Wiki Entry Unduly Harsh

Status
Not open for further replies.
I read it. Looks pretty straightforward to me. What part makes you think he hates Commandos?

Ken
 
Yep I don't see much complaining at all but very pleased-shocked to see the mention of how the Govt pulled rug out from under rather than blame business failure all on Norton management. There is much deeper meaner background in UK manufacturing involving socialist experimentation to see how workers would react but that is beyond scope of fun forum like this. Yet If all I'd ever experienced were 850's then I'd not ever given a 2nd thot to sticking with Norton foolishness.
 
Yeah, the Mk1 750 section is filled with negative generalizations like:
"The ignition switch mount would break from vibration (later relocated). It would be interesting to know how many buyers were injured or
killed by one or more of these flaws."
Shitty writing for a Wiki page if you ask me.
I couldn't get all the way through it since it seems like he's regurgitating a Roy Bacon book. He did say the steering head bearings were later
switched to rollers. I don't think that's correct is it? The Commando photograph at the top of the page with the non-stock paint job and cheap pattern mufflers would not have been my picture choice either.

Mark
 
Roy Bacon books are far better written, and researched, than that !

The fun and games begin if you try and edit that rubbish - some troll is sitting there, and reverts it back before you are even finished !
 
So here is the entry and it's obviously written by a jealous Triumph owner. Anyone want to rewrite it? I'll post the changes to Wikipedia. :mrgreen:

===Mk1 750 cc===
[[File:Norton Commando 750.jpg|thumb|Norton Commando 750 Interstate model with its distinctive large touring size petrol tank.]]
The Norton Commando was introduced in 1967 at the [[Earls Court Exhibition Centre|Earls Court Show]]. The first production machines completed in April 1968 had bending frame problems, removed with the introduction of an improved frame in January 1969.

There were numerous other design problems which were gradually addressed over the years, although some persisted to the end. The early clutches could not handle the engine torque, and two small internal pins would shear off, leading to severe slippage (later resolved). The side-stand tended to break off, leaving a hole in the frame beneath the engine, while the center-stand was too short to provide good support for the motorcycle, dragged on the pavement, and tended to break in half (both later improved). The engine rubber mounting system, which isolated the rider from vibration very well, left the engine to its own devices, and it shook like a commercial paint can shaker, gradually destroying anything attached to the engine.

The rocker arm oil supply pipe was steel, and would fracture from vibration (later improved). The head steady would also fatigue and fracture from vibration (later improved). The Amal carbs had float needle leakage from vibration, which led to flooding and fires, exacerbated by having the ignition points located under the right hand carb (relocated to the right side of the engine after the first year). And the carburetors wore out quickly from vibration (persistent problem).

The points advance mechanism would take a set and stick in the advanced position, resulting in a very fast idle (never resolved). The main bearings were of two types, ball and roller. The main roller bearing would gall at high revs, leading to main bearing failure (resolved after the Combat model debacle). The threaded aluminum knobs holding the seat would strip, leaving the seat loose (never resolved). The chain guard mount would fracture (later improved).

The exhaust pipe manifold nuts were problematic to the end, loosening from vibration no matter how tightly they were fastened, leading to a ruined cylinder head and constant rattling of the header pipes. The brake light switches were unreliable, leading at times to no brake light indicator (front was improved with disc brake). The steering head bearings were ball-type, and took a permanent set under the bearing pre-load, leading to weaving at speed (later switched to roller bearings). There was a rear chain oiler which covered the rear wheel in oil, and had to be pinched off by the owner.

The speedometer drive mechanism operated from the rear wheel, with a long cable to the speedometer. This drive mechanism wore out very quickly, as did any replacement, leading to no speedometer reading (never resolved). The early tachometer drive jutted from the right side of the engine, and was vulnerable to being struck and snapped off (relocated to front of engine). The primary chain tensioning bolt tended to loosen at inconvenient times. The rear chain adjusting bolts pushed, rather than pulled, the rear axle, and would bend, making them difficult to turn. Nor were there index marks to allow equal axle positioning on the right and left side of the swing arm. The ignition switch mount would break from vibration (later relocated). It would be interesting to know how many buyers were injured or killed by one or more of these flaws.

