Wikipedia Entry on Norton

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Commando section could be fleshed out a bit. The rest of the article seems to follow the standard story, which happens to be very typical of many motorcycle manufacturers.
 
Boy Davidsum1, if you don't like the Wikipedia article, don't read Mick Duckworth's book "Norton Commando".

He's brutally honest, and he has dirty pictures.
 
I see what you are talking about, the info on the commando cuts out after describing issues with the 72 main bearings without mentioning the move to superblends which fixed the problem. Also the iso rusting and resulting in fishtailing is something that would occur after a long period of time without maintenence. It does seem to leave you hanging on a sour note.
 
ludwig said:
Norton went belly up because of it's apalling production quality and utter contempt for its customers .

I think that you're being a little hard there Ludwig. Who precisely do you mean by Norton ? The ex-factory employees that I've had contact with have all struck me as decent chaps who did the best they could with the means available.

I can't view the declining years of Norton as a case of 'sell any old rubbish you can and sod the consequences'. I think that even Dennis Poore was motivated by a desire to keep an industry producing motorcycles.

I think that sadly ,due to years of underinvestment, they were trying to produce an old fashioned machine on old fashioned tooling and attempting to compete with far more efficient manufacturers. Inevitably corners were cut and important stages in design and production were omitted. What was the alternative ? Probably that they had disappeared 25 years earlier like Sarolea, FN and Gillet.

Perhaps history would have viewed the Norton name more kindly had the factory closed rather than being taken over by AMC ? We'd all have missed out on a lot of fun if that had happened.
 
I'm quite happy about the bad press, hopefully less people will want to buy them and I can snap up a few more for myself :lol: :lol:
 
Are we masochists for loving such a flawed motorcycle :?: :?: :?: I think it is the soul cast and welded in those machines that make them appealing, so what if they have a few quirks, if you want something as reliable as a toaster and just as boring, get something else.

As with any wiki, this one can be modified, anyone can put in what they want, but it doesn't make it true :wink:

Jean
 
Jeandr said:
As with any wiki, this one can be modified, anyone can put in what they want, but it doesn't make it true.

BINGO!

The entire concept of Wiki strikes me as fertile ground for revisionist historians, opinionated people, and idiots.
 
So, why not start a new entry for the Commando section here? Once we are happy with it we can upload it to Wikipedia.

The 750 Norton Atlas was noted for its vibration. Rather than change engines Norton decided to change the frame, and the isolastic-framed Norton Commando 750 was the result.
In 1969, the Commando was introduced. Its styling, innovative isolastic frame and powerful engine made it an appealing package. The Commando easily outperformed contemporary Triumph and BSA twins and was the most powerful and best-handling British motorcycle of its day. The isolastic frame made it much smoother than the Atlas. It used rubber bushes to isolate the engine and swinging arm from the frame, forks, and rider. However, as the steel-shims incorporated in the Isolastic bearings wore, often from rusting, the bike became prone to fishtailing in high-speed turns.[clarification needed]
The "Combat" engine was released in January 1972, with a twin roller bearing crank, 10:1 compression and developing 65 bhp (48 kW) at 6,500 rpm. Reliability immediately suffered, with frequent and early crank-shaft main-bearing failures, sometimes leading to broken crankshafts. Older engines had used one ball-bearing main bearing and one roller bearing main bearing but the Combat engine featured two roller bearings in a mistaken belief this would strengthen the bottom-end to cope with the higher power-output. Instead the resultant crank-bending caused the rollers to "dig-in" to the races, causing rapid failure. This fragility did not show up well,[clarification needed] especially when compared with the reliability of contemporary Japanese machines.[12]
The Commando was offered in several different styles: the standard street model, a pseudo-scrambler with upswept pipes and the Interstate, packaged as a tourer. Electric start was introduced in 1974. Sales were respectable but the company declined financially and became insolvent in 1975.[5] In 1976 a Norton with a US-flag theme on the tank could be purchased for US$1,976.

Just BOLD your edits and go at it!
 
I just finished reading Shooting Star. It is painfully evident that the Brits were trumped by Japan who invested in modern equipment. Also how long did Norton hold onto the single before making a twin. At both Norton and Triumph the racers were crying for a 4 cylinder but they keep on making twins. They could sell as many as they could build why change? As far as bad bearings I have a 1993 Harley that some pencil pusher saved a buck on the cam bearing and they all disinagrated. That garbage is going to happen with any company. Look at how many Toyota's are currently being recalled.
 
And I have to wonder about the effect of WW2. In school we all learned that we destroyed Japanese and German industry and then rebuilt it via the Marshall plan. While American and British taxpayers were funding the reconstruction of our former enemies our industires had become complacent. The former Axis had all new factories and machine tools and the British were still using pre war methods and tooling.
The social consequences and errors by government, unions, and management seemed to ignore the fact that the workers needed jobs. Dennis Poore gave it a try but it does seem that everything conspired agaisnt him. In those days it seems few folks were listening to reason.
There really was a lot that went wrong in that period and I expect it is fertile ground for some kid who wants a PHD.
 
