Something is not quite right here - eBay

met the guy who selling the bike yesterday - seems like a decent guy (even though he's english :mrgreen: ) and a bike lover who as he says is selling the bike to fund other projects
if any of you are seriously considering putting a bid on it i can easily look at it and let you talk to the owner while i'm there etc etc

L.A.B. said:

850 306680 10/73 is a reasonably early example....
Does anybody have an earlier date/serial example with the limit marks?

Click to expand...

I bought 300077 a few years ago (and sold it three months ago) and it had no limit marks. It was marked 6/73 on the VIN plate allthough according to Joe's books it was actually produced 3/73 and shipped to - surprise, surprise - the Berliner bros in 6/73. I wonder when they were actually stamped?


Tim

mikegray660 said:

met the guy who selling the bike yesterday - seems like a decent guy (even though he's english :mrgreen: ) and a bike lover who as he says is selling the bike to fund other projects
if any of you are seriously considering putting a bid on it i can easily look at it and let you talk to the owner while i'm there etc etc

Click to expand...

English - Decent guy...

Well, naturally!

Nortiboy said:

I also have this 235xxx but that is another story

Cheers

Mark

Click to expand...

1. This is a 850 bottom end/cases with 750#.
2. The numbers do not appear to be factory type spacing or position.
Maybe a genuine factory bitza...
as a side note
I have a earlyish 850 302769 here in the shop... still original owner from new.....without the extra stamped symbols......

dynodave said:

1. This is a 850 bottom end/cases with 750#.
2. The numbers do not appear to be factory type spacing or position.
Maybe a genuine factory bitza...

Click to expand...

It's one of the 750 "Short stroke" engines (80mm stroke 850, RH7 head, steel conrods) which I believe are the ones that did officially have 235xxx serial numbers.

post131704.html#p141999

L.A.B. said:

dynodave said:

1. This is a 850 bottom end/cases with 750#.
2. The numbers do not appear to be factory type spacing or position.
Maybe a genuine factory bitza...

Click to expand...

It's one of the 750 "Short stroke" engines (80mm stroke 850, RH7 head, steel conrods) which I believe are the ones that did officially have 235xxx serial numbers.

Click to expand...

Yep, you got it. This is a supercharged short stroke, hence the lower compression pistons. RH7 etc etc. Getting Omega pistons to get it back to factory specs. So many 235xxx around with no factory history. If the ebay bike was a MKV, then someone liked drums and small tail lights.

All the 235xxx MarkV 750s (4) I have seen have square tail light, disc brake and combat breather. All were first registered USA so maybe a clue.

Cheers

Mark

L.A.B. said:

It's one of the 750 "Short stroke" engines (80mm stroke 850, RH7 head, steel conrods) which I believe are the ones that did officially have 235xxx serial numbers.

Click to expand...

But then there are enough "long stroke" 750ies to prove that this is not really the case, aren't there? This one e.g. Plus 235-850ies apparently, and even the NOC dating officer or however they call him says there have been early 850ies with numbers before 300001. I still think this "mistery" in the end is nothing more than a missing book of VIN entries.


Tim

Tintin said:

L.A.B. said:

It's one of the 750 "Short stroke" engines (80mm stroke 850, RH7 head, steel conrods) which I believe are the ones that did officially have 235xxx serial numbers.

Click to expand...

But then there are enough "long stroke" 750ies to prove that this is not really the case, aren't there?

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what it proves?

Tintin said:

Plus 235-850ies apparently, and even the NOC dating officer or however they call him says there have been early 850ies with numbers before 300001.

Click to expand...

Yes, but from the evidence we have seen here, the "235xxx" serial 850s seem to have been Mk2/2A models built during late '73 into '74 - not 850s built prior to March 1973, which tends to throw suspicion on it being a lost dispatch book from early 1973.
post20849.html
one-those-ebay-ads-t5609.html

L.A.B. said:

I'm not quite sure what it proves?

Click to expand...

Well, it proves that not all 235xxx are short-strokes and thus your statement "...which I believe are the ones that did officially have 235xxx serial numbers." is a bit misleading IMHO. I'd see it the other way round: The short-strokes happen to be 235xxx, at least the ones which have been on the radar so far. However according to Joe he has seen 231xxx, 232xxx... etc. so maybe there is a short stroke out there without a 235xxx? Or can we exclude this possibility from what we know?

..... which tends to throw suspicion on it being a lost dispatch book from early 1973.

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't think that it is a case of a missing book in the chronological chain of things. I just think that it is a missing book or several missing books or maybe even bikes which have not been entered in any book at all. Therefore the "statement that the last 750 is 230xyz" by the NOC/Bacon is definetly wrong. And any statement regarding what 235xxx nos are is usually contradicted by bikes that pop up here and there. That's all.


