BritBike Forum logo
BritBike SponsorBritBike SponsorBritBike SponsorBritBike SponsorBritBike Sponsor SteadfastCyclesBritBike SponsorBritBike SponsorBritBike SponsorBritBike SponsorHepolite PistonsBritBike Sponsor
Upgrade to: Gold Membership | Premium Membership | Vendor Membership | Site Sponsor Membership
Member Spotlight
Tazaroo
Tazaroo
Wisconsin
Posts: 131
Joined: February 2015
ShoutChat Box
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Search eBay for motorcycle parts in following countries
Australia, Canada, France, Holland, Italy, United Kingdom, USA
Random Gallery photo
a word from..
Manuals on DVD (Shipping included)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: main bearing issues
Shades34 #444045 07/10/12 7:12 pm
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,467
Likes: 9
BritBike Forum member
Offline
BritBike Forum member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,467
Likes: 9
Murray, the roller bearing that was orginally fitted was a std for the time roller bearing, the problem was with the straight rollers running in flat bearing surfaces combined with a whippy crank unsurpported in the middle the ends of the rollers dug into the bearing surfaces and destroyed them. The problem was there before the Combat but the Combat made it much worse due to the power and its free reving nature. The R&M 6/MRJA30 had barrel shaped rollers and was a development of the std roller bearing, I do not know if it was especially developed for Norton but as it was copied by other bearing makers very quickly it was probably just a normal development that by chance was available in time for Norton. Superblend is just marketing speak for barrelled rollers and seems only to be used within Norton circles, in Norton twins it means a crank can go like a skipping rope and the rollers do not dig into the bearing surface. The other solution would have to introduce a central bearing but the engineering required would have been to expensive and took too long. The barrel shape also in normal applications increases the load capacity of roller bearings, the center of the roller takes the load and flattens slightly but does not cause the roller edges to dig into the bearing track, the ISO std has been updated and the E identifies the high capacity Roller bearings. As Andover Norton supply only E type bearing now and have done for many years with no reports of bearing failures even in Combats I am sure they are equal and more likely better than the orginal R&M Superblends.

I have owned a Commando for 30 years and worked for 20 years for a Bearing manufacturer, our salesmen expanded the truth to its furthest boundries too if it meant getting a sale.

Support Your #1 BritBike Forum!

Check out British motorcycles for sale: British Motorcycles on e-Bay UK, British motorcycles on e-Bay North America
Re: main bearing issues
Murray_B #444051 07/10/12 8:10 pm
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,306
Likes: 2
BritBike Forum member
Online Content
BritBike Forum member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,306
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by Murray_B
The word "Superblend" is often thrown out in conversation but it is diffucult to discover what the term actually means. Is it a trademark and If so then which company was it registered to?


As far as I'm aware, the name "Superblend" was coined by the Norton factory for the 6/MRJA30 as 'Superblend' doesn't appear to be a term commonly used by bearing manufacturers.

Originally Posted by Murray_B
We do know for certain from S.R. N2/9 that a R&M 6/MRJA30 is a "Superblend" bearing.


Actually, what we KNOW is that the factory called the 6/MRJA30 "Superblend"-not the same thing at all.

SR N2/9
"The new roller bearing is designated 'Superblend'"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/designated

Designated: "To give a name or title to; characterize".


Originally Posted by Murray_B
the root of the bearing confusion seems to be about the meaning of the word "supercede".

Apparently, a later S.R. indicates the more common NJ306E "supercedes" the 6/MRJA30 but I have not seen this S.R.


Here it is (my underline, so hopefully, you will be left in no doubt as to the intended meaning of the word 'supersedes' in the document? I take it you also understand what is meant by: 'fitted to advantage'?)

No. N2/10

"CATEGORY OF RELEASE: 4
NATURE OF RELEASE:
MODELS AFFECTED:
Extra high capacity main bearings

All Commando
DISTRIBUTION: Worldwide (Trade only)
EXPLANATION: A new main bearing capable of carrying a much
higher load than any offered before, has been
introduced.

The new bearing, part number 064118, supersedes
the old type 063906 and will be supplied in lieu
by our Parts Division. The new bearing should
be fitted in pairs. This bearing may also be fitted to advantage to
engines of 1971 and earlier models (originally,
fitted with a ball bearing as a timing side main
bearing).
Ensure that the inner races are firmly seated
against the crankcheeks to give a crankshaft
end float between 0.010 and 0.024. Any excessive
end float can be eliminated by fitting
main bearing shims NMT2196A between the outer
race and the crankcase.

