Why is it?
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
From: The Older Gentleman on 29 Apr 2010 02:46 turby <keensurf(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 28, 11:04 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older > Gentleman) wrote: > > Thomas <keens...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think > > > > Not really, no. > > Yes, really. It's not bright to suggest that a bike is built purely to keep the after-sales department busy (although the Brits almost made it an art form). There are more likely explanations, like speeding up the process on the production line, for a start. I just tend to get irritated when people kick off with this sort of thing, because it's usually followed by a demand to return to kickstarters and points ignition "So I can fix it myself", and referances to dealers as "$tealer$hips" and similar. Sure, bikes are less user-serviceable than they were in some respects, but OTOH they're easier in others. Manufacturers tend to think about where they put owner-serviceable items like the air and oil filters, for example. Ever tried changing those on, for example, a 1970s-era Guzzi? Fairings (not all, admittedly) come with Dzus fasteners so they can be pulled off quickly to gain access to the oily bits. And, of course, fettling the oily bits only needs to be done once in a blue moon rather than every other weekend. Sure, there are exceptions, and sometimes you wonder: "Why did they do it like this?" but these instances are just that: the exception rather than the rule. -- 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: turby on 29 Apr 2010 03:55 On Apr 28, 11:46 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > turby <keens...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Apr 28, 11:04 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older > > Gentleman) wrote: > > > Thomas <keens...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I think > > > > Not really, no. > > > Yes, really. > > It's not bright to suggest that a bike is built purely to keep the > after-sales department busy (although the Brits almost made it an art > form). > > There are more likely explanations, like speeding up the process on the > production line, for a start. Of course it's not "purely" to keep service in-house. I think the thought process is more a matter of owner-ease-of-maintenance is very low on the priority scale and an increase in shop costs are a welcome side benefit. You can see the same attitude in auto design. More and more, cars are not intended to be maintained by owners. In the case I mentioned - ST1100 vs ST1300, the difference of design intent in the 13 years between the 2 models is startling. It's obvious that Honda went to great lengths to make the 11 accessible with minimal tools, whereas on the 13, there is a real lack of elegance to the way they solved many design problems. Another example - there is a new plastic cover over the heads that must be removed to access the oil fill hole, and they had to put a little door in the fairing to allow that cover to be removed. The cover is strictly cosmetic and the 11 looks fine without it. Speeding up the production line can't be a valid explanation. If that were so, it would take _fewer_ tools and parts to assemble the bike.
From: Ace on 29 Apr 2010 04:07 On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 07:46:50 +0100, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: >I just tend to get irritated when people kick off with this sort of >thing, because it's usually followed by a demand to return to >kickstarters and points ignition "So I can fix it myself", and >referances to dealers as "$tealer$hips" and similar. Oh lordie. Not seen that particular abberation, but it would certainly paint a good picture of the poster. >And, of course, fettling the oily bits only needs to be done once in a >blue moon rather than every other weekend. Not just the oily bits. The fact is that with modern bikes and cars you can pretty much get away with almost no user intervention between dealer services at all. Chain adjustment and lubing is really about the only thing I ever did on any of the (new) bikes I've had since about 1990. Car-wise, well, the R36 has just had its first service, at 37000km, and all[1] I've had to do is refill the screen wash and once to top up the oil, as directed by the warning light on the dash. The fact is that the same modern innovations that make user-servicing seem more difficult are exactly those that also make it largely unneccessary. Although I do miss having a SOB to tinker with. I think I got more fun out of messing with the 400/4 than I ever did riding it. [1] OK, so I change the summer/winter wheels over myself twice a year, but that's not exactly the same thing.
From: Mark Olson on 29 Apr 2010 04:45 turby wrote: > Speeding up the production line can't be a valid explanation. If that > were so, it would take _fewer_ tools and parts to assemble the bike. Now you're getting to it. There are some schoolboy-level engineering mistakes in the electrics of the 2nd Gen FJR that don't exist in the 1st Gen. It's obviously not deliberately done to make it harder for the owner to service, or quicker and cheaper to build, it's pretty clearly an inexperienced engineer or team of engineers being responsible for parts of the wiring loom design.
From: Switters on 29 Apr 2010 04:53
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:17:40 GMT, Wicked Uncle Nigel wrote: > Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Colin Irvine > <look(a)bottom.of.home.page> typed >>> >>>Hoorah! >> >>+1 > > +2 <slap> |