Commando rear wheel to fit 'Slimline Featherbed'

• The spoke flanges are offset 1/8" (sometimes 3/16") to the left as mounted in the Commandop Swinging Arm, so the rim is laced off 1/8" (possibly 3/16") to the right to put the tyre in the centre.

If you want to use a genuine Commando wheel in a Dominator rear end then you must re-align the spoking so that the rim is central to the hub centre. A quick check with a Dunlop WM2 wheel is to run a long straight edge across the sprocket side hub face from rim to rim. If there is more than a 1mm gap anywhere there is a problem.

John Hudson said that, on Dominator rear wheels, the face of the left side bearing boss (the bit that sticks inside the brake drum) should be 31.75mm above the WM2 rim edge.

A bit confused , quite new to the Norton, although it has been resting at the back of the shed for 18+ yrs,, I have just had to replace the clutch centre and realise now that it has no shock absorber in it unlike the earlier AMC clutches so I'm assuming there is some absorbing rubbers? at the rear hub,

however my confusion is that with the earlier clutch mentioned here, would this not have an absorber in the spider and is it not possible to obtain one for a belt driven clutch after all it only replaces the chain and outer basket. or am I missing something here? kind regards

Previously richard_woolnough wrote:

A bit confused , quite new to the Norton, although it has been resting at the back of the shed for 18+ yrs,, I have just had to replace the clutch centre and realise now that it has no shock absorber in it unlike the earlier AMC clutches so I'm assuming there is some absorbing rubbers? at the rear hub,

however my confusion is that with the earlier clutch mentioned here, would this not have an absorber in the spider and is it not possible to obtain one for a belt driven clutch after all it only replaces the chain and outer basket. or am I missing something here? kind regards

Yes, belt drive kits all seem to use the Commando clutch centre. I believe they modify it to fit Dominators. In any case, no cush drive. The belt itself does not transmit shock like a chain though.

Note to troll: I did not say the belt is a shock absorber although you may try to convince everyone I said that. No one ever checks back to what was originally said.

The early Commando used the diaphram clutch and Dommie type of rear bolt up wheel. This had no shock absorbers in its transmission system at all. The factory must have owned 'Sprockets R'Us'!!!

Do owners of early Commandos report problems that might be attributed to the lack of cush drive shock absorber? (Those rubbers in the cush drive are jammed in incredibly tightly. I wonder how effective they really are. They are after all just the same in a prewar 12HP single cylinder side valve and a late 1960's twin cylinder 45HP(?) Atlas.)

And although belts may (or may not) be as stiff as chains, they do have the advantage of providing a constant velocity drive unlike a chain. That alone might justify the desirability of a cush drive with a chain but less need with a belt drive since the belt provides an inherently smoother drive.

Surely the great majority of those who convert Dommies to belt drive do not add the cost of a Commando rear wheel, do they? And do they report harsh drive as a result of fitting a belt? As far as I can tell they are all pleased with the change.

well, well, well, never crossed my mind before, shock absorbion, cush drive, whatever a pedant wishes to call it, I'm assuming now that my April 1969 will probably have no cushioning effect either at the clutch or rear wheel!/

wassabit about a troll mean pse?

kind regards

My Dominator cafÃ? racer in a Wideline featherbed frame has a belt drive clutch and the Commando cush drive rear wheel fitted to it as the Commando clutch does not have a cush drive in it. This was done for me a few years ago, and the conversion will work for a Slimline frame also. The Commando's rear wheel off set is 39mm.

My 1970 Commando has no cush drive and hasn't caused me one iota of problems in the last 40 years

Previously richard_woolnough wrote:

well, well, well, never crossed my mind before, shock absorbion, cush drive, whatever a pedant wishes to call it, I'm assuming now that my April 1969 will probably have no cushioning effect either at the clutch or rear wheel!/

wassabit about a troll mean pse?

kind regards

A troll is someone who responds to a post but builds in some distortion so that you appear to say something stupid or incorrect. I have been attracting them lately. Not so much on this forum. For instance, if I say "If you remove 2 clutch plates you may need to shorten your push rod." The troll will post back "If you shorten your push rod too much the clutch won't work at all. It's a stupid idea."

Now other forum users will all agree that the short push rod is a stupid idea, not bothering to read the original post. The British Iron forum is probably the worst for this. Why do they do it? It gives their life meaning.

By the way, I've never heard it called a "cushioning effector" before.

hello Jonathan, he, he, he, I've never heard of a 'cushioning effector ' either but then I used the words 'cushioning effect' most kind regards

Previously richard_woolnough wrote:

hello Jonathan, he, he, he, I've never heard of a 'cushioning effector ' either but then I used the words 'cushioning effect' most kind regards

Now you see what I mean.