. Nobody would have bought one who intended to go more than 20 miles from home. Acceleration was about the only thing they had going for them.

Click to expand...

They did have good acceleration especially for a 500 but still not equal to the standard Commando. A good source of information appears to be, ”The Big Seven: Superbike Comparison test!” in the March 1970 Cycle magazine. They obtained seven bikes from seven manufacturers which came with factory supplied mechanics. Each bike was taken apart and inspected by all the mechanics to confirm that each was stock. Then two professional drivers employed by the magazine tested all of the bikes.

For the standing quarter mile the results were by quicker to slower; Norton 12.69, Trident 12.78, Mach III 12.81, and CB-750 12.98.
In this rare fair test there was little chance of cheating or using lighter drivers. The Commando was a full tenth of a second quicker than the Kawasaki and almost three tenths better than the Honda. Those tenths speak volumes.

Sadly, Cycle Magazine did not maintain high standards and by the 1973 article, “Superbikes 1973” was claiming the “Combat” gave 12.896 and the Trident 12.718. It obviously was not a Combat at all if it ran two tenths slower than Cycle magazine’s own previous runs with the standard model.

Click to expand...

I wonder as the HI had pretty much the same rear wheel BHP as the Norton, and was quite a bit lighter, what the reason might be for the heavier bike being quite a bit quicker over the 1/4, as well as having higher top end speed?

Maybe someone can find the American drag race organization records for late 60's if they exist online as I've always wanted some evidence beyond my own seat of the pants that my first 750 Norton ran 1/4 mile in 10.49 sec with a drag slick. It was not a Commando nor with near a Cdo's massiveness. On the street the triple 2 strokes couldn't keep up, even when they'd take off first to start the contests. Triumph Triples would not even race me if I gave a blip up clutch release neck whiplash teaser first. They'd idle down and pull off at first turn.

I was always impressed by the massive Honda's and complexity of its relatives too. I guess in another decade or two we can let the numbers still being ridden to vote the best there was but one thing for sure if its got gonads or an engine - expect trouble. Here's a brief sampling but I've seen the Volumes of pages of faults listed for various non Brit Iron brands.

Honda Motorcycle Recalls | View Honda Motorcycle Safety ...
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com › RecallsCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. A Honda motorcycle recall may be issued by the NHTSA for potential problems that may cause injury to consumers. Choose your model for official Honda

Honda CB750 bike
www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/Honda/h ... .htmCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Honda CB 750 Four K0 ... The serial number began CB750-1000001. ... disastrous bike that combined poor handling with a series of mechanical problems. ...

Honda CB750'S - 1974 CB750 electrical problems...
honda-cb750-s.456789.n3.nabble.com/1974-CB750-electrical-probl...Cached
1974 CB750 electrical problems. ... Classic, List, Threaded ... break, but I've been told by 2 mechanic friends that that wont solve the problem. ...

http://rodericktaylor.hubpages.com/hub/ ... otorcycles
Restoring Vintage Motorcycles can be both rewarding and very frustrating. I am a motorcycle nut and have been riding for 36 years, in that time owning over of 50 motorcycles. Many of the 'Vintage' motorcycles were brand new when I first owned them. Many early Japanese bikes were absolute 'Classics' when they were released and an equal amount were absolute DOGS or even worse death traps.

If your bike ran 10.49 it would have needed well over 100bhp at the rear wheel, so must have had a really well built motor.

If a XS 11 did it with 1000 , a Norton at two thirds the weight would do it @ 60 horse with a Slick aft . ( not ' oil ' slick ! :lol: )
Oops . 100 .

Percentages apply , amongst other things , such as rider Wt & if he had breakfast .17T countershaft sprocket , redline at gate in top . Plus 100 Octane pump gas , 5 star in 1970 so 10.5 : 1 C.R. entirely workable .

If that didnt work , dropping a stick of gelignite behind him on the line , would have him off like a cut cat . :mrgreen:

If your bike ran 10.49 it would have needed well over 100bhp at the rear wheel, so must have had a really well built motor.

Click to expand...

1. i've no certified 1/4 m et's for the P!!
2. This was not a P11 as Norton factory ever put out, so not comparable to show room examples.
3. CR was over 11:1 during hey days of hi test ethyl octane.
4. Was bone break dangerous to kick off
5. Was lowered 2" via shortened forks lengthened down tubes
6. Wt. ~250 lb maybe less as could and did pick up to move around in garage clutter.
7. Tach marked at 9 grand which I frequently reached.
8. Was at least a second faster that the fastest factory 2 smokes air cooled triples of the era
9. After 70-80 was hard to hold on too d/t the severe vibration thru bars.
10. I suspect closer to hi 80's-low 90's hp
11. I had to be over 60 mph before snapping throttle and expect anything by delay for bike to catch up to tire spin.
12. Wound not lean enough to do normal 90' turn in 4 land city intersection so required 3 instant tire spins to make a city turn.
13. Was able to leap 3-4 ft air borne completely across a built up 4 lane major hwy by using the approach slopes as launch and landing ramps. Was one of my favorite things to wait a bit back form light for it to change then nail it smoothly to sail parallel across while grinning/waving as dropped jawed people in cars suddenly seeing a cycle fly across at windshield height.
14. Might be most wanted motorcycle in Fla's history for traffic and noise and college grounds and building chases at all hours
because also lacked mufflers.
15. If not for fate I'd might of become a Burt Monroe confederate style instead of a professional career.
16. Was so so bad ass the outlaw 1%'s took me under wing into girl slavery drug and maham culture even though I was still in penny loafers, polyester clothes and had nerd pencil pen shirt pocket pouch and long style slide rule holster. Soon I avoided them much as I could in their home environments but not before tasting the various ways of getting off via smoke, snort and injection. OH My Yes it was good excitement for a while and helped set me back a year in my schooling.
17. I did not need no stinking brake to start a burn out and work up to 4th w/o moving a bike length.
18. Big ass chrome kick button allowed WOT shifts faster than a blink
19. Was purpose built by Pagent's MC shop in Tallahassee Fla to wipe off smirks of new age Pacific rim appliances.
20. Told it was Nat'l Champion of its class in '68 & '69 then retired after dropped in a run at nearly 150 mph.
21. No speedo so just don't know but no Pacific fim appliance could run the opens with me but the 1%'rs big cube twins which is how I got noticed.
22. Honda 50 appeared bigger beefier as did English 10 sp bicycle if leaned on same wall or tree as no stinking stands either.

This looks very similar if the big tube frame removed, rear fender, number plate, silencers and didn't sit with front looking at sky. Did have a good drum brake though and P11 oil tank and battery side cover. Same tank.