Found. a true 70 Production Racer

A client that advertises on my web site took a 71 Norton on trade for one of his restored bike. I told him before he took the bike that it sure looked like a factory racer and as it turned out it is. This bike has all the correct fitting for the production racer and when it was purchased the body work was original. It has the odd front brake caliper in front of the fork leg, hydraulic brake switch on the caliper and the unusual but original master cylinder. The rear drum brake is also vented. The ID tag is positioned under the seat, similar to the later JPN machines. The engine was also found to be the short stock version as originally fitted. There was only 120 of these bikes produced before it became the "Combat" version of the Commando. Pictures and specifications are available from me via email. rmullett@shaw.ca. Not for sale at the moment.

Robin

As the rules state... "Without pics, it didn't happen" :mrgreen:

rmullett said:

The engine was also found to be the short stock version as originally fitted.Robin

Click to expand...

??? The engines originally fitted to the '71 PRs were standard long stroke 750 engines, supposedly fitted with Powermax pistons, 3S cam, and big valve heads. In fact many were assembled with whatever parts were on the shelf in the Andover race shop at the time. None were fitted with the short stroke 750 engine. The short stroke engine wasn't produced until '73/'74. I don't have the PR production numbers, but my memory says it was more like 200 than 120. I could be wrong. Other than that, they are cool bikes. My first race bike was a PR, and I really enjoyed it, but it came from the factory with only the Powermax pistons, and an otherwise totally standard engine. When I questioned Brian Slark about the missing high performance parts, he said that was not uncommon.

Ken

lcrken said:

but it came from the factory with only the Powermax pistons, and an otherwise totally standard engine. When I questioned Brian Slark about the missing high performance parts, he said that was not uncommon.

Ken

Click to expand...

Thats (almost) quite funny. !

Imagine if that happened today with a 'race' bike ....

rmullett said:

A client that advertises on my web site took a 71 Norton on trade for one of his restored bike. I told him before he took the bike that it sure looked like a factory racer and as it turned out it is. This bike has all the correct fitting for the production racer and when it was purchased the body work was original. It has the odd front brake caliper in front of the fork leg, hydraulic brake switch on the caliper and the unusual but original master cylinder. The rear drum brake is also vented. The ID tag is positioned under the seat, similar to the later JPN machines. The engine was also found to be the short stock version as originally fitted. There was only 120 of these bikes produced before it became the "Combat" version of the Commando. Pictures and specifications are available from me via email. rmullett@shaw.ca. Not for sale at the moment.

Robin

Click to expand...

Much like T120TT Triumph only 120 were made and 2000 survived. :mrgreen:

I believe the ID plate was under the seat in 1970 and earlier.

All the other pieces could have been sourced. Provenance not present is the key.

Probably original but would need to be verified. But you can't do it just by looking at the bike.

swooshdave said:

Probably original but would need to be verified. But you can't do it just by looking at the bike.

Click to expand...

I would think a first step would be to contact the NOC to verify the serial, and if a PR, it should have been noted in the factory record.

Knowing the first couple owners, and having pics of that bike at a race meet somewhere, with the original owner on it, would silence many critics.


I just came from a car show, where there was an original 1964-1/2 Ford Mustang 2 + 2 Fastback...

there is no such thing.

Ford Mustangs built from March through July 1964 are known by enthusiasts as 64-1/2s, though sold by Ford as a 1965 Model. Only Coupes and Convertibles were built during those months. The Fastback started production in August, 1964, and signaled the beginning of true 1965 model year production. Some early 1965 Fastbacks may have been mistakenly titled as 1964, but a 1964 fastback never left the factory.

Similarly, all 1965 Shelby GT350s were built in San Jose, California, and delivered to Shelby American in Venice as 'bodies in white', missing hoods, rear seats, several other components, and shod in 'slave wheels'. Shelby would finish the car in Venice, installing American Racing wheels, fiberglass hood, fiberglass tray behind the seat for the spare, and the several other items that discerned a Shelby from a standard Mustang. Shelby would rivet their own Serial Number plate on the left inner fender, right over the Ford serial number. All 1965 Shelbys had the serial number SFM 5SXXX, except for the 30 or so race cars, which bore the serial SFM 5RXXX, the last 1965 being SFM 5S562. Every 1965 - and the first 150 or so 1966 - Shelby Ford Mustangs bear the Ford serial number 5R09KXXXXXX. '5' stands for 1965 (Shelby American had approximately 150 leftover 1965 bodies, which were finished and sold as 1966 Shelbys), 'R' stands for San Jose, '09' stands for 2+2 body, and 'K' stands for Hi-Performance 289. As early GT350s typically sell north of $200K, it is tempting to make a clone and try to pass it off as genuine. All 1965-67 Shelbys were delivered from San Jose, and finished in Venice. 1968-70 Shelbys were delivered from Dearborn (factory code 'F') and finished by Kar Kraft in Brighton, Michigan, alongside the Boss 429 and competition Boss 302s

I digress, but the moral is 'caveat emptor'

A short stroke 750 PR would be worth having, however I think the rest is just commercial delusion.

