Old vs new

Fast Eddie

VIP MEMBER
Joined
Oct 4, 2013
Messages
20,587
Country flag
I’ve forgoten the precise numbers and can’t be bothered to look them up right now (hey, I’m just being honest) but...

I think my old Cdo (much modified) comes in at under 400lbs and has 65rwhp.

The new Cdos weight seems to be the subject of some debate, but is gonna be at least 500lbs, and probably has around 70rwhp all being well.

So, if I’m right, the old un probably has a better power to weight ratio than the new un!

However, the new un has the benefit of super modern brakes, with ABS, top notch Ohlins bouncy bits and wide, modern, sticky, tyres.

It’ll be interesting to put em both back to back and compare...
 
Old vs new
Old vs new
A pal of mine & I swapped bikes for couple hours, I must admit I found my mates 750 roadster extremely smooth ,& the way it behaved in top gear at 30mph & opened it up all the way 70mph ,great torque,nice sound. My Nortoneer colleague couldn’t believe the brakes on the 961,I replied the same bout his roadster ,
 
65 rwhp from a much modified Commando vs. an estimated 70 rwhp from a stock 961 Commando seems like an apples vs oranges comparison. A fairer comparison would be stock vs stock or modified vs modified. If you just use the latest advertised weight and power values for the 961 (480 lbs. dry and 79 crank horsepower), compared to the same for an 850 MK2 (418-430 lbs. dry and 60 crank horsepower), you get pretty close to the same power/weight ratio for both. Since I am, like you, a new owner of a 961, as well as a much modified older (MK3) Commando, I'm also interested in the comparison. I've ridden both, and I actually find it hard to do a comparison. They really do have vastly different personalities. My MK3 does feel like it has a better power to weight ratio, but that might just be the broad torque curve of the 883 engine. The difference in braking and suspension is where the difference shows up. As you say, the 961 is modern day technology at it's best. The new bike, except for the engine, feels like a modern Yamasukihondacati. The older bike feels like what it is, a somewhat polished version of the best of the '60s and '70s British motorcycle technology. The older bike does feel lighter (because it is:)) on its feet, and falls into corners very easily. Being an old guy and used to that sort of handling, I love the way it feels in the twisties. The new bike is also a real pleasure to ride, but different. On a track, I think it would probably be significantly quicker, but it feels like it takes more rider effort to hustle it around the corners. Still, I haven't had enough time on it to start playing much with suspension setup and ergonomics, so there might be some improvement there. Essentially, I think it's what you would get if you took a Yamaha R1 and swapped in a built 920 Commando engine with a Quaife 5-speed. But the bottom line is that I love them both, and plan to keep riding and "improving" them as long as I can.

Ken
 
My Thruxton R weighs in around 450lbs and I was really gobsmacked at how light it felt to push around compared to the past 20 years of H-D big twin ownership.

My 961 doesn't feel any heavier than the Thrux so I would be very, very surprised if it was closer to 500lb.

I took the 961 out today and I don't know if it is the suspension (which is 100% perfect for me) which provides a silky smooth ride or the fact that I am consciously running her in but even with the lower clip-ons she feels lighter than the Thrux on roads that I have now got to know quite well.
 
My Thruxton R weighs in around 450lbs and I was really gobsmacked at how light it felt to push around compared to the past 20 years of H-D big twin ownership.

My 961 doesn't feel any heavier than the Thrux so I would be very, very surprised if it was closer to 500lb.

I posted a thread a week or so ago about the weight of the 961.
Mine weighed in at 488 lbs with a full tank of fuel.
My bike has an SBN exhaust, which is about 10 lbs lighter that the stock exhaust system.
So a stock Mk1 961 curb weight should be in the region of 498 lbs.

When accidentally I dropped the bike in my garage, I found it surprisingly easy to pick up.
Easier than any other big bike i've owned, easier even than my Hinckley Bonneville.
I think it is due to its fairly low center of gravity.
The crankcase is massive, and I'm sure it accounts for much of the heft.
 
I posted a thread a week or so ago about the weight of the 961. Mine weighed in at 488 lbs with a full tank of fuel.
I think the figure I got for the Thrux was dry weight so that might explain why they feel similar... to me at least!
 
:):)
65 rwhp from a much modified Commando vs. an estimated 70 rwhp from a stock 961 Commando seems like an apples vs oranges comparison. A fairer comparison would be stock vs stock or modified vs modified. If you just use the latest advertised weight and power values for the 961 (480 lbs. dry and 79 crank horsepower), compared to the same for an 850 MK2 (418-430 lbs. dry and 60 crank horsepower), you get pretty close to the same power/weight ratio for both. Since I am, like you, a new owner of a 961, as well as a much modified older (MK3) Commando, I'm also interested in the comparison. I've ridden both, and I actually find it hard to do a comparison. They really do have vastly different personalities. My MK3 does feel like it has a better power to weight ratio, but that might just be the broad torque curve of the 883 engine. The difference in braking and suspension is where the difference shows up. As you say, the 961 is modern day technology at it's best. The new bike, except for the engine, feels like a modern Yamasukihondacati. The older bike feels like what it is, a somewhat polished version of the best of the '60s and '70s British motorcycle technology. The older bike does feel lighter (because it is:)) on its feet, and falls into corners very easily. Being an old guy and used to that sort of handling, I love the way it feels in the twisties. The new bike is also a real pleasure to ride, but different. On a track, I think it would probably be significantly quicker, but it feels like it takes more rider effort to hustle it around the corners. Still, I haven't had enough time on it to start playing much with suspension setup and ergonomics, so there might be some improvement there. Essentially, I think it's what you would get if you took a Yamaha R1 and swapped in a built 920 Commando engine with a Quaife 5-speed. But the bottom line is that I love them both, and plan to keep riding and "improving" them as long as I can.

