certified quarter-mile time.

worntorn said:
...Its only 2tenths...
Two tenths more is a lot when it is the best of several runs by a Combat engined bike ridden by the same professional driver as the other bikes. The Trident gave a similar result to its previous run and a Combat should have been measurably quicker than the Triumph.

L.A.B. said:
...It says 1972 in my actual copy of the NOC Service Notes! (That online copy contains lots of typo's)...
How do you know that your copy doesn't contain a "typo" on the year or that it is even the same revision of the notes that are posted on the site? There are many other reference to 1973 model Combat Interstates and I do not intend to list them all. They may all be wrong but I have yet to see any good evidence that they are. So far it has only been lumping several different engines into one and confusing year of production with the model year.

L.A.B. said:
...It says 1972Also, if you had an understanding of the UK vehicle registration system...
What does this have to do with when Norton began producing the 1973 models or why a "Combat" was running several tenths of a second too slow in a magazine test?
 
Murray B said:
What does this have to do with when Norton began producing the 1973 models or why a "Combat" was running several tenths of a second too slow in a magazine test?

Because if the 1972 bike pictured has a 1971-2 numberplate, and a typo calls it a 1973, then that doesn't rule it out as a 1972 picture.

Flogging a dead horse here...

(Typo man strikes again.)
 
Murray B said:
L.A.B. said:
...It says 1972Also, if you had an understanding of the UK vehicle registration system...
What does this have to do with when Norton began producing the 1973 models or why a "Combat" was running several tenths of a second too slow in a magazine test?

There's really no point trying to change the subject.

The bike you mistakenly thought to be a "1973 Combat" (and thus apparently proved the existence of a '73 Combat model) was in fact an early 1972 Combat.
 
L.A.B. said:
The Combat specification engine had apparently been available as a "special order" item since 1970-however it is doubtful that many (if any) were fitted to standard road model Commandos.

Whence comes this info ?
Were they called Combats before the Combat announcement ?

Tuned versions of Norton twins apparently go back into the late 1950s.
Anyone know how you recognise the cams though ?
 
Rohan said:
L.A.B. said:
The Combat specification engine had apparently been available as a "special order" item since 1970-however it is doubtful that many (if any) were fitted to standard road model Commandos.

Whence comes this info ?

Steve Wilson's Norton book...
Derek Magrath's Norton book...
Mick Duckworth's Commando book.
Edit: Also Roy Bacon's Norton Twin Restoration book
Oh...and his Norton Twins book .

(Note my "apparently" disclaimer)
 
The vehicle record for "Norton KJW 375K" still exists on the DVLA database which shows KJW 375K was first registered on the 9th of December 1971.
Apparently it was silver instead of black, and had been fitted with an 850 engine at the time of export.

Vehicle enquiryThe enquiry is complete.
The vehicle details for KJW 375K are:

Date of Liability 01 06 2007
Date of First Registration 09 12 1971
Year of Manufacture 1971
Cylinder Capacity (cc) 828cc
CO2 Emissions Not Available
Fuel Type PETROL
Export Marker Y
Vehicle Status Unlicensed
Vehicle Colour SILVER
Vehicle Type Approval Not Available
 
L.A.B. said:
There's really no point trying to change the subject.
The subject is "certified quarter mile time".

L.A.B. said:
The bike you mistakenly thought to be a "1973 Combat" (and thus apparently proved the existence of a '73 Combat model) was in fact an early 1972 Combat.
If there is a mistake then it is by the N.O.C. because they have clearly labelled the bike as, "...the 750 Interstate 1973, with Combat engine, signified by black barrels..."

So far you have not given a single proper reference showing that the N.O.C. is wrong so I will continue to assume they are correct.

L.A.B. said:
The vehicle record for "Norton KJW 375K" still exists on the DVLA database which shows KJW 375K was first registered on the 9th of December 1971...
The vehicle details for KJW 375K are:
...
Date of First Registration 09 12 1971
Year of Manufacture 1971
...
This is excellent since we know that the first Combat was fitted to a 1972 model Interstate which was registered on September 12th 1971. This means that Norton had already switched over to the new model year at some time before that. It is reasonable to assume that they also were producing '73 models by September '72 which really gives excellent support to the N.O.C.'s 1973 model claim. Don't forget that the start of a model year usually begins in the summer of the previous year during the manufacturer's slack time.
 
