1972 750 Hi-Rider

Warning - OT: The control of pictures by third- party hosters and your loss of ownership and recompense is well documented by Photobucket and others. The addition of photos clarifies and speeds your work which is satisfying.

If you have seen the threads only to be disappointed at pictures of cartoon cameras sad for lack of Benjamins you know how to do right by the gathered and for those to come.

Set your camera to pre-name and numerically sequence for example Norton_0001 and fire away. This and Excel have saved my forgetful brain many times.
 
Another progress report after another day of wrenching. IT'S ALIVE!!!. Am happy to report that after removal, cleaning, and reinstallation of the carbs, this thing did light off and start and run. When it started initially it seemed to be running on both cylinders, but after running briefly, it regressed to running on only one cylinder. Regardless still glad to be rewarded with it starting and running even if poorly. It gives you incentive to keep after it and tweaking whatever is needed to get it running properly. The last plate that was on it was 1981. It was covering two previous plates, an '80 and a '79. Seeing as how I purchased this from the original and only previous owner, I'm convinced this was the last time or year this was ridden. Considering this was over 40 years ago I'm surprised but happy that this bike started with no more work than I've had to do to it so far. Again, thanks to all who have offered help and advice.
 
When you pulled the carbs and cleaned them did you do the small guitar wire through the pilot jet gallery trick, running on one cylinder seems to me the pilot jet on the dead cylinder might still be blocked, when I did my old Amals that sat for 11+ years under my bench I had to do the left carb 2x before the blockage blew out with force and hit my finger that I was holding over the pilot jet hole, was like someone hitting my finger with a needle, it takes a bit to get that wire through that tight bend in the passage and that is where they block up with crap, vinegar works great for soaking carbs, slowly eats the crap away without damaging the Amals metal and brings them up like new.
 
ashman said:
When you pulled the carbs and cleaned them did you do the small guitar wire through the pilot jet gallery trick, running on one cylinder seems to me the pilot jet on the dead cylinder might still be blocked, when I did my old Amals that sat for 11+ years under my bench I had to do the left carb 2x before the blockage blew out with force and hit my finger that I was holding over the pilot jet hole, was like someone hitting my finger with a needle, it takes a bit to get that wire through that tight bend in the passage and that is where they block up with crap, vinegar works great for soaking carbs, slowly eats the crap away without damaging the Amals metal and brings them up like new.
Click to expand...
Well, the short answer is no. I didn't run a wire through the pilot jet gallery on these. I do usually do that on al the other carbs that I've done but it's usually to clear the jet itself, if blocked. I run my carbs that I clean through an ultrasonic cleaner as most of the time, doing so cleans hidden passages. I've tried various solutions over the years, but this time I used about 1 part Purple Power cleaner and 3 parts water. The most difficult carb that I've to deal with was the oddball carb on a Suzuki RE5 Rotary engine bike. It took several times of run it through the ultasonic cleaner, reassemble, run it (running poorly) and repeat. This seems to be a no spark to that cylinder issue as testing the spark to that side, while running, indicated it was not firing. As I posted previously, I did have spark to both sides before I took the carbs off for cleaning.
 
quawk said:
Well, the short answer is no. I didn't run a wire through the pilot jet gallery on these. I do usually do that on al the other carbs that I've done but it's usually to clear the jet itself, if blocked. I run my carbs that I clean through an ultrasonic cleaner as most of the time, doing so cleans hidden passages. I've tried various solutions over the years, but this time I used about 1 part Purple Power cleaner and 3 parts water. The most difficult carb that I've to deal with was the oddball carb on a Suzuki RE5 Rotary engine bike. It took several times of run it through the ultasonic cleaner, reassemble, run it (running poorly) and repeat. This seems to be a no spark to that cylinder issue as testing the spark to that side, while running, indicated it was not firing. As I posted previously, I did have spark to both sides before I took the carbs off for cleaning.
Click to expand...
If you want to clean the pilot jet bush you absolutely have to run a wire through it or better still a micro drill
Ultrasonic or any other cleaner won't clear it
Checkout "bushman's carb cleaning secrets"
Read and understand how to clean these jet bushes
They block for fun even if they aren't blocked now they will one day,best be prepared
 
baz said:
If you want to clean the pilot jet bush you absolutely have to run a wire through it or better still a micro drill
Ultrasonic or any other cleaner won't clear it
Checkout "bushman's carb cleaning secrets"
Read and understand how to clean these jet bushes
They block for fun even if they aren't blocked now they will one day,best be prepared
Click to expand...
I'm in the U.S. and I see you're in the U.K. so maybe that's why I don't know what you mean by the pilot jet "bush".
 

