Posted by Mark Olson on July 16, 2010, 1:37 pm
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
Posted by The Older Gentleman on July 16, 2010, 2:18 pm
> 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
Posted by tomorrow@erols.com on July 16, 2010, 2:42 pm
> 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.
Posted by Bob Myers on July 16, 2010, 4:01 pm
tomorrow@erols.com 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.
That all falls under "delivering the intended function." Keeping the
people in the marketing department happy is (often unfortunately)
an objective of the engineering department.
Desmodromic valves actually DO serve a useful purpose, of course,
whether or not they're of any real advantage to 90%+ of the
people who buy them.
Bob M.
Posted by tomorrow@erols.com on July 16, 2010, 4:12 pm
> tomor...@erols.com 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.
> That all falls under "delivering the intended function." Keeping the
> people in the marketing department happy is (often unfortunately)
> an objective of the engineering department.
> Desmodromic valves actually DO serve a useful purpose, of course,
> whether or not they're of any real advantage to 90%+ of the
> people who buy them.
Oh, I certainly know that. However, I question the marketing
advantage as well as any performance advantage of the desmo valvegear
in any of Ducati's current range except the superbikes.
I'd actually prefer a valvespring GT1000 to the desmo GT1000. I had a
valvespring 750GT for many years and the lack of desmo valvegear was
no handicap to me loving motorcycle!
Anyway, I was just nattering on....
XML Sitemap
>
>> 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.