- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 72
Are all 72's Combats? Were all the combats sold as 72's, just curious. :?:
Combat questions
- Thread starter Blue noser
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 72
Thanks L.A.B., for the quick reply.
My '72 Combat with disc brake bought in '72 was registered in Illinois as a '73, following the model-year convention used for automobiles--perhaps other American states did the same
Tim Kraakevik
kraakevik@voyager.net
Tim Kraakevik
kraakevik@voyager.net
htown16
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2009
- Messages
- 1,518
I have a 72 with a 8/72 build date. It has a disc brake and 32mm carbs but a low compression head and standard cam. It also has superblends. I think after the Combat troubles they built the last 72's as kind of a mix of parts. The Texas title says 73 but the serial number is clearly a 72. Probably a hold over not sold until 73.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 18,978
I believe the single most constant feature of Combats was the front disc brake. My two were made in spring and summer '72 so with full potency to risk my maturity on. I often hear the 2S cam sucks down low, mine don't seem too, but maybe its the lowered CR Combats that gave the 2S its bad reputation as that sure will suck a good cam down. A real Combat will also have oil pump swallowed and chewed up one or both of its 2 bronze cam shaft thrust washer tabs.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2009
- Messages
- 591
My June of '72 yellow combat just turned 10,000 miles.
If you keep it around 5 grand on shifts the combat will not self detonate :shock:
From what I've read as a combat owner, the problems first surfaced in Europe where combat riders
rung em out on the autobahn. Due to the oiling system they ran em low on oil and hence the heat destroyed the internals.
Most if not all combats running around today have had the main crank bearings replaced to the Superblends.
A flexing crank and low oil is not a good combo.
Also there were reports of pistons separating at or near one of the oil rings.
I have a receipt for some old work back in 1979 from PO for replacement pistons.
I think the combat got a bad rap for above problems because they surfaced early on and NV didn't want to make good on any warranty work unless you could broker something with your selling dealer?
Front disc brake was 1 year ahead of Triumph.
Mine with a 19 tooth sprocket will leave the light faster than any other 72 bike of its era I know of.
Norton failed to own up to the mistakes made in production.
Kinda like HD with the Vrod issues 1st year and the Timken cam bearings on their 1450 engines first couple years into production.
I will not detune mine because than it's no longer a combat.
To me it's like putting a 6 cylinder in a muscle car?
Marshal
If you keep it around 5 grand on shifts the combat will not self detonate :shock:
From what I've read as a combat owner, the problems first surfaced in Europe where combat riders
rung em out on the autobahn. Due to the oiling system they ran em low on oil and hence the heat destroyed the internals.
Most if not all combats running around today have had the main crank bearings replaced to the Superblends.
A flexing crank and low oil is not a good combo.
Also there were reports of pistons separating at or near one of the oil rings.
I have a receipt for some old work back in 1979 from PO for replacement pistons.
I think the combat got a bad rap for above problems because they surfaced early on and NV didn't want to make good on any warranty work unless you could broker something with your selling dealer?
Front disc brake was 1 year ahead of Triumph.
Mine with a 19 tooth sprocket will leave the light faster than any other 72 bike of its era I know of.
Norton failed to own up to the mistakes made in production.
Kinda like HD with the Vrod issues 1st year and the Timken cam bearings on their 1450 engines first couple years into production.
I will not detune mine because than it's no longer a combat.
To me it's like putting a 6 cylinder in a muscle car?
Marshal
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 18,978
The only thing I really love and know about Nortons completely centers around the early Combats with so much myth and mystery. Both my Combats still had non superduperblends with 10'x 1000's miles showing on oddometer, so we know that is a low reading after decades of intervals of tack drive poop outs. The bearings were not worn to matter at all and send them to a fella that measured them to also agree. If one does not lug a Combat then its flat bearings as issued can last and last as well as superduperblens. I don't think Europeans were the only ones wring the crap out of Combats which don't really wake up 2S cam till upper 6grand. If the Combat made it this far then its good to go to 7grand about as much as ya can afford in tires, oil blow out, chains and likely tickets too.
