Road Racing a Norton Commando

Hi Vulkin

Give it a go.
Ran my old Koni road bike shocks on my Seeley this weekend as the Maxton ones are leaking badly.
It was on rails
Best fun you can have with your clothes on!
Mind you what a circuit, Donnington wow.
Chris
ps ran a 750 steel flywheel revs great fun running a big boy now! revs more grunt both just awesome.

Could always splash the cash, hock the wife and kids, and buy a Seeley - and go ?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NORTON-SEELEY ... 1180375107

Also has a spare Maney 920 engine, 'just' bolt together...

Ugh perfect example of how much one must always goes into the hole once taking on anything associated with the Norton name. A real deal there for someone to grab and burn up more money, they'll never see again, but oh my the memories may be priceless or the death of ya.

No-one here is advising you to go classic racing......

Vulin said:

Thanks for the advice! I remember you said your bike was sleeved down, so thats something I will consider more seriously then the 920. Great suspension input! Anything I can do to keep it simple (and cheap) is great. Any experienced advice I can get it money in the bank.

Click to expand...

Another approach to the front end would be a Norvil adapter plate, light weight Lockheed racing caliper and a Norvil production racer floating disk. This all bolts up to the stock front spool and fork. This is a cost effective big improvement over anything you can do with the stock configuration. You can run the stock forks and there are emulators available in the states (not the Chris Consentino cartridges) which are relatively inexpensive. There's also the Lansdowne conversion provided by john robert bould on this forum. Taking this overall approach gets you improved brakes and suspension without buying a different front end and having to make custom triple clamps for it. It's a keep it simple approach.

As for engine, again as said elsewhere, keep it simple. Much gains by good selection of valve seat angles, higher compression and customized and tuned exhaust and intake. I had campaigned a near stock Commando with stock 32 mm carbs and manifolds, stock head pipes fitted with reverse megaphones, mild cam and mild compression. It was plenty fast and reliable.

As for track days, don't skimp on PPE. Been a while since I bought or priced the following but a ROM budget for the following:

Leathers $900 w/ back protector
Helmet $350
Gloves $250
Boots $250 SWAG

Dances with Shrapnel said:

Vulin said:

I had campaigned a near stock Commando with stock 32 mm carbs and manifolds, stock head pipes fitted with reverse megaphones, mild cam and mild compression. It was plenty fast and reliable.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This just about sums up what he needs to aim for out on the track. That's the way I started out many years ago. I didn't have the time, money or experience to campaign a full-on race bike. I started with an almost stock bike and I made improvements as and when I could. A near-stock bike should be more of a known quantity and should be easier to keep going. Reliability is key, because the time you save fiddling in the workshop or fixing breakdowns at the circuit can be spent riding the thing, exploring the limits of its performance and having fun. As your riding improves with practice, and as you get to know the bike, you can then get the best out of a tuned motor and other go-faster stuff.

ludwig said:

Dances with Shrapnel said:

.. there are emulators available in the states ..

Click to expand...

If you mean the Racetech emulators ( gold valve ) : forget them .
They don't work in roadholders .
This has been discussed in length .
Do a search ..

Click to expand...

Never used emulators but they were recommneded by a reputable vintage race shop. Not sure if they were Racetech or not; there are likely other styles and vendors so ...Do a search.

If you mean the Racetech emulators ( gold valve ) : forget them .
They don't work in roadholders .
This has been discussed in length .
Do a search ..

Click to expand...

Sorry but they do work provided they are sealed on the OD, Ludwig did post that they also did not work because the oil did not move through them but I did a test which proved otherwise to which there was no reply.

Full thread ricor-intiminators-invisable-fork-upgrade-t13185-15.html?hilit=racetech

My post

As a current suffer of the placebo effect :lol: I have performed an experiment on a roadholder fork without the damper rod, valves, spring and top nut .

I assembled a fork leg with the damper body, seal, seal holder and bushes. All were std and not modified.

I tested the movement of the fork from fully extended to full compression and the movement was 153mm.

I filled up the full compression fork with oil so it was 10mm short of the top, pumped it several times to eliminate any air pockets and topped up again to 10mm short of the top.

I then extended the fork to the fully extended position, waited for the oil to drain from the sides and then dipped for the new oil level.

The new oil level was 280mm below the top of the fork giving a relative level of 270mm.

So taking 153mm from 270mm the oil level increased by 117mm over the full travel of the forks.

