The company I used to work for accidentally put certain brakes on a certain truck then carried out a test that showed the pads on average would last 11 years. The disk might rust in 20, but would wear out in 47! It can be done, but this is considered bad engineering. No one sells a truck. You give the truck away at cost then make money on extra's and servicing. Our brake design failed on that score and the truck manufacturer takes the **** insisting on paying the market price (ie lower every year) but keeping the better product. The way out of this will be for the brake company to loose this business once it becomes unprofitable, the competitors will last 37 months on pads and 60 months on disks and EVERYONE will be happy!
The green thing is a huge issue and logically can be solved by solid designs. If we repair our Bullets and MZ's we are greener. The problem is that the consumer isn't ready for this. I'll bet Watsonian make very little on a Bullet even with Indian Labour making them. They make money dressing them up to look like 60's cafe racers etc. This is waste and very un-green. Would you pay £6000 for a standard Bullet? No manufacturer is going to put the vehicle on the showroom floor with the slogan "we know it's £2000 more than our competitors, but the parts are cheap and available and over it's life you'll be better off".
Triumph and Harley are IMHO accidentally leading the way. The Bonneville Black and Sportster are meant to get you "up" onto bigger less practical bikes, so they take the hit. These bikes should be disposable, but neither company can face the development costs of making them so, so they are simple and repairable. How many sales does Harley loose because 883's can be fitted with 1200 cylinders? It's a form of recycling though.
The one company who stood a chance of leading the solid bike revolution (BMW) have realised they can turn out low cost vehicles and sell at high value prices based on their past reputation. The complex 1200's are the manufacturers dream. At 12 year's old, the customer faced with a busted ECU that's NLA will buy a new bike. You can almost build a time bomb into each bike. This BTW is why the models change. Legally you have to sell parts for 10 years in most markets. Hence if a 2000 bike is the same as a 2008 your timebomb is less effective as it goes off in 2018 not 2010
I'd say don't hold your breath guy's. Expect more catastrophic pervertors and other gimics rather than solid engineered solutions.
BTW, I wouldn't worry about chains and cables over shafts and rods. Both can be made to last forever using the right technology if the market would stand it. A £20 automatic chain tension and enclosure installed at the factory for example would double chain life. Chains used in other applications have much longer lives, the Ducati timing belt versus your average chainsaw never mind a car engine is a good example.
The solution? No idea. If we all keep our old bikes the manufacturers will just try and cut showroom prices by putting the profit into parts again. Taxing spares would be the governments solution I fear.
Andy
