Why only two main bearings?

T

Big_Jim59 said:

Your points are well taken. My intent was not to cast dispersion on any one brand. There is plenty of that to go around. These were just my observations from a time, long ago. By carful assembly I am including issues such as careful machine work. By the time our favorite machines were being built the machine tooling was not the best. Many components were turned out with "close enough" as the final spec. Add to this the fact that these bikes were being constructed with parts that were themselves not subject to riggorious quality control standards and you have the issue that built the British bike reputation. Least you think me biased I will include all of Harley-Davidson offerings at this time plus a large part of the offerings by Ford, General Motors and Crystler. It was a mess. It took the Japanese to show us the way to zero defect manufacturing that we take for granted today.

As far as the BSAs were concerned, as a group, they probably got the worst of it because they were billed as the hot rod, sport bike of the era. As such were hammered unmercifully. I saw this in Nortons as well but they tended to pay the owners back for such treatment with a hole in the transmission case. I imagine that a BSA can be made a dependable ride with the same type of care we lavish on our Nortons I have just never had the chance.

Click to expand...

Thanks Jim,
Very interesting.
i didn’t realise that BSA was marketed as the ‘hotrod’ of the three.
Somehow I imagined that Triumph was the choice of the ‘boy racer’, ‘ bover boy’ or whatever the young lads were called back then and Norton attracted slightly more mature, discerning customers. As BSA was well and truly gone by the time I became ‘bike sentient’ around 1976 they were never really part of my upbringing.
I would be interested to learn what distinguished the various makes apart in marketing etc. Did they have distinctly different images in the eyes of the riding public? Did they appeal to a slightly different demographic? We’re they all competitively priced against each other?
Move back a decade or so early into the fifties and I have no idea why one would choose a particular single. For example, why buy an AJS over Arial etc or visa versa. I believe Velocette were always more exclusive and race oriented.
Perhaps because they were bought out and taken to India, I tend to think of Royal Enfield as being cheaper and more utilitarian than other bikes but this might be totally wrong.
So what determined who bought what? Was it just brand loyalty or were they made and advertised to appeal to slightly different markets?
I presume with bikes like HRD Vincent it was easy, you needed to be quite wealthy to afford one.
As you might have gathered, apart from owning and riding Triumphs and Norton I’m interested in their history, not just the facts and figures but what the ‘vibe’ was at the time, so to speak.
So reading this, it’s amazing what I don’t know.
Alan

I was looking for something else and stumbled across this Aussy article "Why Norton Why bother "
Here's the link, it's quite comical to read , found on unionjack.com.au

N

Shelby-Right said:

I was looking for something else and stumbled across this Aussy article "Why Norton Why bother "
Here's the link, it's quite comical to read , found on unionjack.com.au

Why Norton, Why Bother!

I once had a apprentice who always answered a question as the above instead of “Why not” it was a bit of a standing joke until we were made authorised NVT (Norton Villiers Triumph) agents in 1974 as BSA-Triumph group had collapsed, things were going from bad to worse as very few Triumph twins...

www.unionjack.com.au

Click to expand...

