Prototypes

Was the original Commando ever assigned a prototype number by the factory?
I know the P10 was the ill fated 800cc DOHC twin, and the P11 eventually became the 750 Ranger.
But did the Command design begin as a coded prototype?

The AMC-derived 800cc DOHC twin (dubbed P800) was continued by NV as project P10. A redesign was ordered under code Z26, but to my knowledge the redesigned engine was never built (hence the Z code maybe) and the project was soon shelved in favour of the Commando development. Desperate times, it seems. Regrettfully, NV never picked up the project again as they should have done. What could have been if some qualified outside engineers had their hands on the project for a year? I wonder what happened between August 1966 and October 1967. Does management notes from the era exist?

The Norton Challenge was assigned project no. P86. It may have been the last project with NV, unless the Norton 76 was given a P-number by the co-op.

Lots of projects between these two, it seems.

-Knut

I remember talking to Heinz about the P10 and how it was shipped to Berliner when he worked there. I was surprised that Norton had done that! He said that he took it out on several occasions and every time it came back on a trailer. It was sent back to Norton, Berliner wasn't interested.
I miss that man.
I remember seeing a Cosworth Norton at the Maine rally in 82, wonder what happened to that?

Great info.
I was always curious about the development of the 800cc DOHC twin and where it went off the rails, and the decision was made to use the pushrod motor in the Commend.
The Norton Challenge was the Cosworth twin, no?

Sure would be wonderful to get all of the design/development details concerning the 60's and 70's at Norton/AMC.

Thanks Knut.

Nothing so romantic as a Lost Cause.

This is a good article on the Commando development process after the P10, no mention of a P10.5...

https://thevintagent.com/2019/03/28/the-commando-miracle/

BritTwit said:

Was the original Commando ever assigned a prototype number by the factory?
I know the P10 was the ill fated 800cc DOHC twin, and the P11 eventually became the 750 Ranger.
But did the Command design begin as a coded prototype?

Click to expand...

The Commando was originally known as the Atlas Mk3 which is why the early models had the 20M3 (20 = Atlas model code, Mk3) engine number prefix (and later 20M3S).

mdt-son said:

unless the Norton 76 was given a P-number by the co-op.

Click to expand...

Co-op? Do you mean Triumph Meriden co-op?

N0rt0nelectr@ said:

I remember seeing a Cosworth Norton at the Maine rally in 82, wonder what happened to that?

Click to expand...

The Cosworth was picked up by Bob Graves of Quantel and refined enough to win the AMA ProTwins race at Daytona in 1988.

Ron L said:

The Cosworth was picked up by Bob Graves of Quantel and refined enough to win the AMA ProTwins race at Daytona in 1988.

Click to expand...

I did not know that.
A little Google work


QUANTEL COSWORTH
This unusual machines motor is derived from the Norton Challenge project of the early 1970's, 2 cylinders from a F1 race car engine.



Bob Graves of Quantel also a director at Cosworth revitalised the motor in the mid 1980's and had Exactweld build a chassis around it.



It's most noteworthy achievement was winning the twins race at Daytona in 1988 with Roger Marshall at the helm, beating the works Ducatis.



Very Cool....

well at least the alternator seems familiar..

Peter Williams slated the Cosworth engine as being over sized, over weight heavy, and under powered.

Looking at the pic above certainly emphasises how big and heavy it looks.

And how can such a ‘clean sheet of paper’ race bike design still use a heavy old Lucas alternator and rotor?

I’ve the utmost respect for Bob and Quantel, but I suspect their success with the bike was despite, not because of, the basic design.

Cosworth- we have a lot of the drawings, "race" and "civilan" version. The race stuff as far as chassis goes was drawn by Basil Knight in Thruxton, the "production" version drawings were done by Richard Negus in Wolverhampton. Both knew of eachother and had phone contact during the project but never met eye-to-eye until a few years ago at Andover Norton's Open Day.
Basil Knight recently told me the main problem was engine braking as the rider shut the throttle. The rear wheel would just stop turning, and the rider was thrown off. Basil suggested a slipper clutch to Frank Perris, but Perris didn't want to know.
When Richard and I were thinking about a "new" Norton project to get the ball rolling again in 1997 (to become the C652 "International") we were approached by someone who claimed he sat on tooling and parts for the Cosworth. Richard said then (20-odd years ago!) the design was of purely historical interest, far too heavy in construction by the standards of 1997, and a waste of time.

As for the Commando, I was fortunate getting the opportunity to grill the late Bob Trigg at our Open Day, asking all the questions unanswered in books about the Commando project. Reason why the 1948 construction engine was used for the "new" model in 1967 was time and budget, but most importantly time. Something new was needed but no time to start with a clean sheet of paper for the power unit.

L.A.B. said:

Co-op? Do you mean Triumph Meriden co-op?

