850 Mk2 & Mk2A Discussion Split From Another Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
L.A.B. said:
All available photos show what appears to be a bare frame being attached to the power unit.

But then the basic motorcycle was often the same under the bodywork. It was bolt-on parts that determined model and colour.

I would guess the engines and gearboxes were stamped first especially when the main assembly was done at Andover and power units were assembled in Wolverhampton.
Click to expand...
All makes sense, thanks.

I would love to see how the steering head bearings were inserted. I would hate to do it a shoulder level but attaching the certification plate would probably be more comfortable at shoulder level.
 
L.A.B. said:
The factory records between 305549 and 317848 are lost/destroyed, therefore January 1974 probably was the new model release date which would have been reported in the weekly motorcycle newspapers, monthly motorcycle magazines, etc.
Click to expand...
That would include The Titanic, 307241. Build Date May 73 RH4 head.
 
marshg246 said:
L.A.B, we've gotten way off the OP's topic. Could you split this where the model identification started?

Anyway:

310311, marked Nov 73, has a RH10 (known original and known MK2A)
307542, marked 8/73, had a RH10 (not known if original and now on 320691, 307542 was a parts bike, not "A", used to rebuild 320691)
A 75 MKIII I'm working on has an RH4 head that the owner tells me is original.
Click to expand...
The SS Clone's '75 Mk III motor came new with it's RH4 head.
 
MichaelB said:
Wow, 3077** is Sep, 73. So 500 bikes from May to Sep?????
Click to expand...

Could've been the last day of May and the first day of September. 500 seems a low number and why the date stamp information doesn't seem to be all that reliable.

Edit: There could have also been a two-week summer shutdown during that period.
 
Last edited:
L.A.B. said:
Could've been the last day of May and the first day of September. 500 seems a low number and why the date stamp information doesn't seem to be all that reliable.

Edit: There could have also been a two-week Summer shutdown during that period.
Click to expand...

So far, we have:

307241 May 73
307542 Aug 73
3077xx Sep 73
3087xx Sep 73
310311 Nov 73
3104xx Jan 74
3104xx Nov 73
311032 Dec 73
312xxx Feb 74

Using Aug 73 to Feb 74, there is a difference of 4958. Using the middle of the months and 312500 for the Feb 74 bike, that's 6 months so about 826/month; or using Aug 73 to Dec 73 there is a difference of 3490 and again middle of the months, that's 3 months so about 1162/month. Yes, I know it's not scientific and probably wrong but I'm thinking roughly 1000/month.

The two:

3104xx Jan 74
3104xx Nov 73

Are interesting. Especially the Jan 74 - how did that get so out of order?

BTW, in the US the VIN/Owner are a matter of public record. That's why I don't mind posting the entire number. Is that different in other parts of the world?

​
 
I've been mistaken on my date for some time so allow me to toss it into the mix of things. 5-74 315114 MkII with RH-10 head.
 
Looking at both my 72 Mk. IV and 74 Mk.2, it is apparent the dates were stamped at a different time than the serial number.
It appears they were stamped while the tag was on the head stock. Each date stamp is in a different spot because of the rotation of the tag on the head stock to stamp at an accessible spot.
 
MichaelB said:
Looking at both my 72 Mk. IV and 74 Mk.2, it is apparent the dates were stamped at a different time than the serial number.
It appears they were stamped while the tag was on the head stock. Each date stamp is in a different spot because of the rotation of the tag on the head stock to stamp at an accessible spot.
Click to expand...
That's certainly possible, especially in 72. 201251 was the 25th "built" on Jan 4, 1972 according to the record AN has and the date on the certification label is Dec 71. "Built" could easily mean finished and the date could easily mean assembly complete (before testing). However, the AN record I have for 320691:

Machine No.: 320691
Motorcycle Batch No.: 6HA
Frame No.: 114572
Date Off Track: 23.10.74 (Oct 23, 1974)
Date Passed Test: 5.11.74 (Nov 5, 1974)
Date Packed: 6.11.74 (Nov 6, 1974)
Date Dispatched: 26.11.74 (Nov 26, 1974) Edit Typo
Color: Black
Destination: USA


Certification Label: 8/74 (Aug 1974)

So, the date on the certification label is quite a bit earlier than the first date in the record. This leads me to believe that they did things very differently in 1972 and 1974. The 1972 record is simply a hand-written list that gives the serial and color. The 74 record is like a table with a typed heading, stamped "Machine No.", and hand written entries in the rows.
 
