Oh, I really like this Commando!

[Lannis]

I too, have always thought these Royal Enfield 750 Interceptor's were magnificent looking machines...and I understand they all were quite fast for their day!!

They ARE magnificent-looking, and there were quite a few sold ...

... but I go to a lot of British bike events, and because I ride an old BSA or Norton to them (and have done for 20 years), I know most all the guys who are riding old British bikes.

And I mean like overnight rides, or out of state rides, no trailers involved, or even rides to events across the state in a long day.

I see lots of guys on BSAs of all ages, I see a lot of Triumphs, a lot of Nortons (both Commandos and the earlier 88 and 99 models), I see Matchlesses, I see BSA Gold Stars with panniers and small windshields.   I even see rather rare bikes like Ariels and Velocettes doing that kind of duty.  I've seen Vincents show up at rallies, ridden in from the Midwest, and even got to ride one.

But I have never once seen anyone seriously riding one of those beautiful chrome-tanked RE twins.   The old RE singles, yes, even the old 250 two-strokes.   It's not like the Interceptors and Constellations are Brough-priced or rare; they're about the same as Nortons.

They had a bad reliability reputation in the day, and I strongly suspect that the empirical evidence indicates that they have one still!

Lannis

[JJ]

OK...this one's just for Lannis!!  Love old vintage BSA's!!

[blackcat]

Cat, its a 120/18. I put the 18" rim on back around '82. I wanted to go with more modern tires. Back then K81s and K70s were the choices for a 19" rear. I like skinny tires too for the quicker handling but on the Nort its didn't slow it down much.

Pete

Interesting that it didn't make a negative difference.

I had Buchanan's lace up new Sun rims a dozen or so years ago but I didn't consider a different size tire for those rims. Due to the narrow front mudguard on the early bikes anything larger than stock would require a fender change which was out of the question. And it would look funny with that small tire up front and a much wider tire on the back.   

[Lannis]

OK...this one's just for Lannis!!  Love old vintage BSA's!!

I wouldn't kick that out of bed ... !

Lannis

[huub]

i started riding bikes on a norton commando had it for years as daily transport. ,  all my friends had  big british bikes too.
we went all over europe to visit meetings.
even did a few friendly track days together , great times!
one of my friends had a enfield stage 2 interceptor ( the nice chrome tanked one) it was a lot more reliable than my commando.
especially the crankshaft assembly on a enfield  is a lot better than the norton. 
Its one big solid piece of steel with huge bearings. imagine what guzzi would have made if they would make a parallel twin.
For info,  the norton crankshaft is a weird bolted up job , and needs special bearings  because crank flex destroys normal roller bearings.
even with the special bearings, nortons dont like to be pushed , failed crankcases are not unknown.
enfields never had the following triumph and Norton have.
they are pretty rare over here,  apart from my friends one i have never seen another one show up at a meeting.

I used to have at least two engines for my commando, so i could rebuild one, and still have a bike to ride.
still ended up taking the the train to the university quite often. 
apparently nowadays you can modify a commando to be reliable, but after the upgrade there wont be much norton parts left in the engine.
After a couple of years i bought a cheap guzzi to ride over the winter to not ruin my pride and joy commando, i never looked back, the norton is still parked in the back of the shed.

[JJ]

$8700...2 days to go...this HAD a *** RESERVE ***....so we will see what happens...It's a beauty all around!!

[larrys]

You know, I've never understood the belt primary drive conversion on an old Brit.

I have 4 British riders (3 BSA, 1 Norton) with oil-bath chain primary drives, I do my own maintenance, and I can confidently say that the chain primary drive system is the LOWEST failure rate, LOWEST maintenance, LONGEST lasting, and HIGHEST efficiency part of the motorcycle!   

I read far more examples of belt drives shearing off teeth, overheating the alternator or clutch due to lack of oil, and other issues than I read of failures with primary chains .... ?

