Talk:Norton Commando

New Category for British Motorcycles

As part of the Motorcycling WikiProject I am working though all the missing articles and stubs for British Bikes. To make things easier to sort out I have created a category for British motorcycles. Please will you add to any British motorcycle pages you find or create. It will also help to keep things organised if you use the Template:Infobox Motorcycle or add it where it is missing. I've linked the Category to the Commons British Motorcycles so you could help with matching pics to articles or adding the missing images to the Commons - take your camera next time you go to a rally! Thanks Tony (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Commando problems

The first batch of Commandos sold in Nz were the Fast Back model with the fibreglass tank and drum front brake.In the first 6 months these are the problems that arose:

• Petrol tank leaked
• Isolastic rubber mounts failed after 3months of normal use.
• Replacement mounts failed after 2 months use
• third set of mounts failed after 3 months use
• exhaust pipe rattled off.Retaining nuts have to be wired on to resist vibration
• Gear change very slow
• Drum front brake (smaller than the one on a suzuki T250)overheated after 1 fast stop-fades to nothing-very dangerous
• Primary chain cover leaks oil-machined flat and gasket replaced with oil proof sealant
• Very slow handling-not really suited to urban riding
• Paint flaked off frame
• Back tyres only last 5,000km
• Layshaft in gearbox snapped
• horn fell off
• key switch fell off

The Commando was a very fast bike for its time with a genuine top speed of 121-3mph.The very strong midrange power meant that the 4 speed gear box was enough. When the rubber mounts were new the handling was slow meaning it was fine in sweeping bends but slow corners were a pain as the bike wanted to go straight ahead. When the isolastic mounts failed the handling was dangerous, as when the throttle was shut, the engine wobbled about independently making the bike weave about regardless of what the rider did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.186.243 (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

New Donnington Commando

This article desperately needs a photo of the new bike. Any offers? Arrivisto (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Parallel twin

Why does parallel twin (which is correct) link to "straight twin"? Obviously this is a transverse twin, not a straight twin. Not many of those! Most important is that the Commando is a 360 degree twin - a "parallel twin". Both pistons move together but they fire alternately. I can't see any mention of this in the article, yet it's one of the most important things about the Commando. All of the vibration problems and the rubber bush problems to try and deal with those are because it's a parallel twin. 82.132.237.119 (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The explanation is found at the linked article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't. That link just goes to "straight twin", which is about inline boat engines as much as bikes. There is no indication that the 360 parallel twin in the Commando is a specific type. Even the term "parallel twin" isn't used to mean what it ought to. There is one small section in the twins article that does barely explain 360 twins but there's no link to it and the section doesn't mention Commandos. There is nothing in this article that says what a 360 degree parallel twin is and the link is set up to misrepresent this as if "parallel twin" doesn't mean any more than "straight twin".

I guess you're not a biker, or at least not one riding old Brit bikes. This 360 degree thing matters. They even ride differently to non-360 transverse twins. 82.132.222.211 (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Isolastic mounting adjustment

My experience with these was that the best results were achieved with zero clearance (but n.b. *not* negative clearance -- in other words, set up so that shim carriers could be rotated by hand with negligible resistance.

Thus my conclusion was that the clearance specified in the workship manual was intended to be a *maximum* (certainly permitting anything much more was a recipe for handling that was disconcerting at best.

However, I've never been able to find confirmation of this conjecture. Can anyone suggest a source, so that this can be stated in the article?

Julian Wells (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Advice on maintenance doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. See WP:NOTHOWTO. Also see WP:NOTFORUM for talk page use. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)