Simplicity of Commando vs Other Brit Bikes? (2017)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think if I ever bought a standard Commando, I would keep the motor fairly original, but I'd fit a five speed box with a low first gear and the other four close and higher. The motor is anyone ever needs on public roads, but a Commando motor is much quicker with a close box behind it.
 
Triumphs are great for unsealed roads . and durable .

Your t140 should have the controls ' fall readilly to hand ' .

Looks like the foot brake is sitting a bit high .
Toes and fingers - straight forward , should be the 1/16th freeplay , then theyre ' ON ' .
A massive part of how a bike rides , is having all the adjustments ' right on ' .

the Boyer Book is a Bible for Triumphs . Without it your lost .

Good your Bonnie isnt a namby commie left foot shift job .

Put a 470 Knobbly on the back & go beach raving . Er RACING . !
The K 70s are great allrounders , The tT100s/K81s better for dragging pegs & drifting on Tarmac .
the K 70s were actually a top line flat track tyre , and good touring tarmac tyre . But not 100 mph T T tyre.

A Unit T 100 with dual 30 carbs & 40 over 650 pistons is a good city bike , or solo tourer .
Better keep your Bonnie ! and ' learn ' it . Takes a few years to get to grips with the fine points .

Theres more critical areas on a Commando , and carelessness or ham fistedness can destroy their
wellness & componentry . Not to say a good dirt track Norton isnt bad , and if you want a off road Norton
a better deal than a Commando .
 
Simplicity of Commando vs Other Brit Bikes? (2017)
 
Late-Sixties Bonneville's are bringing stupid money, but a Commando has always been and always will be easier to ride fast and long. I get the feeling the Bonnies are being stashed away, collectibles, while we're riding our Nortons into oblivion.
 
Interesting thread that's come back to life. In my slice of time, from '68 through to the late '70's when the UJM's finally ended the British scene, my buddies and I rode BSA's and Triumphs. They performed about the same, and my personal experience would give the reliability nod to Triumph. My two Lightning Rockets just broke all the time. My '67 could outrun the two '68 Bonnies in our group (slightly), if it happened to be running. I should mention there was an Atlas or two in the mix, performed about the same, except they always seemed to be covered in oil. And then one day, my dyed-in-the-wool Thunderbolt riding pal showed up on this odd thing called a Norton Commando Fastback. With his girlfriend on the back, he left four or five of us for dead, as in 'look, he's a dot on the horizon' dead. We were all riding solo. Next thing you know everyone was figuring out how to get one of the new Norton Roadsters, the new King of the Highway. And, the vibration that blew light bulbs and fractured parts was simply gone. Over the time period I had two BSA's, an Atlas, an Atlas with a Commando engine (hopelessly under-engineered, built when my screwdriver was also my paint stirrer), and a 1970 or '71 Commando. I recall the day a friend gave me the keys to his nice black and gold Combat Commando for a short ride. The acceleration was mind-boggling to me at the time, quick enough to consistently out-accelerate the Honda 750's that the 'regular' Commandos just matched. At this stage in life, the memories are no doubt better than the reality was, but I'm still very glad that I lived and rode back in those days. Choose a vintage British bike to actually ride? NO CONTEST!
 
Atlas Commando said:
Interesting thread that's come back to life. In my slice of time, from '68 through to the late '70's when the UJM's finally ended the British scene, my buddies and I rode BSA's and Triumphs. They performed about the same, and my personal experience would give the reliability nod to Triumph. My two Lightning Rockets just broke all the time. My '67 could outrun the two '68 Bonnies in our group (slightly), if it happened to be running. I should mention there was an Atlas or two in the mix, performed about the same, except they always seemed to be covered in oil. And then one day, my dyed-in-the-wool Thunderbolt riding pal showed up on this odd thing called a Norton Commando Fastback. With his girlfriend on the back, he left four or five of us for dead, as in 'look, he's a dot on the horizon' dead. We were all riding solo. Next thing you know everyone was figuring out how to get one of the new Norton Roadsters, the new King of the Highway. And, the vibration that blew light bulbs and fractured parts was simply gone. Over the time period I had two BSA's, an Atlas, an Atlas with a Commando engine (hopelessly under-engineered, built when my screwdriver was also my paint stirrer), and a 1970 or '71 Commando. I recall the day a friend gave me the keys to his nice black and gold Combat Commando for a short ride. The acceleration was mind-boggling to me at the time, quick enough to consistently out-accelerate the Honda 750's that the 'regular' Commandos just matched. At this stage in life, the memories are no doubt better than the reality was, but I'm still very glad that I lived and rode back in those days. Choose a vintage British bike to actually ride? NO CONTEST!
Click to expand...
I have to agree with all of the above
Having owned a few triumph and BSA twins in my time
 