Tim

Tintin said:

L.A.B. said:

I'm not quite sure what it proves?

Click to expand...

Well, it proves that not all 235xxx are short-strokes and thus your statement "...which I believe are the ones that did officially have 235xxx serial numbers." is a bit misleading IMHO.

Click to expand...

However nobody has, as yet, proved any non-short stroke "235"s are "official" therefore I think what I said is correct until proven otherwise.

Tintin said:

Oh, I don't think that it is a case of a missing book in the chronological chain of things. I just think that it is a missing book or several missing books or maybe even bikes which have not been entered in any book at all.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps they were assembled in a missing Norton shadow factory in the Outer Hebrides? In other words, anyone can make up their own explanation as you really don't know either.

Tintin said:

Therefore the "statement that the last 750 is 230xyz" by the NOC/Bacon is definetly wrong.

Click to expand...

I don't know how you can say that is "definitely wrong" unless you have access to more information than the NOC?

L.A.B. said:

Tintin said:

Therefore the "statement that the last 750 is 230xyz" by the NOC/Bacon is definetly wrong.

Click to expand...

I don't know how you can say that is "definitely wrong" unless you have access to more information than the NOC?

Click to expand...

Well, are there 750ies with nos higher than the one in the Bacon book or not?


Tim

Tintin said:

L.A.B. said:

Tintin said:

Therefore the "statement that the last 750 is 230xyz" by the NOC/Bacon is definetly wrong.

Click to expand...

I don't know how you can say that is "definitely wrong" unless you have access to more information than the NOC?

Click to expand...

Well, are there 750ies with nos higher than the one in the Bacon book or not?

Click to expand...

Yes, numerically higher. So what does that prove?

According to your earlier theory about lost dispatch books, the "235" series production begun in early '73, therefore the 235 series would have predated the "official" 220 (March '73) and 230 series MkVs! And where are all these extra long stroke "235" 750s?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1973-NOR ... 20c37ea220
235138 made 2/73. Last 750: 230935 made October '73 so a higher serial number is certainly no proof of later manufacture.

Nortiboy's 750 235017 was also made in 2/73.

Still 235xxx is a mystery.... Not necessarily 750 short stroke engines. Some one in the UK that knows anyone you can ask that was at Andover early 1973? Wonder if Peter Williams has any idea?

L.A.B. said:

..... Last 750: 230935 made October '73 so a higher serial number is certainly no proof of later manufacture.

Click to expand...

Ah, sorry, now I understand what you're looking at. When I wrote "before" I was actually referring to "numerically before".

Whenever I read something about this 230935 being the last 750 I understood it as an argument that 750ies with higher nos. can't be. I was not referring to productions dates at all so if you want it that way I meant that 230935 obviously was not numerically the last Commando made and this is also how I understood the Bacon book. I don't have a copy anymore because I found it to be far to imprecise.

Joe found all my Nortons in his books except for a 302xyz-850 and this was stamped 9/73 (btw, I'll have a look tomorrow whether it has the limit marks) so all that is certain IMHO is that sometime in 1973 and possibly after that somebody did not care too much about the records.

Regarding your statement about the 750 short strokes being "official 235 nos" I just fail to see any relevance of this fact as there are several long-stroke 235 as well - in that sense the 235-nos just don't mean a lot and they definitely don't exclusively mean that a 235 is a short-stroke.


Tim

Tintin said:

Ah, sorry, now I understand what you're looking at. When I wrote "before" I was actually referring to "numerically before".

Whenever I read something about this 230935 being the last 750 I understood it as an argument that 750ies with higher nos. can't be. I was not referring to productions dates at all so if you want it that way I meant that 230935 obviously was not numerically the last Commando made and this is also how I understood the Bacon book. I don't have a copy anymore because I found it to be far to imprecise.

Click to expand...

Either 230935 was the last production 750 or it wasn't, and absolutely nothing to do with whether there were some 750s built with numerically higher serial numbers or not.

No doubt Roy Bacon got his information from the surviving Norton factory records, the same as other "Norton" book authors none of which have, as yet, come up with any better information regarding Norton Commando production, therefore if Roy Bacon's information is innaccurate due to the fact that certain records are missing then it's hardly his fault. If you can offer a more accurate account of the facts then please do?

Tintin said:

Regarding your statement about the 750 short strokes being "official 235 nos" I just fail to see any relevance of this fact as there are several long-stroke 235 as well - in that sense the 235-nos just don't mean a lot and they definitely don't exclusively mean that a 235 is a short-stroke.

Click to expand...

I don't think anybody would dispute the fact that a certain number of 235 long-stroke machines exist - only that there appears to be no surviving records: therefore they do not exist "officially".