Notes On Rebuilding the Amal Mark 1 Concentric Carburetter | AMAL Carburetters

The world's Sole Manufacturer of Genuine SU Carburettors, Fuel Pumps and Spares. Read on for Notes On Rebuilding the Amal Mark 1 Concentric Carburetter.
amalcarb.co.uk amalcarb.co.uk
1972 750 Hi-Rider

The jet you can see in the right-hand picture is the pilot bush.
 
  • Thumbs Up
Reactions: baz
A lot of bikes get parked in a shed and forgotten because something stopped working and the owner was stumped. In my bike's case, it was the rotor/stator misalignment which eventually burned up the stator, so it didn't charge when running. The previous owner would charge it, ride it somewhere and then have to transport it home in the back of a truck when it ran out of charge. Eventually, he got frustrated and sold the bike to me. (for $500. )

When I first got the bike to run a bit, and before I figured out the charging issue, I also had the occasional running on one cylinder issue... It totally sucked!!!! I tested the ignition components and they tested good so I kept anything that tested good... and yet the occasional one cylinder cutting out kept sporadically happening. At one point my buddy was going into town for lunch and saw me struggling with the bike running on one cylinder and said,... "what plugs are those? I'll pick you up a new pair in town". I said to him that I tested the plugs and they sparked fine, but he insisted on getting me new plugs.... When he came back, I put the new plugs in and kicked the bike over. It fired right up on both cylinders and ran well. I was dumbfounded and we both stood there in amazement because I had been working on this bike for 2 days believing that the ignition was all good because I tested everything. Because of that electrical testing I was convinced the problem was the carburetor, but now I know that there is such a thing as an "intermittently bad spark plug" Before this, I always thought they were either good or bad and testing would answer that....

So,.. cheap insurance against that intermittent demon... get a new set of plugs... and post some pictures. I always love to see the "before" pictures. Good luck
 
o0norton0o said:
A lot of bikes get parked in a shed and forgotten because something stopped working and the owner was stumped. In my bike's case, it was the rotor/stator misalignment which eventually burned up the stator, so it didn't charge when running. The previous owner would charge it, ride it somewhere and then have to transport it home in the back of a truck when it ran out of charge. Eventually, he got frustrated and sold the bike to me. (for $500. )

When I first got the bike to run a bit, and before I figured out the charging issue, I also had the occasional running on one cylinder issue... It totally sucked!!!! I tested the ignition components and they tested good so I kept anything that tested good... and yet the occasional one cylinder cutting out kept sporadically happening. At one point my buddy was going into town for lunch and saw me struggling with the bike running on one cylinder and said,... "what plugs are those? I'll pick you up a new pair in town". I said to him that I tested the plugs and they sparked fine, but he insisted on getting me new plugs.... When he came back, I put the new plugs in and kicked the bike over. It fired right up on both cylinders and ran well. I was dumbfounded and we both stood there in amazement because I had been working on this bike for 2 days believing that the ignition was all good because I tested everything. Because of that electrical testing I was convinced the problem was the carburetor, but now I know that there is such a thing as an "intermittently bad spark plug" Before this, I always thought they were either good or bad and testing would answer that....

So,.. cheap insurance against that intermittent demon... get a new set of plugs... and post some pictures. I always love to see the "before" pictures. Good luck
Click to expand...
Thanks for the advice. I have some of the correct plugs ordered and on the way. Have also run into the same situation on some machines, where even doing the spark test of touching the plug tip to ground, and turning over the engine would produce spark, but sometimes weak. Engine may or may not start. Put in a new plug(s) and problelm solved. According to the owner this bike got parked when he, like a lot of us (me included), got married and had kids and thought riding a bike was a risk maybe he shouldn't be taking.
 
Last edited:
Ape-hanger handle bars on a British bike are pretty silly. In a strong wind, the bike might be blown backwards.
 