Thank you,
What a great article. It really is ‘from the horse’s mouth’.
It confirms what I have heard anecdotally. Even when new, Commandos suffered from numerous faults that could have been easily rectified in the factory. Our T140V has certainly been much easier to live with than my Commando. The only real problem with our 78 Bonnie, bought new from Tom Byrne Motorcycles in Elizabeth St Sydney, have been vibration related.
The Bonneville really isn't suited to extended cruising at 70mph plus. The commando is much better at that work, as it disguises the vibration. A Trident is superior to both. To me, the Bonnie feels much nippier. It is also interesting to note that the Worker’s Co-op Meriden Bonnie is not nearly as well made or finished as my T160. Garaged in identical conditions, the Bonnie suffered from surface rust on the chrome of identical parts shared with the T160, such as the mudguards and grab rail.
The finish of the T160 was really exceptional. When very new one really got the feeling that everyone in the manufacturing team really recognised that this was their last roll of the dice and everyone’s future depended on it being a winner.
History records that it was too little, too late.
I think that there was more life left in the Trident design than in the Commando, although many on this forum may claim a Commando to be faster than a Trident. A final rework of the T160 (T180) engine could have probably lifted it’s horsepower up to around 80 which would have kept it competitive perhaps to 1980. Having said that, the T160 was probably prohibitively expensive, as faster and faster Japanese bikes entered the market.
I think by the time the Mk. 3 was in the showroom, the design had really run it’s course and there was no where left to go with the whole basic bike.
Not owning the equivalent Mk 3, I can’t really talk about it’s general finish but I believe from extended road tests from the day that the Commando did suffer from poorer workmanship and quality. It weathered and rather quickly deteriorated unless pampered.
At the time my partner’s CB250 had the most amazing paint and chrome work and after some years still looked absolutely as new. A Commando under similar conditions would have looked quite tatty.
One get’s the feeling that a few good designers could have hugely improved the Commando in a couple of days, if given free reign. Mufflers could have been better attached, ergonomics improved in the way of foot pegs, kick starter etc, improved brakes and in general the surface finish improved, in fact everything that was complained about in the article.
Maintenance wise, not being quite as familiar with the Norton as I am with Triumphs, I find everything to do with them just that little bit more awkward than my Triumphs. Even a job as simple as changing the air filter on the commando is frustrating compared to the 2 minute job in the Trident, or securing the tank to the bike.
As a last note I should point out that in my opinion a well sorted T160 is ahead in every department, including quality, reliability , ease of maintenance, long range cruising ability etc. When ’on song’ it has a far more modern feel than either the Commando or the Bonnie. It really needed extra capacity, a factory 850 or 900cc version would have boosted it’s lower end power giving it the best of both worlds.
Please don’t take this as direct criticism of the Commando. The Commando is a wonderful bike and riding it, a fantastic experience. For one thing I love my 850 and secondly, a Norton Forum is not the place to be too critical. If anything, this post is cry of anguish that a great bike like the Commando could have been so easily improved with rather small but targeted changes but intractable management refused to fully modernise.
I truly wish the writer of ‘Why Norton, Why Bother’ experience had of been more positive.
Regards
Alan

Alan L said:

N

Thank you,
What a great article. It really is ‘from the horse’s mouth’.
It confirms what I have heard anecdotally. Even when new, Commandos suffered from numerous faults that could have been easily rectified in the factory. Our T140V has certainly been much easier to live with than my Commando. The only real problem with our 78 Bonnie, bought new from Tom Byrne Motorcycles in Elizabeth St Sydney, have been vibration related.
The Bonneville really isn't suited to extended cruising at 70mph plus. The commando is much better at that work, as it disguises the vibration. A Trident is superior to both. To me, the Bonnie feels much nippier. It is also interesting to note that the Worker’s Co-op Meriden Bonnie is not nearly as well made or finished as my T160. Garaged in identical conditions, the Bonnie suffered from surface rust on the chrome of identical parts shared with the T160, such as the mudguards and grab rail.
The finish of the T160 was really exceptional. When very new one really got the feeling that everyone in the manufacturing team really recognised that this was their last roll of the dice and everyone’s future depended on it being a winner.
History records that it was too little, too late.
I think that there was more life left in the Trident design than in the Commando, although many on this forum may claim a Commando to be faster than a Trident. A final rework of the T160 (T180) engine could have probably lifted it’s horsepower up to around 80 which would have kept it competitive perhaps to 1980. Having said that, the T160 was probably prohibitively expensive, as faster and faster Japanese bikes entered the market.
I think by the time the Mk. 3 was in the showroom, the design had really run it’s course and there was no where left to go with the whole basic bike.
Not owning the equivalent Mk 3, I can’t really talk about it’s general finish but I believe from extended road tests from the day that the Commando did suffer from poorer workmanship and quality. It weathered and rather quickly deteriorated unless pampered.
At the time my partner’s CB250 had the most amazing paint and chrome work and after some years still looked absolutely as new. A Commando under similar conditions would have looked quite tatty.
One get’s the feeling that a few good designers could have hugely improved the Commando in a couple of days, if given free reign. Mufflers could have been better attached, ergonomics improved in the way of foot pegs, kick starter etc, improved brakes and in general the surface finish improved, in fact everything that was complained about in the article.
Maintenance wise, not being quite as familiar with the Norton as I am with Triumphs, I find everything to do with them just that little bit more awkward than my Triumphs. Even a job as simple as changing the air filter on the commando is frustrating compared to the 2 minute job in the Trident, or securing the tank to the bike.
As a last note I should point out that in my opinion a well sorted T160 is ahead in every department, including quality, reliability , ease of maintenance, long range cruising ability etc. When ’on song’ it has a far more modern feel than either the Commando or the Bonnie. It really needed extra capacity, a factory 850 or 900cc version would have boosted it’s lower end power giving it the best of both worlds.
Please don’t take this as direct criticism of the Commando. For one thing I love my 850 and secondly, a Norton Forum is not the place to be too critical. If anything, this post is cry of anguish that a great bike like the Commando could have been so easily improved with rather small but targeted changes but intractable management refused to modernise.
I truly wish the writers experience had of been more positive.
Regards
Alan

