Internet forums each have a different character. This forum is more about exchanging information than strident opinions. There is also considerable decorum exercised here. Its been my experience that those who choose to "shakeup " the forum and its contributors usually are here NFL.
Last Norton made
- Thread starter Carbonfibre
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2004
- Messages
- 20,415
ZFD said:
The Commando up for auction at Stafford is 336539
http://www.bonhams.com/eur/auction/19163/lot/455/
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2010
- Messages
- 673
Looks correct to me. About the supposed Pedley Commando Nick Hopkins says:
"JP never worked for Andover Norton. He was Works/General Manager at Wolverhampton and subsequently at Shenstone but not during my time there and I don’t remember ever meeting him. There are many Pedley stories and some are no doubt true but perhaps not all of them, and many will have been embellished with each telling! I think I have heard the Pedley bike story before, and he would have been in a position to arrange such a deal, but whether or not it is true I don’t know. "
Given the complexity of the task- ever built a bike from spares?- we doubt this is more than a yarn. There was the occasional bike that isn't in the despatch records- though it is in the Build books- because it wasn't despatched. We own one of them, a 1969 Fastback that was given to Tony Denniss by Dennis Poore as a "Thank you" for designing the Commando- I believe all main members of the team got one- so it was never "despatched".
"JP never worked for Andover Norton. He was Works/General Manager at Wolverhampton and subsequently at Shenstone but not during my time there and I don’t remember ever meeting him. There are many Pedley stories and some are no doubt true but perhaps not all of them, and many will have been embellished with each telling! I think I have heard the Pedley bike story before, and he would have been in a position to arrange such a deal, but whether or not it is true I don’t know. "
Given the complexity of the task- ever built a bike from spares?- we doubt this is more than a yarn. There was the occasional bike that isn't in the despatch records- though it is in the Build books- because it wasn't despatched. We own one of them, a 1969 Fastback that was given to Tony Denniss by Dennis Poore as a "Thank you" for designing the Commando- I believe all main members of the team got one- so it was never "despatched".
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2004
- Messages
- 20,415
ZFD said:
But not MkIIIs produced from approx. June '75-on which have the same 6-digit frame number as the plate/engine/gearbox number http://atlanticgreen.com/commandoframes.htm (my own 7/75 MkIII frame is stamped= #850#334***#).
ZFD said:
However, these last models would hardly have been produced under 'normal' factory conditions? The frame may also be stamped?
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2010
- Messages
- 673
Mk3s should have the 850F1.. ... frame numbers, see the Mk3 parts list: "commencing at Engine No.325001, Frame No.F125001". The ones I saw had frame numbers put in by the factory. These had the circle with two lines through before and after the frame number and had 850F1... frame numbers. It may be bikes going to the States didn't have frame numbers because chassis numbers were of no interest in England and America at the time and the registration documents normally gave the ENGINE number. Bikes that were imported into Europe in later years- say re-imported from the US- and had papers but no frame number (as is the case on most 750s and early 850s) then promptly got the ENGINE number hammered into the headstock, because that was the number the documents showed.
Wolverhampton was a factory where things were done to established routines, so just because it was towards the end I doubt things were done differently- and, indeed, the Mk3 build book speaks against it.
Wolverhampton was a factory where things were done to established routines, so just because it was towards the end I doubt things were done differently- and, indeed, the Mk3 build book speaks against it.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2004
- Messages
- 20,415
ZFD said:
Yes...when production commenced-but not later on.
ZFD said:
As my own MkIII's frame stamp has. # = Circle with lines. Thus: #850#334***#. ID plate is also stamped 334*** & 7 75.
ZFD said:
My Commando MkIII was not sent to the USA, and I can only say once again that it's frame number is not F1*****. [Edit] ZFD's comment about "chassis numbers being of no interest in England..." is certainly incorrect-as far as UK vehicles were/are concerned, a vehicle's primary identity is based on its chassis or frame number and not the engine number, although the engine number is also recorded on the Vehicle Registration Document.
ZFD said:
How is that relevant to any 850 MkIII frame number?
Concur with LAB, my MKIII has a build date stamped on ID plate of 5 - 75, 334###, and framed stamped 850334### on right side. The bike was purchased new 24 Jul 1976 at Paulsons Suzuki in Lacey, WA. The original service voucher booklet has
Norton Triumph on the front and on the back Norton TriuMph International Limited, Mackadown Lane, Kitts Green,
Birmingham B33 OLF. FWIW.
Norton Triumph on the front and on the back Norton TriuMph International Limited, Mackadown Lane, Kitts Green,
Birmingham B33 OLF. FWIW.