JANUARY 1973"




Originally Posted by Murray_B
There is no doubt that many other parts can be subsituted for the 6/MRJA30 Superbland main bearings in a Combat motor but will the substitute last as long? That is the important question.


The higher capacity 064118 FAG 306E superseded the 063906 6/MRJA30, fact. End of story. The FAG NJ306E still is the recommended factory replacement bearing for all Commandos.


http://www.ahrinternational.com/FAG_nomenclature.shtml

"E, BALL OR ROLLER BEARING WITH INCREASED LOAD CAPACITY DESIGN."

Last edited by L.A.B.; 07/11/12 11:05 am.
Re: main bearing issues
L.A.B. #444057 07/10/12 8:57 pm
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 36
BritBike Forum member
Offline
BritBike Forum member
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 36
could it be that some bearing genius decided to 'blend'a roller and a ball and came up with a barrel and then called it 'super'

Re: main bearing issues
Shades34 #444127 07/11/12 11:03 am
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,306
Likes: 2
BritBike Forum member
Online Content
BritBike Forum member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,306
Likes: 2
http://www.britbike.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=66376

"If the original superblends are still fitted they will be the very special Ransome and Marles roller race bearings marked 6MRJA30. These had narrower rollers than the 8MRJA30 non 'superblend' bearing used previously for the D.S. bearing.Also it is interesting to realise that the 6MRJA30 bearings used as part of the cure for the 'oops the mains are rumbling and I have only done 4000 miles' problem have a lower static and dynamic load capacity than the roller bearings used previously. If you ever take one out remove a roller and get it very accurately measured and compare it with a roller from a bearing they call 'superblends' these days..There is a big difference and the olde 6MRJA30 bearings would allow a lot more crankshaft flex.......
Not that anyone will be interested.ALL approx.

8MRJA30. 11 rollers. parallel portion of roller 10mm wide with no barrel shape to them. Total width and Dia of a roller 11.12mm Load capacities...Dynamic 41,900N. Static 35,200N.

6MRJA30. 13 rollers. 'parallel' portion of roller 6mm with a dia of 9.53mm reducing to 9.46mm at the edges. Total width of a roller 9.53mm. Load capacities...Dynamic 35,800N Static 31,000N.

Shape of a roller in the FAG and RHP 'superblend 'bearings I checked decades ago...
Total width 12mm. O.D 11mm for 8mm width reducing to 10.96 mm at the edges.
I heard the ONLY reason Norton changed to FAG bearings was that they were just down the road.2 They were cheaper than the special 6MRJA30 bearings BUT I could of been told wrong. Of course the load capacities for a FFAG NJ306E bearing are a LOT higher at Dynamic 51,000N Static 48,000N and for a RHP NUP306ETN Dynamic 57,000N. Static 53,000N.

However bearing material technology has changed a bit since the days I was given thes load ratings by the manufacturers
INTERESTINGLY...the drawings for the 6MRJA30 bearings a gent dragged out of the cellars for me many years ago at the old Ramsome Newark factory state the bearing was a CN fit/ internal clearance. Now I bought a few in Brum after Nortons had gone bust and all measured a low C3 fit.
NO SPELL OR GRAMMER CHECKS."

Last edited by L.A.B.; 07/11/12 11:07 am.
Re: main bearing issues
Shades34 #444132 07/11/12 12:08 pm
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,352
Crew Chief
Offline
Crew Chief
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,352
IF you search the archives, you will find that I have already explained this term.
BDM did a reasonable job of researching the early days of the main bearing problem.
About 10 years ago I checked on the FAG website and superblend is well explained on the FAG website. unfortunately you have to now log in now to read it and you need to have intellect and education to understand it...otherwise it is only words and then here we are....
The marketing term of superblend is where the roller is no longer manufactured as a pure cylinder but instead its shape is contoured as a super hyperbolic profile (which may not be the exact term). It's effect is to relieve the ends to allow more misalignment without driving the end into the race. Basically if you take a parabola and go way out the line asymtotes(sp) a flat line, but prior to that it has "curve" and the rollers are ground on each end to a "not quite flat" roller...which is explained with an extremely exagerated term as barrel shape. It's not barrel shape and the relief is not visable... and so small it is difficult to measure and may be only tenths or less.


