Does an 850 Handle Better than a 750 ??

As a totally meaningless aside (derail!!), regarding 'improved stability', I recall reading in one test pilot's memoirs (Yeager, Brown, Henshaw, Waterton... not sure which) that a good fighter plane was always that nth away from instability. It was to no advantage if you had to fight it to change direction...

But, re the original question, as these are all nigh on fifty years old maybe it's just academic? A well preserved example will feel better than an old unloved nail. Factor in the vast amount of suspension upgrades, and as Mart pointed out, tyre choices, then I'd expect few of us would or could appreciate the difference outside of a racetrack environment....

Possibly :)
 
EstuaryBoy said:
As a totally meaningless aside (derail!!), regarding 'improved stability', I recall reading in one test pilot's memoirs (Yeager, Brown, Henshaw, Waterton... not sure which) that a good fighter plane was always that nth away from instability. It was to no advantage if you had to fight it to change direction...

But, re the original question, as these are all nigh on fifty years old maybe it's just academic? A well preserved example will feel better than an old unloved nail. Factor in the vast amount of suspension upgrades, and as Mart pointed out, tyre choices, then I'd expect few of us would or could appreciate the difference outside of a racetrack environment....

Possibly :)
Click to expand...
This is one of the reasons I can't compare my 750 I have now
There are just too many modifications
But I'm thinking back 40 plus years when I had a stock mk2a and a stock combat both shod with roadrunners at that time
 
Mart UK said:
I'd have thought comparison from experience of our own rides will be very difficult. E.g., which tyres (and tyre width) we use, tyre pressures and their condition will have a major effect. I noticed much heavier steering when I moved to 4.10 Dunlops, vs 3.60, even though the 3.60s had some wear.
Click to expand...
Agreed, differences in design concept will be outweighed by specification and condition, especially on such old machines.
 
FWIW, I have a spare 850 frame / ANG yoke set taking up space if anyone local is looking to experiment.

I had heard the same "get yourself a 850 frame and ANG yokes" from both Les and Mick.
 
Last edited:
All I can say is Norton must have felt it was necessary
To go to the length of a redesign and the massive costs involved
 
Schwany said:
If you read that an 850 handles better than a 750 in a forum full of 850 owners, it must be true. Also probably depends on the color.
Click to expand...
The 850 frame is raked out 1° and the yokes deraked by 1°
Norton must have had good reason to alter it by that amount
But as said
I've had both and wouldn't put one head and shoulders above the other
 
Schwany said:
If you read that an 850 handles better than a 750 in a forum full of 850 owners, it must be true. Also probably depends on the color.
Click to expand...
Yes what’s with all these 850 owners here? Me thinks they protest too much. :)
 
baz said:
The 850 frame is raked out 1° and the yokes deraked by 1°
Norton must have had good reason to alter it by that amount...
Click to expand...
I have pondered this far too may times.
Are there any other Manufacturers that mismatched the pivot with the fork angle?
 
EstuaryBoy said:
As a totally meaningless aside (derail!!), regarding 'improved stability', I recall reading in one test pilot's memoirs (Yeager, Brown, Henshaw, Waterton... not sure which) that a good fighter plane was always that nth away from instability. It was to no advantage if you had to fight it to change direction...Possibly :)
Click to expand...
Further derail!-I've read that that's why Fokkers DR1 triplane was successful in the right hands
 
baz said:
The 850 frame is raked out 1° and the yokes deraked by 1°
Norton must have had good reason to alter it by that amount
But as said
I've had both and wouldn't put one head and shoulders above the other
Click to expand...
Yeah, I remember the last discussion on the yokes.

I have not had both, only a 70's something 750 Commando for a few months. It was OK, but a bad fit for me, because I preferred the way modern bikes handled and fit my torso. I already had an older P11 Norton, and in my case at that time that was enough Norton.

I like your comment about not being able to tell the difference. It makes sense to me. Right hands as just mentioned above.
 
I've had both, currently a '74 850. My '71 750 seemed "more responsive" and quicker. I know that's really vague and not very scientific but that's the way it felt compared to my 850. Overall, I preferred the 750 though the front brake is, IMO, totally inadequate for modern traffic. Actually, so is the stock 850 disc brake but it is easily modified to be quite good.
 
EstuaryBoy said:
fighter plane was always that nth away from instability
Click to expand...
True! All new fighters are not at all stable rather inherently unstable and are fly by wire; they cannot be flown by a human. Even the plane I fly, which is fly by wire, has had its center of gravity extended by the fact that computers (6) are flying it. In direct laws it's not path stable and at aft CG a real handful to fly, at least in the simulator. There have been no cases of the actual plane failing down to direct laws. In alternate laws it is path stable. The test pilots say it's not as bad as the sim and is quite controllable until a higher law is recovered and controllable enough to land if a higher law not recoverable. The sim presents worst case and we do land while in direct laws. At altitude in thin air it's a balancing act.

Watch the elevators on an F16 while taxiing as the computers attempt to keep it on an even keel over the bumps.
 
B+Bogus said:
My experience too. 850s better suited to long open road rides, 750s a little more agile.
Did I ever mention the Combat was my favourite Commando? ;)
Click to expand...
A Honda Goldwing is better suited to long open road rides. A Commando is for twisty mountain roads:)
 
Borderline instability is always going to be the ideal in a 'competitive' environment.
4th Generation fighters are inherently unstable and the Flight Control Computer is constantly correcting the flightpath. Without it they'd fall out of the sky.
Fokker Triplanes could 'climb like a monkey' and were agile due to the increased lift; the penalty being additional drag, which meant they were a sitting target in a straight line. 320 made.
The Sopwith Camel was designed with an aft Centre of Gravity to increase manoeuvrability (to compete with the little Fokker?), but was a pilot killer if flown outside the envelope. 5000+ made.

Norton had a reputation for the 'Commando Weave' which I noticed on a 750 with a 3.60 front tyre, but not on an 850 with the same tyres. A 4.10 on the 750 front also cured the weave.
I'm guessing this is why the geometry was changed?
 
B+Bogus said:
Borderline instability is always going to be the ideal in a 'competitive' environment.
4th Generation fighters are inherently unstable and the Flight Control Computer is constantly correcting the flightpath. Without it they'd fall out of the sky.
Fokker Triplanes could 'climb like a monkey' and were agile due to the increased lift; the penalty being additional drag, which meant they were a sitting target in a straight line. 320 made.
The Sopwith Camel was designed with an aft Centre of Gravity to increase manoeuvrability (to compete with the little Fokker?), but was a pilot killer if flown outside the envelope. 5000+ made.

Norton had a reputation for the 'Commando Weave' which I noticed on a 750 with a 3.60 front tyre, but not on an 850 with the same tyres. A 4.10 on the 750 front also cured the weave.
I'm guessing this is why the geometry was changed?
Click to expand...
A quick Google shows 413 pilots killed in combat in a Sopwith camel
And 385 killed in non combat!! Blimey
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top