certified quarter-mile time.

Ugh Murry I fogged out avoiding that aspect of the saga to digest. Tradition would be use up everything in a bin, get it out the door and let someone else sort it out. As much as Norton had transformed into a short term profit stop gap operation with the Commando up to the Combat, it was still one of 5 best bike award years, which implies the Asians were lacking something even more or Norton bribed the editors as advertising expense. I didn't see a cross reference here yet to old magazine article our upside down Matt posted recently >Fastest Commando<. Quite interesting with a statement of 11.8 sec 1/4 mile but drag engine no good for road racing they found. Shedding some weight got them below 12 sec. Not stock but not exotica either.
 
Murray B said:
L.A.B. said:
And Antonio was given the correct answer: "This frame number it is not a combat but 750 commando MK5."
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

The whole Antonio thing was irrelevant-as I'm sure you know, as it was only you clutching at any piece of hearsay that might suggest the apparent existance of a 73 Combat model in order to reinforce your own theory.
Didn't work, did it?


Murray B said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

The article was written by a certain "T.R.S." and that's Tim Stevens - one of the NOC Service Notes authors!!!!!!
http://archives.jampot.dk/Book/Workshop ... _Notes.pdf
certified quarter-mile time.
:lol:


Murray B said:
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?
Click to expand...

Again, please say which part of "The weak piston design problem had already been corrected by then." that I'd said previously, that you do not understand, and I will attempt to explain?

SERVICE RELEASE
5 (as over-leaf) No. N2/4
motorcycles
Combat and standard_Commando pistons.
1972 Commando.
Worldwide (Trade only).

etc......

Incoming orders for solid skirt pistons will be
fulfilled from interim version stocks until the -
changeover is completed. Note that on a production
basis interim pistons were introduced from engine
number 200976 and final Combat pistons from engine
number 204166.
APRIL 1972
Click to expand...
 
The article was written by a certain "T.R.S." and that's Tim Stevens - one of the NOC Service Notes authors!!!!!!

Mustve got all mercanary after a few beers got him all creative , and decided to recoop some losses financially . ?
 
Murray B said:
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.
Click to expand...

BIRCO only cast the heads, they did no machining. As far as I know, all the machining was done at the Wolverhampton factory. I used to own a cylinder head which had come out of the factory (or from BIRCO) via the back door & it had been machined so that the inlet ports were a much steeper downdraft & aluminium tubes had been fitted into the inlet ports to rubber mount the carbs. It still needed some machining to be usable but I sold it on to a friend that raced a Commando engined bike as there were clearance issues for the carbs in a Commando frame.

The combat heads did just have the inlet ports enlarged & 40 thou extra off the gasket face.

Ian
 
"Murray B" - page 1.
Murray B said:
For the 1973 model year Norton also lowered compression to 8.5:1, dropped the Combat, and cancelled the short-stroke high-compression (10.5:1), 750 Roadster.
Click to expand...

"Murray B" Above
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.
Click to expand...

:?:
 
Murray B "The revisionists have done nothing to help sort this out"

Im in full agreement with this statement, only thing, after looking at all of the information, the revisionist is you Murray!

Glen
 
hobot said:
...Tradition would be use up everything in a bin, get it out the door and let someone else sort it out...
Click to expand...
Yes, I expect they would use up the SS camshafts instead of throwing them out. Of course the existance of 1973 model Combat engined bikes does not mean there were not some engines made with Combat heads and standard grind cams. This is especially likely if they had more heads than camshafts.

Nortoniggy said:
BIRCO only cast the heads, they did no machining. As far as I know, all the machining was done at the Wolverhampton factory.
Click to expand...
It does not matter who machined the heads. "Shaving" implies they milled them twice and I don't think anybody did that even though most written sources claim it was done. "History" is most often written by artsy dorks that do not know the difference between an overhead floormat and a foo-foo valve. They try to explain things they do not understand and history becomes fiction as a result. After a few years crazy zealots then adopt the nonsense as divine truth and start defending it with religious fervor. Sadly, this doesn't just happen with motorcycles.