The original model, called the 'Fastback' was joined by the scrambler style 'S Type' which had a high level left-side exhaust and a 2.5-gallon (11 L) petrol tank. The first Commandos had a [[Twin leading drum brake|twin-leading-shoe]] front drum brake.

Production of the machine was initially complex and located across different parts of England, with the engines produced in [[Wolverhampton]], frames in [[Manchester]], while components and final assembly was at Burrage Grove, [[Plumstead]]. In late 1968 Plumstead works was subject to a Greater London Council [[compulsory purchase order]], and closed in July 1969. With assistance of a Government subsidy, the assembly line was moved to North Way, [[Andover, Hampshire|Andover]]; with the Test Department in an aircraft hangar on [[Thruxton Circuit|Thruxton Airfield]]. Frame manufacturing was transferred to Wolverhampton, where a second production line produced about 80 complete machines each week. Components and complete engines and gearboxes were also shipped overnight, from Wolverhampton to the Andover assembly line.

The production racer, featuring a tuned engine, front disc brake and finished in bright yellow, was known as the 'Yellow Peril'. In March to June 1970 the updated S called the 'Roadster' had the ''750 cc'' engine, low-level exhaust, upward-angled silencers with reverse cones. September 1970 saw the introduction of the classic 'Fastback Mk2', which had alloy levers with modified stands and chain guards. The ‘Street Scrambler’ and the ‘Hi Rider’ were launched in May 1971, with the ‘Fastback Long Range’ with increased petrol tank capacity from July 1971.

The ‘Combat’ engine was introduced in January 1972 saw the appearance of the ‘Mk4 Fastback’, updated ‘Roadster’ and the ‘750 Interstate’. The ‘Combat’ delivered {{convert|65|bhp}} at 6500&nbsp;rpm <ref>{{Norton Commando Owners Workshop Manual published by Haynes ISBN 978-0856961250}}</ref> with a 10:1 compression ratio, but the stressed ''750&nbsp;cc'' twin proved extremely unreliable, with main bearing failures and broken pistons common.

The 'Combat' engine combined with quality control problems gave the company a bad reputation, which was highly covered in the press. By the middle of 1972 [[Birmingham Small Arms|BSA Triumph]] group were in serious financial trouble. The UK Government decided to bail the company out with a financial rescue package, providing it would agree to merge with Norton Villiers. [[Norton Villiers Triumph]] was duly formed and the new company got off to a shaky start.

The last of the 750 series, the MkV was produced from November 1972 to mid-1973 as a 1973 model and featured improved crank bearings and the standard grind camshaft. Compression was reduced to 9.4:1.
 
actually, it reads pretty accurately to me

by and large Commandos were poorly built and subject to many reliability issues and constant maintenance

I am surprised the wiki piece did not talk about the Commando "weave" and its life threatening problems

I bought a new one every year from 71 to 75, I was thrilled with the look and performance but otherwise.....
 
Yet If all I'd ever experienced were 850's then I'd not ever given a 2nd thot to sticking with Norton foolishness.

really? I was not aware you have owned an 850, thought you had a couple of 750s including a Combat

but do tell us why you feel 850s are not worthy for you to stick with Norton, you must have a low opinion?
 
Petty good read actually. It's funny though, we all talk here on the forum about fixing this, redesigning that, improvements we make to particular long standing problems. We make them more reliable and talk about doing to our machines what the factory should have done. Let some out sider talk trash about them though and that's, that's, well that's fightin' words! And that's how it should be!
 
We just had a scope of opinions on 750 vs 850 steering wise and I had a early 850 stored at my place and also lent and ES one in Iowa for over 100 miles to find them becoming breathless on run ups to pass and extra effort to fling this way or that so its a personal taste, though I've been made to work and pay attention keeping up with an 850 just visiting in my well practiced area on my SV650. I do think the 850s can be best looking of the factory range. Ugh I am into getting to scared limits w/o working too hard is all, either steering into it or dealing with all the 850's various refinements.
 
