Commando -vs- Triton
- Thread starter Snorton74
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2008
- Messages
- 1,607
I have a friend who's building a Triton, using a T140 motor in a slimline featherbed, with Commando TLS front brake. His reasoning for the build is simply that he loves the look of a Triton. I'm sure there are more being built now than back in the '50s and '60s.
I heard that the original Tritons arose out of Formula 3 in England. Formula 3 was 500cc, and the Manx engine produced more power than the JAP Speedway engine. Norton would not sell an engine by itself, so builders would buy a Model 30, take out the engine, and sell the chassis. The hot motor to put in this chassis was the Triumph 650, hence Tri-ton.
I don't know how true this is, but I recently saw a couple of Formula 3 Coopers with Manx motors, hanging in a guy's garage, on the show 'Chasing Classic Cars'
I heard that the original Tritons arose out of Formula 3 in England. Formula 3 was 500cc, and the Manx engine produced more power than the JAP Speedway engine. Norton would not sell an engine by itself, so builders would buy a Model 30, take out the engine, and sell the chassis. The hot motor to put in this chassis was the Triumph 650, hence Tri-ton.
I don't know how true this is, but I recently saw a couple of Formula 3 Coopers with Manx motors, hanging in a guy's garage, on the show 'Chasing Classic Cars'
Once Norton came up with the downdraught head 650ss, the 650 Triumph was trumped, the ss had about 10 mph extra top end over the Bonneville engine.
But there was the 750 morgo kit for the Triumph and, thru sheer numbers of production, more aftermarket hop up pts for the Triumph than for the Norton.
I imagine not too many 650 ss motors were yanked from Featherbed Frames to make way for a Triumph engine. Even a Triumph lover wouldnt do that would they Matt? I suppose if you really wanted to make a bike with a Triumph engine handle, and also insisted on the slimline version of the Featherbed, the frame pickins get thin, even a 650ss or two may have been desecrated(shudder)
Its likely that most of the Tritons from back in the day were made from lower powered Dommie bikes or singles, or, as Bill suggests, left over frames via Cooper type cars.
I think a good Triton would outhandle a Commando in the same was that the 650ss does.
Glen
But there was the 750 morgo kit for the Triumph and, thru sheer numbers of production, more aftermarket hop up pts for the Triumph than for the Norton.
I imagine not too many 650 ss motors were yanked from Featherbed Frames to make way for a Triumph engine. Even a Triumph lover wouldnt do that would they Matt? I suppose if you really wanted to make a bike with a Triumph engine handle, and also insisted on the slimline version of the Featherbed, the frame pickins get thin, even a 650ss or two may have been desecrated(shudder)
Its likely that most of the Tritons from back in the day were made from lower powered Dommie bikes or singles, or, as Bill suggests, left over frames via Cooper type cars.
I think a good Triton would outhandle a Commando in the same was that the 650ss does.
Glen
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,789
onehundred and twenty five were made , and only five hundred are still left . 
" the 650 Triumph was trumped, the ss had about 10 mph extra top end over the Bonneville engine " Stock ? maybe ?? ( Id consider about equal treated with due consideration , one of the better of Each .maybe )
( That means 120 fine tuned , before we start fiddling with bits )
BUT WE'll get INTO THAT . :lol: :twisted: If theres Pre Commando tritons , :? . Thats another thing . More annon .
ECUSE the Atrocious print quality . for Big Bike or similar . Manx Combat Commando . This one might handle . i dont like his rearsets though .
Contravene the keep it simple and add lightness principle .
THEREFORE , if theyre MANX Tritons , this is youre Grand Prix machine , for the Road ? With Manx 500 performance and touring / long distance capeability .
Then theres the ' scrap yard specials ' / Cafe Racer cobble ups , and conglomerations of cast offs .Back in the dim dark austerity of the 50s , maybe .
RIGHt , a old dog of a T120 engine was said by Shenton / Ray knight , to be limited to 60 Hp by the Crankshaft . unfortunately , this is measured at the Gearbox Sprocket , on the Triumph Dyno . :wink:
So . . . might be 65 at the crank , in real money . Therefore . . . theyre much of a muchness .
however , the c'do engine is Heavyer , and Tourqueier . therfore for touring / two up etc , the 750 Norton will be less fuss . Though you might need good fillings in the Teeth .
