Featherbed verses commando frame

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reading this thread with great interest as I was beginning to take an interest in UK road racing - spectating and marshalling - in the late 1960s.
From memory and looking at Claudio Sintich's book on the Thruxton Bonneville, 1969 looks to be just about the only year with an overlap of featherbed framed 750s and Commandos in the production class in the UK. For example, the results of the Hutchinson 100 at Brands Hatch August 10 1969 are shown as:

1st Mick Andrew 750 Commando
2nd Tony Smith 660 BSA Spitfire
3rd Rod Gould 660 Triumph Bonneville
4th Ray Pickrell 750 Dunstall Dominator <--Atlas engine, featherbed frame
5th Peter Williams 750 Commando
6th Percy Tait 760 Triumph Trident

Fastest Lap: Tony Smith 1m50.2s 86.57mph

Mick Andrew was riding for the well known London dealers and racing supporters Gus Kuhn Ltd. These were all amongst the top riders in their day.

Here is an extract from the programme introduction:

Featherbed verses commando frame


And list of riders

Featherbed verses commando frame


Earlier that year Thruxton Bonnevilles had won at the Thruxton 500 (no Nortons in top 6!) and at the TT where Uphill famously set the first 100mph lap for a production bike. Norton Commandos were placed 2nd (Paul Smart) and 4th (Mick Andrew).

The repeat race in Hutchinson 100 race in 1970 shows Atlas/Featherbed bikes entered but top 6 places are Triumph Trident, Norton Commando, Thruxton Bonnie, Triumph Trident, BSA Rocket III, Norton Commando. By 1971 no Atlas/Featherbed bikes were entered.

You can see many race programmes from the era here https://daveriley.weebly.com/

As others have said Commandos and Tridents/Rocket3s then took over for a while at any rate. Most Commandos raced with success in the open 1000cc classes (non-production) were usually Seeley framed although some standard frames were used.

Such good memories for me.

Andy
 
Last edited:
DevonNorton said:
Reading this thread with great interest as I was beginning to take an interest in UK road racing - spectating and marshalling - in the late 1960s.
From memory and looking at Claudio Sintich's book on the Thruxton Bonneville, 1969 looks to be just about the only year with an overlap of featherbed framed 750s and Commandos in the production class in the UK. For example, the results of the Hutchinson 100 at Brands Hatch August 10 1969 are shown as:

1st Mick Andrew 750 Commando
2nd Tony Smith 660 BSA Spitfire
3rd Rod Gould 660 Triumph Bonneville
4th Ray Pickrell 750 Dunstall Dominator <--Atlas engine, featherbed frame
5th Peter Williams 750 Commando
6th Percy Tait 760 Triumph Trident

Fastest Lap: Tony Smith 1m50.2s 86.57mph

Mick Andrew was riding for the well known London dealers and racing supporters Gus Kuhn Ltd. These were all amongst the top riders in their day.

Here is an extract from the programme introduction:

View attachment 8265

And list of riders

View attachment 8264

Earlier that year Thruxton Bonnevilles had won at the Thruxton 500 (no Nortons in top 6!) and at the TT where Uphill famously set the first 100mph lap for a production bike. Norton Commandos were placed 2nd (Paul Smart) and 4th (Mick Andrew).

The repeat race in Hutchinson 100 race in 1970 shows Atlas/Featherbed bikes entered but top 6 places are Triumph Trident, Norton Commando, Thruxton Bonnie, Triumph Trident, BSA Rocket III, Norton Commando. By 1971 no Atlas/Featherbed bikes were entered.

You can see many race programmes from the era here https://daveriley.weebly.com/

As others have said Commandos and Tridents/Rocket3s then took over for a while at any rate. Most Commandos raced with success in the open 1000cc classes (non-production) were usually Seeley framed although some standard frames were used.

Such good memories for me.

