Norton Commando Fastback LR

I have only just discovered this forum, & 'stumbled across' a now-locked discussion about the Fastback LR, in particular, whether or not the Fastback LR was available with the ‘Combat’ engine.
I can assure sceptics that it was indeed possible to buy such a bike, as I did just that in July 1972, from an old established dealer, still trading, Fowlers of Bristol (UK) .
I was riding a BSA Rocket III at that time, & with the casual insouciance of youth I decided I wanted to try something different, & they were indeed very different machines.
My LR came in British Racing Green, & it was fitted with indicators, a front disc brake, & the “Combat” motor.
What 20 year old would not want to have the latest & most powerful engine?
What I cannot recall, more than 50 years on, was whether or not the disc was an option, or it had become the standard fit.
With hindsight totally predictably, the engine needed a rebuild before the 10,000 miles mark, although to the dealers credit it was dealt with expeditiously under warranty.
It was explained to me at the time that the engine was now fitted with the Superblend bearings, & I have seen it suggested in recent years that the dealers rebuild included an unadvertised lowered CR,
either with new pistons, or possibly a compression plate under the barrel.
That may or may not have been the case, but it would seem to be a sensible course to follow.
I ran the bike for another 18 months or so, then the itch to change yet again overcame me & it went to make way for a Triumph T150V.
4 Imperial gallons, & the LR was four gallons.
All in all, happy memories.
Martyn, Cheltenham UK.

The Combat and disc options were linked, order one and you got the other automatically.

kommando said:

The Combat and disc options were linked, order one and you got the other automatically.

Click to expand...

I bought it from the showroom stock, so I didn't actually order it, but the point being made by some in the original post, now locked, was scepticism that a Commando LR was ever factory produced with the Combat engine.
I can affirm that it was indeed possible, certainly in the UK, to buy such a beast !

Martyn520 said:

I can affirm that it was indeed possible, certainly in the UK, to buy such a beast !

Click to expand...

Regardless of a customer order or dealer order the 2 options were linked. What you also can't discount is someone seeing an LR with non combat engine and no disc in the showroom next to a combat interstate and asking for the interstate tank and panels to be swapped off the combat with disc onto the LR. Dealers would do such stuff to make a sale and the Commando seat and side panels made it an easy swap.

So, in hindsight, was it the Commando or the triple that you ultimately preferred?

Alan L said:

So, in hindsight, was it the Commando or the triple that you ultimately preferred?

Click to expand...

A fair question, & 50 years later I'm still unsure !
The triples were more frenetic, & the Commando seemed to have 'longer legs".
I enjoyed owning all three, but my ultimate preference was the BMW /5 range onwards, culminating 16 bikes later with an R9T !!

kommando said:

Regardless of a customer order or dealer order the 2 options were linked. What you also can't discount is someone seeing an LR with non combat engine and no disc in the showroom next to a combat interstate and asking for the interstate tank and panels to be swapped off the combat with disc onto the LR. Dealers would do such stuff to make a sale and the Commando seat and side panels made it an easy swap.

Click to expand...

I can discount that. It came out of the crate whilst I was there.

My current project is a Fastback LR, but I am considering just making it into a Roadster as the tanks and seats seem easier to come by. The tank for the LR is quite different from the Interstate, and even if I could get the fibreglass tail, the seat looks quite different from a Roadster or Interstate.

You can modify an Interstate seat to fit the LR tank, the ears need moving approx 2" backwards so the seat comes forward. I had the seat already stripped and could mock it up before relocating the ears.

This is the ears from RGM in stainless bolted to their fibreglass racing seat to also fit the LR (well the Interpol tank as its the same but with a radio cutout).



and fitted to the bike.




and with the modified Interstate

I wonder if there's a dedicated '72 FB tailpiece, since the frame has a wider seat loop than previous years.
The parts book shows the same part number, but it must have needed some persuasion to fit.

B+Bogus said:

I wonder if there's a dedicated '72 FB tailpiece, since the frame has a wider seat loop than previous years.
The parts book shows the same part number, but it must have needed some persuasion to fit.

Click to expand...

Really? Why would they widen the loop for '72 and then revert to the original from '73-'75??

Ron L said:

Really? Why would they widen the loop for '72 and then revert to the original from '73-'75??

Click to expand...

You're asking the wrong person

I believe from a fading memory, that Dave Comeau of britbike.com had, on his site , the different molds for the different size tail pieces. From the same faded memory, I think he had stopped doing new pieces.

kommando said:

You can modify an Interstate seat to fit the LR tank, the ears need moving approx 2" backwards so the seat comes forward. I had the seat already stripped and could mock it up before relocating the ears.

This is the ears from RGM in stainless bolted to their fibreglass racing seat to also fit the LR (well the Interpol tank as its the same but with a radio cutout).

and fitted to the bike.

and with the modified Interstate

Click to expand...

kommando said:

You can modify an Interstate seat to fit the LR tank

Click to expand...

Curious as to why you have a fastback tank but not the tailpiece and matching upswept seat. The Interstate tank is a much more rounded/oval affair.

GraemeH said:

Curious as to why you have a fastback tank but not the tailpiece and matching upswept seat. The Interstate tank is a much more rounded/oval affair.

Click to expand...

The Interstate tank is long and puts you too far back with standard footpegs, the Roadster tanks capacity is too small in Rural areas. So I have an Interpol tank which is larger than a Roadster and the seat is not as far back as the Interstate. As I use a modified Interstate seat there is no need for the LR tailpiece which does not fit Italian made frames with the wider rear hoop.

You mean you have a FB - LR tank?
Before I buy the tailpiece I've been looking at I'd better measure my rear loop - what are the Italian/British measurements please?

I have an Interpol tank, which is the LR tank but with a cutout on the top for a radio, I fit a tank bag into the radio slot.

GraemeH said:

You mean you have a FB - LR tank?
Before I buy the tailpiece I've been looking at I'd better measure my rear loop - what are the Italian/British measurements please?

Click to expand...

kommando said:

You can modify an Interstate seat to fit the LR tank, the ears need moving approx 2" backwards so the seat comes forward. I had the seat already stripped and could mock it up before relocating the ears.

This is the ears from RGM in stainless bolted to their fibreglass racing seat to also fit the LR (well the Interpol tank as its the same but with a radio cutout).

and fitted to the bike.

Click to expand...

Is this a full kit, or did you make the base and spacers?

I just spent about a while on the RGM site, and didn't see anything in their "kits" section. Somehow their website got even more difficult to navigate.

The issue I found is the '72 frame rear loop has a larger radius rear bend - I'm guessing to accommodate the wider 'D' section rear mudguard, since earlier frames used a narrower 'C' section. They both measure 255mm at the midway bend, but the '70 curves in more from the mid-point back.

'70 vs '72 frame loop comparison



The effect is the '72 frame fouls the early FB tail moulding - it's not 100% clear in the photo due to the rear tyre, but best endeavours etc...



Which goes back to my clearly contentious question - was there a late model-specific FB tail moulding - I'm guessing the one listed in the '71 & 72 parts book must be wider?
If so, presumably it would be OK on later frames...