Heavyweight Contender or rope a dope,Mk 111 commando

Status
Not open for further replies.
L.A.B. said:
I must admit, I can't follow your logic?
Before they went bust, they were obviously producing about 1,000 machines per month, the stockpile of left-over parts built up into the 1,400 (apparently) complete machines after the crash wouldn't have amounted to more than about 5 - 6 weeks-worth of production at that rate. I have a feeling the stockpile of parts had to be purchased from the receiver by the company set up by Dennis Poore to build the bikes, either way, I think it unlikely they would've had enough of everything in stock to build 1,400 bikes.
Click to expand...

I never realised they were making 1000 Commandos a month LAB, so they made 12,000 Commandos in 1975?
 
Fast Eddie said:
I never realised they were making 1000 Commandos a month LAB, so they made 12,000 Commandos in 1975?
Click to expand...

If they were building around *1,000 MkIIIs a month over an approximate *7 - *8 month period, then it doesn't make 12,000. Also as I said previously, the total number of MkIIIs built was around *11,000. If about 1,400 (some sources say 1,500) MkIIIs were assembled later, during '76-'77 then it tends to imply they'd built around 9,500 before they went bust.

*(These are my estimates based on the available MkIII production serial number and date information)
 
L.A.B. said:
The 850 'MkIV' was supposed to have been the Norton 76.
norton-t15430-30.html#p189584
79x100 said:
Heavyweight Contender or rope a dope,Mk 111 commando
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Oh man, every time I see that thing I am taken by it's ugliness and reminded of the mid '70's sharp edged slab sided styling of every thing automotive. Actually the tank and side covers, side covers from the Interstate I believe, would not be too bad if the stylists did not feel the need to "modernize" the Norton name in the best "street sign" script of the day. NORTON, not once, NORTON, but twice. And the cheese ball wheels? or how about that kicked up seat, blech. And the model name itself, "76", what's that all about? Everyone knew what year it was, presumably next years new model would be called "78"? Now if it was the horsepower output it was named after, that would be cool!
 
Biscuit

Sorry old buddie, can't agree I like the look of the bike ,kinda soft grunge.
 
auldblue said:
Biscuit

Sorry old buddie, can't agree........it's Martin Sheen......Steve McQueen........it's Jimmy Dean.

This post may be as a result of using an Arc welder without proper eye protection.
Click to expand...

More likely due to inadequate ventilation.
 
Biscuit said:
Oh man, every time I see that thing I am taken by it's ugliness and reminded of the mid '70's sharp edged slab sided styling of every thing automotive. Actually the tank and side covers, side covers from the Interstate I believe, would not be too bad if the stylists did not feel the need to "modernize" the Norton name in the best "street sign" script of the day. NORTON, not once, NORTON, but twice. And the cheese ball wheels? or how about that kicked up seat, blech. And the model name itself, "76", what's that all about? Everyone knew what year it was, presumably next years new model would be called "78"? Now if it was the horsepower output it was named after, that would be cool!
Click to expand...

To be fair, it was one man's (Bernard Hooper's) attempt to update the design. How much direct involvement there was by the factory or "stylists" (if any, except perhaps for B Hooper himself) remains to be seen.
 
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I know and presumably it had some mechanical upgrades over the awesome ('cause I have one) MK3. I can spot caliper and carb changes and maybe the electric start was more dependable? Probably came with a Rita ignition too. I think Triumphs were getting those by now. I guess it's the "NORTON" and the no thought pin stripes on the tank and side covers that gets me the most, but by now re-paints and restoration would be happening to those too and if one wanted to, the tank script could be changed back to the stylized "Norton". Hmm, it could be saved. :mrgreen:
 
L.A.B. said:
Fast Eddie said:
I never realised they were making 1000 Commandos a month LAB, so they made 12,000 Commandos in 1975?
Click to expand...

If they were building around *1,000 MkIIIs a month over an approximate *7 - *8 month period, then it doesn't make 12,000. Also as I said previously, the total number of MkIIIs built was around *11,000. If about 1,400 (some sources say 1,500) MkIIIs were assembled later, during '76-'77 then it tends to imply they'd built around 9,500 before they went bust.

*(These are my estimates based on the available MkIII production serial number and date information)
Click to expand...

You're quite right LAB, when the numbers are broken down as you describe, it doesn't seem anywhere near as bad as I eluded!

I'm looking at this through 'modern day' "Just In Time" manufacturing glasses, and through these glasses, a month and a halfs worth of bikes being buildable from stock within the supply chain is still pretty bad though!
 
Fast Eddie said:
I'm looking at this through 'modern day' "Just In Time" manufacturing glasses, and through these glasses, a month and a halfs worth of bikes being buildable from stock within the supply chain is still pretty bad though!
Click to expand...


Possibly, if we were to assume all 1,400 or so bikes were built up from scratch, but that might not have been the case?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top