Andy
Click to expand...
Thank you for that it's just the sort of info I was looking for
 
worntorn said:
I wonder where the 75 pounds is.
The frame weights, according to member Lance are:

Commando – Some sort of 750, I think. No IDBare Frame: 28.5lbsFrame and Swingarm: 36.5lbsFrame, Swingarm and Isolastic Plates: 49.0lbs

Featherbed – 1955Bare Frame: 32.5lbsFrame and Swingarm: 40.0lbsFrame, Swingarm and Engine Plates: 43.0 lbs.


So just six pounds more for the Commando setup with Isos, a little less than I would have guessed.

Glen
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where all the weight difference comes from, Glen. For one thing, I put a lot more effort into getting the weight down on the feather bed than I had on the Commando Production Racer. The Commando had iron cylinders, where I was using alloy cylinders on the featherbed. I had twin front disks on the PR, vs. a single on the FB. The glass tank on the PR was noticeably heavier than the Lyta alloy tank on the FB. The PR had the glass faring and steel mount. I still had a lot of steel fasteners on the PR, vs. mostly Ti on the FB. The PR had the original steel engine cradle, where the FB had alloy plates. PR still had a battery, where the FB didn't (ARD mag). That's all I can think of offhand.

Ken
 
Fast Eddie said:
Baz, the answer to your question is yes, featherbed framed bikes have definitely beaten Commando framed bikes on the track.

But... Commando framed bikes have also beaten featherbeds!

It would certainly come down to rider ability and / or bike set up IMHO.

I’ve ridden both on the track, but the bikes were too different in too many ways, and I’m not a good enough rider to see through that.

What we really need is feedback from a good rider who has ridden good examples of both, fitted with the same powertrain...
Click to expand...

A good bike makes a good rider, not the reverse. There are many ways you can make a bike handle like a pig. With a featherbed two common ways are - 1. have the motor too far back.- 2. fit 18 inch wheels to a frame with steering geometry designed for use with 19 inch wheels. With the Commando, it was developed by a pretty good race rider. When the Domiracer was developed, it was raced about once with an excellent rider on-board. Featherbed twins have never been as good handling as Manx Nortons. The weight distribution and power characteristics can never be right. This stuff about 'a good motor in a good frame makes a good bike', is very sus. There is a lot more to it than that. The only reason Tritons were ever developed was that Norton would never sell a Manx engine on it's own. That is why in the old days, many featherbed frames were sourced from owners of Formula 500 race cars. They would buy a complete Manx to get the engine.

When Tom Phillis raced the Domiracer on the IOM for Norton, would he have said if it had given him a hard time ?
 
A good enough rider will ride around a frames shortcomings. Look at Hailwood on the Hondas for example.

On top of your points Al, it is even easier, and far more common place, to upset a bikes handling by fitting incorrect or poor quality shocks and worn out forks, or forks with incorrect springs and oil in them. Add crap tyres and poorly adjusted isolastics and you have a pedigree camel !

A well set up Commando would out handle a poorly set up featherbed and vice versa IMHO.
 
The biggest handling problem I have with my roadgoing Fbed bike is a tendency to head for the ditch on the near side of the road when turning thru a rolling 90 degree corner.
This is especially pronounced after riding a C Vincent as low speed turning on those bikes requires a lot of input force.
The FBed steering is so light and the bike so responsive that it takes a bit of getting used to.

Glen
 
I spent a lot of dollars respoking wheels and buying rubber for my Triton which used to have 19 inch wheels and rock hard tyres. After making the changes I was forced to go slower around corners and when I got off the bike after racing , I was always exhausted. When you talk about light steering, it is always comparative. Some bikes are so light steering, they are dangerous. My Seeley is not light steering because I don't have to actually steer it. If I lean it and gas it, it goes more in the direction in which it is leaned. As I brake, it stays on line. A Manx Nortons do that to a limited amount - just enough to really make you want to stick your neck out. Most road bikes tend to run wide as you brake going into corners and run wide if you gas them coming out of corners. With the Seeley and the Manx, there is a positive shift in the handling. It is no longer neutral.
 
I had a coffee and a chat with an old ex racer yesterday. He started out on an Atlas and moved to Commandos when they came out and said that hands down, the Commando was better.

