General Category > General Discussion
SIMPLICITY: Real and Perceived
willowstreetguzziguy:
As I get older, I find myself asking the question…Why do things have to be so complicated? It seemed life in the past was simpler. You would buy a product, read a few sentences of instructions, and use it. It just doesn’t seem that simple anymore.
Recently I’ve been going back, to what seemed like a simpler time, and browsing through my collection of old RIDER magazines from 1974-1988. I liked the look, clean lines, and yes the simplicity of the bikes from that era. I loved the articles and road tests by rider Dick Bloom. (Does anyone know if he’s still riding?)
I came upon an article entitled … “SIMPLICITY: Real and Perceived” by C.D.Bohon in the August 1983 issue. I found it thought provoking. Here are some interesting quotes from that article 31 years ago! …
“… today’s twins (1983), even those made by the old guard companies, really aren’t that simple any more. Black box electronic ignitions, replaceable but unfixable, are the rule. Double overhead cams, shims, buckets, three and four valve heads and all manner of counter-balancers are all part of many a modern “simple” motorcycle. And if the simple – so-called – motorcycle is really complicated, yet doesn’t deliver the performance of the more complex motorcycles, why buy it?”
“Simplicity is a virtue of necessity”, said one engineer. “When you don’t know how to make a complicated engine that will stay in one piece, you make a simple engine. When you can’t get materials of high enough quality to last in a complicated engine, you make a simple one. And you don’t make a complicated engine because you want to, you make it because it delivers more power. And that’s what the customer wants. Always.”
“Singles and twins were kings for decades. In fact so long that many riders came to view them as the ideal motorcycle type, and any variant as a dead-end mutation…. They governed what a motorcycle should look like, the kind of power it should deliver, what sound it should sound like and the kind of maintenance chores you should be able to do…. They were what they were because of technological production and materials limitations. Crankshaft bearing, piston ring and valve spring technology, among other things, governed their design.”
“Once the valve technology had been developed, the days of the single and twin mass market motorcycles for the power-hungry masses were numbered…. And fortunately, the technology that develops that power often solves reliability problems as well.”
“As a result, our over-complicated techno-wonders not only gave us the power we want, they are also reliable, and getting more so. And more maintenance free.”
“But doesn’t the trend to V-twins …and singles (in 1983), don’t they all indicate a trend to simplicity? No, for most of these bikes aren’t simple, they merely have fewer cylinders, which true in a crude sort of way is simpler. But would you say a Honda V45 is simpler than a Cadillac V-16 of half a century ago because it only has one-forth the cylinders? Not likely.”
Back in 1986, I sold my BMW R90S for a new fuel injected, electronic ignition BMW K75C. A riding buddy with a 1970 BMW 750 said he would never own one of those new BMW's because they were too complex to work on if something went wrong. Interestingly enough, whenever I’d call him to go riding, his bike ALWAYS needed to be worked on. Something always needed fixed. So while he wrenched... I rode.
Any thoughts....
Kev m:
Your final example says it all.
I like simplicity, but I don't confuse modern components or certain commonplace technologies with necessarily being combined or unreliable.
Far from it, in general modern vehicles have on a whole proven much more reliable then their counterparts of a few decades ago.
That's not to say there haven't been some spectacular modern fails, just that by and large they are much fewer and further between.
Antietam Classic Cycle:
--- Quote from: willowstreetguzziguy on December 27, 2014, 08:55:02 PM ---
“… today’s twins (1983), even those made by the old guard companies, really aren’t that simple any more. Black box electronic ignitions, replaceable but unfixable, are the rule. Double overhead cams, shims, buckets, three and four valve heads and all manner of counter-balancers are all part of many a modern “simple” motorcycle. And if the simple – so-called – motorcycle is really complicated, yet doesn’t deliver the performance of the more complex motorcycles, why buy it?”
“Simplicity is a virtue of necessity”, said one engineer. “When you don’t know how to make a complicated engine that will stay in one piece, you make a simple engine. When you can’t get materials of high enough quality to last in a complicated engine, you make a simple one.
--- End quote ---
Moto Guzzi proves this wrong, guess the writer had his blinders on. In '83 they were just as simple as they were a decade earlier. No electronic ignition, no shims necessary for valve adjustment, no counter-balancers. And it's not like Guzzi didn't know how to "make a complicated engine that would stay in one piece" - they'd been there - done that in the previous 50 years or so.
Guzzistajohn:
Terpsichore?
Aaron D.:
Simplicity is the goal of good design. Doesn't mean it's easy.
Piston engine not simple. Turbine simple.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version