L.A.B. said:
"Murray B" - page 1...."Murray B" Above...:?:
Click to expand...
There is no contradiction here if that is what you mean. 'Dropping" the Combat does not mean they discarded thousands of engines or thousands of camshafts for those engines. They must have installed virtually all of the engines including the 'hot' camshafts in motorcycles and shipped them out to dealers.

A few years ago the following was posted on this site:
Ron L said:
...I have a 1973 model MkV which was also built in October 1972...
Click to expand...
Since we already know that some '73s were built in '72 it follows that a Combat engine made in '72 could still be installed in a '73 model bike that was also made in '72. Mid-year model year changes are a confusing but common practice among motor vehicle manufacturers.

What is more important here, the facts or the beliefs? Is it better to alter beliefs to suit the facts or alter the facts to suit the beliefs?

All I want to know is what really happened back then.
 
Murray B said:
L.A.B. said:
"Murray B" - page 1...."Murray B" Above...:?:
Click to expand...
There is no contradiction here if that is what you mean.
Click to expand...

I did, I still do, and it is.


Murray B said:
'Dropping" the Combat does not mean they discarded thousands of engines or thousands of camshafts for those engines.
Click to expand...

No-one said that, except you.


Murray B said:
They must have installed virtually all of the engines including the 'hot' camshafts in motorcycles and shipped them out to dealers.
Click to expand...

Must they? Now who's guessing?

Murray B said:
A few years ago the following was posted on this site:
Ron L said:
...I have a 1973 model MkV which was also built in October 1972...
Click to expand...
Since we already know that some '73s were built in '72 it follows that a Combat engine made in '72 could still be installed in a '73 model bike that was also made in '72. Mid-year model year changes are a confusing but common practice among motor vehicle manufacturers.
Click to expand...

Once more, you are clutching at straws, putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5.
If you had a basic understanding of Commando production numbers you'd know that Combat production ended at 211110 that's the history it's only you who is attempting to change it.

Murray B said:
What is more important here, the facts or the beliefs?
Click to expand...

Your beliefs it seems.


Murray B said:
All I want to know is what really happened back then.
Click to expand...

Then I suggest you go back to page 19 and read through it all again?
 
L.A.B. said:
...No-one said that, except you...Must they? Now who's guessing?...Once more, you are clutching at straws, putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5...If you had a basic understanding of Commando production numbers you'd know that Combat production ended at 211110 that's the history it's only you who is attempting to change it...Your beliefs it seems...
Click to expand...

When "moderators" become 'trolls' the site becomes worthless. I'm outta here.
 
Murray, if you are still there, If Norton had corrected all the Combat blow up problems in1973 with production of these hi output 73 Combats with Superblends, why on earth would they go to the expense of a big redesign? They went about strenghtening cases, increasing displacement, lowering compression and changing the camshaft etc. Why would Norton do all of this to produce what you say is a much lower powered machine when they had already on hand the existing reconfigured 750 Combat that would far outdo the new design for power and was a now a reliable engine?

Glen
 
L.A.B., That's another fine service you have done for the Norton community on this site.

Dave M
 
Carbonfibre said:
Riding a motorcycle competently is something that requires some degree of experience. Very fast and light machines such as the H1 or H2 need more rider input than most, hence the ridiculous nonsense about them not handling properly, and even claims that these bikes can be beaten in a drag race by old Brits with less power and more weight!

In terms of sports related machinery around in the 70s the Kawasaki 500 and 750 triples were pretty much the very best bikes available, being bulletproof reliable, and easily outperforming any other stock machines on sale during that period. They would certainly bite an inexperienced rider though, as they were in effect a race bike with road going equipment added.

For anyone who wasnt a reasonably good rider one of these bikes certainly wasnt that great an idea, as many riders simply couldnt deal with the levels of performance available, and often traded the bikes in following near misses, which in most cases were related directly to lack of riding ability.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall that Motor Cycle Mechanics raced successfully a HI 500 in production races in the 1970s and had to fit a swinging arm 1.5 inches longer to keep the front wheel on the tarmac, and, after looking at the featherbed frame, brazed some tubes onto the frame in strategic places where there should be some to stop it becoming a “bendy”.
 