The ID of the stanchion is 26mm so a column of oil 26mm OD 117mm high is displaced by the full movement of the forks, so any valve with a good seal to the ID of the stanchion and still under the oil level at full extension will have this column of oil forced through it by a full movement of the forks.

So no placebo after all and I can carry on taking the pills and upgrade another set of forks knowing they will work :shock: .

Thanks for dong your homework for us kommando. 153 total fork travel = 6.02362" which gives ~2" more travel for progressive springs and progressive dampening to function in Fautls Fork kit. I've got 2 set of Race Tech Emulaors, one long and hard used in my SuVee650, the other to study for Roadholders but see only easy to fit them for rebound dampening not compression and one steady dampening rate rather than progressive as tight fit damper rod tappered slightly in region ya want it to move easyiest fastest. I do not think the Suzuki emulated forks are as good as just plain jane Roadholders let alone if upgraded.

Highly suggest some sand or gravel or wet covered pavement to learn not to ever trust front grip but for straight line braking as when ya get going at race speed and thrust cornering front tends to get unloaded to grip and if ya load front more than rear then rear tends to let go which delays acceleration and upsets line holding no end. Its very educational to see most powerful cycles with a good lead get to the tricky turns and race starts all over again with slowest right on back their heels packed up tighter than inital race start. I sure ain't going that route anymore, been there done that, no thankyou.

hobot said:

153 total fork travel = 6.02362"

Click to expand...

Which Norton forks are these ?
Mine have 115 mm travel with the internals removed.

Dances with Shrapnel said:

Vulin said:

Thanks for the advice! I remember you said your bike was sleeved down, so thats something I will consider more seriously then the 920. Great suspension input! Anything I can do to keep it simple (and cheap) is great. Any experienced advice I can get it money in the bank.

Click to expand...

Another approach to the front end would be a Norvil adapter plate, light weight Lockheed racing caliper and a Norvil production racer floating disk. This all bolts up to the stock front spool and fork. This is a cost effective big improvement over anything you can do with the stock configuration. You can run the stock forks and there are emulators available in the states (not the Chris Consentino cartridges) which are relatively inexpensive. There's also the Lansdowne conversion provided by john robert bould on this forum. Taking this overall approach gets you improved brakes and suspension without buying a different front end and having to make custom triple clamps for it. It's a keep it simple approach.

As for engine, again as said elsewhere, keep it simple. Much gains by good selection of valve seat angles, higher compression and customized and tuned exhaust and intake. I had campaigned a near stock Commando with stock 32 mm carbs and manifolds, stock head pipes fitted with reverse megaphones, mild cam and mild compression. It was plenty fast and reliable.

As for track days, don't skimp on PPE. Been a while since I bought or priced the following but a ROM budget for the following:

Leathers $900 w/ back protector
Helmet $350
Gloves $250
Boots $250 SWAG

Click to expand...

I was just about to ask about going with a single brake instead of a dual setup at first. I will be going with the consention setup I think when I get down to that section. PPE will be part of it, my wife won't let me out of the house unless I wear it

Which Norton forks are these ?
Mine have 115 mm travel with the internals removed

Click to expand...

Hehe deja'vu timewrap, factory Commando RoadHolders. This is about exactly how Greg Fault bit into me some years ago and took him 4 months to finally find what was wrong with a part in his Roadholders to get in hobot camp with a tad over 6" and the rest is history. Annoying as it may be hobot was first to figure out 6" travel to get soft indefinite hydraulic top stop in '03. May be way better out there or yet invented but plenty good enough for me to hunt sport riders to play with and then for more dangerous thrills headed off unpaved paths by culvert leaps into creek bed afterwards to get the adrenalin trembles I crave. The other unsung hero in me nailing down Roadholder whole history was Bob Davis in Australia '01>'02. I got first Combat in summer '99 after 30 yrs off the dam things.

>5/31/2010 6:27 PM
Steve;

current article is at
http://www.members.shaw.ca/randell/roadholders.html
and as always, is a work in progress..

I am currently running a 'fork valve' from
http://www.mikesxs.net/
(which looks like an exact copy of the Race Tech emulator (or vice versa)) At 50 bucks a pair, good deal, you only need one. This gives me asymmetric damping, compression in one leg and rebound in the other. Best ride to date - and I've tried nearly everything.

Anyway, more in the article..

Mike Randall randell@shaw.ca

I grantee these allow rather more lean angle that low rider racers or limited travel RoadHolders as I know fork expand on turning in.

ludwig said:

Dances with Shrapnel said:

.. a reputable vintage race shop..