THe norton heavy twin needed this bearing regardless of who made it not because of the excessive torque but because it Would rev to the point the crank flywheel imbalance would deform itself and misalign the bearing ruining it and on ocassion crack (and eventually break) the mismachined thin combat cases and/or crank. IIRC the load from imbalance goes up with the square of RPM so the compression and breathing of the combat would let it rev to the point of self destruction much easier. Not torque but revs.....

I am convinced the extra torque had nothing to do with it's demise. This new technique of bearing making is supposidely very common to many manufacturers and used extensively. 2c

I exclusively use the C3 FAG bearing in my NHT engines.

Last edited by Dave Comeau; 07/12/12 4:31 pm. Reason: corrected from SKF to FAG

dynodave
BSA 3 1961-1963
Ducati 3 1992-2002
Norton many 1951-1975
87 Serv-Equip 100HP MC brake dynamometer,
Re: main bearing issues
Dave Comeau #444227 07/11/12 8:13 pm
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 24
BritBike Forum member
Offline
BritBike Forum member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 24
Thank you, David Comeau, but I see I have not made myself clear. Sorry about that.

I have owned British bikes since 1970 and a Commando continously from 1975. It is clear from your website that you have also owed these machines for a very long time. Longer, I suspect, than many users of this forum have been alive.

One thing I have noticed over the years is that history in general and Norton history in particular has been spun into fiction. Part of the reason for that seems to come from artsy-fartsy historians not understanding the subjects they write about. They try to explain things they do not understand and fail miserably in the attempt. Another source of problems is generally fuzzy thinking about a subject by some enthusiasts.

My previous posts do not state the "Superblend" bearing is anything. What I cannot understand is how it goes from being a R&M 6/MRJA30 back then to anything a person wants it to be now. If "Superblend" was registered to R&M then they are the ones that can assign the term. If it was registered to Norton then they could assign the term to any bearing they like. That being said it is still necessary to produce some document from the factory that links the "Superblend" term to a NJ306E bearing to claim it is one. SKF or any other third party may not be authoritative on this particular subject. A bearing can be equivalent or superior to a Superblend bearing without it being a "Superblend" at all. Now, do you know if the "Superblend" term was registered to any company and if so then which one?

There are a large number of bearings that will fit in a Commando motor. By typing the dimensions into an online guide I came up with a half dozen exact equivalents to the NJ306E Type 2 and another half-dozen slightly different bearings that will also fit. The problem is that all of these bearings would have different life expectancies in the various Norton engines. A 69 h.p. Combat engine will put far greater loads on its main bearings than a low-compression 750 rated at only 49 horsepower. The Combat should require a bearing with a higher load rating than the ones used in the more gutless engines. [Yes, I am aware that dynos measure torque and not h.p. but the derived h.p. rating is easier to find.]

The orginal poster seems to want to know what is a good long-life bearing for a Combat motor. Are these C3 SKF that you use in your NHT engines also good to use in high-compression Norton engines like the Combat? If so, then you are the first person to properly answer the queston.

What readers of this thread want to know is what kind of life expectancy the various bearings will have in the Combat engine. What they get from some posters instead of a clear answer is the equivalent of, "You can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay, or you can call me RayJay,[and etcetera]".

How useful is that?

Re: main bearing issues
Murray_B #444235 07/11/12 9:26 pm
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,352
Crew Chief
Offline
Crew Chief
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,352
I would say the FAG # always quoted with the C3 clearance is the one for all the NHT, combat included. Any equivalent with the 'superhyperbolic' roller profile and equivalent load rating should be OK. It may not be absolutely the same as the old/original R&M claimed as superblend but to me that's only "nortonspeak". I would highly recommend not cheaping out on the roller cage just to save a few bucks. Whether true or not I had heard the new type bearing was to solve aerospace (helicopter) problems and was equivalent or superior to the original superblend. I have only been involved with 1 main bearing failure, a MKIII with over 160,000 miles.
My first use was in my combat 202206 and I have done a few more combats since 1989. The C3 clearance is primarily due to the bearing being installed in an aluminum case, which is highly undesireable by the bearing industry and is explained in the engineering application notes.