My Dad bought a 64 1/2 mustang new a 4 spd car early cars had generator different hood and many other things that was my first car .

MkIIIDan said:

My Dad bought a 64 1/2 mustang new a 4 spd car early cars had generator different hood and many other things that was my first car .

Click to expand...

Yeah, all 64-1/2s had a hood where the the corner scallop from the front edge to the fender was turned down but not folded over.
Headlight buckets were different, too, the edge on top of the fender was slightly changed from 64-1/2 to 65, and that changed the bucket.
Generator cars had cooling vents punched into the radiator support to help cool the battery. 260 engine was only available in 64-1/2.
Carpeting didn't go up the sill - only on the floor. the sill had vinyl, which was sewn to the carpet.
The gas cap didn't have a retaining cable - this was changed after thousands were stolen.
The windshield wipers fastening to the cowl differently.
Door handle and window cranks were held on by circlips - this changed to allen screws through the handle in 1965.
The 'mustang' emblem was smaller for 64-1/2s

There were also a few other minor differences. Many items, like the carpeting, wipers, door handles and generator continued into 1965 production, but were changed to the newer stuff when stock ran out. Some things, like black carpet, changed right away. other things, like blue carpet, used the older stuff until November or December before they ran out.
64-1/2 had all of these things, 65s had some until they ran out.

acotrel said:

A short stroke 750 PR would be worth having, however I think the rest is just commercial delusion.

Click to expand...

Except for the fact that Norton never built a short stroke 750 PR. All the PRs (i.e. Commando 750 F.I.M. Production Class Racer) came with standard stroke 750 engines.

As a race bike it offered some significant advantages over the standard Commando, including less weight, alloy rims, tucked-in exhauset pipes, a vastly superior front brake, proper rear set controls, racing seat, and clip-ons, and a close ratio gearbox, plus having a Quaife 5-speed and Boyer electronic ignition available as factory options. I wouldn't call all those just commercial delusion.

Ken

plus having a Quaife 5-speed and Boyer electronic ignition available as factory options.

Click to expand...

I always thought they were offered with Lucas RITA ignitions.

acotrel said:

A short stroke 750 PR would be worth having, however I think the rest is just commercial delusion.

Click to expand...

Except that its already been pointed out here some time back that the short stroke was no improvement over the (standard) long stroke 750.
So was never really offered.

So its all the other bits that make it a racer.....

My friend Stefan Knittel once counted the genuine Proddy Racers for an article he wrote for "Motorrad Classic" in the despatch records and came up with I believe 105- certainly less than 110.

Standard long stroke engines. The short strokes didn't happen during Proddy Racer production times. Only the TX750 "Thruxton" racer, of which but a handful were produced, had them, and they were made in 1973/74 I believe.

In principle, any Commando can be turned into a Proddy Racer. The bits were first available through Gus Kuhn, then, when Kuhn lost interest, Mick Hemmings took up the thread and bought off Kuhn what was left. Forget all other stories to the contrary, I checked the facts with Valerie Davey, who has a very good memory of what went on in her father's shop at the time.

A brochure of what makes a Production Racer, and what to do with a Commando to turn it into one, is available from all Andover Norton dealers, because we just reprinted the brochure (part# N3/12).

ZFD said:

A brochure of what makes a Production Racer, and what to do with a Commando to turn it into one, is available from all Andover Norton dealers, because we just reprinted the brochure (part# N3/12).

Click to expand...

It's also available as a PDF in various parts of the interweb.

Rohan said:

acotrel said:

A short stroke 750 PR would be worth having, however I think the rest is just commercial delusion.

Click to expand...

Except that its already been pointed out here some time back that the short stroke was no improvement over the (standard) long stroke 750.
So was never really offered.

So its all the other bits that make it a racer.....

Click to expand...

Interesting comment about the Norton short stroke not being an improvement over the standard long stroke 750. Do you have a link to refer to. I have read the short strokes would reach the low 80 RWHP range but the 750 standard strokes would only get to maybe 75 RWHP and typically high 60's RWHP.

