Greetings from a retired educator and Norton Commando owner since 1975.

It is amazing how many people do not know the history of internal combustion engines.

This site is ostensibly about what is right with the Norton Commando and other great bikes but too many posts glorify the massive, top-heavy, ill-handling, killer bikes of today.

Back in ’75 when I bought my ’74 model Commando it was the best all-around motorcycle available. The compact pushrod hemi was mounted low which made handling great and the Isolastic filters removed virtually all vibration at speed. It was a wonderful design that did everything well and was very affordable to purchase and operate.

At that time the Japanese multinational corporations were also working very hard to rewrite history. One subsidized magazine article after another praised Honda for inventing the Overhead camshaft engine in 1969!? It did not matter to them that MV Agusta had an OHC four road bike back in ’66 or that Moto Guzzi had produced a DOHC V-8 in the fifties.

Despite the propaganda to the contrary the genesis of OHC goes back much farther than that. It goes back at least to the beginning of the twentieth century. Buick was producing a car with OHV engine in 1904 but the earlier Marr Runabout of 1903 was OHC. These engines were not as modern as the Honda but the Peugeot engine of 1913 was. The Peugeot was a DOHC engine with 4 valves per cylinder and had hemispherical combustion chambers. It is the French fellows that made the Peugeot that deserve credit for the invention and not some Japanese company more than a half century later.

Young people deserve to know the truth.

Murray B wrote:One subsidized magazine article after another praised Honda for inventing the Overhead camshaft engine in 1969!?

Sounds about right. Magazines are a joke. We laugh at 600 page Vogues and then turn to our motorcycle and car magazines like they are gospel.

swooshdave wrote:Sounds about right. Magazines are a joke. We laugh at 600 page Vogues and then turn to our motorcycle and car magazines like they are gospel.

The bias was clear but the reasons were not until President Reagan’s wife, Nancy, gave a speech to a group of Japanese businessmen way back when. Afterwards they tried to give her a cheque for $15,000 but she refused and this created a controversy. Now, I don’t remember if she eventually kept the money or not but I do remember it was revealed that it was also common practice for Japanese companies to give “gifts” of money to authors for writing favourable articles. A writer could get a few hundred dollars for a motorcycle article but a two or three thousand dollar bonus for praising any HoYaSuKa. This caused some of the most dangerous machines in history to be highly recommended by many magazines. After the giant multinational corporations became involved it was no longer about who made the best bikes.

thank goodness the internet (and forum on the internet) always tell the truth!

Murray B wrote:Greetings from a retired educator and Norton Commando owner since 1975.

It is amazing how many people do not know the history of internal combustion engines.

This site is ostensibly about what is right with the Norton Commando and other great bikes but too many posts glorify the massive, top-heavy, ill-handling, killer bikes of today.

Back in ’75 when I bought my ’74 model Commando it was the best all-around motorcycle available. The compact pushrod hemi was mounted low which made handling great and the Isolastic filters removed virtually all vibration at speed. It was a wonderful design that did everything well and was very affordable to purchase and operate.

At that time the Japanese multinational corporations were also working very hard to rewrite history. One subsidized magazine article after another praised Honda for inventing the Overhead camshaft engine in 1969!? It did not matter to them that MV Agusta had an OHC four road bike back in ’66 or that Moto Guzzi had produced a DOHC V-8 in the fifties.

Despite the propaganda to the contrary the genesis of OHC goes back much farther than that. It goes back at least to the beginning of the twentieth century. Buick was producing a car with OHV engine in 1904 but the earlier Marr Runabout of 1903 was OHC. These engines were not as modern as the Honda but the Peugeot engine of 1913 was. The Peugeot was a DOHC engine with 4 valves per cylinder and had hemispherical combustion chambers. It is the French fellows that made the Peugeot that deserve credit for the invention and not some Japanese company more than a half century later.

Young people deserve to know the truth.

At the end of the day buyers chose reliable, fast, and leak free Japanese machines over unreliable, leaky Brit bikes which fell apart if ridden hard. That the British motorcycle industry could only offer machines which were even when introduced many years past sell by date, was to be expected bearing in mind the many years of mismanagement and greed, that had made worthwhile development work impossible.

The fact that the British industry ended in that way was a great shame, bearing in mind the fact that at one time British made bikes were the best in the world. Today all we have is an assembly plant putting together parts made in Thailand, and someone who seems more interested in taking deposits from customers than actually building saleable bikes................

Lack of proper management meant that the writing was on the wall for the Brit industry, pretty soon after they had ignored what Honda achieved in the first few years of entering the TT races, and had they taken note of the massive technology gulf that existed between them and Japanese at that time, and money had been available to close the gap somewhat, then we may well have still had a motorcycle industry in the UK today.

Carbonfibre wrote:...unreliable, leaky Brit bikes which fell apart if ridden hard...
...British motorcycle industry could only offer machines...many years past sell by date...
...worthwhile development work impossible...
...massive technology gulf that existed between them and Japanese at that time...

Why do so many young pups try to tell me the “truth” about a bike I have owned for 36 years? One of the few advantages of being old is not having to rely on written historical fiction to know what really happened in the seventies because I was there!