Bone up on the Combat saga here. All the errors and warranted work put Norton so behind it never really caught back up. Educational on how one little thing leads to another huge one and another. To me the Cream of Norton crop, and first really long range model that could actually lock tire, once the constrictor eye poked out.
http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk31 ... ph0003.jpg
http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk31 ... ph0004.jpg
Bone up on the Combat saga here. All the errors and warranted work put Norton so behind it never really caught back up. Educational on how one little thing leads to another huge one and another. To me the Cream of Norton crop, and first really long range model that could actually lock tire, once the constrictor eye poked out.
http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk31 ... ph0003.jpg
http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk31 ... ph0004.jpg
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2009
- Messages
- 591
Acadian,
The Norton has more race history and handling legacy than any of the metric bikes.
You never heard a Norton being coined the widow maker due to poor handling at higher speeds.
You are riding a 1948 design carried into the mid 70's.
The tripple and metric onslaught were a completely new design.
I run out of top end pretty quickly but I get there damm quick.
Comparing triples to twins all I can attest is I had Triumphs: a Tiger and a Bonne and they never pulled out like my Norton.
What takes allot of revs and 6 speeds I can get done in under 5 grand with 4.
That's my story and I'm stickin to it :mrgreen:
Hey Hobot, I know they was blowin em up everywhere but the highway speeds I read in an older article made the problem surface quiker.
That's why everybody has been playing with the oil breather for 30 years only to realize it is fine where it is at.
Another unneccessary speed shop performance sales pitch
Thee Marshal
The Norton has more race history and handling legacy than any of the metric bikes.
You never heard a Norton being coined the widow maker due to poor handling at higher speeds.
You are riding a 1948 design carried into the mid 70's.
The tripple and metric onslaught were a completely new design.
I run out of top end pretty quickly but I get there damm quick.
Comparing triples to twins all I can attest is I had Triumphs: a Tiger and a Bonne and they never pulled out like my Norton.
What takes allot of revs and 6 speeds I can get done in under 5 grand with 4.
That's my story and I'm stickin to it :mrgreen:
Hey Hobot, I know they was blowin em up everywhere but the highway speeds I read in an older article made the problem surface quiker.
That's why everybody has been playing with the oil breather for 30 years only to realize it is fine where it is at.
Another unneccessary speed shop performance sales pitch
Thee Marshal
Mine is a June '72 combat; have no idea if it is superblend or not. Serial # is 210426. There are some (Ontario Norton Owner's Club) who report that the factory installed superblends starting at 207198. Other info (this forum, for one) suggests a later number.
I rode mine like a maniac the first 3,000 miles, i.e. accelerated as hard as I could most of the time, and WOT way more than I like to think about now. Did not, however, ever run on low oil. Never ran any oil but Castrol GTX until recent switch to V-twin.
The last 1,000 miles have been ridden like an old man (which I am). Admittedly, I don't lug in higher gears. Anyway, so far no problems with bearings, etc.
I rode mine like a maniac the first 3,000 miles, i.e. accelerated as hard as I could most of the time, and WOT way more than I like to think about now. Did not, however, ever run on low oil. Never ran any oil but Castrol GTX until recent switch to V-twin.
The last 1,000 miles have been ridden like an old man (which I am). Admittedly, I don't lug in higher gears. Anyway, so far no problems with bearings, etc.
htown16 said:
This may not be the best choice of words to use ?
During the Combat era, they built Combat and non-Combat 750 engines.
After the Combat experience, they went back to building just the standard (non-Combat) 750 engine.
Only with all the improvements they learnt along the way - superblend bearings, timing advance/retards with better springs and posts, 32 mm carbs (?)....
If they'd had time to know this needed to be done BEFORE doing the Combat engines, who knows where we could be today ??
P.S. However, Nortons always were "a mix of parts" - thats how they get the different models.
Name a motorcycle maker that doesn't do this... ??
I had a combat that allegedly was supplied new in the states in late 71. It was titled 10/71 with the following no:'s
Frame tag- 138327
Engine no: 209416
The guy I sold it to was an ex-Dunstall rider/test pilot and being a very fastidious and enthusiastic man, researched its history and informed me of the above.
I always thought it was a retrofitted 71/72 but for all his research, he identified it as either a factory or dealer upgraded 71 stock frame with all the combat goodies inc disc brake front end.
http://youtu.be/YalHugPcRQc
Frame tag- 138327
Engine no: 209416
The guy I sold it to was an ex-Dunstall rider/test pilot and being a very fastidious and enthusiastic man, researched its history and informed me of the above.
