Preferred Commando model (2017)

As a follow on from: uncles-barn-bike-value-t26216-60.html#p347060 there have been some comments made about the best Commando's.
A post stated that the 74 850 is generally regarded as being the best, which is comfort to me but then it was posted that the highest prices are generally obtained by mk3's.

The interesting thing as far as I am concerned is that the mk3's in the day generally was criticised as being overweight, strangled by emission controls, too quiet and slow. I owned a 750 when the mk3's were still being sold, just!

I loved my 750 but rebuilt it as an 850 when the CRMC (sorry Classic Racing Motorcycle Club, uk) outlawed 850's!

I also wondered if there is a difference of opinion UK versus US?

I am also confused as to how there appear to be so many apparent Combats in existence. It seems that almost every other bike mentioned in this forum is a Combat. I aways thought there was a limited number, certainly a short production time.

I wonder how many (if any) of the heads have been stamped by less than honest owners. If this is possible!! i.e. are all heads marked with the C of Combat spec?

Possibly should be two threads!

My word, this one should stretch on for a bit Pete...!

My tupence is that consensus for 'the best' Commando probably changes over time...

Many say the Fastback is best, but (sticking my neck out here I know) they never 'did it' for me.

The 1974 MK2A is seen by many as the best (in my hypothesis) because it contained the culmination of many years mods, had the extra oomph of being an 850, but was not 'burdened' by the strangulation and extra weight of the MK3.

However, fast forward 40 years and most MK3s, who's owners are bothered by such things, have been de-strangulated. So that point is negated.

Also, by modern touring bike standards, even a stock MK3 is by no means a heavy bike, so the weight point is somewhat negated. Plus, the weight issue is probably of less interest to most 'mature' riders than it was to young 'hot rodders' and 'café racers' 40 years ago.

And whilst on the topic of demographics... as time goes by, more owners place more value on the electric start. In its day it was criticised for being heavy and ineffective. Today various mods are available to make them very effective, and as mentioned above, more 'mature' riders are less likely to be concerned by the extra weight (or at least see it as a price worth paying).

And finally, the MK3 benefits from having the 'wrong' gear change, which is something that people who also ride modern bikes tend to prefer.

So, a 'well sorted' MK3 is a serious contender for 'best' I reckon these days.

But I'd still vote for the MK2A personally.

Queue 'incoming' from Fastback and Combat owners...

Hoped it would get people talking!

Yes Eddie, fully get the Electric start issue as with a bad knee is something I have considered.

Agree with most of what you said. It does however seem that the most money will go to an "original mk3" Imho!

Having a '73 850 in pieces in the garage, I'm interested to know how it differs from the '74 in case any of those improvements can be incorporated into the '73. I always heard the '74 was the "Holy Grail" of Commandos, but I thought that was due to it being the last model unencumbered by the crossover shift and electric leg. Back in the day, most owners still kickstarted the Mk IIIs and used the button on the handlebar to help that along. Bob Goodpaster's "'tric Start" '75 was the first one I ever saw to have an upgraded starter that actually consistently started the engine on it's own. He even removed the kick lever to demonstrate it's redundancy.

peter12 said:

I am also confused as to how there appear to be so many apparent Combats in existence. It seems that almost every other bike mentioned in this forum is a Combat. I aways thought there was a limited number, certainly a short production time.

Click to expand...

There were a considerable number of Combats.
Combat production supposedly began from serial 200976 and ended at 211110 although not all Commandos within that series were Combats, it seems the vast majority were, except for Hi-Riders (which were built in relatively small numbers) and apparently some batches of other 'standard' models (except Interstates which all seem to have been Combats).

peter12 said:

are all heads marked with the C of Combat spec?

Click to expand...

Apparently not.

Fast Eddie said:

The 1974 MK2A is seen by many as the best (in my hypothesis) because it contained the culmination of many years mods, had the extra oomph of being an 850, but was not 'burdened' by the strangulation and extra weight of the MK3.

Click to expand...

The 850 Mk2A (not Mk2) had basically the same black plastic airbox and black cap exhaust system (carbs and internal engine components) as the Mk3, so the power output must have been almost identical, just not as heavy.

Yes, I never realised about the Blackcaps and airbox till recently, thought that was in with the Mk 3's. Mine has Pea shooters with the airbag empty and a single carb. I wasn't to put twin carbs on with an air filter but will probably use the easier filter, I think!!

There is something to be said for a heavier bike that stays a bit more stable when hitting the bumps. When we were young the aim was to reduce weight as much as possible but of course we never had the money to fit trick suspension on to match the now lightweight bike. The result was pogo-ing around all over the place. Not much point in lightning your bike if you are a bit of a porker yourself.

obvious mistake airbox, no airbag fitted!

I like the look of a 750 Roadster the best. Lean, clean, machine. Black, please.

The performance of the '74 MkIIa 850 with airbox & bean can mufflers replaced with dual-neck K&N and peashooters is the best overall in otherwise stock trim.

