Bonneville or Commando. Which was better?

Who composed better music, Vivaldi or Bach.

Norton wins because you don't have to dick with utterly stupid pushrod tubes and their seals which don't.
The Triumph is easier to work on over all.

If you have to ask then you weren’t around in the 60’s or 70’s.

A mate of mine recently rebuilt a stock 850 mk2a he is amazed at the smoothness and torque
And he's a long term triumph owner of old and new triumph twins

I liked the Trident, the Commandos, the BSA lightnings, the Yamaha 650, the Kawasaki 900.
None were really better or worse than the other, just different. And that's what I liked about it.

Honestly I like Triumphs as well - certainly wouldn’t mind owning one .
My post comparing the two brands to two women was tongue in cheek -
although , truth be told , I don’t like Rosie .
Hard to top a Commando as a classic British ride though - I think most on this site would agree.

The Norton's cylinder head, designed in 1947, is still cited as one of the most efficient ever.
Two valve heads, while less efficient at air transfer, arguably lose less combustion energy than four valve heads because they have less combustion chamber and piston surface area exposed to the heat of combustion.
More of their combustion heat energy may be transferred to the piston, instead of to the cooling fins of the four valve head engine.
Yes, the four valve wins the race - by moving more air.

Why, for a questioning example, does a Chevrolet Corvette still have an 8 valve head?
Push rods help too - allowing the engine to be more compact and lowering the engine's center of gravity.
Perhaps GM's engineers look at that "small block V8" and see enough lower RPM torque and see little need for power derived from high RPM.
Do they then need the weight, expense, and space consumption of an OHC ? or DOHC ? or 4 valve heads ?

Oh, I got onto that because the Triumph port/chamber is awful compared to the Norton. Same problem - high dome, big valve cut outs - too much surface area.

Oh Dear .
Early ( norton ) twins didnt exactly have the best reputation for reliability .
In the hands of 18 year old lunatics learning maintanance (or otherwise )
on them .

Therefore we had the TRITON .

Orses for courses . As a ROAD bike , fine is a Commando . But you need a P II for offroad .
Whereas a Triumph Twin handles anything well . If the shopwasnt hopeless & it was RUN IN .

You see tests " Milage at completion of test - 850 " AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHHHH . So .
explainalot .

Nunoffem shoulave the thopplee eld on the stop till theyve done 1.000 . or TWO . if you want it to last .
And GO PROPERLY .
So there you go ! .

As for the I. o. M. ,as a previous caller said , TRIDENT . was the Factory machine by the time the Commando was teethed.

Mostly it deepends ( if not new ) on who put it tigether , maintained it . And if your stoopid enough to race in town .
Out in thev wildes , up past the ton . . . .


And STOCK or tweeked . Out with the electronic ignition then . IN WITH THE MAGNETO . So , a Pre units Better ! if it had brakes . but they only slow you down .

Comes down to a number.
twenty nine degrees advance vs thirty seven degrees. Says it all.
One burns fuel well, the other not-so.
The rest is window dressing.

Matt Spencer said:

Oh Dear .
Early ( norton ) twins didnt exactly have the best reputation for reliability .
In the hands of 18 year old lunatics learning maintanance (or otherwise )
on them .

Therefore we had the TRITON .

Click to expand...

Absolute BULLSHIT matt! Which cereal box did you get that story from?
The reason Tritons existed is because Norton did not sell engines, only complete bikes (over the counter Manx's)
So.. folks wanting a fast 500cc engine for the car racing class bought a bike (because it was so good) and sold the rolling chassis cheaply.
Some brightspark thought "hmm - I wonder wot I could put in that?" ... and, voila, the Triton was born.
Second rate motor in a first rate chassis.

BTW - how did Triton get into the mix? The thread is "Commando vs Bonneville"
(...and I didn't see a Bonneville wheelying past a Kwacka 9 in "Stone"!)

,,,and why is it Kwacka 9 vs Commando? Well, the directors obviously chose the 2 highest performing bikes of the time - sorry, the Trumpy just didn't cut the mustard!

robs ss said:

Absolute BULLSHIT matt! Which cereal box did you get that story from?
The reason Tritons existed is because Norton did not sell engines, only complete bikes (over the counter Manx's)
So.. folks wanting a fast 500cc engine for the car racing class bought a bike (because it was so good) and sold the rolling chassis cheaply.
Some brightspark thought "hmm - I wonder wot I could put in that?" ... and, voila, the Triton was born.
Second rate motor in a first rate chassis.

BTW - how did Triton get into the mix? The thread is "Commando vs Bonneville"
(...and I didn't see a Bonneville wheelying past a Kwacka 9 in "Stone"!)