I always thought it was a retrofitted 71/72 but for all his research, he identified it as either a factory or dealer upgraded 71 stock frame with all the combat goodies inc disc brake front end.
http://youtu.be/YalHugPcRQc
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2004
- Messages
- 20,416
Brad said:
This information also appears in my copy of the INOA Tech Digest, however, I'm fairly sure this is an error stemming from Norton Service Release N2/6, July 1972.
The information given in my INOA Tech Digest is: "207197, Superblend roller main bearings introduced"
The N2/6 Service Release deals with premature main bearing failure, specifying that replacement bearings should be "Skefco" (SKF) type NJ306.
The Service Release further states that: "Models subsequent to Engine Number 207197 incorporate a nominal increase in bearing housing diameter to overcome any significant tendency to excessive closure of the single lipped outer series of roller bearings."
The NJ306 is not the "Superblend" bearing, and is not referred to as such in that particular Service Release.
The Service Release detailing the change to the Superblend (R&M 6/MRJA30) is N2/9 August, 1972.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,723
kind of depends on which Norton
when the Commando came out and after guys had a couple thousand or so miles on them it really never occurred to any of us that is was very important to reshim the isos, especially the rear.
In fact, the more miles on Commandos the smoother they got because the iso clearances got looser.
And that was the problem, a real damn scary experience that scared the hell of of riders, caused accidents and even deaths.
I don't need to remind anyone here on a Commando forum about the "dreaded" Commando weave when banked over at a higher speed and letting off the gas, the weight shifts to the front and unloads the rear wheel, aggravating the now looser rear swing arm and setting off the Weave.
I remember the first time, at age 20, that I experienced it, I had no idea that such a thing could happen on a motorcycle and as I went into an almost completely uncontrollable weave I fought it to a standstill with white knuckles on the bars and my sphincter puckering like there was not going to be a tomorrow.
If Ralph Nadar wasn't tied up writing about the Corvair, he would have called his new book "Unsafe at Speed".
Guys were hurt, some were killed, and we will never how many because the dead can't talk and the traffic reports just say Motorcycle Fatality.
Although rubber mounting the swing arm was necessary to keep the vibes acceptable to keep on selling an aging design in a new era of smooth Japanese fours, I personally wish that much stronger language and training was given to new Commando owners to alert them of the importance of reshimming the rear iso within specs.
Ok, I know some will bash me for what I have said about our beloved Commandos, and I do love mine, but I can only speak my own experiences honestly with no glossing over.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 18,978
The first issue of Commando may of been one of the worse widow makers until they fixed the frames breaking at the stem area. Commandos may be the one of it not the most dangerous bike to play fast on as by the time THE Hinge onsets its just gets worse for a while no matter what Ya do, backing off as mentioned or going faster that got ya in trouble to begin with. I know better than press a unlinked Cdo much but am besides myself to have one I can not induce any weave or wobble no matter what I tied.
No reason to bash ya, 1up. I am sure your opinion is shared by most. They are what they are.
Simply put, I love the Norton for what it is AND for what it isn't.
I can honestly say that I do not know if one part on this one is original. I am sure it was not a
Combat to start with.
Someone replaced the head with a Combat head, hence its Combat heritage began late in its life. It supposedly had an Atlas head on it at one time. The C head has just been retired for a reworked RH1, a good head with good geometry and tighten up by JC. I have also shaved .040" off the face and brought intake port (28.5mm) to 30mm to match the 30mm end of the 32mm to 30mm adapters, all of what a Combat head should be but without the bad. It may not be a Fullauto but it is right.
Along with the stage 1 cam and a few dozen or so other goodies, I consider this Combat as good as any.
Simply put, I love the Norton for what it is AND for what it isn't.
I can honestly say that I do not know if one part on this one is original. I am sure it was not a
Combat to start with.
Someone replaced the head with a Combat head, hence its Combat heritage began late in its life. It supposedly had an Atlas head on it at one time. The C head has just been retired for a reworked RH1, a good head with good geometry and tighten up by JC. I have also shaved .040" off the face and brought intake port (28.5mm) to 30mm to match the 30mm end of the 32mm to 30mm adapters, all of what a Combat head should be but without the bad. It may not be a Fullauto but it is right.
Along with the stage 1 cam and a few dozen or so other goodies, I consider this Combat as good as any.
- Status