Click to expand...

No. There was a worker's co-op in Wolverhampton too, less enduring and successful than the Meriden co-op. It came to nothing, as the receiver removed all machinery.

-Knut

mdt-son said:

There was a worker's co-op in Wolverhampton too, less enduring and successful than the Meriden co-op.

Click to expand...

As I understand it, a co-op was one proposal that was discussed but did it come to anything?

I believe the '76' prototype was built by Favill and Hooper when still part of NV (or NVT Engineering)?
https://www.accessnorton.com/NortonCommando/norton-76.13526/page-2#post-191535

The Norton 76 was as much an answer to no question as the T140D was, a bike of which a high percentage was sometimes twice shipped over the Atlantic in search of a buyer. And recently, to my great amusement, decalred a "highly desireable classic" in Classic Bike!
British bikes were bought by youngsters like me then who WANTED a bike that looked old, not semi-modern, so cast wheels and square petrol tanks were the wrongest way possible to go.

The tunnel-vision factory personel, in awe of the Japanese success, didn't understand they had unintentionally cut a niche for their product by sticking to old concepts. Instead they tried to "modernize" the concept to make it more "competitive", thus making it a bad caricature of what others offered and loosing the only strong sales potential their product had.

Re; “QUANTEL COSWORTH This unusual machines motor is derived from the Norton Challenge project of the early 1970's, 2 cylinders from a F1 race car engine.”

And;

Re; “Peter Williams slated the Cosworth engine as being oversized, over weight heavy, and underpowered.”

The fact that it had been cut off from a Formula 1 engine, shows the old philosophy that it is better to use a successful smaller engine and scale up rather than just “chop off a section” of a bigger engine, which is overweight and designed for 4 wheels rather than two.


RE; “Basil Knight recently told me the main problem was engine braking as the rider shut the throttle. The rear wheel would just stop turning, and the rider was thrown off. Basil suggested a slipper clutch to Frank Perris, but Perris didn't want to know.”

It would have been interesting to know what Perris “solution” to the problem was. Shutting his mind off to the slipper clutch smacks of ignorance.

British bikes were bought by youngsters like me then who WANTED a bike that looked old, not semi-modern, so cast wheels and square petrol tanks were the wrongest way possible to go.


TBH... I was 19 in '76 and none of my mates would touch Brit tin. The Combat saga was still in the mind of some, the only one who bought a new T140 traded it up for a big Zed within months.
Consumer credit was rampant, so 'new' was within reach of most with a job (bike, insurance, clothing and helmet all on the one ticket.. 'just sign here, sir')
'Old men' and hard up youngsters rode the stuff that smoked leaked... All the youngsters I knew went 'modern' (Kawa Mach3, Z100, Suzuki GT550 et al...)
Just saying.....

BritTwit said:

Was the original Commando ever assigned a prototype number by the factory?
I know the P10 was the ill fated 800cc DOHC twin, and the P11 eventually became the 750 Ranger.
But did the Command design begin as a coded prototype?

Click to expand...

Not sure if it was a prototype number, but the early Commando drawings were labelled as Atlas MK3, strangely some were still being created and titled as such in May 1968, Long after the Commando we know was called the Commando.

EstuaryBoy said:

British bikes were bought by youngsters like me then who WANTED a bike that looked old, not semi-modern, so cast wheels and square petrol tanks were the wrongest way possible to go.


TBH... I was 19 in '76 and none of my mates would touch Brit tin. The Combat saga was still in the mind of some, the only one who bought a new T140 traded it up for a big Zed within months.
Consumer credit was rampant, so 'new' was within reach of most with a job (bike, insurance, clothing and helmet all on the one ticket.. 'just sign here, sir')
'Old men' and hard up youngsters rode the stuff that smoked leaked... All the youngsters I knew went 'modern' (Kawa Mach3, Z100, Suzuki GT550 et al...)
Just saying.....

Click to expand...

Well, in Hamburg at the time (1977), and not just there as I was shortly to find out starting to deal in Norton and Triumph spares, there were quite a number of youngsters who fell for the old British Twins and bought brand-new ones to boot. I remember a British motorcycle dealer in Harwich simply couldn't understand why a friend and I rode up on brand-new British bikes, calling us stupid and recommending Japanese. So the opinion in England may have differred.

That said the "Norton 76" with cast wheels and shoebox-shape petrol tank had neither appeal to those who wanted a "modern" bike, nor to my fraction who wanted a "classic" looking machine.

Madnorton said:

Not sure if it was a prototype number, but the early Commando drawings were labelled as Atlas MK3, strangely some were still being created and titled as such in May 1968, Long after the Commando we know was called the Commando.

Click to expand...

Not to be obtuse, but was there an Atlas MK2?
Just trying to understand the logical progression from one model number to the next.
Assuming of course there was a logic.