The regular 06-1084 cam commando's run about 38-44 RWHP and my combat did 47RWHP Leo Geoff say the best combat he ever saw was 49. I have head/spark plug thermocouples but have never hooked them up... I shoot for about 1300 deg EGT.
The 1084 cams act like a governor and keep the revs down The cam and compression of the combat allow it to rev and that is what kills them. The power is not the down fall. The heavy duty bearing should be OK for the combat and the bearing will give adequate service life though the engine (crank/cases) will still break if flogged. 2c

My first commando was actually a 1970 roadster that was sold to me as a 71 in the fall of 71.

Last edited by Dave Comeau; 07/12/12 12:56 am. Reason: sorry not SKF but FAG...been doing classic chain saw work too!

dynodave
BSA 3 1961-1963
Ducati 3 1992-2002
Norton many 1951-1975
87 Serv-Equip 100HP MC brake dynamometer,
Re: main bearing issues
Dave Comeau #444256 07/12/12 12:08 am
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 24
BritBike Forum member
Offline
BritBike Forum member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 24
Thanks, dynodave, for the clarification.

So, we know that the 6/MRJA30 is the original Superblend bearing and that the NJ306E may or may not be a Superblend.
We also know from your experience that a certain SKF bearing works well for this application. It is important that the bearing works in practice and not just in theory. Is that an SKF NJ306E and if so do you like it better than the equivalent F.A.G. part?

As far as the model year of your bike goes if you look closely at the vehicle identification plate on the frame it should be marked with the calendar year of manufacture and not the model year. The model year was assigned by the factory and should be included as part of your original documentaton. Norton could legally begin producing '71 models as early as January 2, 1970 but I doubt they made any that early. The European practice seems to be to record the calendar year but here in North America our vehicle identification plates record a model year code. For our vehicles we often have to refer to factory documents to find the calendar year of manufacture. This difference has created a great deal of confusion and even caused an important Commando, the 1973 model with Combat engine, to be almost completely erased from history. If your bike was made in early '70 then it probably is a '70 model but if it is made in late '70 then it is most likely a '71 model. Summer '70 could go either way.

Re: main bearing issues
Murray_B #444267 07/12/12 1:05 am
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,352
Crew Chief
Offline
Crew Chief
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,352
Sorry I've got bearings coming out of my ears with old 1960's muscle chain saw restorations too.
In the nortons I use the C3 NJ306E brass cage FAG bearing.... who knows? if it is a superblend or not. As long as it's a super hyperbolic roller I am pretty confident the combat will not fail for the bearing....it will only fail for the norton parts.

I think you guys in Canada work differently for vehicles than we do/did. Here the ignorant "state" motor vehicle clerks determined the year not the factory.
I bought mine new at Hamden Cycle (Connecticut) and I now know more than I did then and am now certain it was a 70 but it was declared a 71 by the state(DMV clerk).
I sold the bike in 72 so it is long gone....
It had the "S" oil tank, "ROADSTER" decal, and the key in the side panel so to me it is a 70.

Last edited by Dave Comeau; 07/12/12 1:19 am.

dynodave
BSA 3 1961-1963
Ducati 3 1992-2002
Norton many 1951-1975
87 Serv-Equip 100HP MC brake dynamometer,
Re: main bearing issues
Murray_B #444271 07/12/12 1:23 am
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,306
Likes: 2
BritBike Forum member
Online Content
BritBike Forum member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,306
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by Murray_B
As far as the model year of your bike goes if you look closely at the vehicle identification plate on the frame it should be marked with the calendar year of manufacture and not the model year. The model year was assigned by the factory and should be included as part of your original documentaton.


I think Dave probably knows more about this than you ever will.


Originally Posted by Murray_B
Norton could legally begin producing '71 models as early as January 2, 1970 but I doubt they made any that early. The European practice seems to be to record the calendar year but here in North America our vehicle identification plates record a model year code. For our vehicles we often have to refer to factory documents to find the calendar year of manufacture. This difference has created a great deal of confusion and even caused an important Commando, the 1973 model with Combat engine, to be almost completely erased from history. If your bike was made in early '70 then it probably is a '70 model but if it is made in late '70 then it is most likely a '71 model. Summer '70 could go either way.


I see you are still posting ill-informed and inaccurate drivel, Murray, no change from when you used to use the Access Norton forum!

Re: main bearing issues
Dave Comeau #444274 07/12/12 2:13 am
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 24
BritBike Forum member
Offline
BritBike Forum member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 24
Thanks, dynodave, for the bearing information.

So, we know that the 6/MRJA30 is the original Superblend bearing and that the F.A.G. C3 NJ306 may or may not be a "Superblend" but works well in your experience even in a Combat engine. That is good to know.