Murray B said:
L.A.B. said:
There's really no point trying to change the subject.
The subject is "certified quarter mile time".

Didn't you say?:
Murray B said:
It would be good to know how many Combat engines were produced and when they were fitted to bikes. It would also be good to know when Norton switched over to making the 1973 models.


Murray B said:
L.A.B. said:
The bike you mistakenly thought to be a "1973 Combat" (and thus apparently proved the existence of a '73 Combat model) was in fact an early 1972 Combat.
If there is a mistake then it is by the N.O.C. because they have clearly labelled the bike as, "...the 750 Interstate 1973, with Combat engine, signified by black barrels..."


No, "they" (the NOC) have not, because the internet pdf version of the NOC Service Notes IS A BADLY TYPED COPY!!! The copy does not even follow the same layout as the original Service Notes.

The Commando in the photo is KJW 375K a 1972 Interstate and is correctly captioned as such in the genuine NOC Service Notes. :roll:

Also, which part of "
the test of the first Interstate with the infamous Combat engine, KJW375K"
[/quote] (written by its ex-owner and current owner of Andover Norton) is it that you are trying your best not to understand?
 
Murray B said:
we know that the first Combat was fitted to a 1972 model Interstate which was registered on September 12th 1971

UK = so date is written Day-Month-Year

09 12 1971 = 9th December 1971
 
Murray B said:
So far you have not given a single proper reference showing that the N.O.C. is wrong so I will continue to assume they are correct.

It's not the NOC that's wrong! It's that you have allowed yourself to be duped by a poorly retyped copy of the NOC notes into believing something that is blatantly incorrect.


GENUINE NOC COPY Proving beyond all shadow of doubt that KJW 375K was an early 1972 model Interstate and is captioned as such.
certified quarter-mile time.


certified quarter-mile time.

___________________________________________________________________
FAKE!
certified quarter-mile time.


___________________________________________________________________

SERVICE RELEASE motorcycles N3/23

NATURE OF RELEASE: Cylinder head interchangeability

MODELS AFFECTED: All 750 C.C. Commando models

DISTRIBUTION: Worldwide

EXPLANATION:
Introduction of the current 32mm carburetter version
of the standard Commando engine unit, replacing the
previous 'Combat' specification (w.e.f. engine number
211110) has necessitated the introduction of two new
cylinder heads which are listed below.
Interchangeability can be effected as shown, utilising
the available range of cylinder head gaskets, in
conjunction with the deletion of the cylinder base
gasket where indicated.
etc....etc....
SEPTEMBER 1972
 
L.A.B. said:
No, "they" (the NOC) have not, because the internet pdf version of the NOC Service Notes IS A BADLY TYPED COPY!!! The copy does not even follow the same layout as the original Service Notes.
You have not established the pdf is in error. The error could be in either, both, or neither. It just may be that they edited the year in a later revision. The copyright notice of that version is 1979.

At any rate it id not just me because a fellow called Antonio asks the NOC. "I would like to know if my norton combat is the first version (1972) or the second (1973)..." See http://www.nortonownersclub.org/noc-cha ... /222307002

L.A.B. said:
Also, which part of "
the test of the first Interstate with the infamous Combat engine, KJW375K"
(written by its ex-owner and current owner of Andover Norton) is it that you are trying your best not to understand?
What I am trying to understand is how one of the quickest Commandos ever made has been almost completely erased from history by revisionists. What does the first Combat engined bike have to do with the later model, anyway? By the way, isn't it a little surprising that KJW475K does not have fork gaiters like other '72 models?

L.A.B. said:
09 12 1971 = 9th December 1971
This still shows that a 1972 model was produced in 1971 and you still have not given the factory switch over date. Let us assume it was in June as it was for the Chevrolet.

