I certainly have read of numerous small changes from the earlier Norton’s but did they make it a substantially better bike?
Does the MkIII have different crank bearings to the MkII?
As we know they were not faster, we’re they substantially more reliable? We’re they more comfortable to ride?
For example, I believe they had different crank cases. Was this to correct an existing weakness. We’re they more robust?
I believe the foot rests are different. Is that just because of the different gear and brake arrangement or is it to give a different riding position?
I wonder why they didn’t fit an oil pressure warning light that their Triumph stable mate was equipped with?
just wondering
I find half (well not quite) the pleasure of owning old pommie stuff is getting to understand them in context of the time when they were built. What the designers were thinking and what happened in the boardrooms to end up with what we have. Much as I love them sometimes I do think they were trying to make strawberry jam out of horse shit. And We all know the recipe for that, one strawberry to five pounds of shit
regards all
Al