certified quarter-mile time.

Quote off another forum - just selected at random.
Seems these questions have some commonality...

When the magazine's write reviews on new sportbikes who do they have running 1/4 mile runs on these machines? How do they run such outstanding times? Can anyone here run a 9.92 on a ZX-10?
Click to expand...
 
Ive noticed that too Rohan. One of the club members bought a new unsold 2005 honda rc51 a couple of years ago. He continually quotes a magazine test time of 10.5 seconds for the quarter whereas the average actual number for bikes that have had some power upgrades is around 11.3

I guess themagazines are still selling motorcycles, just some of the namebrands have changed.
 
Murray B said:
What it certainly did not have in 1973 was the high-performance 10.0:1 compression Combat engine because that had already been discontinued.
Click to expand...

You should be more careful before you post, Murray, because according to the Norton Owners Club the improved Combat engine without bearing and piston problems was still available in 1973. This does not explain why the ’73 Cycle magazine does not mention the bike since it was the quickest Commando.

worntorn said:
I think the Combat was a model that in hindsight Norton wished it had not produced, at least not the way in which it was done...
"in March of 1973 the 750 range was supplemented by the introduction of an 850 model, the engine of which embodies several design modifications to enable the same power output as that of the 750cc Combat engine to be obtained, with less stress on the engine components"
Click to expand...

The Combats were just fine after they were corrected and there are still some of them around. Haynes was not correct as I recall. The low-compression 850 gave about the same horsepower as the mid-compression 750 but not as much as the Combat. The 850 must have been heavier too because I don’t remember a stock 850 doing better than low thirteens in the quarter but many of the 750s managed 12.6X seconds or so.

gory said:
And the award for this years most ironic quote goes to...pot calling the kettle?
Click to expand...

This one consistently gives false information about British bikes. It is not simple trolling, however, because the posts look like they took a lot of time to prepare. It is not the same as a troll posting “Wii sucks!” on a Nintendo site. What would cause anyone to constantly rail about companies that ceased to exist more than thirty years ago?

swooshdave said:
No one is interested in telling you.
Click to expand...

There are two main trolls at work in this thread. One is constantly anti-British and the other is against everything. If their comments go unchallenged then I suspect that they can definitely kill the sales of rebuilt Commandos. It is too bad too because the Commando still does everything well and we may now be seeing some of the last opportunities to enjoy these machines outside of a museum.
 
Facts seem hard to come to terms with for those who feel that dinosaurs still rule the earth, and seemingly there is no such thing as evolution! I worked at a motorcycle dealer who raced Norton MX outfits as well as being a Kawasaki main dealer, and then went on to work for someone who won many drag races on a Kawasaki Z1000 based race bike. So unlike many posters on here I have first hand knowledge of the process of evolution, and a very good idea of the reasons why the Brit motorcycle industry went to the wall!

Old Brit bikes are great, but they are never going to win any prizes for performance, reliability or for being user friendly. Continually stating this isnt the case cannot alter the course of history, or change the fact than dinosaurs became extinct for some very good reasons. Maybe it would be far more productive to discuss effective ways of improving old Brits, rather than trying to rewrite history on here?
 
Rohan said:
Carbonfibre said:
Kawasaki didnt need "funding" or any have any need to bail out its subsidiary motorcycle division, which in the 70s increased sales by 450% largely at the expense of the Brit motorcycle industry, which was by then on its last legs..................
Click to expand...


And Kawasaki bailed out of MotoGP racing recently - for what reason then ?
Loss of face to show a loss in oriental eyes.....
Like in the 1980s too.
Click to expand...


MotoGP is simply another form of advertising, and with bike sales down across the board its probably not cost effective at the moment! No doubt Mr Garners MotoGP machines will in 2012 fill the gap left by Kawasaki...............lol
 
"There are two main trolls at work in this thread. One is constantly anti-British and the other is against everything. If their comments go unchallenged then I suspect that they can definitely kill the sales of rebuilt Commandos. It is too bad too because the Commando still does everything well and we may now be seeing some of the last opportunities to enjoy these machines outside of a museum."