L.A.B. said:
It's not the NOC that's wrong! It's that you have allowed yourself to be duped by a poorly retyped copy of the NOC notes into believing something that is blatantly incorrect... GENUINE NOC COPY Proving beyond all shadow of doubt that KJW 375K was an early 1972 model Interstate and is captioned as such.
At no time did I say anything about KJW 375K being a 1973 model. What I did indicate was that there were later 1973 models that came from the factory with the improved Combat engine. This was well known for many years but the facts of history have been changed through the miracle of historical revision.

The biggest problem with the revisionist view is that it leaves a great many SS camshafts unaccounted for. Norton was planning to use Combat engines for everything and must have ordered sufficient parts for mass production. Then the Combat engine proved unreliable so they stopped using it and went to different engines instead. This left a great many Combat engines in inventory with weak main bearings and breakable pistons. It is absurd to think they disposed of all of those engines or that they discarded the expensive bits like the heads and camshafts which were not the problem. Yet that is what the revisionists would have us believe. Such an extraordinary claim would require extraordinary proof and there just isn't any.

The second version Combat Interstate was one of the finest sport bikes ever made and it is a crime against history to erase it. Many people who think they have a 1972 model with the Combat engine may well have a '73 if was produced late enough in 1972. The revisonists have done nothing to help sort this out.
 
Murray B said:
At any rate it id not just me because a fellow called Antonio asks the NOC. "I would like to know if my norton combat is the first version (1972) or the second (1973)..." See http://www.nortonownersclub.org/noc-cha ... /222307002

If you read the replies carefully, the "2nd 1973" version of the 'Combat' had lower compression and NO performance cam. = not a Combat at all.

Just like the Norton publicity releases and brochures say.
 
Murray B said:
The biggest problem with the revisionist view is that it leaves a great many SS camshafts unaccounted for. Norton was planning to use Combat engines for everything and must have ordered sufficient parts for mass production.

"must have ordered" ?
"unaccounted for" ?
Do we have solid details of this ?
Sounds like you are inventing history.....

We saw elsewhere that frames were said to be delivered at so many per week. If cams were on the same basis, it would merely have required the master cam to be changed to deliver a different cam. With maybe only a footnote on the contract.

Do those contracts still exist ?
 
Murray B said:
By the way, isn't it a little surprising that KJW475K does not have fork gaiters like other '72 models?

I bought my Combat new in Sept' 1972. The fork gaiters weren't fitted as standard to any Interstate or Roadster until later. The K registered bike in the picture is identical to how mine was when I bought it.

Also, to be pedantic, the cam in a Combat is a 2S cam not a SS cam. The SS cam is accepted to be the version fitted to 650SS (& maybe Atlas) & is similar grind to the standard Commando cam.

Ian
 
Murray B said:
L.A.B. said:
No, "they" (the NOC) have not, because the internet pdf version of the NOC Service Notes IS A BADLY TYPED COPY!!! The copy does not even follow the same layout as the original Service Notes.
You have not established the pdf is in error.

I have, you just refuse to believe it. The pdf copy also contains many American spellings such as: "recognized", "color" "aluminum" "carburetors" "centering" etc. which are not in the genuine article therefore it is clearly NOT a genuine product of the NOC.
It also appears to have been scanned and copied to a pdf document (and not typed as I thought) because certain elements have been mistranscribed, for instance, pdf p.5 it says: "126,125 FIRST COMMANDO, 17E( 'G4. Silver tank" = Gobbledegook! The document writer has read FEB '68 as 17E( 'G4 The pdf copy is full of similar errors!

(Although it is not necessarily incorrect to use -'ize' in UK English, however -'ise' [thus: 'recognised'] is the accepted UK spelling.)


Murray B said:
At any rate it id not just me because a fellow called Antonio asks the NOC. "I would like to know if my norton combat is the first version (1972) or the second (1973)..." See http://www.nortonownersclub.org/noc-cha ... /222307002


And Antonio was given the correct answer: "This frame number it is not a combat but 750 commando MK5."


Murray B said:
isn't it a little surprising that KJW475K does not have fork gaiters like other '72 models?