As much as I do not trust wikipedia they do seem to have an accurate blurb on model year. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_year According to that page it was Alfred P. Sloan of GM that began the concept and I know that here in Alberta we do register vehicles by model year and not the calendar year of manufacture. My Norton is marked as to year of manufacture but not model year but in my case they are the same. Some people in Canada do not like our vehicle registries adopting the practice of model year registration just to help a U.S. corporation sell more cars. It is strange thing for our government to do but there is nothing anybody can do about it.

Even if your bike is a 1970 model that does not change the fact that a whole crapload of '73 Combats have been erased from history. Give the corruptors a few more years and they will probably erase the Commando from history too. One article I read recently even claims that the '73 Kawi 900 is considered the world's first "superbike", I kid you not.

Anyway its been a good discussion...but wait...What's that smell? Are there "trolls" around here? Those darn things get into everything.

See you later alligator.

Re: main bearing issues
Murray_B #444305 07/12/12 11:29 am
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,352
Crew Chief
Offline
Crew Chief
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,352
I too am unaware of any 73 "combat". All 72/73 750 used "combat breather" cases, but I have yet to see my first 73 "combat" which is clearly...2S cam, HC head & 32mm carbs.
And it is well known that not all 72 were "combat" tune.

Last edited by Dave Comeau; 07/12/12 11:30 am.

dynodave
BSA 3 1961-1963
Ducati 3 1992-2002
Norton many 1951-1975
87 Serv-Equip 100HP MC brake dynamometer,
Re: main bearing issues
Dave Comeau #444372 07/12/12 6:17 pm
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 24
BritBike Forum member
Offline
BritBike Forum member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 24
dynodave, if a lie is repeated often enough it can have an effect on anyone. Just as the R&M 6/MRJA30 Superblend bearing is being erased from history so is the 1973 model Combat.

The "book burners" have been busy but they have not yet eliminated all traces of those bikes.

Here is one now: On the second page of the 1979 "Norton Owners Club Commando Service Notes" is a picture of a Commando with the following caption, "One of the most popular, the 750 Interstate 1973, with Combat engine, signified by black barrels. Photo credit: Motor Cycle" It was a common model back then but now, there it is, GONE!

Normally one would expect that any Combat powered bikes made after August '72 would be 1973 models but Norton could have designated machines made as early as January 2, 1972 as '73s. It would be interesting to know what proportion of Combat powered machines were '72s and how many were '73 models. It makes sense that Norton would designate all machines with improved Combat engines as '73 models to simplify warranty administration but I just don't know if that is what actually happened.

Of course if "book burners" can airbrush the cigar right out of Churchill's mouth, which has already happened, then it should be easy enough for them to alter a single digit of a caption in an old document. Once that is accomplished the damage to history will become permanent and young people will never again be able to discover the facts about the events.

Re: main bearing issues
Shades34 #444383 07/12/12 6:45 pm
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,467
Likes: 9
BritBike Forum member
Offline
BritBike Forum member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,467
Likes: 9
The 79 NOC notes says 72 Combat not 73 on the picture caption.

Re: main bearing issues
Murray_B #444387 07/12/12 7:17 pm
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,352
Crew Chief
Offline
Crew Chief
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,352
You saying a combat was made in 73 also does not make it so. I have never seen a 22xxxx bike as a combat. To me that is a 73.
Since north america got over 50% of all commandos we have a much larger pool of real hardware to examine...which I have been doing for over 25 years.
I would not really give much credibility for the NOC notes or a glossy rag. Did they quote the VIN? as 22xxxx or higher? Some quote the begining # for combats which I know first hand to be inaccurate. Matching #200205 is a combat and I was the first one to work on it with virgin hardware and a known history of ownership.
In 04 I weht to England and while there I met with Roy Bacon the great researcher and book writer, but he easily conceeded that I probably knew much more than he about nortons....
The magazines are so filled with errors that it is laughable and make for fun(ny) reading.

I'm always willing to update my fact pool, but you had better be able to show me hardware first hand (not books)and a lot more more than one or two second hand anecdote that 73 combat were actually produced.
20xxxx and 21xxxx do not count as 73...no traction there got it!

