Harley-Davidson Ownership Questions
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Ok TOG so tell us already, willya?
Next: Definitely Demolition - Proven FACT, 9/11 was an inside job.
From: Bob Myers on 16 Jul 2010 13:00 Datesfat Chicks wrote: > But I wasn't REALLY satisfied until I removed the rear wheel myself > and got a look at everything. Somehow I believed that there was a > complicated system involving gears, levers, and fragile parts in > there. I would not have imagined that the system was as simple as > bearings riding on an axle that goes straight through. Simpler than > I expected. There's a lesson to be learned here with respect to mechanical things, especially those which may appear to be some sort of Big Mystery to those unfamiliar with their innards: the manufacturers of such things are ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS going to make them as simple as possible consistent with delivering the intended function. It's simple economics. That's not to say that there aren't complex mechanical things out there - they may NEED to be, under the "consistent with delivering the intended function" qualifier - but if you're looking at a design which is overly complicated for what it's supposed to be doing, you're looking at a design that isn't very mature at all. So when you're first setting up your mental model of what you're going to be getting into, you can get a pretty good idea by figuring out just how complicated the function of a given device is, and how long the manufacturer of that device has been making them. If it's an experienced maker of something that's doing a pretty simple task - like, say, "letting this wheel thing spin while supporting the weight of the bike" - you're more than likely going to find a clean, simple, elegant design. Bob M.
From: sean_q_ on 16 Jul 2010 13:20 Bob Myers wrote: > manufacturers of such things are ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS > going to make them as simple as possible consistent with delivering > the intended function. It's simple economics. It also sounds like a corollary of Occam's Razor. But I wouldn't say quite ALWAYS as sometimes the makers intentionally design things more complex than necessary for various reasons, such as showing off. I can't think of any examples at the moment, as I have to rush off to a bike salvager to scrounge some parts for my friend's CB750 chopper... which is less complex than a stock CB750. SQ
From: Mark Olson on 16 Jul 2010 13:37 sean_q_ wrote: > Bob Myers wrote: > >> manufacturers of such things are ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS >> going to make them as simple as possible consistent with delivering >> the intended function. It's simple economics. > > It also sounds like a corollary of Occam's Razor. > > But I wouldn't say quite ALWAYS as sometimes the makers > intentionally design things more complex than necessary > for various reasons, such as showing off. I can't think > of any examples at the moment, as I have to rush off > to a bike salvager to scrounge some parts for my friend's > CB750 chopper... which is less complex than a stock CB750. The CB900C and CB1000C are a perfect example- the addition of a 2-range subtransmission to a chain drive engine in order to convert it to a shaft drive, and coincidentally utilize the GL1000/GL1100 final drive which was on the opposite side of the bike from the chain driven version. It would have been better to redesign the engine to add a bevel drive box similar to what Kawasaki did to the Ninja 900/1000 engine when they came out with the ZG1000. The bevel box idea worked so well that it is possible[1] to stuff a ZRX1200 engine into a Connie without (IIRC) frame modifications. [1] Although still ultimately pointless
From: The Older Gentleman on 16 Jul 2010 14:18 Mark Olson <olsonm(a)tiny.invalid> wrote: > It would have been > better to redesign the engine to add a bevel drive box similar > to what Kawasaki did to the Ninja 900/1000 engine when they > came out with the ZG1000. The bevel box idea worked so well > that it is possible[1] to stuff a ZRX1200 engine into a Connie > without (IIRC) frame modifications. They did it even before that with the air-cooled Z/GPz750 and the GT750 (which I think the US only got as a horrible cruiser called the Spectre) Same engine, but just a simple bevel conversion for the GT. Kawasaki's parts interchangeability is almost modular at times. Love it. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: tomorrow on 16 Jul 2010 14:42
On Jul 16, 1:00 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...(a)address.invalid> wrote: > There's a lesson to be learned here with respect to mechanical > things, especially those which may appear to be some sort of > Big Mystery to those unfamiliar with their innards: the > manufacturers of such things are ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS > going to make them as simple as possible consistent with delivering > the intended function. .... except when something more complicated provides a measurable marketing advantage or contributes to brand cachet, or both. See: desmodromic valve actuation, among other oddities. |