Click to expand...

I just love the sound of of those triples , wouldn't mind a bsa rocket 3 or a t150 160, I'd probably be better off with the disc brake . they are all pretty cool classic bikes, you have to accept problems and work through them .
I have 1cy 2cy and 4cyl and a 3 cyl would help with the collection

Yes, I rather regret I have a Mk 2 Norton instead of a Mk 3, purely because a T140V, T160 and a Mk3 to me is a real matching set. Never mind, what I’ve got still punks a smile on my dial.
On rereading what I wrote I feel a bit bad as it seems too critical of the Commando when why I really wanted to say was how interesting I found the article.
Though so different, a Commando and a T160 are just so good to ride
al.

I've just read that article. What a load of horse shit. Whilst he makes some good points, because as we all know, Commandos were meant as stop gap, there is so much in the article that is wrong it makes me wonder if he has even ridden one. Seems to like Triumphs though.

Matchless said:

What a load of horse shit.

Click to expand...

Well put!

He should have recounted the actual problems he was seeing with Nortons and left it at that.

The opinion stuff and made-up history makes him look stupid.

Think there's an element of: 'Busman's Holiday' in that tale of woe, the guy clearly resented the brand and saw them as nothing more than a nuisance on which to waste his time daily...

But in all that vitriol are there any whinges and whines that don't actually have some small basis of fact regarding the 'faults and foibles' of our favoured steeds? Address the problem on your bike and it's: 'Job done', to do it on a daily basis must be a bit galling, perhaps? (Maybe he should have changed employment!)

Mentioned before, but my mates who rode in the mid seventies only knew Commandos as problem bikes, and consequently avoided...

Alan L said:

N

Thank you,
What a great article. It really is ‘from the horse’s mouth’.
It confirms what I have heard anecdotally.

Click to expand...

A very good assessment Alan. The T140 had a little more time, I think and may have sold more units than the Norton playing on the strength of the Triumph brand. (Someone with more knowledge of the numbers can argue this better than I can.) After the disastrous launch of the OIF Triumphs in 1971 a quick engineering solutions was pursued to rectify the issue(s) No batism of fire was forth coming for the Commando. Changes were made. (If you think the air filter change is hard try setting the points in the can on a 1969 Fastback.) I think the MKIII was that example where the factory finally turned the engineers lose and said "make it better." They did but it was too little too late and time and money ran out.

I have never owned a T150 or T160 but I worked on too many to count. I did everything from carb adjustments to full on engine rebuilds and I will tell you that they all had some issues from the factory. Some of the issue were minor and some were not. To this day I love a well sorted Triumph Triple. They are sweet machines with a wonderful power band and spot on handling. I was fortunate to have so much seat time on this bike.

I like the T140 a lot. It's funny, I have never owned one of those either. We sold quite a few T140D Specials. They were quite handsome with black paint and gold striping, a two into one exhaust, cast wheels and disk brakes fore and aft. The shame was that if these bikes were left out in the elements they started to deteriorate right before your eyes. There is nothing wrong with the late '70s T140s. They are light and nimble but they really tend to shake themselves to death at speeds over 70. (I went riding with a buddy. He was on his T140 and I was on my Morini 3 1/2. We were riding at a brisk pace. He lost his kick start lever and maybe the feeling in his hands. Had to show him how to do a race start.)