However , if you dont MIND a bit of FUSS , and youre after a Clubmans solo hack , the Speed records set by dungey old 50s / 60s Triumphs verifies the potential capeability .
Getting down to Carb 7 Valve size , if a Commandos 1 3/8 & 1 1/2 , a sensible chap would fit 1 5/8 intake valves . 8) 750 triumph valves fit the 8 stud alloy head nicely . 1 7/16 7 1 9/16 .500Rs 1 5/8 . :lol:
therefore presumeing equal carb size , Theres naff all in it . Bar Revs , where the Triumph keeps on going IF its got a Decent 72 % 1972 Crank in the guts . Various theories precude getting excessive with camshafts , Comp. Ratios due to chamber shrouding and heat paths , and port sizes . 1 1/16th is suffecient , for a 650 .
But if youre after a 750 boneshaker , the long 650 rods and 32 ports avail . So its near Combat flow potential . opposite line of approach is a Alloy T100 P.U. with the Big Valves , 1 7/16 & 1 9/16 , & hot cams .
But the peaky nature will make close ratio gears (same as manx ) a prerequiset . Where mildly tuned the others are going to be good for 130 if youre say 10 stone , and youve crawled under the paint .
featherbed-dual-loop-cradle-pictures-t11721.html
degens dunger I think was geared for around 130 , as was Uphills Bonne ( 135 ) both haveing a tooth higher available , off the shelf .
This thing was fairly mild , being a Edurance race Spec . The wee Saimesed exhaust isnt really the hot item as far as maximum output goes .
Degens mentions ' 80 Hp from a Triumph Twin ' here .
http://www.dresda.co.uk/
Thats over 130 out of a 57 T100 , with the ' new ' spay ( intake ) port head , the type fitted to Bonnevilles . My 55 had the Valve sizes quoted , 1 7/16 / 1 9/16 (unbelievable ) & 1 1/16 bore intakes . straight Port .
" the 650 Triumph was trumped, the ss had about 10 mph extra top end over the Bonneville engine " Stock ? maybe ?? ( Id consider about equal treated with due consideration , one of the better of Each .maybe )
( That means 120 fine tuned , before we start fiddling with bits )
BUT WE'll get INTO THAT . :lol: :twisted: If theres Pre Commando tritons , :? . Thats another thing .
More annon .ECUSE the Atrocious print quality . for Big Bike or similar . Manx Combat Commando . This one might handle . i dont like his rearsets though .
Contravene the keep it simple and add lightness principle .
THEREFORE , if theyre MANX Tritons , this is youre Grand Prix machine , for the Road ? With Manx 500 performance and touring / long distance capeability .
Then theres the ' scrap yard specials ' / Cafe Racer cobble ups , and conglomerations of cast offs .Back in the dim dark austerity of the 50s , maybe .
RIGHt , a old dog of a T120 engine was said by Shenton / Ray knight , to be limited to 60 Hp by the Crankshaft . unfortunately ,
this is measured at the Gearbox Sprocket , on the Triumph Dyno . :wink: So . . . might be 65 at the crank , in real money . Therefore . . . theyre much of a muchness .
however , the c'do engine is Heavyer , and Tourqueier . therfore for touring / two up etc , the 750 Norton will be less fuss . Though you might need good fillings in the Teeth .
However , if you dont MIND a bit of FUSS , and youre after a Clubmans solo hack , the Speed records set by dungey old 50s / 60s Triumphs verifies the potential capeability .
Getting down to Carb 7 Valve size , if a Commandos 1 3/8 & 1 1/2 , a sensible chap would fit 1 5/8 intake valves . 8) 750 triumph valves fit the 8 stud alloy head nicely . 1 7/16 7 1 9/16 .500Rs 1 5/8 . :lol:
therefore presumeing equal carb size , Theres naff all in it . Bar Revs , where the Triumph keeps on going IF its got a Decent 72 % 1972 Crank in the guts . Various theories precude getting excessive with camshafts , Comp. Ratios due to chamber shrouding and heat paths , and port sizes . 1 1/16th is suffecient , for a 650 .
But if youre after a 750 boneshaker , the long 650 rods and 32 ports avail . So its near Combat flow potential . opposite line of approach is a Alloy T100 P.U. with the Big Valves , 1 7/16 & 1 9/16 , & hot cams .
