Commando inner gearbox cover

What was the reason for Norton changing the inner gearbox design on the AMC box at the Kickstart shaft/return spring point?
Was it simply to stop the spring from breaking?
Are there any other differences on this cover?
Cheers

the later spring is far more strong and thus had a more positive return, plus less chance from the spring to escape from the hole ( it happens to me , when mixing pre cdo parts with cdo gearbox )

marinatlas said:

the later spring is far more strong and thus had a more positive return, plus less chance from the spring to escape from the hole ( it happens to me , when mixing pre cdo parts with cdo gearbox )

Click to expand...

Ok thank you
I thought I had read it was just for better spring location so that pretty much confirms it
Did you know God created bungee cords just for kickstart returns on all British bikes!!!

When I converted the SS clone to RHS, I used an older model inner cover and have fortunately never had an issue.

Danno said:

When I converted the SS clone to RHS, I used an older model inner cover and have fortunately never had an issue.

Click to expand...

I was recently considering using a atlas gearbox in my 750
It already has a commando main shaft fitted
And my commando has an electric start so I wasn't over concerned about the kickstart return spring
But in the end I reconditioned the commando box
But I am going to build another commando and the atlas box will be earmarked for that, I'm going to see if it'll fit the gearbox cradle before I machine the 1/4" off the top
Cheers

baz said:

1/4" off the top

Click to expand...

?
A 3.33 vs C 3.18

Should have been 1/8" off the width of the gearbox not 1/4"
I believe that's what they did with the commando?
Cheers