Seriously. If you love working on bikes, and owning strange tools that fit nothing else (Whitworth) as well as three sets of tools (Whitworth, SAE, and Metric), get a Norton. Particularly if you love rebuilding motors, adjusting weird frame adjusters that control how much the motor flexes in the frame, and swingarm bushes that dry out and need to be lubed with 90 weight oil, not grease. If you love a bike that slings oil everywhere and has a dry sump, get a Norton. If you enjoy shopping on English websites for parts made in Pakistan, get a Norton. I owned five or seven or something like that. Road bikes and also raced one with the AFM.
Honestly, if you enjoy riding, get a modern turn key Japanese bike. You won't regret it. If you enjoy looking cool and working on bikes, get a Norton. And an English to American dictionary so you can figure out what "sprag bush ratcheting tool" is.
This is something of an exaggeration.
Of course if you race them, they're going to require a lot of maintenance.
That's an engine that started its existence as a mildly tuned 500cc twin, and gradually increased in displacement, compression ratio, valve timing/lift until they were more like hand grenades than engines.
But if you avoided using the full power potential of them, the high performance later models could be as reliable as the original models, many of which soldiered on for many years, and in some cases hundreds of thousands of miles (not without the occasional rebuild, no engines designed in the late 40's and built in the 50's, 60's and early 70's lasted forever).
In spite of running basically the same engine as the Norton Atlas, to which AFM's warning truly does apply, the Commando when properly set up, and properly maintained, is one of the most reliable of the British vertical twins.
Hell, my Royal Enfield 750 Interceptor, which is not as highly reputed in the reliability area as the Commando, has been running since 1984, when I last rebuilt it. It's due for a rebore, pistons and a valve job, but still runs fine, and doesn't smoke.
I don't race around on it (that's the reason to own a modern bike), but I do ride it, and haven't had much trouble with it in those 30 years.
In some ways, it could be argued that older bikes are better than modern bikes. Simple, easy to fix (it's not that big a deal to have an extra set of wrenches on hand), and way fewer things to go wrong.
In all the years I've owned my Enfield (since 1972), it's only actually let me down to the point where I couldn't get home on it 3 times.
For several years, it was my only bike, and I rode it all over Northern California, and was up on Skyline with it nearly every weekend.
Meanwhile, in the 10 years I've owned my Aprilia, it's been trailered home exactly the same number of times.