Ken
I don’t think the new Norton is too hard to get into the corners. It definitely likes a bit of ‘shoulder’ in but it certainly doesn’t require agrrssive ‘bum moving’ sort of riding, bit it really does like the rider to be a bit positive. You’ll find that with a positive turn in it’s rock solid through the corners. :):)
 
:):)
I don’t think the new Norton is too hard to get into the corners. It definitely likes a bit of ‘shoulder’ in but it certainly doesn’t require agrrssive ‘bum moving’ sort of riding, bit it really does like the rider to be a bit positive. You’ll find that with a positive turn in it’s rock solid through the corners. :):)


No argument there. It corners just fine, but it is a different feeling than the old Commando. It feels a lot more like my old R1 than like an 850 Commandos.

Ken
 
After I adjusted the sag on the front and rear suspension on my CR, the overall handling improved noticeably.
With proper setup, I think the handling compares quite favorably to a Ducati Monster.
Very similar turn in, and "on rails" cornering, even on the throttle.
Whatever may be going on with the EFI issues, the chaps at Donnington got the chassis right.
 
Now that I've had the opportunity to ride my 961 I do see some similar handling characteristics to a Duke monster. Feels like the 961 has a slightly lower center of gravity and much better rear brakes. And feels like about half the ponies as my slightly modified monster. Overall the 961 is a more enjoyable ride.
 
About cornering it depends if you have CF or Alu wheels. Big difference there...
 
I've ridden the Duc Monster 1200 s. I'm sorry to disagree, but the 961 doesn't even come close entering the corners. It does feel a little more sure footed coming out of the curves but I believe that's because the front wheel stays on the road. Unless of course you're talking about the less powerful older air cooled models.
 
I’ve forgoten the precise numbers and can’t be bothered to look them up right now (hey, I’m just being honest) but...

I think my old Cdo (much modified) comes in at under 400lbs and has 65rwhp.

The new Cdos weight seems to be the subject of some debate, but is gonna be at least 500lbs, and probably has around 70rwhp all being well.

So, if I’m right, the old un probably has a better power to weight ratio than the new un!



However, the new un has the benefit of super modern brakes, with ABS, top notch Ohlins bouncy bits and wide, modern, sticky, tyres.

It’ll be interesting to put em both back to back and compare...


Could be interesting .

Most vintage Commando owners are familiar with the first Cycle World shootout back in 1970. Norton blitzed the field with a 12.69 quarter. The mighty CB 750, touted by some as the first Superbike, was left gasping, as were the Triumph and BSA Triples. The Suzuki Titan broke down, but it was a slug in any case.
The defeated Harley Sportster owners went into foetal position and cried foul. Their bike was disqualified after many internal race mods were found in the engine, but the stock Norton beat it anyway.
A few months later, in response to trash talking from the Harley side, Norman White brought over another 750 and blew away the Harley crowd again with a 12.24.

Welsh Rugby posted 12.85 seconds for the 961, so it would be a good contest against one of the old hotrods.


Glen
 
Last edited:
Every kid in the neighborhood had a Honda 750. Whether it be a CB, K, F, SS......I mopped the floor with them off the line on my old Bonnie. They had a little higher top end.
 
Last edited:
I think I read somewhere that Nortons 2009 onwards were not considered to be proper Nortons by some. I assume that anyone taking this view would only class bikes up to the demise of Norton Villiers Triumph to be genuine. Despite not owning an oldie, I don't think this view stacks up. It wasn't just the trade name that was bought, but engineering drawings and designs, the use of existing suppliers etc. Is this dragging up old arguments or were the doubters convinced in the end. Its more evolution isn't it, how wonderful is it that the brand is still alive and thriving once more.
 
I think I read somewhere that Nortons 2009 onwards were not considered to be proper Nortons by some.

There are some who hold this type of view, and it is often a quite bizarre situation.

On the Triumph Rat forum there are owners of Triumphs manufactured at the old Coventry facility who believe that Hinckley (new) manufactured Triumphs are not real Triumphs either.
There is always a lively conversation on the RAT forum when one of these gentlemen makes his assertion.
Often, no prisoners are taken in these arguments. It can become nasty indeed, and totally pointless.

Old Nortons or Triumphs are classic britbikes.
New ones are modern classics with aesthetics that celebrate classic britbike design.

Both are equally valid.
 
Thats the way I see it especially as Norton is now once again made in the UK. That may not make them any more genuine a brand than Triumph but a more authentic british brand in my view. No nastiness from me, I would love an old Norton sometime if I ever get the time to tinker a bit more. I still need to get my BSA Bantam going, see that is due to launch again from India.
 
Back
Top