You are right Bernard, its more one eyed drivel from that Nippon worshipping nincompoop - " myth that Kawasaki triples did not handle" - Greg Hansford was a Team Kawasaki 750 Production Champion ins Aus and NZ in the early 70's a great rider and his production H2 had a lot of frame mods - nothing stock about any of them! CF goes on to say the 500 and 750 triples were basically "race bikes with road equipment" Ha! what a dunce. A race bike of that type in those days had nothing like the productions frame! Even several of Suzuki's GP500 bikes in the UK actually had Seeley frames at one stage because the original race frame was substandard and they could not get a redesign out of Japan on time. Historical evidence and facts are something this forum can benefit from, an obligation that the irritating one fails to comprehend.

Mick
 
The one rule to the exception , is theres the exeption to each rule .
I always said - There's an exception to every rule w/o exception.

I hate it when tail wags the pilot w/o warning but that's how it is on THE Gravel so pretty much just stay locked on bars so can resist it with butt or even steer it back in line by butt alone. Usually at anal pucking speed or how else would I've adrenaline enough to develop involuntary muscle grip force : (

Slightly off topic to most but spot on what I'm up to if I can, break into 9 sec 1/4.
Even I take that with a toss of salt seeing what bikes it takes to do that. X-mass tree sprinting where an error can smash you and bike or just look stupid is about as much adrenaline over short interval as can be done on a cycle with clothes on.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCcPrz5Ayuk[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCcPrz5Ayuk[video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waoDr6pxhY4[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2h7EtEKx5Q&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL263D036AF675DC68[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gvILhrFAjA[video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRiNAs3wFgg[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CnU6AIhtDc[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zdMWLLmqJo&feature=related[/video]
 
I ordered one of these for the Vincent project bike

http://www.dakotadigital.com/index.cfm/ ... prd264.htm

In addition to a zillion warnings light and indicator light features, it will provide accurate 1/4 mile et times and terminal speed numbers, plus give 0 -60 times.
The device has internal infinite calibration adjustment so the speedo readings can be set dead on against a GPS, for example.
Once that is done and the odometer is also calibrated, the Et times will be right on.

Should provide lots of entertainment!

I also like the fact that it doesnt require a speedo and tacho drive&cables, just a wire from the coil and a wire from a speedo sending unit that can read off sprocket bolts, gear teeth or brake rotor fasteners.

Glen
 
Yes I've been window shopping various display, loggers and preformance calculator gizmo's. I though I could adapt a OBD II digital sensor CPU to blue tooth tablet programe like say Torque app, but the OBD 'puter brains needs to see all sorta of date feeds even windsheild wipper levers or it goes bonkers on displays and codes etc. So back to old school mechical and some stand alone GPS digital thingy.
I've had serous dragster that was a scary whiplash leaper forward floating front but also two bikes, a Combat and Ninja that ground looped on me un intended un expected so don't take Christmas tree launches lightly. Both times injured serious.
 
Although, in the early 70's I used to occasionally ride with some of the Cycle magazine staff, I cannot say whether this came from them or not, but somehow, somewhere, I came to "know" that the '71-'72 Combat 1/4 mile time in the 12s that that magazine published was made with a bike that had been prepared by Brian Slark and that the most obvious mod was that the peashooters were gutted. Again, I do not attribute what I think I "know" to anyone; I honestly do not recall where I got that datum.
 
A prepared machine is obviously got a better chance of running right .

Gutted ? some were semi baffled , some straight thru , perforated tube , glass pack surrounded .
After a few years of hard use , the fibre glass packing had dematerialised anyway .
Jetted biased rich , the perforated tube would be red hot with hard rideing , alledgedly enhanceing
the megaphone effect .

Two Wheels test , on the the hand ( I should check the time of year = summer ? ) The thing was
quater mile tested at 600 miles on the clock , after theyd thrashed it around Oran park . Hardly
the ideal running in and optimiseation regime .

Most people if takeing the bike to the Drag Strip for a hoolie would check tappets , points and
chain tensions , rear wheel alignment and run a spanner over at least the axle nuts , beforehand.

certified quarter-mile time.


Of course , a few bits might fall of on the way to the track . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top