Simplicity of Commando vs Other Brit Bikes? (2017)

Hi folks,

Newb here with a question regarding the relative simplicity or not of working on a Commando vs other Brit bikes.

I'm wondering if this is a shared sentiment that the Commando is "simpler" and hence easier to work on vs say a BSA or Triumph of similar vintage?

I spotted a comment to that effect by a member in another thread and thought it was interesting and rather then derail that thread with my question, I thought I would ask here. I'm new to the whole British bike world having bought a 1973 Triumph T140 750 about a year ago. I've been fortunate in that its in good shape and I've only done simple maintenance on it. I have to admit some of the engineering on it has me scratching my head. And while I LOVE it, I'd really like a Commando. If it was a little easier to work on then the T140 that would be nice, although it would not be a deal breaker if it was not. It's not like the Triumph is driving me crazy. Its just a learning curve for me.

And I'm no stranger to things that are not easy to work on, I have an '88 Porsche 928 S4 in my garage that I do all the work on, and a bunch of motorcycles and mini bikes that I maintain (the bikes are modern and pretty straight forward).

Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts on this idea either way, I'd love to hear. Lastly, great forum! I'm learning so much. And I just missed what looked like a smoking deal on a local Commando because I wasted time hand-wringing and deciding if I should go look at it or try to sell my Triumph first (the "sensible" thing to do). I missed out! Arghh! Trying to get over it like an adult. It's not working, I'm sad! Ha ha.

Eddie

Hi, welcome. It's all relative. I had a T140 before the Norton. Lot's of fun.... but a paint shaker from hell on the highway cruise. They all have quirks..

I wanted the Commando since 45 years ago.

I have a Triumph t140, a BSA Thunderbolt and several Commando's. Each of them have certain areas that are more difficult to work on than they should be. I would say they all pretty much balance out in terms of ease of maintaining. No clear winner.

htown16 said:

I have a Triumph t140, a BSA Thunderbolt and several Commando's. Each of them have certain areas that are more difficult to work on than they should be. I would say they all pretty much balance out in terms of ease of maintaining. No clear winner.

Click to expand...

Having rebuilt Triumph T120R, BSA A500AB (Cyclone) and a few Commandos I agree each has good and bad areas which is a wash at the end. British parallel twins were are pretty much the same in design but different in detail. Obviously in a Commando forum we will say it is the best of British parallel twins. My ranking is Norton, Triumph then BSA. I personally don't care for BSA models style or engines. Triumph has nice style, but lacking in performance by comparison.

'Like they said...

'72 T150 Triple; nightmare! Six valves, three (yes, three!) sets of points, three Amal carbs. Crazy weird vibration from the 120' crank. But, it ran like stink when you wicked it on.
'72 BSA 500 single; damned reliable bike, but shook insanely!

My '74 has been very reliable since a minor going-over once coming out of mothballs. Even though the Triumph was quicker, the Norton is much more pleasant to ride, and has proven much more reliable (although, you shouldn't compare that to the Triple).

Nathan

With a Triumph, you are always at a disadvantage due to the cylinder head. To raise the comp. ratio, you end up with high domed heavier pistons. However the cam arrangement is better, than with the Commando and they will cop more revs due to the shorter stroke. My opinion is that the Commando is overall much better and I had Triumph 650s for years. When I built the Seeley, it sat un-raced for about 20 years because I simply could not believe in it. My opinion now is that the 850 motor is surprisingly good.

Very generally speaking there is precious little difference in them for typical riding.

Nortons, stock, seem a tad better at sustained higher speeds; but Triumphs & BSAs can be balanced and geared to produce equal performance in that role.

I have been elbow-deep in Nortons, Triumphs and BSAs as well as a few Harleys and a lot of japanese bikes. Old British twins are all relatively simple (never liked Triumph's separate rocker boxes). Once you get into the triples, it's one more cylinder, but nothing above the pistons was beefed up, so rocker box bolts and cover bolts are delicate and must be handled with care to prevent strippage. They should've been 1000cc 4s like they prototyped. With more substantial top-end fasteners.