British bikes only leak if they are not sealed. Anything that is not sealed leaks including a HoYaSuKa. British aluminium is not porous. My bike never leaked but there was always a drip from the chain oiler. It could be turned off like a Jap bike but then I would need to have bought an expensive sealed chain.

My Commando must have been exceptional because I did not have a breakdown until it was 8 years old. At that point a ball bearing in the transmission failed but I managed to change it myself.

My Commando did not fall apart but I did use thread locking compound if I took something off. Unless a bike has aircraft bolts then it is a good idea to use locking compound on it no matter the make.

It is the HoYaSuKas that have an expiry date. There are still Commandos all over the place but where are all those CB-750s that were sold back then? HoYaSuKa usually disowns their progeny after ten years or so because they make more money that way. It still amazes me that I can go down to a local shop and get almost every part for the Commando when Norton went under more than thirty years ago. Now that’s what I call good customer service.

Since the vast majority of motorcycles in history had been singles or twins it did not make sense for NVT to try and develop a 28 cylinder, turbine powered bike, or whatever. HoYaSuKas claim to modernity based on their versions of engines from 1905 and 1913 was bizarre and laughable. Honda introduced a SOHC L4 with two valves per cylinder which was not even as sophisticated as the Peugeot DOHC L4 with four valves per cylinder from 1913. This sort of marketing depends on ignorance and shows utter contempt for their customers. Is there any chance at all that the people at HoYaSuKa really thought they had invented the overhead camshaft in the sixties?

There certainly was a gulf between the Japanese and British big bikes. Most people that test drove all of them would usually buy a Commando or one of the Triumphs. The Commando was the smoothest sport bike available and vibrated far less than any large HoYaSuKa except maybe for the big smoky two strokes. NVT was selling all the bikes they could make until the collapse. It was only when NVT was going under that people stopped buying the bikes to avoid getting an orphan. It was never about which machines were better but about legislation and financing.

In North America back in the mid-seventies if you had argued that a pushrod “Hemi” with solid lifters was obsolete compared to an OHC four most people would have thought you insane. Chrysler’s great Hemi was a pushrod engine with solid lifters that had only been discontinued in ’71. It was Datsun that had an OHC four in the 510 so that is your comparison. If you had tried to argue that the Hemi was made obsolete by the Datsun in the southern U.S. they probably would have put you in jail. Some people even called the Commando engine the “little Hemi” as a term of endearment.

Them's the facts.

Murray B wrote:

Carbonfibre wrote:...unreliable, leaky Brit bikes which fell apart if ridden hard...
...British motorcycle industry could only offer machines...many years past sell by date...
...worthwhile development work impossible...
...massive technology gulf that existed between them and Japanese at that time...

Why do so many young pups try to tell me the “truth” about a bike I have owned for 36 years? One of the few advantages of being old is not having to rely on written historical fiction to know what really happened in the seventies because I was there!

British bikes only leak if they are not sealed. Anything that is not sealed leaks including a HoYaSuKa. British aluminium is not porous. My bike never leaked but there was always a drip from the chain oiler. It could be turned off like a Jap bike but then I would need to have bought an expensive sealed chain.

My Commando must have been exceptional because I did not have a breakdown until it was 8 years old. At that point a ball bearing in the transmission failed but I managed to change it myself.

My Commando did not fall apart but I did use thread locking compound if I took something off. Unless a bike has aircraft bolts then it is a good idea to use locking compound on it no matter the make.

It is the HoYaSuKas that have an expiry date. There are still Commandos all over the place but where are all those CB-750s that were sold back then? HoYaSuKa usually disowns their progeny after ten years or so because they make more money that way. It still amazes me that I can go down to a local shop and get almost every part for the Commando when Norton went under more than thirty years ago. Now that’s what I call good customer service.

Since the vast majority of motorcycles in history had been singles or twins it did not make sense for NVT to try and develop a 28 cylinder, turbine powered bike, or whatever. HoYaSuKas claim to modernity based on their versions of engines from 1905 and 1913 was bizarre and laughable. Honda introduced a SOHC L4 with two valves per cylinder which was not even as sophisticated as the Peugeot DOHC L4 with four valves per cylinder from 1913. This sort of marketing depends on ignorance and shows utter contempt for their customers. Is there any chance at all that the people at HoYaSuKa really thought they had invented the overhead camshaft in the sixties?

There certainly was a gulf between the Japanese and British big bikes. Most people that test drove all of them would usually buy a Commando or one of the Triumphs. The Commando was the smoothest sport bike available and vibrated far less than any large HoYaSuKa except maybe for the big smoky two strokes. NVT was selling all the bikes they could make until the collapse. It was only when NVT was going under that people stopped buying the bikes to avoid getting an orphan. It was never about which machines were better but about legislation and financing.