I've never really heard a good explanation of how it would improve the performance, reliability, or maintainability of any of my bikes if I installed a belt drive.   Electronic ignitions, yes, I'll hide my Luddite badge for a minute and install one.   AGM batteries, LED lights, gel inserts in the seat, guilty as charged, m'Lud.  But belt drives?
Lannis

I have had a different experience with Brit chain primaries. I've built a number of big bore Bonneville engines, one with a Chatlin(sp) 750 big big bore barrel and pistons, a few with Routt 750 and 800 big bore kits. The 800 I built for my '68 rigid frame bike had Megacycle cams, 10 to 1 compression, and all the speed parts that one would install for such an engine. The two row primary broke and blew the bottom out of the primary case and cover during a frisky run up onto the highway with only two seasons on it. I was able to find most of the chunks o' aluminum scattered on the road. I had it welded up and put in a Hy Vo chain drive primary. Think the multi-plate type of chain that was once common for cam chains in small block Chevys. It was some aftermarket flat track primary drive kit. Still used the stock wet clutch. I stretched that one out to unusability in one season. A belt drive with a dry clutch was next. Beat the hell out of it, took it bracket racing at the drags for a few seasons, its still on the bike. That engine was my first hotrod Bonneville engine. Subsequent builds all got belt drive primaries. No problems with any of them. Another old race part I used was a round plate with a bearing that replaced the plate in the primary behind the clutch. It gave the transmission main shaft some outboard support. YMMV.
Larry

[dguzzi]

  My belt drive has required nothing since installed. (early 80's) The only thing I ever did to it was a a spacer behind the bearing (about 2mm). I carry a spare belt but its as old as the original. Its a Clubman Racing product so RGM? 

   Wanna buy my extra chain drive clutch baskets?

[Rough Edge racing]

I have had a different experience with Brit chain primaries. I've built a number of big bore Bonneville engines, one with a Chatlin(sp) 750 big big bore barrel and pistons, a few with Routt 750 and 800 big bore kits. The 800 I built for my '68 rigid frame bike had Megacycle cams, 10 to 1 compression, and all the speed parts that one would install for such an engine. The two row primary broke and blew the bottom out of the primary case and cover during a frisky run up onto the highway with only two seasons on it. I was able to find most of the chunks o' aluminum scattered on the road. I had it welded up and put in a Hy Vo chain drive primary. Think the multi-plate type of chain that was once common for cam chains in small block Chevys. It was some aftermarket flat track primary drive kit. Still used the stock wet clutch. I stretched that one out to unusability in one season. A belt drive with a dry clutch was next. Beat the hell out of it, took it bracket racing at the drags for a few seasons, its still on the bike. That engine was my first hotrod Bonneville engine. Subsequent builds all got belt drive primaries. No problems with any of them. Another old race part I used was a round plate with a bearing that replaced the plate in the primary behind the clutch. It gave the transmission main shaft some outboard support. YMMV.
Larry

There was a reason Triumph switched to a three strand primary chain on the 750 models...My 650 Trumph land speed racer needs it's two strand primary chain replaced about every 6 runs, about 10 miles total use...

[JJ]

I like that Commando...but I also like this fine BSA too!! (...and it will be much more cost effective!!)

[Lannis]

I have had a different experience with Brit chain primaries.

That's 'cause building a race bike is a totally different thing than building a street bike.   Many items that will last forever on the street will blow up in the first race when heading for the first turn in anger .... !

Lannis

[JJ]

This just ENDED at $12,150...but it had a *** RESERVE *** 

Wonder if it made it?!? 

[JJ]

The final hammer price was $12,400, (+ 5% Buyers Premium).  IMHO, someone got a good deal...

[john fish]

Nice price on that Commando. 

I was curious about the Royal Enfield Interceptor so  asked an English vintage biker friend about them.  His off the cuff response:

The Interceptor was rare everywhere.  I don't know for sure but I bet the production figures were, at the very best, in the low tens of thousands.  If I had to bet my life on a number, I would guess between five and ten thousand.  The biggest twin at the time, its reputation here at the time was as:

a. a leaker.  From the cylinder bases (seperate cylinders and heads) which was fixed on the MkII.

b. fast, as you would expect.

c. good handling - for the era but not a match for featherbed/roadholder Nortons.

d. vibratory - the same as all twins that went over their original design capacity.

