is it a combat (2015)

dart6 · Jun 13, 2015

Hi all i've been a bit of a lurker here and enjoy the vast amounts of info here. I'm down in New Zealand and see a couple of other Kiwis on here as well.
The link i've provided shows a norton the guy swears is a combat. It has the C on the head he says Some of the american guys may recognise it as it belonged to i think the president of one of the owners clubs
Any thought?
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing ... ermanent=0

Rohan · Jun 13, 2015

Without going any further, if the listing is accurate and it actually is a 1973 model,
then it CAN'T be a Combat, they stopped making them by late 1972.
So there were no Combats for 1973.
There were standard tune 750's made for 1973 however.

Nothing to stop someone Combatting it later on though, or part doing it.

A peek at the factory records, if it exists for this bike, may just show if anything different about it. ?

dart6 · Jun 13, 2015

here is an older listing for it with more info in the questions at the bottom of the page

http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/motorbi ... 264193.htm

Rohan · Jun 13, 2015

This is some quotes from a previous Combat thread here. (of which there are many).
LAB is our moderator, and puts us all in the shade with detail Norton knowledge.

is there anyone who knows the last number of production for the Combat engined bikes?

L.A.B. said:
Commandos were supposedly either produced with detuned Combat engines or were built to standard specification from 211110.

On that basis, this is WELL past being a factory built Combat.
And if its 1973 built, it can't be anyway - there were NO Combats built in 1973.

1up3down · Jun 13, 2015

There were standard tune 750's made for 1973 however.

That would make sense, why not continue to make standard 750s another year into 73

but I have never heard of or seen one nor know anyone who has one...

not doubting you but can someone educate me on 73 750s?

Rohan · Jun 13, 2015

1up3down said:
but I have never heard of or seen one nor know anyone who has one...
?

This discussion has been had here before. Recently-ish
A small swag of folks chimed in with pics of theirs, and LAB pointed one out.

Its only the nuts on the cylinders and the 750 on the sidecovers with no pinstripes that give them away.
Otherwise look very similar to a 73 850.

(This ones cylinders have been painted black, as many have)
This is not a good example, will find another.

And this bike in NZ would appear to be one too, although has been Combatted.

tomspro · Jun 13, 2015

Rohan said:
Without going any further, if the listing is accurate and it actually is a 1973 model,
then it CAN'T be a Combat, they stopped making them by late 1972.
So there were no Combats for 1973.

Just to muddy the water further, mine is registered as a '73 but was actually built in 1972.
As best I can tell, It is truly a Combat.
Factory records and engine serial number more helpful here than what year the title says.

travelerjerry · Jun 13, 2015

Hope this helps?

" Jan 1972 200001 Fastback MK IV
" Jan 1972 200001 Roadster MK IV
" Jan 1972 200001 FastbackLR MK IV
" Jan 1972 200001 Hi-Rider MK IV
" Jan 1972 200001 Interstate

750cc
--- 200976 First Combat Engine
" --- 211110 First Detuned
" 1973 212278 Interstate
" Mar 1973 220000 Roadster MK V
" Mar 1973 220000 Hi-Rider MK V
" Mar 1973 220000 Interstate MK V
" Oct 1973 230935 Last 750cc Commando
Commando 850 Apr 1973 300000 First 850

Rohan · Jun 13, 2015

tomspro said:
Factory records and engine serial number more helpful here than what year the title says.

True.
But the month/year are stamped into the red VIN plate, and there is no arguing with that.
And the engine number of this bike for sale is visible, and its well into the 1973 range

tomspro said:
Just to muddy the water further, mine is registered as a '73 but was actually built in 1972.

Only in the USA can this happen ?
In many countries, falsifying the year of manufacture is a crime.
Perhaps more so lately than back then.
But the month/year of manufacture is stamped into the red VIN plate...
And Combats were ONLY made in 1972.

Rohan · Jun 13, 2015

travelerjerry said:
Hope this helps?

750cc
<snip>
" --- 211110 First Detuned

Agrees with what LAB is quoted, back earlier.

And is about 10,000 bikes earlier than this bike for sale. (assuming all the numbers were used and exist).
So its well past the Combat building era.

Danno · Jun 13, 2015

As I remember from back in the day, Combat-engined Commandos were fragile, temperamental-requiring the highest available octane fuel and were not very long-lived. Other than high-compression pistons, 32mm Amals and a more radical cam, were there any other differences?

The bike in the ad has the compression ratio (if the ad is truthful) and everything else has been gone through, so what does it matter? It is what it is, despite the owner's apparent attempt to pretend it's something it isn't. It's like George Washington's hatchet 2 heads and 17 handles down the road. You're only original once. If there are any original untouched Combat Commandos in existence, they must have been parked when new or bricked up in a wall like that weird Traub bike in Dale Walksler's museum. The reat were used and mostly used up, blown up or quickly worn out. The clue is; they stopped making them because people became wary of buying a rolling hand grenade.