Biscuit said:
Petty good read actually. It's funny though, we all talk here on the forum about fixing this, redesigning that, improvements we make to particular long standing problems. We make them more reliable and talk about doing to our machines what the factory should have done. Let some out sider talk trash about them though and that's, that's, well that's fightin' words! And that's how it should be!

Hit the nail on the head!
 
Just needs to following entry.

All of the major faults have either been engineered out of the later versions by the factory or there are fixes developed by a enthusiastic owner base which can be easily applied. Once you have enjoyed yourself with the spanners you will have a Motorcycle that at least holds its own against all Motorcycles from the era and many later ones.
 
A balanced description might have included some positive information about the bikes. In 1968, 1969 and 1970, like the Vincent before them, they were the world's fastest production motorcycle. Even when the 750 3 cylinder Kawi came out later, it was only faster in a straight line, if you could stand the noise, smoke and vibration!

Glen
 
You guys are missing the point.
A Wiki page should be written objectively and be concise. It should read like an Encyclopedia entry, not a rambling
diatribe of personal opinions regarding shortcomings and design flaws. He's using the Wikipedia to highlight the negative aspects of the Commando.
The Wiki should be written as a "reference".

Take a look at the Triumph Bonneville Wiki page and you'll see a well written piece:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Bonneville

Here are the guidelines for writing Wiki pages. Do you see any he's failed at?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... st_article

If you want to create a web site dedicated to the technical flaws of the Commando, go for it. God bless you.
The problem is that a Google search of "Norton Commando" will list this page first.
The writer obviously gets his "rocks off" on this and feels empowered.

OK, the more I think about this, the Wiki if full of Shitte anyway. Who really cares.
If you're looking to the Wiki for useful Commando information, you get what you deserve.

Mark
 
" The engine rubber mounting system, which isolated the rider from vibration very well, left the engine to its own devices, and it shook like a commercial paint can shaker, gradually destroying anything attached to the engine. "

gross misrepresentation & negligent of benefits and current plagerism . :twisted:

" The points advance mechanism would take a set and stick in the advanced position, resulting in a very fast idle (never resolved). "

Tripe . 73 on 9 Mk V 750 & 850 , uprated C.B. assy . Only NEGLEGANCE in MAINTANANCE would allow Adv. Mech. to Become unserviceable .

" The steering head bearings were ball-type, and took a permanent set under the bearing pre-load, leading to weaving at speed (later switched to roller bearings). "

in first Decade of production ! :twisted: after that , in 1970 the Tapered Bearing adopted . :P

" he speedometer drive mechanism operated from the rear wheel, with a long cable to the speedometer. This drive mechanism wore out very quickly, as did any replacement, leading to no speedometer reading (never resolved). The early tachometer drive jutted from the right side of the engine, and was vulnerable to being struck and snapped off (relocated to front of engine). "

What was that Kawaski Guy who used to be on here ? No Maintanance ? Last ( ) should state 1970 .

he ‘Combat’ engine was introduced in January 1972 with a 10:1 compression ratio, but the stressed ''750&nbsp;cc'' twin proved extremely unreliable, with main bearing failures and broken pistons common.

resolved by specialist Assy & Factory recall .

" The last of the 750 series, the MkV was produced from November 1972 to mid-1973 as a 1973 model and featured improved crank bearings and the standard grind camshaft. Compression was reduced to 9.4:1. "

from this date quality Control issues largely resolved .
 
" . It is named after the Bonneville Salt Flats, Utah, where Triumph and other motorcycle companies made attempts on motorcycle speed records. "