Last edited:
marshg246 said:
(snip)

The big thing to realize in the US is that back then, the date on the title had nothing to do with when the bike was built. It only had to do with what the importer (dealer) put on the paperwork.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. A legal definition of a "model year" for motorcycles in the US began in 1979 with emissions standards which included a requirement that a model year had to be set and emissions control equipment (and certification paperwork). The concept of a "model year" was begun by car manufacturers for marketing purposes in the 1950s and adapted by State registration authorities. Since it was on titles and registration papers, if began to be required of motorcycles but there was never any Norton factory adoption of a "model year".
What DID happen during the Commando years was that the states required a "MSO" -- a certificate that linked a motorcycle to it's paperwork as "first retail sale" in the US. That "MSO" listed a Model Year but they were only issued by legal factory distributors, not dealers.

The "model year" designation on a US title means *nothing* about the vehicle series designation and design features of a Commando as built by the factory.

If you don't believe this, you can ask the person who handled this function for Norton-Triumph motorcycles in California (and I'll tell you the same thing over again).
 
marshg246 said:
Wow! Really early!. Do you know for sure that it started life with the RH4 and with that date on the certification label?
Click to expand...
It has less than 4500 original miles on the clock, so if the speedo is original, I doubt the head would have been replaced. Like all archeology, a certain amount of logical speculation must be incorporated. No way to know for sure without being the original owner.
 
Blewdy Yaink said:
Exactly right. A legal definition of a "model year" for motorcycles in the US began in 1979 with emissions standards which included a requirement that a model year had to be set and emissions control equipment (and certification paperwork). The concept of a "model year" was begun by car manufacturers for marketing purposes in the 1950s and adapted by State registration authorities. Since it was on titles and registration papers, if began to be required of motorcycles but there was never any Norton factory adoption of a "model year".
What DID happen during the Commando years was that the states required a "MSO" -- a certificate that linked a motorcycle to it's paperwork as "first retail sale" in the US. That "MSO" listed a Model Year but they were only issued by legal factory distributors, not dealers.

The "model year" designation on a US title means *nothing* about the vehicle series designation and design features of a Commando as built by the factory.

If you don't believe this, you can ask the person who handled this function for Norton-Triumph motorcycles in California (and I'll tell you the same thing over again).
Click to expand...
Agree all, but lest our overseas friends think there was one rule - there was not.

For instance, Georgia didn't require motorcycle titles until about 1985. Today, Florida residents can walk into a Florida DMV with a bill of sale that that say is a Georgia bike built before 1985 and walk out with a Florida title. In Virginia or Maryland, it's nearly impossible to get a title for a old bike if you don't have a title.
 
marshg246 said:
Agree all, but lest our overseas friends think there was one rule - there was not.

For instance, Georgia didn't require motorcycle titles until about 1985. Today, Florida residents can walk into a Florida DMV with a bill of sale that that say is a Georgia bike built before 1985 and walk out with a Florida title. In Virginia or Maryland, it's nearly impossible to get a title for a old bike if you don't have a title.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that information, Greg. Of course, Georgia was in "Berliner territory" up until about the the end but I'm pretty sure that we (Norton Villiers Corp.) issued MSOs for Georgia motorcycles. Since they were signed over like titles, they were useful for establishing in a trail of legal ownership. I would be interested to know if a person went to a DMV in Virginia and said "I bought this motorcycle new in Georgia in 1974 and the dealer gave me this MSO but Georgia never issued a title. I'm willing to swear under oath of perjury that I've never sold this bike but kept it in my possession. I've moved to Virginia and want to register it here with a title. Is this acceptable?" I'm going to guess that it might have to go to a senior manager but I think it would probably end up being accepted by Virginia.

Certainly, I agree with your point about Certificates of Title being handled differently by different states, particularly 45 or so years ago. But this further emphasises our assertion that the "Model Year" number on a US title means nothing about the "series" or production run specification grouping of any Norton motorcycles.
 
L.A.B. said:
All available photos show what appears to be a bare frame being attached to the power unit.

850 Mk2 & Mk2A Discussion Split From Another Thread
850 Mk2 & Mk2A Discussion Split From Another Thread
Click to expand...

Len, can you provide any more enformation regarding the upper photo??? If this is, as I suspect, R. Denniss Poore visiting a Commando production line, I'd love to know the back-story that explains what he's doing sitting on an upturned tea chest in his office clothing. (Of course, there appear to be other "suits" over on the far side of the line as well). Do you have any information on where that photo was taken? (Plumstead Rd., Andover, or Wolverhampton)? Actually the engines appear to be "20M3S" engines, which would pretty much rule out AMC at Plumstead Rd.
Many thanks, Bruce Henderson, North Carolina USA
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top