But the peaky nature will make close ratio gears (same as manx ) a prerequiset . Where mildly tuned the others are going to be good for 130 if youre say 10 stone , and youve crawled under the paint .
featherbed-dual-loop-cradle-pictures-t11721.html
degens dunger I think was geared for around 130 , as was Uphills Bonne ( 135 ) both haveing a tooth higher available , off the shelf .
This thing was fairly mild , being a Edurance race Spec . The wee Saimesed exhaust isnt really the hot item as far as maximum output goes .
Degens mentions ' 80 Hp from a Triumph Twin ' here .
http://www.dresda.co.uk/
Thats over 130 out of a 57 T100 , with the ' new ' spay ( intake ) port head , the type fitted to Bonnevilles . My 55 had the Valve sizes quoted , 1 7/16 / 1 9/16 (unbelievable ) & 1 1/16 bore intakes . straight Port .
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,789
BUt , those were the days .
Be wary of USED PARTS . :wink:
At the End of the Day , its going to be WHO / HOW it was put together . Unfortunately New Factory Spec. Manx Rolling Chassis are a bit thin on the ground , though .
This'd be better ? was one sold here ( Aus ) for $ 10-.000 a few summers back , in bits , Commando Rickman . Near Complete . A bit more durable & spacious .
Build your dream . Not from a haphazzard pile of bits though . Commandos more nervous / responsive / hair trigger .
Theyed tell you a Good Dual loop is a Solid as a rock . Steady and steerable . Lap Times comparable . either Way .
Be wary of USED PARTS . :wink:
At the End of the Day , its going to be WHO / HOW it was put together . Unfortunately New Factory Spec. Manx Rolling Chassis are a bit thin on the ground , though .
This'd be better ? was one sold here ( Aus ) for $ 10-.000 a few summers back , in bits , Commando Rickman . Near Complete . A bit more durable & spacious .
Build your dream . Not from a haphazzard pile of bits though . Commandos more nervous / responsive / hair trigger .
Theyed tell you a Good Dual loop is a Solid as a rock . Steady and steerable . Lap Times comparable . either Way .
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,789
http://www.dadscyclemags.com/category/v ... oad-tests/
Road Bike ./ below , these ones were a bit more special . .
SO , Its All Quite Simple Really . . . how much money have you got .
:? :wink: and do you have magic fingers . 8)One of the first roadtests of the new 650SS was done by Bruce Mainsmith for Motorcycling magazine, I have it somewhere. He was very taken by the bike, particulary the power increase of the new engine design over the old 600. He took it out to MIRA in the rain and recorded a highest one way speed of Just over 119 mph. His average speed was a full ten mph higher than the new (but already run in)Triumph Bonneville they had recently tested at the same track.
Stock to stock, the 650 Bonneville wont stay with the Norton 650SS.
This was also the finding of my friends who rode at Westwood race track back in 62 when the 650 Norton first arrived there. Murray Neibel, local Suzuki dealer recalls seeing one take off andcrun up the mountain revving and shifting up thru the gears very quickly as it climbed. The Manxes and G45s, G50s couldnt run up there like that, nor could any stock Triumph.
It was "The" bike in the early sixties.
A 650SS motor in a Manx frame held the lap record at Westwood from 63 until the track closed in the early 80s
On edit- here are some photos of that bike and rider, Ken Molyneaux and the 650SS were unbeatable on the Westwood Mountain course.
http://www.modernmotorcycling.com/Westw ... /index.htm
Glen
Stock to stock, the 650 Bonneville wont stay with the Norton 650SS.
This was also the finding of my friends who rode at Westwood race track back in 62 when the 650 Norton first arrived there. Murray Neibel, local Suzuki dealer recalls seeing one take off andcrun up the mountain revving and shifting up thru the gears very quickly as it climbed. The Manxes and G45s, G50s couldnt run up there like that, nor could any stock Triumph.
It was "The" bike in the early sixties.
A 650SS motor in a Manx frame held the lap record at Westwood from 63 until the track closed in the early 80s
On edit- here are some photos of that bike and rider, Ken Molyneaux and the 650SS were unbeatable on the Westwood Mountain course.
http://www.modernmotorcycling.com/Westw ... /index.htm
Glen
The first 650ss bikes, and the pre-unit Bonnevilles were of course not as fast as they got later on. The Bonneville kept getting bigger and better carburettors etc. year after year. The 650ss was not developed as much, but did eventually get some much needed oiling system modifications and finally larger carburettors right before it was axed.
