How much does your Commando weigh?
- Thread starter Fullauto
- Start date
- Status
Fast Eddie
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2013
- Messages
- 22,136
Where has the weight been lost Ken,
Alloy barrels, alloy rims, removal or the stock coils and associated iron mongery, lack of front mudguard, smaller battery? Missing toolkit? I'm scraping the barrel now...
Alloy barrels, alloy rims, removal or the stock coils and associated iron mongery, lack of front mudguard, smaller battery? Missing toolkit? I'm scraping the barrel now...
Fast Eddie said:
Not to mention belt drive with Barnett clutch plates. There's an awful lot of weight in the primary drive. Also, the Fullauto Technologies head is half a kilo lighter. It certainly adds up. There's a bit in the Corbin seat too.
There seems to be a few skeptics here. Have we been taking a few Dyno pills? Do I really have to get a weighbridge docket?
I remember driving one of the prototypes on to a truck scale. With me sitting on it, it weighed 485 pounds. At the time, I was still fairly skinny, maybe around 140 lbs. There were no stands fitted then which would add to the production bikes' weight and the gas tank was a different shape. I would estimate a road-going weight of the Mk. 1 version, with a full gas tank, would be somewhere around 375 pounds. It was definitely lighter than the Atlas.
Fullauto said:
Is that a Bob Newby belt drive by chance? He supplies a lightweight dry clutch with his belt drive, that does cut out a lot of weight.
Sounds as though you have a beltdrive with a big old standard Commando clutch, so not much weight saving there.
Alloy rims are a bit lighter, I did know the number but I've forgotten. Seems to me the flanged alloys knocked about 5 pounds off my Commando.
It would take an awful lot of re-engineering to go from 514 to 344 wet, 170 pounds of metal removal.
I know Ludwig did this but he essentially threw out the entire bike other than frame and engine, and even those pieces had bits hacked off wherever possible. He replaced all sorts of metal pieces with home made epoxy bits( primary cover) used wheels and forks from a wee Honda dirtbike and replaced the MC inner tubes with bicycle tubes.
Not saying you haven't done this as i don't know the history of your bike, but I see a centre stand there which tends to indicate the heavy stuff is still mostly intact.
Your bike looks like a proper Commando, his, while neatly done, did not.
Glen
lcrken
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,047
worntorn said:
?? Where did that 514 come from? The advertised weight for the pre-MKIII 850 roadster was 418 lbs. Add 5 pints of oil and 3.5 gal (US gal) of gas, and you're still only up to 440 lbs. or thereabouts. In actual weighing, Cycle World put it at 446 lbs.
Ken
lcrken said:
The 514 came from Reggie, not sure of his source. Perhaps that is a MK3 start interstate with 6 us gallons on board.
Then there was the earlier Interstate which held even more fuel, but of course no starter weight.
It does seem a big number, as 344 seems small for a fairly standard machine on the road.
Dry weight often does not include the battery.
Weights are always fun. Manufacturers tend to fib to the down side, but not always, scales seem to vary wildly.
Glen
worntorn said:
It's a Tony Hayward belt drive with a Barnett clutch. It is considerably lighter than a stock setup.
I see a lot of numbers being bandied about. I recall that the claimed weight for a pre MKIII Roadster was 185 kilos dry. MKIIIs are considerably heavier. The fat lady of the Norton world,
I was surprised too. I would have thought about a 15 kilo loss, which I would have been happy with. A 12 litre, or thereabouts, tank, which means about 12kilos and the tank was half full. Therefore, if these scales are correct, means a ready to roll bike, with a full tank, at about 160 kilograms, or, around 352 pounds.
- Status