No.: http://www.classicbike.biz/Norton/Broch ... ochure.pdf

Although listed as "061115...Gaiter" in the 1972 parts book, the item is the short dust cover.
Only the 061115 item is listed for 1972.
http://www.nortonmotors.de/ANIL/Norton% ... 14&Part=10 Item [10]



MurrayB said:
09 12 1971 = 9th December 1971 This still shows that a 1972 model was produced in 1971 and you still have not given the factory switch over date. Let us assume it was in June as it was for the Chevrolet.

No need to assume anything. 1972 production commenced from serial number 200001. If you knew anything about Commando model changes you would know that didn't occur at any set time of the calendar year.
http://www.bmh.com.au/norton/index.php?id=modelnum

Murray B said:
What I did indicate was that there were later 1973 models that came from the factory with the improved Combat engine. This was well known for many years but the facts of history have been changed through the miracle of historical revision.


If a Combat-engined model had been produced during the 1973 season then there would be Combat parts in the 1973 parts book-but there aren't any.
There is no reference to any Combat model in the 1973 riders handbook, only "High" or "Low" compression 750 models.

Murray B said:
Then the Combat engine proved unreliable so they stopped using it and went to different engines instead. This left a great many Combat engines in inventory with weak main bearings and breakable pistons.

As I understand it, all remaining stocks of Combat engines were sent back to Wolverhampton and rebuilt in detuned form. The weak piston design problem had already been corrected by then.

Murray B said:
It is absurd to think they disposed of all of those engines or that they discarded the expensive bits like the heads and camshafts which were not the problem.

It would have been preferable to going bust, which would have happened due to all the Combat warranty claims if they had continued making them even in improved form!

Murray B said:
The second version Combat Interstate was one of the finest sport bikes ever made and it is a crime against history to erase it. Many people who think they have a 1972 model with the Combat engine may well have a '73 if was produced late enough in 1972. The revisonists have done nothing to help sort this out.

What you consider to be a second Combat version is probably the high comp. MkV. If you wish to call that a Combat it's up to you. I can only refer you back to the September 1972 factory service release:

Introduction of the current 32mm carburetter version
of the standard Commando engine unit, replacing the
previous 'Combat' specification (w.e.f. engine number
211110) has necessitated the introduction of two new
cylinder heads......
 
Nortoniggy said:
Also, to be pedantic, the cam in a Combat is a 2S cam not a SS cam. The SS cam is accepted to be the version fitted to 650SS (& maybe Atlas) & is similar grind to the standard Commando cam.

Somewhat confusingly, the Commando 2S cam is apparently marked "SS".

http://atlanticgreen.com/camsurvey.htm
063536 The famous or "infamous" 2S combat cam. Note*** this is MARKED "SS" on the camshaft, but it is not the 650SS (1S) grind.

http://www.nortonownersclub.org/support ... and-bushes
Cam Part No. ID Stamp Journal Type Use Part No. Comments
061084 S Scrolled 061084 Standard 1971 plain bushes
062608 S Plain 061084 Standard 1972 scrolled bushes
062673 SS Plain 063536 Combat 1972 scrolled bushes +
062807 SS Scrolled 063536 Combat 1972 plain bushes +
063536* SS Scrolled 063536 Combat 1972 plain bushes +
063537* SS Plain 063536 Combat 1972 scrolled bushes +
TX0302 SSS Scrolled 063761 Original NVPS camshaft plain bushes ++
063453 SSS Plain 063761 Variant TX0302 scrolled bushes ++
063761* SSS Scrolled 063761 Variant TX0302 plain bushes ++
 
L.A.B. said:
Nortoniggy said:
Also, to be pedantic, the cam in a Combat is a 2S cam not a SS cam. The SS cam is accepted to be the version fitted to 650SS (& maybe Atlas) & is similar grind to the standard Commando cam.

Somewhat confusingly, the Commando 2S cam is apparently marked "SS".

http://atlanticgreen.com/camsurvey.htm
063536 The famous or "infamous" 2S combat cam. Note*** this is MARKED "SS" on the camshaft, but it is not the 650SS (1S) grind.

Very. I think they worked on the principle of why make it simple when you can make it complicated!

