Roadster vs Interstate

I've never been much of a fan of the original turn signal lights myself..... Only issue is the after market ones I like are plastic body and the looks fade within 6 months.

o0norton0o said:

Others can like it or hate it, but I think it's pretty good looking now as an interstate... In fact, it looks much nicer than any roadster with those ugly lollypop directional lights front and back... Just look at the CNW bikes. Matt ditched those "walmart" looking directional lights on his beautiful bikes. He knew how bad they looked too...

Click to expand...

Ahem...

I've said this before - beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

There are bikes in the cNw gallery with Lucas style blinkers. IMO they are the best looking blinker for a STOCK looking Norton. Most of their builds create some variation of a cafe style, with the cNw headlamp mounts and tail light fairing - in which case another blinker is more visually appealing.

I don't get the "Walmart" inference here. If you mean they're cheap, they're NOT. My 45 year old Lucas blinkers still shine up like a mirror. No chipped chrome. If you mean they're common everyday style, then yes they were - the same as a million other bikes of the era. So what?

As for Roadster vs Interstate, we have magnificent examples of both here on this forum. One of the wonderful things about a Commando is that they are configurable to suit the whims of the owner with very little effort.

Some of the Interstate tanks got a bit too big for awhile there. I'm not sure if this was limited to the FG tanks.
Norton must have reconsidered the need for that width as they narrowed the tanks quite a bit by the time my steel tanked 75 Interstate was built.
A friend has a 73 850 Interstate which has the wider tank and it is massive. It doesn't look as nice as the narrow Interstate tank. The extra capacity isn't needed.
Glen

worntorn said:

Some of the Interstate tanks got a bit too big for awhile there. I'm not sure if this was limited to the FG tanks.
Norton must have reconsidered the need for that width as they narrowed the tanks quite a bit by the time my steel tanked 75 Interstate was built.
A friend has a 73 850 Interstate which has the wider tank and it is massive. It doesn't look as nice as the narrow Interstate tank. The extra capacity isn't needed.
Glen

Click to expand...

Glen, Great info. Could you give any dimensions or a photo comparison? My Mk III project will stay a Roadster, as it started life. All 3 of my past Commandos have been Roadsters. It was very rare to see any other model of Commando in upstate New York, 35 years ago.
I never thought that the Interstate was ugly. Once finished, I'd like to find an Interstate tank, seat & side covers for long trips. I'll need you to educate me on how to tell a "fat" tank from a "thinner" tank.

It's complicated!

worntorn said:

It's complicated!

Interstate Tank Variations

This started when yesterday I put 6.83 US gallons in my Interstate tank. I had always assumed from the literature that the capacity was 6.6 US gallons. So I did some research and it seems there were at least three different tanks and possibly six. And that doesn't take into account any...

www.accessnorton.com

Click to expand...

My old boss used to say the following about the original VW Beetle. They are all the same.... no two alike!

Well... I wouldn't say the roadster look is exactly ugly, but it could do with an anti-wet-sumping-valve to improve its looks.

robs ss said:

Well... I wouldn't say the roadster look is exactly ugly, but it could do with an anti-wet-sumping-valve to improve its looks.

Click to expand...

Uh-Oh....

I have a 74 roadster and a 74 interstate and much prefer the riding position on the roadster as my feet are too far forward on the interstate due to length of the tank. I’ve fitted rear sets fro NYC Norton. Beautifully made and vast improvement to riding position. I think the roadster looks much better