The fellow I bought my MK3 from sold it to fund a T140 purchase and restoration.
He had owned and ridden the MK3 for a few years and wanted to try something new (to him)
He contacted me a few months afterward to see if I would consider selling the Commando back to him.
He didn't realize just how bad the vibes would be with the T140. Quite bad apparently.
This Mk3 is probably just average for a Commando, but it is smooth as glass at any decent road speed. He really missed that.
I did give him first right of refusal on the Commando, but we're not rushing into that as he's been waiting 18 years now.

Glen

The only precision part in the motor of most British bikes is probably the big ends. It doesn't matter how slack the rest might be they can be made to go fast. The biggest problem is the crank balance factor. If you want the motor to spin-up quick and be smooth at high revs, you need to tolerate the shake at low revs, when you raise the balance factor. A Commando is probably intended to be used around town.
There is a thing about jetting for petrol. I don't believe an Amal carb can be jetted to handle petrol well enough to give the best performance - or if it does, it will only be until the weather changes.
My bike flies - only because it is on methanol. The jetting is just as critical as with petrol, but methanol is much more forgiving of tuning errors.

Because I owned a lot of Triumphs, I believed that good motorcycles needed to leak oil, so you knew they had some. When I changed the gear selector drum in my TTI box, it leaked oil. My smart mate said 'well, it IS a British bike,

H

Triton Thrasher said:

Well put!

He should have recounted the actual problems he was seeing with Nortons and left it at that.

The opinion stuff and made-up history makes him look stupid.

Click to expand...

Hi Matchless, Triton Thrasher (and all),
I do not claim that what I’m about to write is factually correct but it is my recollection of the British bike scene in Sydney in the late seventies. I was just a loose pissled youth whose actual knowledge of bikes could have been written on the back of a postage stamp. I was however a British bike tragic and the fact that I knew what the acronym BSA stood for and that Nortons had rubber mounts somewhere made me veritable expert amongst my Japanese and Italian riding mates.
I rode with a little club called unimaginatively ‘The British Bike Club’ who met weekly in the car park of a Western Sydney pub. I was fiercely committed to British bikes (and still am) and would hear no criticism of them. I would defend their honour with religious fervour at every set of traffic lights and through every set of twists and bends on the road.
I regarded the numerous breakdowns and failures I suffered as God’s divine test of my commitment to British bikes.
With the patience of Job, I never doubted that one day I would be rewarded for my piety with an ultra reliable, oil tight bike that would take on (and defeat) all comers, even though intellectually I knew I was riding yesterday’s bike.
The one ironic ray of light in this rather futile tale is the fact that within the very small pond of my (non Brit) mates, the T160 was never bested (other than an off the lights drag). Eventually the Trident did reward me with considerable reliability but it was a long steep learning curve to get there and as I was ‘all growed up’ by then it was a rather Pyrrhic victory.
I’m sure if I had of purchased a Commando instead of the Trident (it was a toss up), my experience would have been very similar except that I suspect the Norton would have been a little more tolerant of my stupidity than the Triumph.