For a few years after the 650ss came out it was successful in production racing out of factory-backed Syd Lawton's dealership. But in 64' lawton switched to running a Triumph Bonneville in the same races and won them with that also. Which backs up how important preparation and having a good rider is. The much more rare 500cc 88ss, same bike but smaller bore and stroke, also won it's share of production races.
When Heinz Kegler was with Norton over in England helping them test and develop bikes, he had a special 1962 650ss that had been tweaked by the experimental department. It had a Model 99 flywheel and pistons and a hair bigger camshaft and 389 monobloc carbs. He said they took it to the MIRA track which Norton often tested bikes at and it ran 127 mph with ease. The bike needed good fuel for it's higher compression. He rode it across Europe for Norton on the autobahn etc. back and forth to trade shows etc.. Heinz said that it was a prototype for what Norton was thinking of doing to the 650ss in subsequent years. At one stop somewhere in Europe he got a bad tank of fuel which detonated and screwed the engine up a bit. He made it back but he said it's power was way down.
So the 650ss had a lot of potential, and if AMC had not wiped Norton off the face of the earth at the end of 1962 it may have come to be....
I would check some records for Westwood. Before the 650ss came out there was the Manxman, and Edward Bilton-Smith built one up and eventually had it in a Manx chassis and won at least one season Championship.
He started off with a stock Manxman and modified it for drag racing first, and won a large number of trophies with it. Then he road raced it for a number of years all the while modifying it for that, which eventually led to swapping the engine/gearbox into a Manx chassis.
The engine was built up from all stock Norton parts as that was about all there was back in 61'-62'; 99 pistons, a stock cam which was reground to a smaller base circle, head ported by following suggestions in the "Tuning for Speed" book, and careful assembly.
He said it was important to keep the standard gearbox in the bike with it's low first gear, as he would beat all the Manx Nortons and other Grand Prix race machinery that had close-ratio boxes to the first corner ever time.
First photo is of bike in fairly standard trim, second with Manx chassis.
For a few years after the 650ss came out it was successful in production racing out of factory-backed Syd Lawton's dealership. But in 64' lawton switched to running a Triumph Bonneville in the same races and won them with that also. Which backs up how important preparation and having a good rider is. The much more rare 500cc 88ss, same bike but smaller bore and stroke, also won it's share of production races.
When Heinz Kegler was with Norton over in England helping them test and develop bikes, he had a special 1962 650ss that had been tweaked by the experimental department. It had a Model 99 flywheel and pistons and a hair bigger camshaft and 389 monobloc carbs. He said they took it to the MIRA track which Norton often tested bikes at and it ran 127 mph with ease. The bike needed good fuel for it's higher compression. He rode it across Europe for Norton on the autobahn etc. back and forth to trade shows etc.. Heinz said that it was a prototype for what Norton was thinking of doing to the 650ss in subsequent years. At one stop somewhere in Europe he got a bad tank of fuel which detonated and screwed the engine up a bit. He made it back but he said it's power was way down.
So the 650ss had a lot of potential, and if AMC had not wiped Norton off the face of the earth at the end of 1962 it may have come to be....
I would check some records for Westwood. Before the 650ss came out there was the Manxman, and Edward Bilton-Smith built one up and eventually had it in a Manx chassis and won at least one season Championship.
He started off with a stock Manxman and modified it for drag racing first, and won a large number of trophies with it. Then he road raced it for a number of years all the while modifying it for that, which eventually led to swapping the engine/gearbox into a Manx chassis.
The engine was built up from all stock Norton parts as that was about all there was back in 61'-62'; 99 pistons, a stock cam which was reground to a smaller base circle, head ported by following suggestions in the "Tuning for Speed" book, and careful assembly.
He said it was important to keep the standard gearbox in the bike with it's low first gear, as he would beat all the Manx Nortons and other Grand Prix race machinery that had close-ratio boxes to the first corner ever time.
First photo is of bike in fairly standard trim, second with Manx chassis.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2008
- Messages
- 1,607
Matt Spencer said:But , those were the days .