Hello F451
Well that's a good question.
The Norton was/is always the better performance twin. The BSA/Triumph triples are inherently more complicated and imho on the road a well fettled Commando would always be the quickest and better handling.
However, your question is about relative simplicity.
I have owned and ridden (amongst many others) a Triumph 650 TR6 Sport (1969 model), a Triumph Bonneville 750 (1973 model) and a Norton Commando 750 Roadster (1972). I have also ridden Pre-Unit 650 Triumphs, a BSA 750 triple and various Commandos.
In terms of relative simplicity I would say that the Triumph twins were the simplest twins.
I base this on the geared timing side of the Triumph (versus cam chain on the Norton), level concentric carbs (vs angled on the Commando), the twin camshafts, unit construction and easier to remove cylinder head of the Triumph. The Triumph as standard has a tripmeter and oil pressure sensor whereas the Norton does not have these. The Triumph exhaust headers never worked loose whereas the Norton ones require regular checking and tightening.
My Triumph 650 ran for over 45,000 without any problems. I would not think that many standard Commandos have done this.
A Norton Commando never won a Production Class TT on the Isle of Man whereas the Triumph Bonneville 650 was the first to lap at over 100mph ridden by the incomparable but sadly late Malcolm Uphill in 1969.
Just my view. But I still love my Commando.
Andy

You might as well order the Commando specific clutch diaphragm spring compressor now.

It's a must have tool.

And welcome!

Not sure about the T-140 but Commandos' are a combination of Whitworth on the Engine and SAE on the chassis.

Better off knowing that up front....

It don't really matter, I just have a love of all British motorcycles, at the age of 17 buying my brand new 74 850 Commando which I still own to this day but its no long a Commando (Now a hot rodded Featherbed frame) also in the last 43 years have had 2 early Triumphs first one was a new 81 Thunderbird and then a 79 Bonnie and now I have a 2013 Thruxton (brought new) each bike is differance in how they ride, maintenance is mostly the same thing with each bike, except the Thruxton you have to shim the valves for adjustments but so far after 40k they are still in specs.
I have been lucky with all my bikes and never really had any problems, except for the 79 Bonnie, I brought if from my Brother in law cheap as it spent most of its time under a trap and not ridden for a few years, I had to fix a lot of things on it to be able to ride it and when I did every ride was a adventure, things fell off it, things broke, things had to be replaced and after a year I had enough of it and sold it, but it would have been a better bike if it had been ridden more instead of sitting under a tarp rusting away.
So compairing each bike is hard as each bike is differant to each other, but they all need to be maintained, I find the Norton is a lot easier in the way I have built it, but the Triumphs aren't that bad, but so far the Thruxton has less work done to it, I haven't even needed to adjust the chain in 4 years of owning it.
I also own and ride a Honda CRF450X, there is a lot more maintenacne on it and with out special tools it can be a night mare to work on, but its such a great bike in the dirt, so powerfull and handles so good, how many bikes can you pull wheelies in 5th gear with ease.

Ashley

Wow, right on guys, thanks for taking the time to fill me in! Pretty much what I figured so that is good, doesn't sound like a whole lot of difference between different vintage British bikes of the same era, I will just need to learn the particulars of whatever model I may get. Not dissimilar to modern bikes.

And the performance, handling, etc, is secondary to me, although it is important. With the Triumph I just putt around and enjoy the sweepers on the secondary roads in my area, it is so much fun, I wish I had bought it sooner. I've always wanted a vintage British twin and finally pulled the trigger last year at 56 yrs old as my body is starting to fall apart and I was worried it would not be long before I could not start one, much less ride it.

Here's my '73 750:



And my love of bikes goes way back to the old neighborhood in the 60's and 70's, we were always dragging home beat up minibikes and dirt bikes and riding them around the neighborhood and the woods. The older guys in the neighborhood had all the big bikes of the day and we drooled over them. I remember when Joey Schultz got his brand new black with gold Norton Commando, I think it was a 750, not sure exactly what year, but I was sold. Have wanted one ever since!

And Triumphs, the only one I ever rode before getting my '73 was my brother's Bonneville 650, I think it was a 69. I was 15 at the time, no drivers license. Must have been 1975, he was outside the house with it and I jokingly asked him when he was going to let me ride it. He said "when you can start it". What he didn't realize was that I had been studying his starting routine. I asked him if he was serious and he said he was. I said ok and got on it, turned the key, checked the petcocks, primed the carbs, gave it a kick or two and it fired right up. I didn't think he was going to let me take it, but he handed me his helmet. Again, I said something like "Really?!" He said "I told you if you could start it you could ride it." So I took it out for about an hour. What a great time I had! What a guy. Later I took my motocycle drivers test on his almost brand new '78 Suzuki GS1000. Similar deal there, I asked him when I could ride his GS, he said when you get your mc license. I think I had it within weeks. He rode it cross county and back and didn't really touch it much after that so he said I could ride it whenever I wanted. Which I did. So much fun for a young guy like me back in the day.