One off handy work does not count....just like my factory "genuine" 72 combat red/blue stripe JPS hi-rider... LOL the only one in the world and I got it.... next season it will be a fastback and the year after that a dunstall.
laughing



dynodave
BSA 3 1961-1963
Ducati 3 1992-2002
Norton many 1951-1975
87 Serv-Equip 100HP MC brake dynamometer,
Re: main bearing issues
kommando #444395 07/12/12 8:03 pm
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,306
Likes: 2
BritBike Forum member
Online Content
BritBike Forum member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,306
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by kommando
The 79 NOC notes says 72 Combat not 73 on the picture caption.


Same in my copy too (obtained direct from the NOC).
[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

The bike in question being the prototype Combat Interstate, eng. serial number EXP 01 registered KJW 375K.
The history of KJW 375K is well known as it featured in several 1972 road tests and publicity photos and was at one time owned by Joe Seifert, director of Andover Norton & Norton Motors.

http://www.andover-norton.co.uk/NBCommandoPortf.htm
"the first Interstate with the infamous Combat engine, KJW375K,"
http://www.andover-norton.co.uk/NCInterstate.htm

The registration date of KJW 375K is also known: 09 12 71 (9th December 1971) as it's details (but now '828cc' and 'Silver') are on the DVLA database, clearly proving it is not a 1973 model (which can also be seen by it's specification in the photo).

https://www.taxdisc.direct.gov.uk/EvlPortalApp/app/home/intro

Vehicle enquiry

The enquiry is complete.

The vehicle details for KJW 375K are:

Date of Liability 01 06 2007
Date of First Registration 09 12 1971
Year of Manufacture 1971
Cylinder Capacity (cc) 828cc
CO2 Emissions Not Available
Fuel Type PETROL
Export Marker Y
Vehicle Status Unlicensed
Vehicle Colour SILVER
Vehicle Type Approval Not Available


Of course Murray B already knows all of this, as he was given this information at Access Norton just a few months ago!


Last edited by L.A.B.; 07/13/12 7:03 pm.
Re: main bearing issues
Dave Comeau #444403 07/12/12 9:12 pm
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 24
BritBike Forum member
Offline
BritBike Forum member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 24
Okay, dynodave, lets not talk about Nortons for a moment. Did you ever buy a new motor vehicle anywhere in North America? Back in the fall of '94 I bought a new Dodge Shadow but got about a 10% discount because it was already an old model. It was "old" because the '95s were already sitting in the showrooms even though it was still 1994.

Any vehicles that Norton shipped to North America had to have a model year assigned to them because in many jurisdictions, like mine, it is not even possible to register the vehicle without one.

It is common practice in the industry for all vehicle manufacturers to assign a new model year to vehicles made from about August of the previous year. I'm not saying they should do this but this is the way things have been done since before you and I were born. Norton also must have done this because all other vehicle manufacturers did it. Norton dealers certainly would not want to have to discount the Nortons because they were already "old" models when received.

Now, are you saying you have never worked on a Commando Combat made after about August '72 which should have been a '73 model or are you saying because they were marked with the '72 calendar year that they must have been '72 models? Or, am I missing the point entirely?

Also , what month in '70 was your first Commando made?
Now, please think carefully about what I have said because I am not out to trick anybody.

P.S. Perhaps you could find someone in North America that you trust that could explain how model years work because I don't seem to be doing a very good job. Its too bad too because I used to be an educator. Don't ask anybody from the U.K. or Europe because they have no reason to know much about North American vehicle registration practices.

Re: wishy washy MY
Murray_B #444412 07/12/12 10:54 pm
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,352
Crew Chief
Offline
Crew Chief
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,352
I was in the US air force for 20 years, now retired (in theory only), That entitled me to be stationed in many states where I had to title and register vehicles. So I have significant experience in the variety and differences of vehicle paperwork.
In England there is likely a single "national" policy.
Here in the US there are 50 different jurisdictions. Some strict and unyeilding policies that fly in the face of common sense and others that are wishy washy and almost anything goes as long as you cough up the $$$$$$.
Now having been in the BSA, Lotus and Norton clubs for many decades I have continued to be amazed at the complete ignorance of registry clerks and the variety of legal compliance.
So ultimately government assigned MY should be of little concern as it has little meaning as I have repeatedly discovered. What "should" happen and what "does" happen in paperwork processing can be quite different and I think you are naive to not acknowledge that. The older the vehicle is, the more discrepancy I would expect to find.

On occasion our club provides assistance to correct MY if the jurisdiction allows it.

If you expect to have me declare a unified policy in this country you are delusional. It may be more consistent now a days, but it is still not rational what some jurisdictions do....