Be wary of USED PARTS . :wink:
I did mention on another thread that the Mini was a major factor in the demise of the English motorcycle :wink:
My friend building his Triton got the frame from an Atlas. I told him it was sacrilegious to do such a thing, but Atlas is the most common slimline frame found around here. He regretted his action a little after he got the Commando. I believe that Atlas engine is still available, BTW.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 2,846
There is, or was some point in making a special out of a Featherbed Model 50, or a twin with a bust crankcase, or an engineless Norton. Whether slow or fast compared to some other bike, a Triumph twin is a nice engine on the road and a Featherbed cycle steers well.
Why bother removing an Atlas or 650 engine to build a Triton? I don't get it at all.
Why bother removing an Atlas or 650 engine to build a Triton? I don't get it at all.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2012
- Messages
- 13,255
There is no comparison between these two bikes ! A Seeley makes a triton look stupid ! If you've got a Norton frame fit a Norton motor into it. Most tritons are built with the motor too far back, they don't handle like that. The front mount on the crankcases should touch the mounts on the featherbed frame. Never use a unit motor to build a triton :
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,132
That's what I was trying to get at thrasher! Granted I'm a newb, but cdnt imagine why anyone would remove a good Norton engine from a FB frame for a Trumpet. Good stuff from everyone.
Matt, your a library of info and pics, keep em comin. I'm laid up with a back injury, so it's good reading and viewing material.
Beng, was thinking same rider, builder, hangover,etc. FYI
Matt, your a library of info and pics, keep em comin. I'm laid up with a back injury, so it's good reading and viewing material.
Beng, was thinking same rider, builder, hangover,etc. FYI
grandpaul
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,271
acotrel said:
I'm going to disagree-
I had three unit Triumph engines and a large stack of go-fast parts to select from, for use in a bare frame that I got from a friend who happened to have two. Why pay additional money for a Norton engine and leave the Triumph lump gathering dust?
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2012
- Messages
- 13,255
If you are racing an old brit bike with a Norton box, buy youself the close 4 speed cluster from the states and use the standard commando first gear. Using the complete standard cluster is not a good option, you cannot do anything smoothly, every down change is accompanied by a heap of revs.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2012
- Messages
- 13,255
Paul, I raced the triton in the photo above for 12 years. Originally the motor was back a bit. I moved it as far forward as I could ( about 1 inch), and the handling was much better. Your unit engined triton looks good, have you tried to race it yet ? With that motor, you could almost use a MK3 Seeley frame, and you'd get a real thrill !
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,789
If you follow the " Gear Box sprocket nearest swing arm pin possible , and crankshaft furthest forward and down ' the RIDGID spaceing , box to motor is greater .
As the seat tube ordinarilly goes between ( on the Ridgid ) . A few are Alternator Type . like this sucker .
Probably worth cranking the cylinders forward to parrallel to front downtubes too . .
would mean 1961 build date / castings . http://showandgo.blogspot.com.au/2009/0 ... -test.html
.
So , the swine comes on the Megas at 7000 if thats 24 T engine and 4.000 -18 / 3.50 -19 rear . AND 8.100 / 8.200 at 110 in THIRD . Max bhp at 7750 . A Tweaked One.
Ran that time @ 90 mph , when commpletely rooted / gutless , wouldnt run past 90 in third / shift before line for 4th .
. ' raceing clearances ' rings demolished , clutch snafu . so only pulling 6.700 . :x
Had 150.000 miles all up then . 33.000 on last rebuild . Overhauled imediately after .
1 3/4 pipes 29 1/2 . Wassel ' mufflers ' ( long Megas ) big valves . 1 5/32 Amals .
As the seat tube ordinarilly goes between ( on the Ridgid ) . A few are Alternator Type . like this sucker .
Probably worth cranking the cylinders forward to parrallel to front downtubes too . .
would mean 1961 build date / castings . http://showandgo.blogspot.com.au/2009/0 ... -test.html
So , the swine comes on the Megas at 7000 if thats 24 T engine and 4.000 -18 / 3.50 -19 rear . AND 8.100 / 8.200 at 110 in THIRD .
Max bhp at 7750 . A Tweaked One.Ran that time @ 90 mph , when commpletely rooted / gutless , wouldnt run past 90 in third / shift before line for 4th .
. ' raceing clearances ' rings demolished , clutch snafu . so only pulling 6.700 . :x
Had 150.000 miles all up then . 33.000 on last rebuild . Overhauled imediately after .
1 3/4 pipes 29 1/2 . Wassel ' mufflers ' ( long Megas ) big valves . 1 5/32 Amals .