Tornado said:
My first Commando/first classic bike/Second bike ever was also in Hi-Rider configuration with a dealer optional fatty type 16" rear wheel.
Click to expand...
Was looking back through some of the responses to my earlier posts, and saw this again. I realize that dealers would do what it took to sell bikes, but I have to wonder if this swap was condoned by Norton. That's a 3" change from stock which I, and I would guess others, would consider significant. I'd guess Norton didn't even know dealers were doing such swaps, let alone, condone them. I'm no engineer or expert, but I've had and ridden many bikes, and done much research and work on them and in my opion, getting away from the factory tire/wheel size and steering and frame geometry doesn't in most cases improve the handling of the bike, and more than likely, if anything is detrimental. I do also realize that the "fatty tire" contributed to the chopper look of that time period and that's what Norton was trying to capitalize on when they were building this model. Just wondering out loud here.
 
quawk said:
Was looking back through some of the responses to my earlier posts, and saw this again. I realize that dealers would do what it took to sell bikes, but I have to wonder if this swap was condoned by Norton. That's a 3" change from stock which I, and I would guess others, would consider significant. I'd guess Norton didn't even know dealers were doing such swaps, let alone, condone them. I'm no engineer or expert, but I've had and ridden many bikes, and done much research and work on them and in my opion, getting away from the factory tire/wheel size and steering and frame geometry doesn't in most cases improve the handling of the bike, and more than likely, if anything is detrimental. I do also realize that the "fatty tire" contributed to the chopper look of that time period and that's what Norton was trying to capitalize on when they were building this model. Just wondering out loud here.
Click to expand...
Agree. But the "ape hanger" bars, fugly, uncomfortable seat, small tank, small 5-7/8" head lamp can also be considered determental to overall bike performance too :)
 
Tornado said:
Agree. But the "ape hanger" bars, fugly, uncomfortable seat, small tank, small 5-7/8" head lamp can also be considered determental to overall bike performance too :)
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're right. At that point, one more thing (mistake?) couldn't make it much worse. Of course as in my case, even the owners took it another step further off the rails by adding extended (6"?) fork legs (stanchions). Talk about changing steering geometry.
 
quawk said:
Was looking back through some of the responses to my earlier posts, and saw this again. I realize that dealers would do what it took to sell bikes, but I have to wonder if this swap was condoned by Norton. That's a 3" change from stock which I, and I would guess others, would consider significant. I'd guess Norton didn't even know dealers were doing such swaps, let alone, condone them. I'm no engineer or expert, but I've had and ridden many bikes, and done much research and work on them and in my opion, getting away from the factory tire/wheel size and steering and frame geometry doesn't in most cases improve the handling of the bike, and more than likely, if anything is detrimental. I do also realize that the "fatty tire" contributed to the chopper look of that time period and that's what Norton was trying to capitalize on when they were building this model. Just wondering out loud here.
Click to expand...
Considering that you could choose between a Combat or Hi-Rider in ‘72, I think it’s fair to suggest that the Hi-Rider buyer didn’t place performance or handling at the top of their priority list.

“Being Groovy” was probably number 1 on the list !
 
quawk said:
Was looking back through some of the responses to my earlier posts, and saw this again. I realize that dealers would do what it took to sell bikes, but I have to wonder if this swap was condoned by Norton. That's a 3" change from stock which I, and I would guess others, would consider significant. I'd guess Norton didn't even know dealers were doing such swaps, let alone, condone them. I'm no engineer or expert, but I've had and ridden many bikes, and done much research and work on them and in my opion, getting away from the factory tire/wheel size and steering and frame geometry doesn't in most cases improve the handling of the bike, and more than likely, if anything is detrimental. I do also realize that the "fatty tire" contributed to the chopper look of that time period and that's what Norton was trying to capitalize on when they were building this model. Just wondering out loud here.
Click to expand...
I doubt if the difference in diameter is as much as 3" overall
You have to take into account the section of the tyre
 
baz said:
I doubt if the difference in diameter is as much as 3" overall
You have to take into account the section of the tyre
Click to expand...
My fatty rear tyre was marked as an MT90 when I got the bike, 16 rim on standard rear hub. I recall it was basically grazing the swing arm each side.
 
quawk said:
Yeah, you're right. At that point, one more thing (mistake?) couldn't make it much worse. Of course as in my case, even the owners took it another step further off the rails by adding extended (6"?) fork legs (stanchions). Talk about changing steering geometry.
Click to expand...
Could have been worse i guess....with tassels off the hand grips!
 
I put a set of mini apes on My original 850 Roadster around 1975 sometime.
Hated it. Change the whole dynamics of the bike.
Went back to whatever bend I had on it after 1 day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top