The utility of the 75 MkIII is best for us mature riders whose legs, back, etc aren't as happy to work as they used to. Personally, my original 2-brush e-starter has never failed me. The anti-backfire assembly is carefully adjusted, as is the ignition timing, and I do not use it as an "assist" with the kickstarter providing the initial rotational force. It has simply been exactly as the factory intended. I can cruise all day at 80MPH (or faster, if I want), and it will not hesitate in the least. It doesn't feel "sloggy" after an hour straight at interstate speed, idles perfectly, and is in all ways, excellent.

For me, the best edition of Commando is the bike I have , '72 Roadster modified combat .... the weight is an issue for me , after heavy Asian bikes I went looking for slimmer bikes as my everyday rides , settled on Ducati ST3 which is great .... my Combat is still lighter and with the suspension and tire pressure set it is very stable in the rough .... the older I get the lazier I become , not interested in moving heavy bikes around in my shed .... the Griso has no center stand so had to find a bike dolly to move it ..... have heard the same ( holy grail ) 'bout the '74 , can't really comment , I did check out a '75 mk3 once and compared to my '72 it looked more complex ..... everybody loves the bike they have right ?
Craig

The preferred Commando is the one you already have or the one you would give your eye teeth for. Cum ci, cum sa.

Hi Craig,

It's tough to beat a Duc ST3 for the next bike for a Norton person!

gripper said:

There is something to be said for a heavier bike that stays a bit more stable when hitting the bumps. When we were young the aim was to reduce weight as much as possible but of course we never had the money to fit trick suspension on to match the now lightweight bike. The result was pogo-ing around all over the place. Not much point in lightning your bike if you are a bit of a porker yourself.

Click to expand...

Ludwig found that his 300 lb Commando rode very rough initially, then did a lot of suspension work to make it better.
Even at best a 300 pound bike is probably going to be a bit jolting compared to the same basic bike at 440 pounds or so.

I think the weight difference between a MK3 and earlier bikes is sometimes exaggerated. I weighed my MK3 and my 650ss, which is supposed to be a bit lighter than the lightest Commando. The MK3 was 35 lbs heavier than the SS.
It also rides a little better than the SS over rough roads.

Glen

worntorn said:

gripper said:

There is something to be said for a heavier bike that stays a bit more stable when hitting the bumps. When we were young the aim was to reduce weight as much as possible but of course we never had the money to fit trick suspension on to match the now lightweight bike. The result was pogo-ing around all over the place. Not much point in lightning your bike if you are a bit of a porker yourself.

Click to expand...

Ludwig found that his 300 lb Commando rode very rough initially, then did a lot of suspension work to make it better.
Even at best a 300 pound bike is probably going to be a bit jolting compared to the same basic bike at 440 pounds or so.

I think the weight difference between a MK3 and earlier bikes is sometimes exaggerated. I weighed my MK3 and my 650ss, which is supposed to be a bit lighter than the lightest Commando. The MK3 was 35 lbs heavier than the SS.
It also rides a little better than the SS over rough roads.

Glen

Click to expand...

Was the SS loaded with luggage...?

Well obviously anytime the word "best" is used it's a personal preference thing. I prefer the pre-MKIII bikes in both looks and utility because I don't like all of that shifting mechanism going to the "wrong" side and starter motor etc. that said I will probably have to fit and electric start to my 73 at some point because I do already have issues with my right leg. Mike Bean once told me that the 74 was the culmination of the best pre MKIII bikes because of frame quality. I think he said by 74 they were made in England again and not Italy and the frames tube diameter, and general quality of dimensions was better. L.A.B. Do you know anything about this?

My 74 has an Italian frame.

My preferred Commando? My 1968 Fastback, my 1972 Combat Roadster, and my 1973 850 Interstate.
You need one of each.

Stephen Hill

gtsun said:

Mike Bean once told me that the 74 was the culmination of the best pre MKIII bikes because of frame quality. I think he said by 74 they were made in England again and not Italy and the frames tube diameter, and general quality of dimensions was better. L.A.B. Do you know anything about this?

Click to expand...

As I understand it, the Italian (Verlicchi) frames had the non-matching 'F1xxxxx' frame numbers stamped on the headstock and the F1 numbering of frames continued into early '75 when the 'F1' prefix was dropped and the frame then usually stamped with a number matching the plate, engine and gearbox, so it's possible the supply of Italian frames didn't end until around the early part of '75 unless anybody knows different?
There have been the usual Commando discrepancies regarding F-numbered frames but if the tubes are 60mm and 25mm diameter instead of 2 1/4" and 1.0" then there's a reasonable chance that the frame is Italian.

Bruce MacGregor said:

Hi Craig,

It's tough to beat a Duc ST3 for the next bike for a Norton person!

Click to expand...

It must be a Northeast thing. Love my Commandos and ST4S

Yes Bruce , got to love the Ducati as a great second bike ( distance ) .... went to look at a GT1000 and came home with the ST3s and yes Deckard , maybe it is a NE thing , though lots of Commandos on Ducatims forum ....
Craig