How on earth can comments on an internet forum affect the sales of rebuilt vintage motorcycles, which are bought by buyers who are fully aware of pretty much every detail of these bikes, both good and bad?
 
" VINTAGE " ? ! :shock: , built between the begining of 1919 and end of 1930 .



The Commando's a Fearfully Modern Piece of Equipment . " Post Classic ' mostly .

It was Built AFTER the WAR . :p :shock: :wink: .

Got all the Details of all the ways The Kwackersaki's Blow , Carbon . left , Right & Centre .
From the book of the "Raceing Kawasakis ". Basically it says they fell to bits,
other than the 250. With only a very few Crew Chiefs with the nouse to keep all the bits from rattling around prematurely . Gees , what a frigging din they make . Was everyone Tone deaf as well as gyro stabilised .
 
Rohan said:
Quote off another forum - just selected at random.
Seems these questions have some commonality...

When the magazine's write reviews on new sportbikes who do they have running 1/4 mile runs on these machines? How do they run such outstanding times? Can anyone here run a 9.92 on a ZX-10?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

SEND IT HERE , and I ll Try . ! :D 8)
 
Matt Spencer said:
" VINTAGE " ? ! :shock: , built between the begining of 1919 and end of 1930 .



The Commando's a Fearfully Modern Piece of Equipment . " Post Classic ' mostly .

It was Built AFTER the WAR . :p :shock: :wink: .

Got all the Details of all the ways The Kwackersaki's Blow , Carbon . left , Right & Centre .
From the book of the "Raceing Kawasakis ". Basically it says they fell to bits,
other than the 250. With only a very few Crew Chiefs with the nouse to keep all the bits from rattling around prematurely . Gees , what a frigging din they make . Was everyone Tone deaf as well as gyro stabilised .
Click to expand...


In the 1980s bike drag racing was pretty much ruled by machines using Z1 power units.........the nice thing about these motors is that it was possible to triple the stock power output, and still be able to run stock cranks and cases no problem at all.

There was no real need to run double engine set ups, as the Z1 could be tuned to produce so much power, that single engine Z1 powered bikes were in most cases much faster than double dinos................
 
Murray B said:
Murray B said:
worntorn said:
I think the Combat was a model that in hindsight Norton wished it had not produced, at least not the way in which it was done...
"in March of 1973 the 750 range was supplemented by the introduction of an 850 model, the engine of which embodies several design modifications to enable the same power output as that of the 750cc Combat engine to be obtained, with less stress on the engine components"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The Combats were just fine after they were corrected and there are still some of them around. Haynes was not correct as I recall. The low-compression 850 gave about the same horsepower as the mid-compression 750 but not as much as the Combat. The 850 must have been heavier too because I don’t remember a stock 850 doing better than low thirteens in the quarter but many of the 750s managed 12.6X seconds or so.




Here is a link to a test of the new 850 when it came out in 73.


http://motorbike-search-engine.co.uk/cl ... d-test.php
They ran it against a non combat 750 which it powered away from every time. Seems to me it would be similar in power to a Combat then, but is less stressed by doing the same job with a larger displacement engine that also has been beefed up in the right places. That was the thinking in making the changes that Norton did.

I know that guys here have made their Combats reliable and no doubt they are great fun to ride.

Also, remember that peak horsepower is not the most important number. It is generally only acheived just as you shift, so just for a split second. The rest of the time you are down in the power curve somewhere. More important is the peak torque number, which is actually a reading of the horsepower down at some lower level in that power curve.
This gives a better indication of how powerful the bike will be on the road in real riding situations, coming out of corners, pulling hills etc.
The 850 has 16 percent more torque than the 750.
 
Carbonfibre said:
<snip>Z1 power units.........the nice thing about these motors is that it was possible to triple the stock power output, and still be able to run stock cranks and cases no problem at all. .
Click to expand...

That is a false statement, if ever there was one.
Google 'Z1 or Z1000 crank welding' .

e.g.
"Here is another photo, which gives another angle on the view. As you
can see both these cranks have been welded in preparation for power
output increases beyond the friction fit of the joints. These cranks
are not single piece units, but are many pieces pressed together. This
simple welding permits outputs of up to 200HP. More than that and you
need more involved welding and some machining. "
 
That's Brian Chapman on Mighty Mouse.