He added the caveat that they need setting up right (iso’s Etc) but when they were set up right, they were better than a featherbed.

The conversation started when I mentioned my thoughts on using a featherbed for my new motor and he said “you won’t like it, it’ll vibrate badly and anyway, the Commando frame handles better”.

If the Commando frame is so good... I’m gonna have to start thinking of new excuses...!
 
What Fast Eddie says about setting it up right. Also, a rider makes the race, the bike, not so much. Good examples of Stan Keyes and Doug McRae with some serious set up Commandos and track records to back them up.

To the OP's question, there are plenty of instances of both Commandos and Featherbeds winning. A while back there was Bob Goodpaster who successfully campaigned a Featherbed for decades and then there was Paul Lima who rode the wheels off of his Featherbed - seemed like nobody could come close to him.

Having the opportunity and pleasure to have owned and raced both a Commando and a Featherbed, they clearly have their unique attributes. A big, and I repeat big factor is rider comfort (mitigating fatigue) that the Commando can offer when properly set up. I had raced one of Herb Becker's Commandos and it was literally like a magic carpet ride - smooth as silk.

Today in North America the Nortons to beat are Stan Keyes and Doug McRae with Commando frames...………….unless you are on a Seeley Commando:)
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the smoothness also makes a rider subconsciously thrash the bike more ?

And free up brain space to concentrate on riding?

By isolating the rider from the engines vibes, he’s less likely to be thinking about that possible thrown rod or dropped valve or impeding seizure or etc,etc.

ESPECIALLY if he’s owner, rider and chief mechanic !!
 
I fragged a cast iron flywheel at race speed that I had lightened after reading from "a how to do it" booklet; never again with cast iron.

I began to think how nice it is to have that large round steel backbone of a Commando frame between that 20 something pound (hot, dripping with oil) flywheel spinning around with I don't know how many kilojoules of energy within a few tens of inches of your family jewels. With a Seeley or Featherbed the only thing between the two are twin carbs and an alloy tank, both full of race fuel.

Visualize the fragging of a flywheel at speed in "great balls of fire", literally and literally. So yeah, keeping riders distractions to a minimum is nice.;)
 
Indeed. I used to race with fibre glass tanks. I once threw a rod and the dent it left in the frame was alarming! The thought of there being nothing between my soft underbelly and all that heavy whirling steel and potential shrapnel, apart from a glass tank full of race fuel, was often on my mind!

And as an owner, builder, rider, mechanic I genuinely think that mechanical thoughts slow you down.
 
When I rebalanced my 850 crank, I simply tapped the hole and fitted a steel threaded plug with blue Loctite and punched the ends of the thread. I was about to drill the opposite side, the realised what I was doing and stopped. With the steel plug, the balance factor is already 72%. Which to me says something about the Norton Atlas, for which the crank was originally designed.. If I was racing a Commando, I would rebalance the crank, so that the motor runs smooth at near maximum revs. I would tolerate the vibes at low revs and forget about the isolastics.
 
Last edited:
Back in the 1970s when Commandos were new, there was an A-grade rider here in Australia called Jeff Curley. He rode a new 850 Commando in races against all-comers and beat them all. I raced a Featherbed Triton for about 12 years. It always felt too big and I was always bashing myself on something. In Australian historic racing, Featherbed Commandos get into historic period 3 and race against other drum-braked bikes which were manufactured before 1963. A normal Commando would race in period 5 against TZ350 Yamahas and Z900 Kawasakis and Suzuki GS1100s, unless it was made prior to 1973. My Seeley 850 gets into period 4 (1963 to 1972) even though the motor is theoretically 1973. If I race historic, my main opposition ride 1100cc methanol-fuelled CB750 Hondas They are fast enough to be interesting.
So what I am saying is, the competitiveness of your bike depends on the rules you race under. You are always better to take a step back and plan your attack, than build a bike and try to find a race class for it. In Australian historic races there are some genuine race bikes for which there are no suitable classes. Very few people ever historic-race an air-cooled Ducati in Victoria.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top