Factory 1972 NON Combat spec?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hobot

Hobot

Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
18,978
Country flag
Wondering if anyone reading this has or had a factory issued non Combat spec '72 model and what was non Combat spec about it, barrel color to internal items, like head, compression ratio, cam, carbs or brakes.
 
Hi hobot

the 1972 750 came with silver barrels, only the Combat's were painted black

every other spec was the same as the earlier Commdandos, standard cam, 8.7 CR

I believe the Amal carbs were 30mm and not the 32mm the combat had

also, I recall the front brake continuing as a drum, with the combat being the first Norton
production run bikes fitted with a disc
 
My titled 73 was built in 72....221xxx. Combat cases, silver barrels, 32mm carbs, RH6 head, standard cam. :shock:
 
Wasn't the disk brake an option from 1971 ?

Combats, for 1972, the ONLY part year they were made, didn't get any different cases to the regular bikes that year either.

LAB has been through this with hobot about 10 times now.
Maybe you should take notes Steve,
save us having more groundhog days....

Edited so that Combats and 1971 don't appear anywhere near each other.
Combats were of course 1972 only.
 
MikeM said:
Perhaps its interesting information for some of us new members.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right....... So you have also experienced that deathly silence when you have asked a "dumb" question.. And then you found out later that your the only person in the world that didn't know the answer.. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
MikeM said:
Perhaps its interesting information for some of us new members.
Click to expand...

So ask away.
But its all in previous posts, if you care to search.

But hobot, on the other hand, has been through this, at least 10 times before.
And perhaps what some folks don't know here is that he cross posts all this to other lists.
Multiple times !!! The same ole linguine, again and again and again...
 
Naw nothing so sinister, just getting a sense of ratio of Bad Bombs vs Good Ones before asking my darker question > how non Combats came to be sold, ie: were non Combats sought out to get a Commando by avoiding the Bad One or just no more Combats available in their area? Was a price difference much a factor? May never know w/o some original buyers or their thoughts being relayed. Otherwise I got satisfied being filled in by the first few posters.
 
The first 2 posters posted conflicting info ? !!

You have cross-posted my replies onto other lists !!
Unfortunately, I was too polite to say that your post was utter crap.
Won't make that mistake again...
 
Rohan said:
And perhaps what some folks don't know here is that he cross posts all this to other lists.




I'm a bit upset to hear he's running around on us. Seriously though, if he's cross posting your comments then all of his advice can't be bad.?

As for keeping in the spirit of the thread topic I must say I can't recall ever seeing a 71' with a front disc. It must have been an exclusive upgrade that few were made aware of??
Click to expand...
 
Snorton74 said:
if he's cross posting your comments then all of his advice can't be bad.?
Click to expand...


My comments were good, anyway..... :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
 
Rohan said:
Wasn't the disk brake an option from 1971 ?
Combats didn't get any different cases to the regular bikes that year either.

LAB has been through this with hobot about 10 times now.
Maybe you should take notes Steve,
save us having more groundhog days....
Click to expand...

Rohan,

Where are you getting combat engines in '71 model year? All the publications include Norton sales brochures show combat as '72 model year with Bacon's book stating the first combat was 200976. The 200xxx cases were referred to as the combat case although all the 200xxx likely were these with reinforced inner casting. If you are referring to combats with mfg dates in late '71 I would agree, but these are early '72 model year. To my knowledge there were no combats built with 151xxx or earlier cases. My 201881 combat has mfg date Dec '71 and my first combat 201123 Oct '71.
 
Poor wording.
2 sentences close together with no connection between them.
Now amended..

Good to see Combat chapter and verse quoted, again again again.

P.S. Oct 71 would be a very early Combat, did they make them that early. ?
Not knowing the history chapter verse and paragraph perfect...
 
P.S. Oct 71 would be a very early Combat, did they make them that early. ?
Not knowing the history chapter verse and paragraph perfect...[/quote]

Appearantly if 200976 was the first combat and mine at 201123 was Oct '71 stamped.
 
The Norton history books say that the Combat was announced in Jan 1972,
and the factory numbers started from 200,000 in Jan 1972 too.

So was the factory stockpiling them for 3 months prior to the announcement,
or was the announcement 3 months after they started selling them and numbering them like that.
??

I'm sure we've had this discussion before,
but now I wasn't taking notes.

The history books also say the disk brake was now a std fitting - for 1972.
Implying that the optional disk brake mentioned some places was pre 1972
??
 
Rohan said:
The Norton history books say that the Combat was announced in Jan 1972,
and the factory numbers started from 200,000 in Jan 1972 too.

So was the factory stockpiling them for 3 months prior to the announcement,
or was the announcement 3 months after they started selling them and numbering them like that.
??

I'm sure we've had this discussion before,
but now I wasn't taking notes.

The history books also say the disk brake was now a std fitting - for 1972.
Implying that the optional disk brake mentioned some places was pre 1972
??
Click to expand...
That information is not correct. Model year production started in Sept of the previous year. My current combat was later with 201881 and mfg Dec'71. So by that time would assume 1881 Commandos had been produced in 1971 to 1972 model year spec. Actually there is over lap as 151673 to 151703 were mfg'd between 7 Oct 71 and 14 Nov 71. I have a copy of that production record page.

The 72 sales brochure states front brake either ventilated twin-leading shoe or high efficiency disc.
 
Does anyone have a page showing production of anything numbered more than 200,000 prior to Jan 1972. ?
That Jan 1972 date is specifically mentioned, rather then the usual Sept the previous year...

The 72 brochure is somewhat ambiguous - it also says that the disk was optional for Roadsters and Interstates.
And shows pics of them.
But elsewhere, it is said the Combats got disks.
(ALL of them ?)
 
I have headstock plate: 201856 Dec 1971
The bike has the disc brake, but I don't know if it was originally on the bike.

And non-Combat marked cylinder head.
 
Rohan said:
The Norton history books say that the Combat was announced in Jan 1972,
and the factory numbers started from 200,000 in Jan 1972 too.

So was the factory stockpiling them for 3 months prior to the announcement,
or was the announcement 3 months after they started selling them and numbering them like that.
??

I'm sure we've had this discussion before,
but now I wasn't taking notes.

The history books also say the disk brake was now a std fitting - for 1972.
Implying that the optional disk brake mentioned some places was pre 1972
??
Click to expand...

I have seen the statement "now std fitting" referring to the '72 model year, but is was late in the model year and due to little or no interest in the drum front brake. The factory was not necessarily stockpiling as the factory records show shipments out of the factory of '72 models prior to Jan '72. If any stockpiling it was at the distrubutors such as Berliner here in the US. The factory records only show date shipped and to which distributor. They don't show when the machine was sold to a customer.
 
My '72 Combat's head stock plate says April '72 it has the disk front brake , and all numbers match, but I have never been able to find any sign of a "C" marking on the head. The carb ports are 32 mm though ... I've always wondered what happened to my "C" marking ... all other aspects of bike say Combat #207384 ... is it really
Craig
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top