Triumph had a new factory from 1943 as a result of the bombing of Coventry. Quite how Sangster got this money out of the wartime government remains a matter for speculation. It didn't mean that the last Triumphs were much more modern (and certainly no better made) than their Norton counterparts.

Whilst Germany and Japan were pretty well compelled to rebuild their industry, successive British governments ignored theirs. With the exception of the car-subsidised and in the 1970s extremely expensive BMWs, Germany didn't make such a good job of retaining a motorcycle industry.

I think that we have to look at British motorcycles in the context of an era when enthusiasts were expected to work on their own machines. Trying to judge them against modern expectations inevitably makes them look poor. I'm sure that I've got off cheaply and easily compared with anyone who's been thrashing a bevel Ducati to the limit for thirty odd years.
 
One must wonder then how the Commando managed to be named MCN's Machine Of The Year for 5 years straight. Perhaps innovation, style and performance count for something?
 
Castigating Norton for being badly made has to be considered in the context of the circumstances in the period 1965 to 1975. Norton was financially bled dry by AMC. This prohibited product development. The engineers knew they had to update their product and tooling but did not have the money to do so. There was a AMC shareholders revolt, but it was too little too late. Dennis Poore of Managnese Bronze saw the opportunity and immediately started the revival of Norton by employing Dr Stefan Bauer of Rolls Royce to plan the transition to a new range of big motorcycles. Poore knew that the Japanese had the market share in small and mid size bikes so he concentrated on what he had, the 750 Atlas.

Poore needed to get a new product into the market as quickly as possible to build market share and allow time to develop a new class of big bikes. So we got the Commando. Sure it had shortcomings. But not everyone had a bad experience. My neighbour bought a brand new 750 in 1971 in England. he rode it through Europe to Morocco and then down through Africa to Cape Town. he then shipped it to Sydney, Australia and finally rode it across 4,000kms to Perth West Australia across the Nullarbor, cited at the time as the worst 'road" in the world. 1200kms of dirt, dust and rocks. It did not breakdown. he had punctures and a few broken spokes but he got to his destination and he still has the bike today. At that time I was working for the state Yamaha dealer, and we had in 1 year 9 TX 750 motors on the floor under warranty claims. They were were not worth rebuilding. The TX750 twin was a mechanical disaster. And this was supposed to be the latest and greatest product from one of the top manufacturers. At the time Commandos were the better bike!

What stopped Poore from developing the next generation of Norton? - British socialist government. The Triumph workers had gone on strike. After much complicated financial dealings involving public funding, the government decided that Dennis Poore had a better chance of saving what was left of the British motocycle industry. Poore's plan was to keep the T150 triple and drop the T140 twin, and make the Commando and the Trident in the same factory. This made sense. The Meriden workes did not like it all and went on stike and locked up all of the T150 tooling. Poore had a contract with the government and had to proceed with the Trident. He paid up GPB500,000 just for a replacement set of T150 crankcase tooling. Plus a lot more duplication of processes and parts set back Norton Triumph Villiers badly. This situation crippled Norton's development plan and the final extension was the Mk3. The rotary at least mananged to move on. By any standard the engineering ambition was there, in particular the rotary shows forward thinking and what a hell of good bike that tirned out to be!

It was financial stuff ups that killed Norton, as money went down problems went up. But I would say in their peak days they were not a bad motorcycle, sure a few annoying problems and the very nasty Combat issues, but when these were sorted out we eneded up with the very solid and dependable 850. I'm happy to ride mine anywhere without Ewen and Charley's fleet of backup!

Mick
 
Hey, some of those Somalians have fortunes just waiting to be freed with my help, pretty soon I too will be a millionaire :mrgreen:

Jean
 
This means nothing .
90 % of these votes where from British teenagers who never came closer to a Commando than drooling over it at Earls Court .
It has the same credibility as organising a poll in Somalia whether an Aston Martin Vantage is a better sports car than a Ferrari 458 .

Yer Ar*e, they were voted the best bike by the readership of the paper which wasn't 90% spotty schoolboys. The Japs would have loved to have had the CB750 voted best bike 5 years in row. I (as a schoolboy at that time) lusted after one more than any other bike (I still do) and thats why as soon as I could afford one (still as a teenager but less spotty then) I bought one and except for 2 years when I started racing and needed all my cash to finance that obsession I've had one ever since (well more than one actually) 8)
 
OK Ludwig - then are we just fools for loving our Commandos so much?

I've owned mine for 34 years and have never had the desire to trade it in for something else. I wonder if I'd have kept a Goldwing or 903 Z1 for as long, those were my other choices back then. Maybe I've been lucky, but my Norton has behaved well all these years and I have no regrets. And the morcycling world today certainly doesn't paint the Commando as a POS.
 
Only fools fall in love, so yes.

I can see why that Wikipedia page hasn't been edited, ya'll can't agree on anything! :mrgreen:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top