Rohan · Jun 13, 2015

Danno said:
As I remember from back in the day, Combat-engined Commandos were fragile, temperamental-requiring the highest available octane fuel and were not very long-lived. Other than high-compression pistons, 32mm Amals and a more radical cam, were there any other differences?

The heads were shaved 0.040", and pistons were same as std bike.
Although some chat has revealed that some (all ?) batches of pistons were 50 thou above the deck height, inc in the std 750.

Representing it as a Combat when it wasn't built like that is a bit of a cheat,
regardless of what it has done to it since (4S cam, etc).
Chat here recently on Combats turned up a few that were still stock as built, and still going.
So they didn't all grenade....

pete.v · Jun 13, 2015

Kind of a catch 22. If it's original, it's a handgrinade. If rebuilt, then no longer original and therefore a cheat?

Rohan · Jun 13, 2015

pete.v said:
Kind of a catch 22. If it's original, it's a handgrinade. If rebuilt, then no longer original and therefore a cheat?

Strange comment ?
Depends on how they are rebuilt, doesn't it ?
If its a Combat, and rebuilt as a Combat, its still a Combat.

And as that sale in NZ notes (although it didn't start as a Combat) with a 4S cam its now stronger than a Combat .
(Performance AND motor, with superblends fitted)

Danno · Jun 13, 2015

pete.v said:
Kind of a catch 22. If it's original, it's a handgrinade. If rebuilt, then no longer original and therefore a cheat?

It's not a cheat because it's been rebuilt. It's a cheat because it's not a Combat and never was. If someone builds one to Combat spec and it stays together, it's not a Combat. either. No Combat built with OEM parts and not upgraded for reliability (Superblends etc.) will last any longer than an original. They blew up then, and if you built one the same way today, it would still blow up.

The bike in question is not a Combat and has been built (rebuilt) to a higher spec than an original Combat. To me, it would be worth more than a Combat to have and ride, although an actual Combat would be worth more to park in your living room and admire. I don't see any Vonnegut-type contradictions. The seller has unwisely misrepresented his machine to try to impress someone who doesn't know any better. Around here, there are many who know better and some that can even prove it. It still looks like a pretty nice machine. Just a shame the owner thinks he can pass it off as something it's not in a lame attempt to enhance its desirability.

pete.v · Jun 13, 2015

I guess my point is that "Combat" seems to be more of a term for the purest, not that there is anything wrong with that. To be a true Combat it must fit a very spacific, yet very limited, set of standards, and any deviation from said standards is then no longer a Combat. If this is not a true statement, then it can be said that it is a Combat if you say it is.

My bike has a special cam, a massaged head, Special carb, exhaust, reinforce cases, added support to handle excesses of power above the standard Roadster, the list of hop-ups goes on. But is it a Combat? No! Now it is an abomination in the eyes of the purist. Yet, it is the smoothest, most reliable and Commando looking motorcycle I have seen. Add the performance factor and it is the most Combat wannabe that one could imagine.

I guess my point is that "Combat" seems to be more of a term for the purest, not that there is anything wrong with that.

gortnipper · Jun 13, 2015

Come on. A Combat is a model produced a certain year, with certain features and marketed with a label. If someone owns one, rectifies certain defects and makes some mods, is it still a Combat? Of course. If someone builds one to spec is it a Combat model? No, it is simply built to the spec.

Rohan · Jun 13, 2015

Indeedy.
Combats were bikes that were sold out of the showroom, alongside other models.
Real bikes, in the metal, in the brochures, in the books, in the showrooms, on the road.

pete.v · Jun 13, 2015

gortnipper said:
Come on. A Combat is a model produced a certain year, with certain features and marketed with a label. If someone owns one, rectifies certain defects and makes some mods, is it still a Combat? Of course. If someone builds one to spec is it a Combat model? No, it is simply built to the spec.

You come on. A bastardized head, carbs, cam and a disc brake. That's It. You speak of spec in this instance as if it had technical significance. It is truly amazing how the mystique of this boondoggle and company embarrassment lives on.

Rohan · Jun 13, 2015

You bin eatin lemons again. ?!

The Combat was the (road) model that didn't have just the cooking engine and cycle parts under it.
It had the higher performance Combat spec motor - combat cam, hi compression (shaved) head, 32 mm carbs - AND the new fangled disk brake.
The fact it didn't work out as planned just makes it part of motorcycle legends, doesn't take away from its a verified model offered for sale.
In considerable numbers too, compared to some other makers sports models.....

is it a combat (2015)

Similar threads