Click to expand...

Which one ?
Can you post a link ?

Click to expand...

vulin, this is a good resource. Randy and Karsten Illg run Framecrafters and know a bit about vintage racing and racing in general. Randy was the one that suggested emulators; which brand, I do not recall.

http://www.framecrafters.net/

Good people.

About fork yokes, Tony Foale's article:
'trail values from 2 in. to 4 in. were tried varying the rake angle either side of 15 degrees. Although the machine was perfectly ridable over the full range of settings, the front end proved livelier and the steering more sensitive to bumps as the trail was shortened (steeper rake), albeit never so much as with the standard set-up. In the upper range of trail settings the bike was very steady but could still be manoeuvred quickly. At about 3 in. trail there was a tendency for the machine to lift itself out of a bend when cornered at moderate banking angles (say, 15 to 20 degrees), though no such effect was detectable at higher cornering speeds requiring, say, 35 to 40 degrees of lean. When a machine is banked into a bend, trail gives rise to two opposing effects: (1) directional stability, tending to make the machine run straight and (2) the self-steering effect (also dependent on rake and wheel diameter) mentioned in Chapter 3, tending to steer the machine into the bend. To achieve neutral handling, these effects have to be properly balanced (in concert with several other parameters), and the problem just mentioned, whilst not properly understood, is thought to have been caused by an unsuitable combination of these effects for that particular machine at a critical rake or trail. It is thought that at the greater bank angles, the self-steering effect would have outweighed the straight-ahead tendency. '

As far as you are I are concerned, our machines have a rake at about 27 degrees. If there is too much offset, the tendency to lift out of bends when laid over, can happen under brakes and crash you. It happened to me when I first raced the Seeley. It stood up, turned and threw me off balance . I'm 71 years old, and I don't crash easily, and it was still a problem. I got back on the gas, and looked for a soft place to land, and it came out of it's swan dive. If you commando has a rake of 27 degrees and 18 inch wheels, you might try fitting a set of Yamaha TZ350 fork yokes. That is how I fixed my problem with the Seeley. I now always anticipate from experience where the bike will end up as it comes out of corners under power. After a while you know what will happen in various circumstances. I've had many years of experience dicing using a very difficult machine, my Seeley can beat anything else of similar size as far as handling is concerned. You'd need an RS125 to beat it in a corner.

vulin & bsanorton:

I would advise both of you to simply take your Commandos, strip them down and thoroughly clean them,; remove lights and unnecessary hardware(check the rules).

DO NOT go "big bore", do not alter frame, and do not go to wider wheels (any of those moves reduce class possibilities, all of them together would find you thrown in with the heavy hitters).

By all means overbore prudently to standard oversize of .020 or .040 as needed, belt clutch is acceptable, as is electronic ignition.

Start with a reasonable class, and a reasonable goal - Novice Historic Production Heavyweight class, and the goal to finish 4 races and graduate from rank novice wearing orange safety vest to nominal proficiency and no restrictions.

Once you have accomplished the above, you will have a MUCH better feel for what your next step should be. Whether to continue in class or bump up, whether to leave the bike as-is or spend more money and time making it more competitive, etc.

Further details re: Historic Production classes-

-Stock gas tank & seat pan
-stock footpegs & handlebar mounts
-stock exhaust LAYOUT (2 into 2, four into 2, whatever was stock on your bike) Do not need to be OEM mufflers, but must use mufflers (straight-thrus OK).
-stock carb bodies
-stock wheels (MANY "cheaters" on this one, with alloy wheels; nobody seems to protest them)
-dual discs might not be allowed (check rules)

...so your choices are somewhat limited in Proddy classes. Still, the best starting place.

IF YOU READ THE RULES, you'll see that Nortonistas are at an advantage in that you can easily obtain bodywork, rearsets and clip-ons, and be at a SLIGHT advantage over other bikes by running your Commando as a Production Racer replica. (unless a Ducati 750SS shows up)

I have to agree with grandpaul here. The kiss principle applies here and as much as someone wants to hang all the fancy jewelry on a bike, the AHRMA Historic Production class is as simple as it gets. The bike as is will get you plenty of thrills in stock trim and you would get the critical track time to get the feel and maybe get the bug.

All of a sudden swoosh's bike makes sense :shock:

Yeah, " . . . . unless a 750 SS shows up . . . ." - in that event, the Commando will need more help than the PR's bikini fairing and other bits.