1955 Christchurch, New Zealand Russell Wright Vincent-HRD 998 cc (60.9 cu in) 184.83 297.640 [6]
1956 Bonneville, U.S. John Allen Triumph 649 cc (39.6 cu in) 193.730 311.778 [15][broken citation]
1956 Bonneville, U.S. Wilhelm Herz NSU Delphin III streamliner 499 cc (30.5 cu in) 211.4 338.092 [6] First record over 200 mph (320 km/h)
1956 Bonneville, U.S. Johnny Allen Triumph 649 cc (39.6 cu in) 214.5 345.188 Unratified by FIM[16]
1962 Bonneville, U.S. William A. Johnson Triumph 667 cc (40.7 cu in) 224.57 361.41 [6]
1966 Bonneville, U.S. Robert Leppan Triumph Special[6] Gyronaut X-1[16] 1,298 cc (79.2 cu in) 245.60 395.28 Triumph Special twin-engined[6]
1970 Bonneville, U.S. Don Vesco U.S.A Yamaha 700 cc (43 cu in) 251.66 405.25 [6] Two-stroke twin-engined[17]
First record over 250 mph (402 km/h)

Bugger . i thought it HELD IT . 1956 thru 1970 . Must be that kwikersaki nutter writeing them . Perhaps they dont want to offend the Jappanese or they wont get any more free lunches . :wink:
 
lcrken said:
I read it. Looks pretty straightforward to me. What part makes you think he hates Commandos?

Ken


As pointed out, it isn't Wiki ' ish; it isn't up to Wikipedia standards. I didn't know that, in terms of Wiki's guidelines , when I read it, but I felt it.
The author goes out of his way to be correct in his litany of negatives so that his criticism would be beyond repute while carefully avoiding, even suppressing the positives.

So, yes, I have to agree, it is straightforward . . . . . . as far as it goes. As with biased newspapers, what they don't cover, what they don't say, is where their bias can be seen.
 
Whada they sayabout the kwackersakis ?

just tripped over this .
H1
Wiki Entry Unduly Harsh


Quote " I was going to scan in my copy of the Denco frame bracing diagram....but the great part about the internet is someone already posted it. This is your first step with the frame if you want something that resembles anything that wants to go around a bend: " http://www.caferacer.net/forum/project- ... oject.html :P :oops: :mrgreen: :roll:

had to look fr Z1 of course . :wink:
Wiki Entry Unduly Harsh
http://69.46.28.106/forum/5-chassis/294 ... 0&start=80

:lol: :lol: :x

Wiki Entry Unduly Harsh


:D :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: hysteria etc . :( :) :twisted:

Wiki Entry Unduly Harsh


" -1 FRAME BRACE KIT:

Consists of fitted 4130 CMS tubes and gusset plates. When welded to your stock frame, flex will be greatly reduced. Use with our Z-1 motor mount kit and your Z-1 will have a top performing chassis. Instructions included. " http://www.kzrider.com/forum/5-chassis/ ... racing-kit

They Forgot the SWINGARM > :? :o :( :P oh dear . how misguided . http://www.2strokeworld.com/forum/index ... c=14115.15 he forgot the eight gallon fuel tank . :cry: :cry: :cry:
 
I think although most of the article is accurate except the bit about the roller bearings in the steering head, and the 9.4 compression ratio (I think it is 8.4) He fails to mention any of the good points. I think the Nortons had very good performance in every area compared with contemporary machines. At Mission Raceways near to Vancouver I think that it was not until the era of the first GSXR 750s that the lap records set by Commandos were substantially improved apon. It was amazing how the Norton with it's very basic design would keep up with Ducatis on the track, at least until the 750ss came out. I think they make a way better touring bike than a GSXR as well. Pretty soon all the old GSXRs will be worn out and the Nortons will still be going. Probably it is because of the good points that Commandos are still very popular bikes. There are a lot of people like me who still prefer them to almost anything else. It is amazing how good they are really. I don't agree that the 750s were better than the 850s either. I prefer the 850. Mine has a great amount of really lazy power. The 850s are incredibly durable compared with the 750s. For some reason my 850 with single 38 mm carburetor, stock in every other way, is faster than my friends PW3 cammed dual carb 750. I don't think the handling is very much different at all. Any difference in steering would not be noticed once you had gone around the block a few times. For road riding I would always pick stability over flickability. The weight of the 850s can be more, but if you strip off the electric starter and some other stuff they are the same really.

Maybe someone should change the Wiki entry. It might be nice if it was mentioned about the Commando winning the best bike of the year award for three or four years in a row from Cycle magazine or whoever it was who had done that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top