RH 4 or RH10

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brooking 850

VIP MEMBER
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
1,618
Country flag
Well finally srrived back in New Zealand and headed off to collect my second '73 850 Roadster. It is all there and will post some pics eventually.
I asked a while back about the low numbers stamped on the C/case, as it turns out looks like the cases are new, hence the low number, the barrel and head are quite new as well.
My first bike posted here, has a RH 4 head the second bike a RH 10. How big a difference between the two?
Regards Mike
RH 4 or RH10

RH 4 or RH10

RH 4 or RH10
 
Depending upon what carb(s) you run on the bike, you will want to pay attention to the manifold. The RH10 requires a manifold that goes from 32mm to 30mm for the standard Amal set up. It would be easy to bolt up a manifild that was not tapered and not realize it.

Russ
 
Brooking 850 said:

Looks as if the pad has been machined down and re-stamped - which could explain why it has that odd 153640 serial number!!!
 
L.A.B. said:
Brooking 850 said:

Looks as if the pad has been machined down and re-stamped - which could explain why it has that odd 153640 serial number!!!

That engine number would be for a 1971. My '73 and '74 numbers are both centered in the casting pad with a symbol of a circle with 3 horizontal lines in it on both sides of the number but you say you have a '74 Norton? Interesting.
My '73 had the RH4 head and it developed a crack from the left intake port horizontally to the center of the head which I heard was a common problem with the RH4 head.
The RH 10 head was a better head in my opinion.
I'm saving up for a FullAuto head right now.
To me and my experience is that the stock Norton head was the major problems I have ever had with my 2 bikes.
The Rh4 is a 30mm head and the Rh 10 came in a 32 and a 30 mm intake port head I think. I could be wrong.
 
Guido said:
That engine number would be for a 1971.

A 153xxx serial wouldn't even appear to be a legitimate 1971 number.[Edit: we now know this information is wrong]
 
Last edited:
The Motor Vehicle Branch issued me a new serial number for an old 1950 ford pu I fixed up once. The number was nothing like the original so maybe this happened here too. The transmission and frame should still be original.
 
RennieK said:
The Motor Vehicle Branch issued me a new serial number for an old 1950 ford pu I fixed up once. The number was nothing like the original so maybe this happened here too. The transmission and frame should still be original.

Frame, engine and gearbox numbers match-apparently.
post137663.html
 
Guido said:
L.A.B. said:
Guido said:
That engine number would be for a 1971.

A 153xxx serial wouldn't even appear to be a legitimate 1971 number.

I was going by this web site. Sorry for the mis-info.

http://www.britishspares.com/42.php

Yes, according to the official numbers, 1971 production supposedly ended at 150500 although there seems to be a few 1971 Commandos around with 151xxx serial numbers.

http://www.bmh.com.au/norton/index.php?id=modelnum
(Ignore the 850 numbers because they are not listed correctly)
 
Hi guys, as LAB pointed out , there may have been a machining on the block and numbers restamped, in fact no sign of machining, bike has been close to the ocean for some time and there are signs of oxidising but nothing else.
There is no numbers on the g/box, so I think by the looks of the head and barrells, it may well be a composite bike, with new cases, it all is definitely 850 though and a RH10 head.
Will carry on with getting the right ID, in the meantime back to bike #1 to put the gearbox back together and Lansdowne fork dampers!!
Regards Mike
 
Brooking 850 said:
in fact no sign of machining

The pad was machined flat originally, but it has evidently had more machined off it some time in the past but that could have been done years ago.

Spot the difference?
Brooking 850 said:


Brooking 850 said:
There is no numbers on the g/box,

They could easily have been ground off.
 
Thanks Sherlock(LAB) closer inspection shows that the stamp plate is shallower than my other, therefore as you say, been machined, but no numbers ontop of the gbox and definitely no maching, just rough casr surface.
Will get some more answers in the next few days
Reghards Mike
 
L.A.B. said:

A 153xxx serial wouldn't even appear to be a legitimate 1971 number.

I was going by this web site. Sorry for the mis-info.

http://www.britishspares.com/42.php[/quote]

"Yes, according to the official numbers, 1971 production supposedly ended at 150500 although there seems to be a few 1971 Commandos around with 151xxx serial numbers."




I realise this thread is aging a little, but there are some serious misunderstandings being promoted here.
Here are some facts...
No. Modifications
128646 New type sleeve gear and layshaft pinion tooth form.
129897 Rear wheel security bolt and MK2 type frame.
130979 'APEX' oil control ring (3 bits not 5).
132576 Fiber clutch friction plates, (not cork postage stamps).
133488 3rd gears in stronger material.
134108 First engine built in Wolverhampton works. all engines with suffix 'P' built at Plumstead Matchless London factory.
134738 'Hylomar' (Rolls Royce) sealing compound
136618 Magneto blanking plate fitted
140061 Plastic rocker feed pipe.
141783 1st-'71 model-non-adjustable steering head hearings.
146584 New type "S.E." oil control ring.
147730 Rear brake drums screwed and riveted.
147846 Toughened kickstart pawl - stamped with m for lost wax
148895 Modified inlet valve guide (for oil seals).
149670 Oil seat fitted to inlet guide.
150120 Oil pump paper gasket fitted.
151175 Increased chamfer on cam followers to increase oil drain from head.
152000 Rear drum strengthening webs.
152499 Replaceable foot rest pegs.
153150 Riveted clutch back plate.
153124 Tachometer housing gasket.
153362 Chaincase outer incorporating cap 'O' rings, not leather washers.
200000 Revised shape handlebar levers (Tomaselli). 1) shape not flat.
200000 Commando (std) cylinder head with increased inlet guide support (deleting two NM23392 heat insulating washers). Oil feed return pipes 162200 commonised for spares (17in).
200708 Cam follower locating plate modified to accommodate 1972 combat camshaft.
200976 First Combat engine (interim pistons with oil slots).
201778 Clutch plate "scrolled" groove.
202116 Master switch replaces 39565 (now 4 terminal) with associated headlamp and main harness. Stops headlamp working when parked.
202341 Valve spring bottom seat washer thinned to accommodate cylinder head variations (tip to 202666), stops coil bound springs.
202666 Cylinder head amended to accommodate std NMT2073 heat insulating washers (ie reverted to 060966 (1971), canceling above mod engine 200000).
202760 Revised front brake lever (disc-master cylinder).
203136 Front drum brake support plate introduced.
203200 Steel petrol tank (Roadster) and side covers, not GRP.
203884 Copper sealing washers introduced under rocker spindle plate bolts, and not before time.

