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
TriVin
TriVin
Warrington, Cheshire, UK
Posts: 152
Joined: May 2006
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
History discussion continued from Norton forum.
#444459 07/13/12 6:12 am
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 24
BritBike Forum member
OP Offline
BritBike Forum member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by Dave Comeau
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.

Thanks for serving in the military, dynodave.

You would know more about registering a vehicle in the U.S. because I have never done so. Here in Alberta we must register the "Year" and this must correspond to the model year encrypted in the VIN or the registry computer will flag it. I know this because I tried to register a vehicle once with the wrong year by mistake. It seems ironic that our vehicle registry uses Alfred P. Sloan's model year to register a vehicle but some places in the U.S. do not.

Now, there are three different quantities that being talked about and this is how I understand them:

1. Year of manufacture which is determined by when the thing was made.

2. Model Year which is assigned by the manufacturer as they like but within certain limits.

3. Series code which is assigned by the manufacturer as they see fit.

What quantity is "our club" giving out as "MY" and how often does it differ from the calendar year?

Model year for a vehicle is not only essential here in Alberta for registration but I think that quantity must also be put on federal vehicle import documents to get the machines into the country in the first place. Norton could have assigned the calendar year as the model year for these purposes but that would have significantly devalued the vehicles shipped in the latter part of a calendar year.

If Norton assigned a 1976 or 1977 model year to a motorcyle how can it be wrong since all model years are assigned to vehicles by the manufacturer? Are you saying that Norton violated the rules in assigning these numbers and these model years are incorrect?

Perhaps I am being "naive", "delusional", or "missing the wishy washy point" but I'm also still confused. Why didn't Norton follow the standard industry practice of assigning the 1973 model year to the bikes with Combat engines made in the latter part of 1972?

Are you absolutely certain that after stopping production of bikes with Combat engines and returning the engines to Wolverhampton for correction that the later bikes fitted with the corrected engines were not designated as 1973 models? That would make more sense from a financial and administrative point of view but I suppose anything is possible.

By the way the caption in the version of the NOC notes at http://www.billymegawatt.com/uploads/6/8/4/6/6846461/norton_750cc_service_notes.pdf definitely reads, "...Interstate 1973, with Combat engine...". Now I hear some revisionist has changed the text to read "...Interstate 1972,..." No surprise there. The erasure of what may well be the most important Commando in history, the 1973 model with improved Combat engine, is now almost complete. Only a few old eye witnesses that know different remain and they will all be gone soon enough. Then it will be a total victory for the revisionists and a tragic loss for history.

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: History discussion continued from Norton forum.
Murray_B #444464 07/13/12 7:12 am
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,467
Likes: 9
BritBike Forum member
Offline
BritBike Forum member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,467
Likes: 9
The caption reads 73 in that version because the text was retyped as the OCR scanned it wrongly. The only revisionist here is you.

Repeat 'There are no 73 Combats in existence, never were and never will be'

Re: History discussion continued from Norton forum.
Murray_B #444472 07/13/12 8:11 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
Are you absolutely certain that after stopping production of bikes with Combat engines and returning the engines to Wolverhampton for correction that the later bikes fitted with the corrected engines were not designated as 1973 models? That would make more sense from a financial and administrative point of view but I suppose anything is possible.


By your own reasoning(?) a vehicle manufactured as a 1972 model can't suddenly become a 1973 model. In any case, the Combats returned to Wolverhampton for rectification were rebuilt to standard specification so the bikes were not Combats!





Originally Posted by Murray_B
By the way the caption in the version of the NOC notes at http://www.billymegawatt.com/uploads/6/8/4/6/6846461/norton_750cc_service_notes.pdf definitely reads, "...Interstate 1973, with Combat engine...". Now I hear some revisionist has changed the text to read "...Interstate 1972,..." No surprise there. The erasure of what may well be the most important Commando in history, the 1973 model with improved Combat engine, is now almost complete. Only a few old eye witnesses that know different remain and they will all be gone soon enough. Then it will be a total victory for the revisionists and a tragic loss for history.



Murray, I seriously suggest you seek some kind of medical help as soon as possible?

How can the bike which is known to be the Combat Interstate PROTOTYPE (registered December 1971) be a 1973 model.


Genuine copy of the Norton Owners Club Service Notes.
[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 test articles 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 and again only yesterday in the Norton section!


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 11:35 pm.

Moderated by  Alan_nc 

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