,,,and why is it Kwacka 9 vs Commando? Well, the directors obviously chose the 2 highest performing bikes of the time - sorry, the Trumpy just didn't cut the mustard!

Click to expand...

The Manx race car story explains how the chassis became available that prompted the Tritons inception, but it doesn’t explain the existence of Tritons does it, otherwise you’d only ever see Manx framed Tritons, whereas in reality they are the exotic exception.

I had always understood that a triumph twin motor was more thrashable than an early dommie that liked to throw it's rods etc
Plus it was usually the humble es2 that mostly had it's chassis robbed
But by the time the 99ss was out and there really wasn't a lot of point in building a Triton
But the legend was born and the cult of the Triton continues to this day

One reason for Tritons is Norton made Featherbed Model 50s and Triumph made Sprung Hub Twins.

Swank and bullshit are other likely reasons!

I don't care I have a love of Nortons and I also have a love of older Triumph as well modern Triumph, my 1981 650 Triumph Thunderbird was one of the best Triumph I ever owned, had the same bore as a 750 Bonnie but shorter stroke and the motor pulled like a train, was smoother than the Bonnies and a lot more reliable, the worst thing I did was selling it and regeted it ever since, I brought it new when building the Commando/Featherbed, my Norton is my number one bike and the only bike I kept for over 49+ years from new, I brought a 79 Bonnie off my brother-in-law once because I felt sorry for it sitting under a tarp for over 6 years untouched, after fixing it up and riding it things kept falling off it or break so ended that relationship just after 12 months, my Norton just kept going although not in Commando form (850 Featherbed) then after a long life of riding the Norton I brought a New 2013 Thruxton then in 2018 upgraded to a new old stock 2016 Thruxton S.
My old Norton is semi-retired but it's still my favorite bike in my stable and gets ridden regularly it's my hotrod bike, the 1200 Thruxton is my traveling bike although the Norton had its share of long distant travel in the 49+ years with me.
So what bike is best for me, I have a love of all British twins motorcycles but the Norton is the most fun bike with it's hot motor, great handling and lightness, the Thruxton is second and love the torque from that 1200 twin motor and it's so smooth and well set up for long miles without touching it except for the usual oil changes, although the Thruxton is assembled in Thailand it's still British owned and the way things are parts are sourced world wide like every other bike manufactures.
Here is a few pics of my rides over the 50+ years of owning and riding my twin British motorcycles, Command vs Bonnies who cares they all different and all handle great in the tight twisties and each bike is different from the other, by the way that 81 Triumph Thunderbird I clocked up 250k kms in 9 years of ownership before I did a top end rebuild before I sold it, what a mistake that was selling it to buy a fu cking Harley Sportster new in 91, was a good bike but just not right for me and sold it after 3 years.

Ashley

Obviously , Pre units are BETTER .

HERE is a Commando !

Whereas HERE is a BONNEVILLE .

HOWEVER , this , is a REAL Motorcycle . they No Longer make these .

NOW , if THIS was the 75 Commando ;
Pre Unit. instead of this heath robinson unit contraption :

Per Thus .

Ducati wouldnt have had to copy it , as we woulda already had it , like we did .


Off Course , it woulda needed the Trident Gearset . Like wot the later of THESE 9 The 75 BONNEVILLE REPLCEMANT ! DID !


So , we now cwelebrate the 50th anaversary , of the poms loosing their marbles . in more ways than one .



So , we spend 100.000 pounds , wereas , we coulda gottit , for ten quid . or maybe a bit more , as it was . Already . MATE .

Rhubarb Rhubarb Rhubarb .

P.S.

THIS is a TRIDENT .






And THIs is a BONNEVILLE HEAD, that did 240 m.p.h. however , a COMMANDO HEAD has done 274 . FaSTER EVEN THAN SOME TART FELL OFFOFA tRIUMPH . IF IT WAS ONE .



And we'll have NO DITHERING , or prevaricating . Or somebody'll be thinking theyre designed by commities .



Talk about ' missed the boat ' .

As far as DURABILITY goes , a 650 triumph HAS IT . Hands Down .

THIS could well be one off the fastest Triumph engines ever built .

if it were built by the same man , as my ' R ' 500 , it'd be a 56 ' r ' 750 . thus POWER to Weight unbeatable . As Its Aluminum . A few Lb heavier than the 30 inch , in a 45 .


Couldwell beit . Alfin 750 twin carb . cetra .


whowas theengine builder .

Commando's a better tourer , Bonnie's a better pulveriser .

Pre Unit .

pre Unit


hairey chest




Pre Unit

Prince Harry , on Pre Unit .



what was that .


Pre Unit .



Better ride on the Norton , if youre a bit soft .