Now, what you may notice in there is that the various people that state that 150500 or 150723 were the last '71 are mistaken. You have to remember that a model year change doesn't just happen with the last old one, and then we change over to the new model. It's a change that could easily happen over three months, first with individual manufacturing proving/ test bikes coming down the line, then a break of a couple of weeks, then batches of launch bikes for the far-flung colonies. Back to building the current model year, then a batch of show bikes, then another break back to current model year. Another couple of weeks on the current model year, then dealer launch bikes. More current model year, then press bikes. Back to the current model year, and then finally when bulk stock is available from all suppliers, off we go with the new model year.

Trawling the various sources, 150723 was built in 10/71 and was the LAST SS, NOT the last 1971 model year (MY) bike. Reasonably, if the full change-over took three of four months, at a build rate of 1000 a month, it's quite reasonable to expect the last 71MY would have been built in January or February with 153723 or even 154723. My own bike supports this with a 153495.

As to the machining on the crankcase, my later Mk 5 is faced off and stamped with 230233. From what I can see, the typeface is identical. It also looks to be identical to 153495's gearbox stamping, although the '1' upstroke is difficult to see.

From the above, there is nothing to show your bike is anything other than straight. Beware the merchants of doom...

Furthermore, elsewhere in another thread on this site states that his "first Norton was a '72 combat roadster 201123 that was stamped as built Oct '71." My guess is that the factory started running with 200001 FASTBACK Mk. IV, ROADSTER Mk. IV probably all went quite smoothly, and they thought they'd be running out 71MY around 150500. 200976, the first Combat comes down the line - and we're only talking weeks, here. Suddenly all hell starts breaking loose, test bikes failing and they're firefighting like mad. So what would you do? You go back to building 15xxxx 71MY bikes. And 'cos everyone's running round with their hair on fire, unsurprisingly, factory records get confused, and either don't get written, or don't get updated... Anyone got a 154xxx?
 
The characters are of a different script than the '74 I have, can anyone else compare their '71-'72 numbers stamping with this? The shape of the "5", the "3", "1"
 
concours said:
The characters are of a different script than the '74 I have, can anyone else compare their '71-'72 numbers stamping with this? The shape of the "5", the "3", "1"

As most of my numbers have 1, 3 or 5 in I'd post pics of my numbers if/when I could/can work out how to....
 
dillinghamp said:
I realise this thread is aging a little, but there are some serious misunderstandings being promoted here.

I think we are now aware that the 1971 series did continue on past the "official" NOC 150500 serial number.
1972-commando-750-serial-number-t16809.html


dillinghamp said:
Now, what you may notice in there is that the various people that state that 150500 or 150723 were the last '71 are mistaken.

Yes, in the light of further information it is undoubtedly so.


dillinghamp said:
As to the machining on the crankcase, my later Mk 5 is faced off and stamped with 230233. From what I can see, the typeface is identical.

But is the pad also machined down below what would be considered its normal level? Whether that pad on 153640 has been re-machined and re-stamped or not is still a matter for conjecture I believe.[Edit: Especially as the bike in question is supposed to be a '73 850, not a '71 750, and the cases described as looking "new".]


dillinghamp said:
Furthermore, elsewhere in another thread on this site states that his "first Norton was a '72 combat roadster 201123 that was stamped as built Oct '71."

That is not entirely unbelievable, as by this time, Norton were supposedly building batches of bikes out of numerical sequence so Combat 201123 may well have been built before 200976 even though 200976 is regarded as the first Combat (because it was the lowest, numerically). However, as it has been proved, the date stamps are not always accurate so cannot be relied upon. 1972 model production probably did commence sometime around October 1971, and some 1971 series Commandos may well have been built after the start of 1972 production but that doesn't change anything.

dillinghamp said:
My guess is that the factory started running with 200001 FASTBACK Mk. IV, ROADSTER Mk. IV probably all went quite smoothly, and they thought they'd be running out 71MY around 150500. 200976, the first Combat comes down the line - and we're only talking weeks, here. Suddenly all hell starts breaking loose, test bikes failing and they're firefighting like mad.

This is the Norton factory we are talking about isn't it? :|

dillinghamp said:
So what would you do? You go back to building 15xxxx 71MY bikes. And 'cos everyone's running round with their hair on fire, unsurprisingly, factory records get confused, and either don't get written, or don't get updated... Anyone got a 154xxx?

An interesting theory, but if you weren't there at the time then that's all it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top