There must have been a fundamental shake-up between April and May 1975.
Mine is marked 4 75 and is one of those without the 850 prefix on the engine number or the headstock plate. It is a 330*** number which suggests (if porterg's is from May) that 3000 plus must have been despatched in April / May 1975. That seems a little higher than I'd have expected. Can Joe shed any light on this ?
Did they really make 11,500 odd Mk111s ?
I'm not sure that I really regard a 'foreigner' put down the line by the works manager with a non-documented number as the last production Commando. Strangely (or perhaps not ? ) I wouldn't swap my Roadster for it.
Mine is marked 4 75 and is one of those without the 850 prefix on the engine number or the headstock plate. It is a 330*** number which suggests (if porterg's is from May) that 3000 plus must have been despatched in April / May 1975. That seems a little higher than I'd have expected. Can Joe shed any light on this ?
Did they really make 11,500 odd Mk111s ?
I'm not sure that I really regard a 'foreigner' put down the line by the works manager with a non-documented number as the last production Commando. Strangely (or perhaps not ? ) I wouldn't swap my Roadster for it.
- Joined
- May 28, 2003
- Messages
- 2,591
ZFD said:
The USA has 50 states and in the early days they were all independent as to the registration number requirements. I have lived in a half a dozen states and NONE went by engine #, (unless a frame # did not exist) ...in the case of an engine swap the frame# almost always still took precedence...but not everywhere.
Possibly as later federal DOT requirements came in force, norton made frame# in addition to the traditional VIN to satisfy these regulations. However there again is NO standardization in state to state implimentation. I do not speak for all states, but the majority do not use engine numbers or even the #850#FXXXXXX numbers. Even as a lowly norton club we help local members properly title and register there machines using the old norton numbering sequence such as 330046 for a MKIII. early commandos normally would not get a 20M3S on the reg documents...only the 6 digit VIN. Atlas would not get a 20M prefix from the engine only the 20/above the VIN on the gusset
Waiting for the rotary to come out...
dynodave
INOA 23+years
NENO VP, tech advisor, past president, past treasurer, pass membership director
52 Norton Dominator model 7, 61 BSA Golden Flash, 63 Atlas, 68 Dunstall Atlas, 68 T100R, 72 Combat, 75 E-Start, 87 Serv-Equip 100HP MC brake dynamometer, 92 907ie duc, 02 MS4 duc,
http://atlanticgreen.com/
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2004
- Messages
- 20,415
79x100 said:
I'm not sure how you arrived at a figure of 3000 as I make it 9000 (325000 + 9000 = 334000) built, but my own 334*** MkIII is date stamped 7 75, so perhaps batches were not built in sequence, or the date stamps are not particularly accurate?
79x100 said:
If the factory built around 9000+ MkIIIs before it went into receivership and 1500 were built afterwards, then that would make a fugure of 11,500 about right, and there seems to be plenty of MkIIIs around, so I don't think the figure is too far out.
L.A.B. said:
LAB, I was referring to the number made between mine - 3305** and porterg's 334*** - I don't know his exact number but the difference could be as little as 3500 or nearly 4500 despatched in April / May 1975. I suspect you're correct in respect of the date stamps as the font on mine is not the same as the identification number. Presumably the date was added to machines already numbered ? The 'new' records at Andover Norton could perhaps shed some light on this.
The figure of 11,500 Mk111s seems quite a high proportion of the total production. Perhaps we see more as many of the export markets were drying up and many stayed in the UK after the initial deliveries to the US ?
It all makes a bit more sense now. That's about 2000 in a month then. 500 dispatched per week sounds more like it.I was under the impression the 77 year Mk3s were built from left over or reject parts under the recievers.
I have *850*335519 and by the look of the machining on the barrel and head the factory tools were very blunt.
Then another 1020 were built, (336539) what was the machining like by the last one?????
This bike was sold in England and imported to Australia a few years ago (not by me) and had no frame numbers stamped in the frame.
This did cause a few problems getting it registered, but worked out ok.
I find this thread very interesting and enlightening, thank you.
Graeme
I have *850*335519 and by the look of the machining on the barrel and head the factory tools were very blunt.
Then another 1020 were built, (336539) what was the machining like by the last one?????
This bike was sold in England and imported to Australia a few years ago (not by me) and had no frame numbers stamped in the frame.
This did cause a few problems getting it registered, but worked out ok.
I find this thread very interesting and enlightening, thank you.
Graeme
- Status
Similar threads