Ian
 
The second version Combat Interstate was one of the finest sport bikes ever made and it is a crime against history to erase it. Many people who think they have a 1972 model with the Combat engine may well have a '73 if was produced late enough in 1972. The revisonists have done nothing to help sort this out.Murray B


I can see that Murray wants very strongly to bellieve in the existence of a factory built bike that would be head and shoulders above a regular Commando for power and be durable as well. From what I can see here it doesn't exist, but I can understand the strong feelings that it ought to- it's a bit like finding out the truth about Santa.

Look at it this way- the Combat produced an extra five horsepower at the crank and roughly the same max torque, but all at a higher RPM, according to Nortons numbers. So they took an already quick bike (in it's day) and tried to go a little faster with it only to find that in the hands of their customer, mostly young guys who wanted to street race (us 40 years ago) it came apart rather quickly. They had pushed the 1948 motor from about 27 hp to 65 hp with remakably small modifications over that time and most everything they did seemed to work out. A couple of things that didn't work so well were the Atlas (vibration) and, much more problematic for Norton, the Combat Commandos. With the Combat, Norton found out the hard way just how far was too far for this particular old engine design, as it was.

You can see that Norton needed to come up with a solution for this in a hurry and the quick detuning of the 750 would take the performance back to roughly where it was in 1968-1971, not a bad place to be, and they knew that those engines stood up wel

At the same time they came up with the bigger displacement version of the engine that developed about 16% more torque than either pre Combat or Combat 750s( = higher horsepower at mid range RPM) and had strenthened crankcases etc. but did not require quite such high compression to do so and did not need to reve so high to make the extra power. Keep in mind that 8.5 to one is not exactly low compression, its only half a point below what the precombat Commanods were set up at and a full point above what the early Atlases ran.
From my memory of the Norton Villiers notes further stiffening of the cases occurred for the MK 3, so it seems like Norton was on the right track with the motor. It's too bad for Norton that they didn't come up with the 850 version a year earlier, the Combat episode must have cost a bundle both in cash outlay for warranty and lost sales.

But then, there are lots of fellows here who really seem to do well with their Combats. The list of mods is more than I would be prepared to do though, the crankcase breathing problems/modifications combined with everything else that seems to be commonly done to make the 1972 bikes reliable is a fair undertaking, not for the faint of heart. Detuning seems to be the first step for most.

Glen
 
The errors mistakes and over sights by Norton and its suppliers made the early Combat the slow poison that did in Norton more than the foreign cycle attacks. There's an article posted here about that saga that eventually got corrected by factory or my owners but a little too late for all the warranty and reputation hits. At base its as good and lasting engine as any other Norton of lessor power character.
Worse part was the AAU, that beat snot out of other things twice as fast.


certified quarter-mile time.


certified quarter-mile time.


Yoose all can keep your lessor Commando's but if sticking withing real Nortons though and though I'll take a Combat thankyou.
 
L.A.B. said:
And Antonio was given the correct answer: "This frame number it is not a combat but 750 commando MK5."
The answer was irrelevant because what I was trying to show is that the improved Combat is referred to as the 1973 model by me and others. There are many other similar references but I won't bother with them because I think you must already know that.

hobot said:
There's an article posted here about that saga that eventually got corrected by factory or my owners but a little too late for all the warranty and reputation hits.
There is a huge problem with that article, hobot, and I'm sure if you think about it you might agree. It is fairly typical of mass media fluff that is almost technically correct. On the second page they write, "All machines currently in stock, and that meant a very considerable number, were dismantled, and new camshafts and mains were fitted." So did Norton respond to piston separation and main bearing failure with "new camshafts and mains" but did nothing with the pistons? Given their financial problems did they really throw out thousands of SS (aka 2S) camshafts and order thousands more with the standard grind to replace them when the camshafts were not the problem? If they did then it is no wonder they had financial problems.

P.S. Virtually all sources claim the Combat head was "shaved" as if someone had taken the standard head and altered it. It seems more reasonable to me that it would have been ordered fom the supplier (BIRCO maybe?) with the forty-thou already milled off. That's not the same as "shaving" it.
 
Back
Top