With the shorter stroke one was able to spin the engine 11% faster for a given max mean piston speed which translates to greater mass flow and greater power. The larger bore of the short stroke would allow larger valves; the advantages are obvious and real as I am living with an ultra short stroke race bike. The concept of too peaky does not hold water as what you loose in stroke/leverage you gain in piston area/force. Probably a wash and certainly looks that way when viewing my dyno pulls.

Maybe this "no improvement" was in the context of the times (ex mid seventies with a waning budget for development, or maybe shorter tracks in the UK at the time were more amenable to broader torque over higher power).

Just trying to get this comment in context.

Ron L said:

plus having a Quaife 5-speed and Boyer electronic ignition available as factory options.

Click to expand...

I always thought they were offered with Lucas RITA ignitions.

Click to expand...

Nope. Boyer. Standard was the normal mechanical advance Commando ignition, and the Boyer was an option. I bought my PR from Dan Gurney, who had ordered it from the factory fitted with the 5-speed gearbox and the Boyer ignition. The factory spec sheet for the PR recommended 28 degrees advance for the mechanical and 30 degrees advance for the Boyer.

Having said that, I can't guarantee that you couldn't have ordered a PR with a Lucas RITA if you had a good contact at the factory. They did a lot of odd things in the race shop. But I've never heard of one delivered that way. ZFD might know if that was possible.

Ken

Dances with Shrapnel said:

Interesting comment about the Norton short stroke not being an improvement over the standard long stroke 750. Do you have a link to refer to.

Click to expand...

It was discussed (to death ?) here on this very forum a while back.
Search, and ye shall find ??

Dances with Shrapnel said:

With the shorter stroke one was able to spin the engine 11% faster for a given max mean piston speed which translates to greater mass flow and greater power. The larger bore of the short stroke would allow larger valves; the advantages are obvious and real as I am living with an ultra short stroke race bike. .

Click to expand...

Except there were no heads with (significantly) larger valves - which is where the whole short stroke plot falls to bits ??

There were reportedly very few made, which alone suggests they were none too successful... ?
Apart from being years (decades ?) later than they should have been...

Wouldn't be surprised to hear that someone has subsequently tweaked one to go well - look forward to any details.

A quick google finds a suggestion that the Lucas Rita only appeared in 1973 ?
Anyone confirm ?

ludwig said:

And don't forget the color tuned door lock buttons ..
BillT , you should be on the Vintage Mustang Forum ( maybe you are ?)

all the differences :
http://www.mustangmonthly.com/thehistor ... tang_1964/

Click to expand...

Yes, they switched from colored plastic locks knobs to chromed plastic knobs. Also, the little snap-in grommet around the knob got upgraded from color-keyed plastic to chrome-look metal. Altogether, there are about 20 differences that all 64-1/2 Mustangs had. Some were killed at the advent of the '65 regular production in August, 1964, and some went on until the following spring.

I gave up Mustangs when I had to sell my Candy Apple Red (color code 'T') '66 GT Fastback to buy a house with a garage, back in 1990.

Maybe that's why I like Candy Apple Red Nortons

Rohan said:

Dances with Shrapnel said:

Interesting comment about the Norton short stroke not being an improvement over the standard long stroke 750. Do you have a link to refer to.

Click to expand...

It was discussed (to death ?) here on this very forum a while back.
Search, and ye shall find ??

Dances with Shrapnel said:

With the shorter stroke one was able to spin the engine 11% faster for a given max mean piston speed which translates to greater mass flow and greater power. The larger bore of the short stroke would allow larger valves; the advantages are obvious and real as I am living with an ultra short stroke race bike. .

Click to expand...

Except there were no heads with (significantly) larger valves - which is where the whole short stroke plot falls to bits ??

There were reportedly very few made, which alone suggests they were none too successful... ?
Apart from being years (decades ?) later than they should have been...

Wouldn't be surprised to hear that someone has subsequently tweaked one to go well - look forward to any details.

Click to expand...

It sounds like your context is ancient history; it seems like within a short time, everybody and their brother were enlarging the valves (at least the intake).

My recollection is that Axtell and others had very good success with the short strokes. I know I could not make the reliable trackable power and torque I do with the short stroke if I were working with an 89 mm stroke. As for searching the web or this forum, nah - it's moot.

You bring up an interesting point though about the factory short strokes; if sold with stock valves than that is certainly a limiting factor - the same or similar to selling a Norton with a factory stock valve seat angle (as compared to a highly enhanced valve seat and blending to port configuration).