My own opinion of the problems with the UK motorcycle industry at the time is that the country was so impoverished from WWII that there just wasn't the money floating around to pay (at retail) for the development work and capital investment in machinery and factories that was clearly necessary.  As a result, we suffered the poor quality subsystems (ignition, electrics) that come with building a unit down to a price, followed by the build quality issues that come with shrinking factories and worn out production machinery.


Loverly buggers:

[Dave Swanson]

Thats a gorgeous paint job, Dave!  You must have a painter that is a real perfectionist.
Rick.

I am very lucky.  His shop is a mile away, reasonable price, and a perfectionist,

[JJ]

Again, LOVE those vintage Royal Enfield's, especially the 750 Interceptor!





...and in 2020, one could own the new Royal Enfield INT650 without all the issues and baggage of the past!!  Not a bad looking motorcycle, and cost effective as well!

[john fish]

A friend of mine has a new RE Interceptor and absolutely loves it.  It looks good and the stock pipes sound good.

[larrys]

Nice price on that Commando. 

I was curious about the Royal Enfield Interceptor so  asked an English vintage biker friend about them.  His off the cuff response:

The Interceptor was rare everywhere.  I don't know for sure but I bet the production figures were, at the very best, in the low tens of thousands.  If I had to bet my life on a number, I would guess between five and ten thousand.  The biggest twin at the time, its reputation here at the time was as:

a. a leaker.  From the cylinder bases (seperate cylinders and heads) which was fixed on the MkII.

b. fast, as you would expect.

c. good handling - for the era but not a match for featherbed/roadholder Nortons.

d. vibratory - the same as all twins that went over their original design capacity.

My own opinion of the problems with the UK motorcycle industry at the time is that the country was so impoverished from WWII that there just wasn't the money floating around to pay (at retail) for the development work and capital investment in machinery and factories that was clearly necessary.  As a result, we suffered the poor quality subsystems (ignition, electrics) that come with building a unit down to a price, followed by the build quality issues that come with shrinking factories and worn out production machinery.


Loverly buggers:

When I was stationed at RAF Upper Heyford, '74-'76 I visited the Triumph factory in Meriden and the Norton factory in Wolverhampton. It was like going back in time to the dawn of the twentieth century. Everything was OLD.
Larry

[nc43bsa]

As in, "line shafts and leather belts" old?

[lucky phil]

When I was stationed at RAF Upper Heyford, '74-'76 I visited the Triumph factory in Meriden and the Norton factory in Wolverhampton. It was like going back in time to the dawn of the twentieth century. Everything was OLD.
Larry

Yep, same as when you strip the engine down.

Ciao

[SpadapatinaII]

I read something once about how the Triumph factory had some old boring machine that had served duty thru the war and was completely worn out. The operator retired in the mid/late '60s and tricks to getting usable results out of it left with him. Needless to say they kept using it anyway.

[JJ]

Speaking of cool vintage BSA's...if this one goes for under $3500...someone will be getting a sweet deal!!

[lucky phil]

I read something once about how the Triumph factory had some old boring machine that had served duty thru the war and was completely worn out. The operator retired in the mid/late '60s and tricks to getting usable results out of it left with him. Needless to say they kept using it anyway.

Yes I believe it was a crankcase boring machine that was so worn the original long term operator used to use a piece of 2x4 as a lever to take out the play to get decent alignment. When he retired and they assigned a new operator they couldn't bore a straight hole. They got to the bottom of it eventually.
Mind you the management had Oak lined offices and chauffeur driven cars so they had their priorities organised, sigh. I read a piece about Amal where they interviewed an old employee from their R&D department and it was mentioned how poor the materials were on their carburettors and they wore so quickly. He said the only thing that the British manufacturers were interested in development wise was peak power figure and lessening the cost to them. The material used was primarily about getting the cost down. They weren't interested in any improvements in ride-ability or economy just power and cheapness.

Ciao

[Lannis]

Speaking of cool vintage BSA's...if this one goes for under $3500...someone will be getting a sweet deal!!

Now I know I shouldn't be too brash and bold about BaT predictions, having learned a lesson on that last deal ....

.... but no WAY is this BSA going for $3500!    Even a two-stroke 125 Bantam in that shape would pull that.   There's probably 10 guys waiting to pull the trigger on this one ....

There, I've said it.