Anyway with that preamble out of the way;
You may well be correct in what you say. Maybe what he says is a lot of horse excrement.
But unfortunately the exact accuracy of what he says is not the point. The point is that he was voicing a commonly held belief at the time and that is what determined Norton sales (or lack of them).
As the writer was actually working ‘at the coal face’ in the bike industry and I knew practically nothing, I would have to defer to him but everything I heard at the time confirms what he says.
What I can say with certainty is this, the general opinion of Nortons (and all pommie bikes) in the mid to late seventies was dreadful. Yes, there was a distinct British bike sub-culture that centred around several quirky bike shops full of dusty shelves piled with spares, names like Jim Eade and George Heggie spring to mind. Most pommie bike riders were old ‘greasers’, some quite geriatric in their early thirties. In their hearts they were all half a world and a generation away, riding at the Ace Cafe, in an imaginary scene that just didn’t quite exist in 1978 Australia.
But for the majority of riders and remember that unlike today it was a recreation of the youth, British bikes effectively didn’t exist. There was a potent collective memory that the ‘Mother Country’ did once have a fabled bike industry and various names like Vincent, Norton and Triumph did have a certain aura but this had been eclipsed by more recent memories of oil leaks, vibration and discomfort.
Anyway, to the nub of what I’m trying to say! On Saturday mornings we would haunt various bright showrooms examining the latest releases from the major Japanese stables not to mention Ducatis. Every now and then, in the jumble of used bikes for sale, pushed into a dimmer corner, I would come across a Commando or similar. It would invariably have a very reasonable price tag on it. But this is what I remember, the young sales staff would be genuinely surprised that anyone would be interested in that particular bike. It had somehow just become part of the furniture. The perversity of my interest was only further underlined when they had to push half a dozen flashy Jap bikes out of the way to get to a rather tatty and lonely commando so I could take it for a test ride. ‘What about this 73 Honda Four, wouldn’t you prefer that one mate?’ ‘No, just the commando’. Once it made it to the footpath I would sagaciously wobble the swing arm and pronounce that the isolastics were a bit shot to the awe of both sales kid and my mates. I would demonstrate my manhood by easily kicking it into life, pretend to diagnose various mechanical issues as it idled on the centre stand with mufflers, tail lights and front wheel vibrating like crazy, then the thrill of a roar around the block.
Somehow I could never scratch up the money to buy these bikes, my girlfriend and I were madly saving and ownership of one bike (T160) had me in penury as it was. But how I wish I did. I remember an immaculate red Mk 2 Roadster for a grand, a silver interstate Mk 3 for a bit more and a JPN as well. How I wished I had have bought one.
By the time I did get my leg over my Norton the flush of youth had gone and my mates had sold their bikes but I’m still glad I eventually did.
So yes, what was written in the article exactly aligns with my memories of general opinion of Nortons at the time.

regards
Alan

Alan L said:

H

Hi Matchless, Triton Thrasher (and all),
I do not claim that what I’m about to write is factually correct but it is my recollection of the British bike scene in Sydney in the late seventies. I was just a loose pissled youth whose actual knowledge of bikes could have been written on the back of a postage stamp. I was however a British bike tragic and the fact that I knew what the acronym BSA stood for and that Nortons had rubber mounts somewhere made me veritable expert amongst my Japanese and Italian riding mates.
I rode with a little club called unimaginatively ‘The British Bike Club’ who met weekly in the car park of a Western Sydney pub. I was fiercely committed to British bikes (and still am) and would hear no criticism of them. I would defend their honour with religious fervour at every set of traffic lights and through every set of twists and bends on the road.
I regarded the numerous breakdowns and failures I suffered as God’s divine test of my commitment to British bikes.
With the patience of Job, I never doubted that one day I would be rewarded for my piety with an ultra reliable, oil tight bike that would take on (and defeat) all comers, even though intellectually I knew I was riding yesterday’s bike.
The one ironic ray of light in this rather futile tale is the fact that within the very small pond of my (non Brit) mates, the T160 was never bested (other than an off the lights drag). Eventually the Trident did reward me with considerable reliability but it was a long steep learning curve to get there and as I was ‘all growed up’ by then it was a rather Pyrrhic victory.
I’m sure if I had of purchased a Commando instead of the Trident (it was a toss up), my experience would have been very similar except that I suspect the Norton would have been a little more tolerant of my stupidity than the Triumph.