In North America back in the mid-seventies if you had argued that a pushrod “Hemi” with solid lifters was obsolete compared to an OHC four most people would have thought you insane. Chrysler’s great Hemi was a pushrod engine with solid lifters that had only been discontinued in ’71. It was Datsun that had an OHC four in the 510 so that is your comparison. If you had tried to argue that the Hemi was made obsolete by the Datsun in the southern U.S. they probably would have put you in jail. Some people even called the Commando engine the “little Hemi” as a term of endearment.

Them's the facts.

If even 10% of the claims made in your post were accurate, then the British motorcycle industry would surely still be producing and selling bikes based on designs dating back to the 1940s even today?

Carbonfibre wrote:If even 10% of the claims made in your post were accurate, then the British motorcycle industry would surely still be producing and selling bikes based on designs dating back to the 1940s even today?

That last 10% is always the hardest. If I could only be consistently 100% wrong then it would be a simple matter of always assuming the opposite of what I write to know the truth.

Are all the “...designs dating back to the 1940s...” gone now? Several were still around last year but I guess I just wasn’t paying attention. It is sad to think there will be no more singles and twins but thanks for the update anyway.

Some of the many things that impresses me about my 1972 Norton Commando;

The way it turns, fast or slow, wide or sharp. I can really lean into it without any surprises.

The powerful, torquey, acceleration. When I start out on the highway from a side road, shifts into 2nd, 3rd, and fourth almost pull my hands off the bars... if I'm doing it right.

The quality of the materials, and the beauty of the design. My dunlop rims are 40 years old, and the chrome could pass for new. The engine's alloy polishes up to almost mirror like shine, revealing the stunning configuration of it all.

What some of the cats like Cummings, Schmitt, CNW, and countless others have done with this bike attests to its quality engineering and inherit longevity. These things have been around for a long, long time, and will continue to be.

I haven't owned a Jap bike for over 30 years. Though many argue they've improved over the decades, to me they were pieces of shit back then, and most things never change.

Cheers,

Don

DonOR wrote:Some of the many things that impresses me about my 1972 Norton Commando;

Truer words have never been spoken and it good to hear the truth about the Commando. To live in Hawaii and have a Combat Commando must be like living in a dream. I really envy you.

Murray B wrote:British bikes only leak if they are not sealed... British aluminium is not porous... Them's the facts.

Except the part about porosity. It's an indesputible fact that several production runs of various makes and models of British bikes did indeed have porous castings, which required a significant few dollars of warranty repairs and returns to thier manufacturers.

One case in point is the heads of Triumph TSS 8-valve (Weslake derivative) bikes.

Overly-broad generalizations are tough to carry the day with, especially in extra-long posts.

Murray B wrote:

Carbonfibre wrote:If even 10% of the claims made in your post were accurate, then the British motorcycle industry would surely still be producing and selling bikes based on designs dating back to the 1940s even today?

That last 10% is always the hardest. If I could only be consistently 100% wrong then it would be a simple matter of always assuming the opposite of what I write to know the truth.

Are all the “...designs dating back to the 1940s...” gone now? Several were still around last year but I guess I just wasn’t paying attention. It is sad to think there will be no more singles and twins but thanks for the update anyway.

Sorry you have the better of me.................wasnt aware that 1940's designed bikes were still being produced in the UK up until last year!

Carbonfibre wrote:Sorry you have the better of me.................wasnt aware that 1940's designed bikes were still being produced in the UK up until last year!

Norvil still makes '75 spec Commandos for sale. http://www.norvilmotorcycle.co.uk/road.htm

Murray B wrote:

DonOR wrote:Some of the many things that impresses me about my 1972 Norton Commando;

Truer words have never been spoken and it good to hear the truth about the Commando. To live in Hawaii and have a Combat Commando must be like living in a dream. I really envy you.

Thanks Murray, Hawaii isn't all its made up to be, kinda like those magazine articles, hehe.

The natural beauty of the place is awesome, and the most of the people are genuinely kind. The local ales are sublime, and there's an almost tuscan climate that enables farmers to produce really good harvests year round. But on this windward side, its almost as rainy as England!

Business and politics are very parochial. And if you make $60k a year here, its like making $40k on the west coast. one must live with less, which is fine with me, most of the time.

The commando is the best way I've found to keep it all in balance.

cheers,

Don

I'm not a straddler. I usually have strong opinions and take sides.

That said, In this case, both sides are correct.

Dick Mann qualified for the 1970 Daytona 200 at 153 mph on a 750 Honda and went on to win over the forged crankshaft Tridents/Rocket 3s - no built up crankshaft Nortons in sight.

I bought a new Commando in 1971 and I had to ride with and against the Japanese heavyweights.

Yeah, the Norton handled well but it lost in a drag race against the 750 Hondas and the 500/750 Kawasakis.

Yes, the 750 Hondas were top heavy and their exhaust head pipes and kick/center stands drug on the ground but if an owner cut & tucked those parts in, then they handled just fine and they certainly stopped a whole lot better than did my twin leading shoe Norton. The Kawasakis actually did handle poorly but man oh man did they accelerate.

In my opinion, the magazines of the 60's and 70's overstated the "good handling" of the British/European bikes, exaggerated the "bad handling" of the Japanese bikes, and made too much of oil leaking from British bikes.