I know what happened to my 70 paperwork. I repeat I sold it in 72 and don't have the memory to recall the date of mfg on the VIN plate or if I ever bothered to look at it. Simple, new bike, certificate of origin.....first registered as a new bike in the fall of 70 when every day the clerk is titling and registering vehicles as 1971 so the clerk puts 1971. In 1971 what the hell do I know about shiny yellow nortons if it's a 70 or 71, so who am I to argue. 20 years later I now know better, since I still have a pix of the bike.

Major vehicle manufacturers like GM model may have a MY policy but we now know the MY for norton is rather meaningless and the MKI, MKII, MKIII designation etc is more useful, though I am not fond of it and to me seems a bit more history revisionist.

In my opinion there is no such thing as 76 and 77 commando, only "late release" 75 MKIII. I am not aware of a separate 76 or 77 shop manual or parts book, but I'm not stupid enough to try and sell my view on this matter.

Sorry I know of no MY regulation at the federal or 50 state level and I especially doubt that a Dec 1971 British specialty vehicle manufacturers would comply to the letter of the law.
IIRC 200205 and 202206 were all made in dec?
2000 units? in one month?

I do think you are missing the wishy washy point....MY is not as clearly defined as might be desired to allow nice tidy MY definitions to allow the inclusion of combats as 73 MY.

Last edited by Dave Comeau; 07/13/12 12:32 am.

dynodave
BSA 3 1961-1963
Ducati 3 1992-2002
Norton many 1951-1975
87 Serv-Equip 100HP MC brake dynamometer,
Re: wishy washy MY
Dave Comeau #444460 07/13/12 6:15 am
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 24
BritBike Forum member
Offline
BritBike Forum member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 24
My response to your last message, dynodave, could not be on topic. Since historical revisionism could be of interest to others I posted it in the General forum. See you over there.

Re: wishy washy MY
Dave Comeau #444485 07/13/12 9:48 am
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,306
Likes: 2
BritBike Forum member
Online Content
BritBike Forum member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,306
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by Dave Comeau
IIRC 200205 and 202206 were all made in dec?
2000 units? in one month?


As we know, from the beginning of 1972 production, Norton's system of building bikes (or batches of bikes) using consecutive serial numbers was abandoned, so the serial numbers can vary considerably during a particular month. Serial 202206 for instance, may even have been built before 200205.

Re: wishy washy MY
Shades34 #444572 07/14/12 12:53 am
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,928
Likes: 3
BritBike Forum member
Offline
BritBike Forum member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,928
Likes: 3
Didn't Norton put out a press release or service bulletin saying "No more Combats".?
Late-ish 1972....? (with a month and even day on it).

Re: wishy washy MY
Rohan #444594 07/14/12 7:56 am
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,306
Likes: 2
BritBike Forum member
Online Content
BritBike Forum member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,306
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by Rohan
Didn't Norton put out a press release or service bulletin saying "No more Combats".?
Late-ish 1972....? (with a month and even day on it).


Service Release N3/23 detailing the introduction of two replacement lower compression 32mm carb (RH5 & RH6) cylinder heads, states that the Combat specification was discontinued with effect from serial 211110.

"SERVICE RELEASE motorcycles
N3/23..........

.......Introduction of the current 32mm carburetter version
of the standard Commando engine unit, replacing the
previous 'Combat' specification (w.e.f. engine number
211110) has necessitated the introduction of two new
cylinder heads......"


etc., etc.....

...."SEPTEMBER 1972"

In the December 1972 issue of Cycle magazine, which contains the 1973 model seven-bike comparison test (apparently conducted during approx. August 1972 according to the text) Cycle staff expressed surprise at finding a standard (SS) camshaft instead of the expected (2S)"Combat" camshaft in the engine of their test model Commando.

http://www.kawtriple.com/mraxl/articles/1973%20Superbikes/superbikes.htm

"The Norton was sup-posed to have had a hot “Combat” cam in it, but our readings showed the magic stick to be a slightly worn SS cam instead."



Last edited by L.A.B.; 07/14/12 11:36 pm.
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Dave Comeau 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Home | Sponsors | Newsletter | Regalia | Calendar | Bike Project | BritBike Museum | Spiders Cartoons | DVD- Manuals & Parts books
Upgrade to: Gold Membership | Premium Membership | Vendor Membership | Site Sponsor Membership
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4