Cycle World Editors dig Commandos.

Thanks.
Some interesting information.

bobyacenda said:

The Norm White drag run was a brand new 73 Combat with factory settings, it produced 12.24 sec 1/4 mile...

Click to expand...

1973 Combat?
According to Norman's website it was February 1972.

http://www.normanwhite.co.uk/profile.htm

In February 1972, Norton Villiers chairman Dennis Poore sent him to the USA to prove to the disbelieving American importers that his published elapsed time to cover a standing quarter mile in 12.6 seconds on a standard 750 Commando was true. In front of a large entourage of Press, Norton officials, and world class drag racers he achieved a standing start quarter mile in 12.24 seconds, at the Orange County raceway. As far as we know, this time has never been equalled on a stock Commando.

Click to expand...

Combat's and other popular '72 Commando factory manual says they weigh 420 lb so with a 170 lb pilot... How about that for old school performance tune up.
http://www.wallaceracing.com/et-hp-mph.php
HP is 63.59 computed from your vehicle weight of 590 pounds and ET of 12.24 seconds

hobot said:

Wonder whose rpms rates are the most memorable [yet not damaging Matt]. A weak Lucas part not Norton let em down. It took me a long time to understand why front air better be a bit lower than the rear, so the rear can rule the Roost. Not many Commandos with rev limiters I only know of 2 so far. Some of us like crave rpms to feel like a turbo fan propulsion.

Click to expand...

The MkIII tacho is red lined at 7000rpm. I've never thought to limit it to less but have never used 7000 either, never had the need. I used to be up there constantly with my combat. The Commando is the closest thing you will ever experience that is like a turbo fan in my opinion.

Regarding bumping Commandos, this is how you start them.
But the MkIII can be started with both feet on the pegs, on the centre stand you then move your weight to the back of the seat and launch off at a frightening speed. Very impressive when done in the underground shopping car park. Grannies and children run for their lives!

hobot said:

Combat's and other popular '72 Commando factory manual says they weigh 420 lb so with a 170 lb pilot... How about that for old school performance tune up.
http://www.wallaceracing.com/et-hp-mph.php
HP is 63.59 computed from your vehicle weight of 590 pounds and ET of 12.24 seconds

Click to expand...

Also hobot,
I have a 1970 or there abouts road test on the Commando Roadster/Production Racer that I think you would enjoy. They raved about both machines, handling and performance. As soon as I dig it up, I'll publish it for you.

Phil

Ugh Phil I'm an aberration along the lines of the moonshiners having faster cars than first dozen years of NASCAR. I cut my penny loafer slide rule holster polyester shirt teeth on a freaking national champ P!! dragster so even my beloved Ms Peel that could run out from under me if not set for it in lower gears was tame compared by like a couple seconds down a 1/4 mile and Peel's top out took so long only did it once. I couldn't lean steer the dragster and I couldn't get much sprint satisfaction out of Peel past the ton, so what's a fella to do with just so many weekends left? Get the the rear hot with nil brake burn outs then do some clutch feel jerky creeps up to the line, then wait on X-mass tree feeling the next lanes power pulses, then running up rpm guessing between bogging spinning out of just the right hook up launch to 45's then WOT throttle into power peak ya barely have time to get feet up before valve float to 2nd.
1st gear she's alright
2nd gear hand on tight
3rd gear what a fright
4th gear dearly beloved...


Study it a bit, note rear patch G's force Hook UP and what appears as shadow leaving rear tire is actually assault and rubber jets. This was in chemical photograph days '99, so lucked out a friend snapped it and gave me a 8x10 glossy examined close then scanned digital on zoom. In full picture I'm in front of the wheelie bared drag only 1200 over cammed Sportster that'd pass me about 80 mph a bit over half way of 1/8th miler. Pre-Peel pure factory Combat would hit 87 mph the HD about a dozen more. I hate wheelies and my dragster taught me how they did it back then so suspect this record taking '72 had its forks sucked down somewhat somehow besides tune dialed in.

Yes, Norm and I are not on the same page as to the date he came out to do the drag test.. I will leave it to Norm to check out his old passport stamp.. As I cannot find the specifics on the actual date ... I do not suspect it is all that important 72/73 as he did achieve the times posted..

This is what 13-12 second range 1/4 miler's are like to compare to back when. A decent Combat could take em.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lApuMeRVZdI

bobyacenda said:

Yes, Norm and I are not on the same page as to the date he came out to do the drag test.. I will leave it to Norm to check out his old passport stamp.. As I cannot find the specifics on the actual date ... I do not suspect it is all that important 72/73 as he did achieve the times posted..

Click to expand...

I'd think any controversy surrounding the Combat's 1/4 mile time would have been long over by 1973, and by '73 the Combat model was history, the 750 also no longer the flagship model of the '73 range.

bobyacenda said:

I was in England when the 1970 comparison test was done, but there was a deep concern about the “cheating” tone that existed during that get-together. So it was determined that the Norton Roadster for this test was to be exactly what a customer would drive off the dealers showroom for all aspects of the testing.

The Commando generated about 45 to 70 upgrades and EC’s a year so before we gave the bike to Cycle, I had to clean and blueprint the entire bike to what was current from front to back. From the picture in the article you will see the black cylinder barrel, so we know it was the combat engine. I could not find the serial number to verify what was in the crankcase, as that was the only part of the bike I did not dig into. The bike was prepped in October 1972, so everything available at that point in time was in or on the bike.

So to all questioning the cam.. assume it was a Used, NOT worn, 2S. Cycle did not publish the open/close timing specs for the teardown inspection, nor do I have Axtel’s dyno printouts to compare with the Cycle published graphs. The Axtel dyno output graphs for cam tests that I had, are now just blank pieces of paper. Bottom line.. it was the Combat 2S cam in that test bike, set to factory spec. I found no reference to the main bearings used.

Click to expand...

I find this interesting, as Combat production had ended before October 1972, and the factory wished to distance itself from the whole sorry Combat fiasco, therefore it does seem slightly odd (to me at least) that although the bike was apparently meticulously prepared to the latest factory specification that it would still have had a 2S camshaft in it?

bobyacenda said:

This bike would not have had a 10:1 compression, as I was not using a cylinder base gasket and always used the copper head gasket. Most likely it was the 1mm copper gasket, so the compression would have been 9:1.. not the 10:1 designed for the 2S cam.

Click to expand...

A minor point, but the quoted factory compression ratio figure for a Combat (RH3) head (if that's what it had?) ) with 1.0mm/0.040" head gasket and no base gasket was 9.8:1.