It is true that the later Commando factory records are incomplete and a mess. They are so poor that during the time that they were in the custody of the UK Police authorities following the collpase of NV, they were supplemented by extracts from the UK licencing record. I've had a nose in there too and found no trace of any 235*** series machines which strongly suggests that none were registered in the UK during the 1970s.

Based on some pretty reliable hear-say regarding NVT's dealings with one particular European importer, I'd suspect that there were one or more consignments of unstamped, unrecorded machines sent to the US without the knowledge of the taxman...

The US distributor would then have used a number that he knew had never been issued to avoid any risk of duplication. If this occurred on several occasions then there could be various types and engine capacities involved.

Money was tight at NVT during the mid-'70s and with the continual warranty claims, it doesn't seem impossible that some compensation for the problems was 'in kind' rather than through the books.

I really suspect that the answer to this one lies in the US rather than the UK. What happened to the US distributor's archives ?

79x100 said:

I really suspect that the answer to this one lies in the US rather than the UK. What happened to the US distributor's archives ?

Click to expand...

"All the 235xxx MarkV 750s (4) I have seen have square tail light, disc brake and combat breather. All were first registered USA so maybe a clue".

Original registration on my MKV 235017 Built 02/73 was in Iowa.

Cheers

Mark

79x100 said:

Based on some pretty reliable hear-say regarding NVT's dealings with one particular European importer, I'd suspect that there were one or more consignments of unstamped, unrecorded machines sent to the US without the knowledge of the taxman...

The US distributor would then have used a number that he knew had never been issued to avoid any risk of duplication. If this occurred on several occasions then there could be various types and engine capacities involved.

Click to expand...

I did wonder whether there was some subterfuge regarding the 200 production machines (200 per year?) which I think had to be built in order to satisfy the US homologation rules so that a particular model qualified for production class racing?

Perhaps those 200-400 production 235 series "short-stroke" bikes sent to the USA were never actually built with short-stroke engines! Or maybe they were rebuilt with standard parts once they reached the US importer as the factory would probably have thought that selling the highly-tuned short-stroke bikes to Joe Public would be like giving them a hand grenade with the pin removed?
As we are aware, there are a few 235 series 750 & 850 Commandos with apparently standard engines and also some 235 short stroke engines are known to exist but if 200-400 short-stroke road models were actually built then we should also be seeing those occasionally - however we never seem to see or hear about any 235 short stroke Commandos?

L.A.B. said:

79x100 said:

however we never seem to see or hear about any 235 short stroke Commandos?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The only short strokes (2) I know of in this country were new motors in crates marked "For Racing Only". Mine I got from Ebay as you know. I like the homologation theory. This is why the books are probably missing.

L.A.B. said:

Either 230935 was the last production 750 or it wasn't, and absolutely nothing to do with whether there were some 750s built with numerically higher serial numbers or not.

Click to expand...

Well, it depends a bit on the perspective, doesn't it? If you take a look at the usual question e.g. in this forum regarding the 235 no range then at least I had the impression so far that mentioning 230935 meant that all nos numerically after that one are at least suspiscious - "last", "after" and "before" can be used in a numerical or chronological context, can't they? In the German CBBC forum we had exactly this case a few days ago. Somebody found a nice Norton, did a bit of research and got the impression that the 235 can't legally exist because of said Bacon statement.

.... therefore if Roy Bacon's information is innaccurate due to the fact that certain records are missing then it's hardly his fault.

Click to expand...

I don't care who's "fault" it is, that is not a category I would judge this bit of info in.

If you can offer a more accurate account of the facts then please do?

Click to expand...

Off course I can't offer a more accurate account of facts, that is not my point. Maybe I simply understood the Bacon statement wrong but given what I know - or don't know - by now if the statement of 230935 being the last 750 produced is only based on that no being the last one in the books present at that time it is relatively meaningless IMHO. Or is there any kind of offical documentation about 230935, even if it's only a comment in the records or something?

I don't think anybody would dispute the fact that a certain number of 235 long-stroke machines exist - only that there appears to be no surviving records: therefore they do not exist "officially".

Click to expand...

Sorry, but if I'm not completely mistaken by now you just contradict yourself here: You consider the 235 short strokes to be "offical" but the 235 long-strokes not? Is there a reocrd of the 235 short strokes? AFAIK there isn't - correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've read about this "235 mystery" I think that none of them is in official Norton papers, isn't it?

Regarding your outer Hebrides theory vs. missing book(s) theory vs. customs/tax fraud theory: I guess you're familiar with common science practise that if there is a choice between two or more hypotheses the one which needs less wild assumptions usually wins .... :wink:


Tim