Back to Nortons, I'm hoping to find the right Commando sometime this year. Trying to figure out whether or not to sell the Triumph, I really love it but don't see myself riding enough to keep two vintage bikes so it will likely go, plus it will help fund a Norton.

Anyway, thanks again for all the great input guys. -Eddie

I'll add my 2 cents worth. I've had British bikes since the age of 17. Everything from a clapped out Royal Enfield to a B25 BSA, several Triumph T120s another Enfield, a BSA A10 that I restored from pieces and a 71 Commando. For the last 30 years I've been lucky enough to be able to have an "appliance bike" for everyday riding and long distance travel, BMW's and now a Suzuki bandit. I have to say if I could only have one bike it would be the Norton. Able to do highway speeds comfortably, agile enough to be backroad fun, not a vibrator and pretty simple to work on compared to a modern UJM or Beemer. The BSA is a close second but not a real highway bike. All of the Britbikes have been easy enough to work on, but some just required much more of it.

Eddie if you can keep the Triumph as its a beautyfull bike and you will regret it down the road if you sold it as I did when I sold my 81 Thunderbird, it was one of best and most relieable bike I have ever owned, but my Norton is the same, if you can keep your Triumph and get a Norton as well, go for it, my 81 650 Thunderbird was such a smooth Triumph to ride I did a lot of miles on that bike in the 9 years of onwership and it loved long trips even 2 up, be greedy and have more than one British bike, even if you can't justafide in owning more than one.
My wife and I had a understanding when we got hiched, she had no say in what bikes I had or wanted and if anything happened the bikes stayed, she agreed, she didn't even know I brought a new Triumph till the day I had her drive me to pick it up, she puts up with a lot but I had bikes long before she came along.

Ashley

Most of what I'd like to say has already been said, and I can only agree in spades :wink:

The only negative in my book is the Commando gearbox isn't as sweet as the T140, and without the layshaft bearing replaced is an accident waiting to happen.

Some Triumph spanners will fit, but some won't - as already pointed out, so some Whitworth spanners & sockets required.

From a riding perspective, the Commando is much more long-legged than the Triumph, never feels like it's being thrashed and doesn't vibrate.
Overall, I'd say it's head and shoulders above the Triumph. I tried and failed to sell my T140 last year, so decided to do what I'd always planned and never finished:
It now has 10.5:1 Powermax pistons, Spitfire cams, a lightened & re-balanced flywheel, ported head with 32mm Concentrics and Commando pea-shooter silencers.
It's now easily as quick as my 850, and a lot smoother than I could have wished for - much better than before and still very rideable.
Really glad I didn't sell it now, but overall it's still not my preferred ride - the Commando still wins

Your story from 'back in the day' makes me want to get a bike out and ride right now!

This is my first Commando, and I've certainly never rebuilt one before. So I approached the task with some trepidation, but generally speaking, I found it really easy and fuss free to work on, just my personal experience.

That is, of course, with the BIG exception of the cylinder head removal / replacement, in situ, which on a Commando, has to be one of the stupidest, fiddle fumbling jobs on any bike ever!

Andy, does the 10.5:1 / spitfire cam combo run OK on pump fuel? Do you use high octane? It sounds like a real blast!

I agree with owning 2 bikes. I bought my 850 from Nes [ RIP] and he said most commando owners own 2 of them. The only hobby new to me after marriage was yacht racing, and shmbo doesnt object to that. When I bought the 850, my wife has said I could buy another bike when I sold my business in Whangarei. She was a bit put off though when she discovered it was another Commando. She finds the seats not that comfortable for 2 up. I even bought a new seat squab from Leightons, which made riding solo a lot more comfortable. She is still not keen on being a pillion. Something about the leathers being too hard on her knees????
Dereck

So is the Spitfire profile used on your t140 the same as the Spitfire profile used on my 1963 BSA Super Rocket?
I recall reading somewhere that it is the BSA profile.

Glen

worntorn said:

So is the Spitfire profile used on your t140 the same as the Spitfire profile used on my 1963 BSA Super Rocket?
I recall reading somewhere that it is the BSA profile.

Glen

Click to expand...

I believe it is Glen. But I think the different rocker arm ratios make it behave differently in the different engines. A Spitfire profile in a Triumph is pretty radical really.