Atlas Commando said:
Interesting thread that's come back to life. In my slice of time, from '68 through to the late '70's when the UJM's finally ended the British scene, my buddies and I rode BSA's and Triumphs. They performed about the same, and my personal experience would give the reliability nod to Triumph. My two Lightning Rockets just broke all the time. My '67 could outrun the two '68 Bonnies in our group (slightly), if it happened to be running. I should mention there was an Atlas or two in the mix, performed about the same, except they always seemed to be covered in oil. And then one day, my dyed-in-the-wool Thunderbolt riding pal showed up on this odd thing called a Norton Commando Fastback. With his girlfriend on the back, he left four or five of us for dead, as in 'look, he's a dot on the horizon' dead. We were all riding solo. Next thing you know everyone was figuring out how to get one of the new Norton Roadsters, the new King of the Highway. And, the vibration that blew light bulbs and fractured parts was simply gone. Over the time period I had two BSA's, an Atlas, an Atlas with a Commando engine (hopelessly under-engineered, built when my screwdriver was also my paint stirrer), and a 1970 or '71 Commando. I recall the day a friend gave me the keys to his nice black and gold Combat Commando for a short ride. The acceleration was mind-boggling to me at the time, quick enough to consistently out-accelerate the Honda 750's that the 'regular' Commandos just matched. At this stage in life, the memories are no doubt better than the reality was, but I'm still very glad that I lived and rode back in those days. Choose a vintage British bike to actually ride? NO CONTEST!
Click to expand...

That’s a great post!

I have just one question... what’s wrong with yer screwdriver being yer paint stirrer... cold chisel / drift / pry bar / etc ?
 
Last edited:
I remember the first time I rode a Commando, as a Triumph man I struggled to admit it’s finer points!

I also thought it felt fast, but later concluded that it wasn’t really any faster than my Triumph, it just felt it due to the lack of vibration. Basically, it was psycologocally easier to thrash!

The second time I rode one was less impressive, the clutch was very stiff and the brakes didn’t work.

The third time I rode one I got one with the optional ‘hinge in the middle’ fitted.

But despite all that, I still eventually bought one and when I did, I was hit strongly by the feeling that I wish I’d done so long ago.

I do agree with those who say it is a better motorcycle for going far and fast compared to a Triumph twin, although on the right road and around town, I still favour a good Bonnie.

In my experience a good Commando is very comparable to a good BSA / Triumph 3. But I think I prefer the big twin gruntyness of the Commando.
 
Last edited:
My first British bike was a brand new Triumph Tiger 750 in 1978 which I had for 18 months with no problems other than a few blown tail lamp bulbs. My next was a Triumph T160 which I managed to knacker the mains on so it became the first bike I ever worked on. It was only after working on a Norton Dominator that I realised that the triples are a "bit" more complicated in comparison.
My first ride on a Commando was only about three years ago and I was very disappointed...disappointed with myself as I should have had one f*****g years ago...sigh!
 
Mechanically, all in, Norton Commandos are more complex than a pre-unit Triumph (due to isolastics), and another degree more complex than a post-63 Unit Triumph (separate primary).
 