How about a good Norvin ?

puts away a zx 12 here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MRCWS0_MEs

Not sure what model of crotch rocket he's up against here but he certainly gets the point across-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZksOqN8UDY




Didn't someone on this site say that old Brit technology from 1948 like the Commando is no match for the 70s Jap Superbikes such as the unimaginably powerful 500 Kawi?

How about Brit technology from 1934 up against 2011 and winning? This is a standard bore 998 Vin, Lightning spec , all stuff designed by the Vincent HRD Company between 1934 and 1952 at the latest. Though they didn't build many of them, the Lightning was a production bike that could be purchased by the public. Russel Wright, a house carpenter in New Zealand, bought one in the early 50s then went down to the Tram Road in NZ and set up the official FIM speed measuring equipment.

186 MPH was the World Record speed as I recall. At the time that was the fastest anyone had ever gone on two wheels, modifieds included. A rocket like that going by a topped out H1 would suck the smoke right out of it.

Looks like I might have my hands full at 1360cc.

Glen
 
worntorn said:
They ran it against a non combat 750 which it powered away from every time. Seems to me it would be similar in power to a Combat then, but is less stressed by doing the same job with a larger displacement engine that also has been beefed up in the right places. That was the thinking in making the changes that Norton did.
Click to expand...

That test gives an ET of 13.9 seconds which was somewhat slower than the quickest times in Canada as I recall. According to Roy Bacon’s book the new Commandos had their compression lowered to 8.5:1 for 1973. [The Combat had been discontinued but was still available while stock lasted.] The 850 was new so its output could not be compared with the previous 850 but the 750 must have lost some of its power. The figures I have seen indicate that the low-compression 750 with noise control equipment only produced 49 horsepower and was the least powerful Commando ever made. [Every single car I ever loved had its guts torn out by government legislation for the 1973 model year and I doubt Norton made their changes by choice either.]

worntorn said:
I know that guys here have made their Combats reliable and no doubt they are great fun to ride.
Click to expand...

When I bought my Commando in 1975 the Combat problems were already ancient history and most bikes had already been corrected. The high-compression motor with its hot camshaft made the Combat the quickest stock Commandos of all the original bikes. They regularly ran the quarter in the low twelves. Bikes like my ’74 850 only ran in the low thirteens on a good day but could use regular fuel instead of premium. Comparing a Combat to an 850 is like comparing a hot Detroit made car of the sixties with an equivalent model from the mid-seventies. The earlier models could easily beat the later ones in every respect by a considerable margin.

worntorn said:
The 850 has 16 percent more torque than the 750.
Click to expand...

Roy Bacon lists four 750s but one apparently did not make it into the street bikes. The remaining three had compression ratios of 8.5/9.0/10.0:1. The lowest-compression version was also available with noise control equipment which reduced power even further. So which 750 did the 850 have 16% more torque than?
 
Whether the Combat Commando was quicker than an 850 (with Black caps replaced) or not is hard to say. It might have been a little, or it could have been the other way round. A lot probably depends on the individual bike and tuning.

According to Haynes, who ought to know these things, the 850 had the same power output as the Combat but didn't have to work so hard at it.

I know mine has plenty of grunt.

torque figures

http://www.jerrydoe.com/nortonCommandoTechnical.html
 
Matt Spencer said:
On one of the Brochures theres a statement ' a certified stock ' one ran 12.75 at Santa Pod .
Click to expand...


With a 150mph terminal speed no doubt!............One wonders if those responsible for generating such nonsense had ever been to a drag race meeting?
 
Dave Rawlins was a Norton FACTORY employee who rode for Norton Villiers, as a test rider. His name appears in the 1/4 mile records, including at Santa Pod in 1973.

What name did you race as, CF ?
 
P.S. This is said to be Dave Rawlins, Silverstone 1974.
Thanks to whomever did the pic.

Already out in front...

certified quarter-mile time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top