Lannis

[JJ]

Now I know I shouldn't be too brash and bold about BaT predictions, having learned a lesson on that last deal ....

.... but no WAY is this BSA going for $3500!    Even a two-stroke 125 Bantam in that shape would pull that.   There's probably 10 guys waiting to pull the trigger on this one ....

There, I've said it.

Lannis

You are probably right!!  Now at $3400 with 17+ hours to go!!

[nc43bsa]

I would bet it goes for close to 10k.

[Wildroamer]

Yes I believe it was a crankcase boring machine that was so worn the original long term operator used to use a piece of 2x4 as a lever to take out the play to get decent alignment. When he retired and they assigned a new operator they couldn't bore a straight hole. They got to the bottom of it eventually.
Mind you the management had Oak lined offices and chauffeur driven cars so they had their priorities organised, sigh. I read a piece about Amal where they interviewed an old employee from their R&D department and it was mentioned how poor the materials were on their carburettors and they wore so quickly. He said the only thing that the British manufacturers were interested in development wise was peak power figure and lessening the cost to them. The material used was primarily about getting the cost down. They weren't interested in any improvements in ride-ability or economy just power and cheapness.

Ciao

Wow.
You two further validate my pick of the Guzzi over a Triumph.

[Rough Edge racing]

Yes I believe it was a crankcase boring machine that was so worn the original long term operator used to use a piece of 2x4 as a lever to take out the play to get decent alignment. When he retired and they assigned a new operator they couldn't bore a straight hole. They got to the bottom of it eventually.
Mind you the management had Oak lined offices and chauffeur driven cars so they had their priorities organised, sigh. I read a piece about Amal where they interviewed an old employee from their R&D department and it was mentioned how poor the materials were on their carburettors and they wore so quickly. He said the only thing that the British manufacturers were interested in development wise was peak power figure and lessening the cost to them. The material used was primarily about getting the cost down. They weren't interested in any improvements in ride-ability or
 economy just power and cheapness.
 

Ciao

That story is from the Norton factory.....
 The original Trumph factory was located in Coventry, destroyed by German bombing early in WW2.A new factory was built in Meriden where Triumph was located until it's demise in 1983. When the factory contents were auctioned off one ,piece of equipment was a large multi spindle milling machine with an extensive brazed repair to the cast iron housing, this was the same machine repaired after the Coventry factory was bombed....
  Triumph always was a profitable company with a good bike for the time period. By the late 60's demand exceeded their ability to produce and quality went downhill. And the fact BSA had owned Trumph since the early 50's and was slowly dragging Triumph down ....The rest is a history of belligerent workers, greedy management, stodgy engineers and politics.
  Despite the oil leaks  and horror stories Triumph dominated many types of racing and arguably won more races that all other makes combined up into the early 70's.
 Jumping on the kick starter of my modified 79  750 Triumph it comes to life with a direct mechanical honesty and every ride is an internal combustion experience. And if you're on a Norton Commando be prepared for a battle if you want to race me..

[JJ]

Now at $4500 with 5 hours to GO!!

[lucky phil]

That story is from the Norton factory.....
 The original Trumph factory was located in Coventry, destroyed by German bombing early in WW2.A new factory was built in Meriden where Triumph was located until it's demise in 1983. When the factory contents were auctioned off one ,piece of equipment was a large multi spindle milling machine with an extensive brazed repair to the cast iron housing, this was the same machine repaired after the Coventry factory was bombed....
  Triumph always was a profitable company with a good bike for the time period. By the late 60's demand exceeded their ability to produce and quality went downhill. And the fact BSA had owned Trumph since the early 50's and was slowly dragging Triumph down ....The rest is a history of belligerent workers, greedy management, stodgy engineers and politics.
  Despite the oil leaks  and horror stories Triumph dominated many types of racing and arguably won more races that all other makes combined up into the early 70's.
 Jumping on the kick starter of my modified 79  750 Triumph it comes to life with a direct mechanical honesty and every ride is an internal combustion experience. And if you're on a Norton Commando be prepared for a battle if you want to race me..

Yep, I wont argue with that although I think it was probably analogous to just about every British manufacturer around that time. Such a shame they let it all slip away.

Ciao