On a unit engine, it is usually necessary to pull the engine out, remove head and barrels ( sometimes losing ring seal) to go deep inside the gearbox.
On a Commando the mechanic can leave the engine intact and in place while removing the gearbox to take it fully apart.
In that way the non unit bikes are generally easier to work on
I say generally because at least one maker, Vincent, fitted a transmission trap door to the unit cases. You can leave the engine assembled and in the bike, just remove clutch and trap door, the take out entire gear assembly as a unit.
Other unit engines Ive encountered have not had this feature. Had to pull engine and split it to get at trans inner.

Glen
 
Last edited:
Well, having both a Triumph bitsa (76 motor, 72 frame). and now a 75 MKIII Ease of working on the bike goes to he Triumph. I've rebuilt both motors(Tri easer), done primaries and clutches (Nor easier), transmission on the Triumph (Cassette), electrical work(Tri simpler), front and rear swingarms (Tri easier), wheels (Rear wheel on a Norton is wonky), etc. brakes (same).

The Norton seems to use an excessive amount of nuts and bolts, getting the head off was interesting, a mix of sae and wentworth fasteners is annoying, fit and finish is superior, rear sprocket is a stupefying piece of engineering. Looking forward to this spring when it's done.
The Triumph shakes, don't like the clutch, simpler rear end, handles well. I have it set up as a back road/gravel bike (scrambler).
Happiest running 45-55mph.

Compare both bikes to same era BMW and Moto Guzzi and they are much simpler and easier to work on. Speaking of maintenance and engineering only, not the ride.
 
Have you had to work on that BMW trans?
A Norton/BMW mechanic tells me they are clunky shifting, durable, but horridly difficult to work on.

Glen
 
worntorn said:
On a unit engine, it is usually necessary to pull the engine out, remove head and barrels ( sometimes losing ring seal) to go deep inside the gearbox.
On a Commando the mechanic can leave the engine intact and in place while removing the gearbox to take it fully apart.
In that way the non unit bikes are generally easier to work on
I say generally because at least one maker, Vincent, fitted a transmission trap door to the unit cases. You can leave the engine assembled and in the bike, just remove clutch and trap door, the take out entire gear assembly as a unit.
Other unit engines Ive encountered have not had this feature. Had to pull engine and split it to get at trans inner.

Glen
Click to expand...

Doesnt really apply to Triumphs Glen, I can’t really think of anything you can’t do to a Triumph box whilst still in the frame. I recently changed my 4 speed to 5 speed with the engine in the frame still.
 
My unit construction experience is mainly with 60s and 70s Japanese bikes.
Would you renew Triumph trans bearings without splitting cases?

Glen
 
worntorn said:
My unit construction experience is mainly with 60s and 70s Japanese bikes.
Would you renew Triumph trans bearings without splitting cases?

Glen
Click to expand...
Yep there's no need to split the cases on a triumph to change gearbox bearings
 
The BMW and Guzzi transmissions are more complicated than a Norton -part of the reason is because they are 5 speeds (1 extra shift fork and shaft. The Guzzi uses some shims and on both you have to remove the transmission to work on the clutch. I find both more robust than a British transmission. Most Guzzis and BMW's will go 50-70,000 miles before much is needed. they are less stressed power wise. I haven't found them that bad but they have their own frustrations. At least you can pull either out of the frame and leave the motor.
 
At the end of the day yes some things are easier on a triumph/BSA twin etc
But the commando is easier on the rider
a commando is a riders bike the triumph is more of a scratcher in my opinion
 
A friend of mine has a beautiful early sixties Bonneville. It was parked outside a pub in South Melbourne when two guys arrived with a utility truck and approached it. My friend arrived and rode away on it, just in time.
 
A 1963 unit Bonneville is probably better than any other sixties bike. Commandos are from the next generation. The 650cc Norton Manxman might have been a bit better, but they were extremely rare. The 750cc Atlas had a problem with the bottom flange of the barrel, but is still very good. The 1963 Matchless 650 CSR had all of it's problems solved, but by that time nobody would want one. One of those motors would make a good G45 classic racer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top