Anyway with that preamble out of the way;
You may well be correct in what you say. Maybe what he says is a lot of horse excrement.
But unfortunately the exact accuracy of what he says is not the point. The point is that he was voicing a commonly held belief at the time and that is what determined Norton sales (or lack of them).
As the writer was actually working ‘at the coal face’ in the bike industry and I knew practically nothing, I would have to defer to him but everything I heard at the time confirms what he says.
What I can say with certainty is this, the general opinion of Nortons (and all pommie bikes) in the mid to late seventies was dreadful. Yes, there was a distinct British bike sub-culture that centred around several quirky bike shops full of dusty shelves piled with spares, names like Jim Eade and George Heggie spring to mind. Most pommie bike riders were old ‘greasers’, some quite geriatric in their early thirties. In their hearts they were all half a world and a generation away, riding at the Ace Cafe, in an imaginary scene that just didn’t quite exist in 1978 Australia.
But for the majority of riders and remember that unlike today it was a recreation of the youth, British bikes effectively didn’t exist. There was a potent collective memory that the ‘Mother Country’ did once have a fabled bike industry and various names like Vincent, Norton and Triumph did have a certain aura but this had been eclipsed by more recent memories of oil leaks, vibration and discomfort.
Anyway, to the nub of what I’m trying to say! On Saturday mornings we would haunt various bright showrooms examining the latest releases from the major Japanese stables not to mention Ducatis. Every now and then, in the jumble of used bikes for sale, pushed into a dimmer corner, I would come across a Commando or similar. It would invariably have a very reasonable price tag on it. But this is what I remember, the young sales staff would be genuinely surprised that anyone would be interested in that particular bike. It had somehow just become part of the furniture. The perversity of my interest was only further underlined when they had to push half a dozen flashy Jap bikes out of the way to get to a rather tatty and lonely commando so I could take it for a test ride. ‘What about this 73 Honda Four, wouldn’t you prefer that one mate?’ ‘No, just the commando’. Once it made it to the footpath I would sagaciously wobble the swing arm and pronounce that the isolastics were a bit shot to the awe of both sales kid and my mates. I would demonstrate my manhood by easily kicking it into life, pretend to diagnose various mechanical issues as it idled on the centre stand with mufflers, tail lights and front wheel vibrating like crazy, then the thrill of a roar around the block.
Somehow I could never scratch up the money to buy these bikes, my girlfriend and I were madly saving and ownership of one bike (T160) had me in penury as it was. But how I wish I did. I remember an immaculate red Mk 2 Roadster for a grand, a silver interstate Mk 3 for a bit more and a JPN as well. How I wished I had have bought one.
By the time I did get my leg over my Norton the flush of youth had gone and my mates had sold their bikes but I’m still glad I eventually did.
So yes, what was written in the article exactly aligns with my memories of general opinion of Nortons at the time.

regards
Alan

Click to expand...

You write it better than he does.

You must had a lot of charm, owning a Brit bike and still getting a girlfriend!

The article reminds me of the stuff my mates used to trot out after a few too many beers, and none of them had ridden, much less owned a Commando.

The comparisons with Triumph aren't all entirely accurate either, but he does make a valid point.

As an owner of 'all the above', I prefer the Commando over all my Triumphs, not all of which have only two main bearings....

possm said:

I too had a crank let go on a 1961 650 AJS in the early 80's, but in my case it was due to incorrect radii by a so-called specialist Automotive Reconditioner, it broke after 500 miles and when I pointed out it did not have the 5/32 & 9/64 centre main radii the Manager said "we would go broke if we ground the grinding wheel to the correct radius of every crank we grind so we have a grinding wheel that is a happy medium AJS's break cranks it's not our fault" [last time they did any work for me] so I ended up having a steel crank made on a lathe- end of story!

Click to expand...

I had the same experience in Nelson on my Commando crank, with the same result.

With early AMC twins, oiling of the drive side big end was often an issue. Another was the sizing hole in the conrod. If the pin fitted easily the rod was stretched and should be replaced, but the rods used to break through the hole.
The 1963 AMC twin with the siamesed exhaust pipe had the problems fixed - but too late.
With Japanese twins, they are usually 180 degree cranks, which do not perform as well as a properly balanced 360 degree crank. An Atlas or 650 SS was a very good bike, but Japanese bikes vibrated less. With the balance factor needed to race an Atlas, the bike rocks backwards and forwards when the bike is idling. An Atlas is not a motor scooter, and it is not a CB750.

B+Bogus said:

The article reminds me of the stuff my mates used to trot out after a few too many beers, and none of them had ridden, much less owned a Commando.

The comparisons with Triumph aren't all entirely accurate either, but he does make a valid point.

As an owner of 'all the above', I prefer the Commando over all my Triumphs, not all of which have only two main bearings....

Click to expand...

I have had a lot of Triumph twins - my 850 motor is much better than any Triumph 650 or 750 motor. The 850 cylinder head fitted to a Triumph twin would be good, but everything gets in the way. I like the cam arrangement in the Triumph better - more can be done with it. But the Commando cam is hot enough.

Jim Comstock's center main bearing conversion, back in his road racing days.







I've also seen one done by a Canadian racer, but seem to have lost the pictures. That one was also quite a while back in time. I think it might have been written up in a Classic Racer article.

Ken

Thanks ken. I'm sure I'm not the only one who really misses comnoz on here.