The Commando Frame - NOC Roadholder May 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unfortunately that simplistic approach - no doubt championed by those who do not design - results in, at best, incremental design steps. Something prevalent in the auto industry, but not by any means universal in engineering or science. Many of our greatest steps forward have been made when the rulebook has been tossed out the window. Mistakes are made, but the big steps forward are made by those daring to make the jump. A thorough understanding of what went before is useful in knowing what to dismiss, but ignorance of preconcieved limitations can be just as useful.
 
When I was in the process of leaving NV in late '70, during a discussion with Bob Trigg, he said ".....I can offer you a job as a Development Test Rider, but you will have to arrange your own life insurance"
cheers
wakeup
p.s. During my walk down lifes rich highway, I have worked with many Engineers. Some brilliant, some not so much. Some recently qualified Mech Engs didn't know the difference between a lathe and a mill, let alone what they were used for. I also worked with a few Scientists, of course they were all brilliant, never argumentative, willing to listen to another point of view etc etc.
 
davamb said...."....when the rulebook has been tossed out the window". I used to be a draftsman working for the UK Guvmint. Across the back wall of the office there would have been, probably 40 shelf feet of Design Guidelines. In there were answers to 99% of all questions and situations likely to be faced in the design of a new ship. My boss, who had done his apprenticeship as a shipwright during WW2, and had seen most things, explained it as "the Design Guidelines are for the guidance of wise draftsmen. If you do something that is in the DG, you know that it's a proven solution. If your problem is not covered by the DGs, and you have a solution, expect to have your solution to be very heavily scrutinised"
This is a long winded way of saying "when the rulebook has been tossed out the window"
cheers
wakeup
 
I have only encountered one company using FMEA in Australia. It was a seat-belt manufacturer in the northern suburbs of Melbourne who used to number-crunch using a Cray computer in the States. Now that our government has decided we won't be making any more cars, we have taken another step backwards. At one stage I was working in a factory which was manufacturing aircraft. The wind tunnel testing was done up the road in a research establishment. A lady engineer was not very motivated and was slow in processing the results - so the aeroplane was test-flown without them The tail plane fluttered and broke up. The test pilot went out the windscreen as a motor came in and was killed. The co-pilot ended up quadriplegic. When the wind-tunnel results were analysed after the crash, they showed the tail-flutter. We don't make aircraft in Australia any more.
 
wakeup said:
davamb said...."....when the rulebook has been tossed out the window". I used to be a draftsman working for the UK Guvmint. Across the back wall of the office there would have been, probably 40 shelf feet of Design Guidelines. In there were answers to 99% of all questions and situations likely to be faced in the design of a new ship. My boss, who had done his apprenticeship as a shipwright during WW2, and had seen most things, explained it as "the Design Guidelines are for the guidance of wise draftsmen. If you do something that is in the DG, you know that it's a proven solution. If your problem is not covered by the DGs, and you have a solution, expect to have your solution to be very heavily scrutinised"
This is a long winded way of saying "when the rulebook has been tossed out the window"
cheers
wakeup
Click to expand...

Our lot would ask you 'what is a design guideline ? '. They used to start at point A and progress to point B modifying as they went. We used to have production runs in which every item was substantially different from every other item. And what is 'configuration management' - do we need to do that ? It stunned me how different the aircraft factory was compared with the next bunch of idiots. - All irrelevant and over and done with now - started at the top with our politicians who have no skills, so would not know.
 
davamb said:
Unfortunately that simplistic approach - no doubt championed by those who do not design - results in, at best, incremental design steps. Something prevalent in the auto industry, but not by any means universal in engineering or science. Many of our greatest steps forward have been made when the rulebook has been tossed out the window. Mistakes are made, but the big steps forward are made by those daring to make the jump. A thorough understanding of what went before is useful in knowing what to dismiss, but ignorance of preconcieved limitations can be just as useful.
Click to expand...

I am with you on this. One of the biggest limitations of the UK automotive industry was the incremental approach which kept going on for too long. In the automotive industry, complete model revamps occur every 5-7 years, with intermediate incremental changes taking place every 2-3 years. In the traditional UK bike industry, complete model revamps occured every 20th year - at best, and incremental upgrades were often so small that they were hardly noticeable. A further limiting factor was that managers trusted incompetent in-house knowledge too much. Also, project management seems to have been very loose, allowing developments to drag over several years. Maybe the general productivity was feeble and the efforts spiritless? When the results were finally tested, too often the outcome was deemed unsatisfactorily or even useless and the project would be terminated.
I remember AMC's P10 disaster, where one designer's wrong ideas and stubborness cost the company a fortune and probably sealed the company's fate. An early review by external experts could have brought the project on the right track. The same thing happened with the N-V Cosworth project. With incompetent engineers and poor project management, even huge capital investments won't help.
The Commando project seems to be a deviation from the normal outcome, maybe thanks to strict project management by Dr. Bauer. I think it's a narrative of british bike industry that a german had to be brought in to help AMC/N-V to succeed with this project.
 
Last edited:
Irrespective, the Commando frame once the early issues overcome, is a bloody good piece of kit even by todays design criteria. As for all the modern design software, analysis etc, reminds me of the US engineers who were trying to design the replacement for the Harriers - 'how the hell did they manage to do such a good job with a slide rule'
I was also reminded many times that aero engineers were the elite - total bollocks, I could count the numerous times that that aircraft had fallen out of the sky in my career, though they could not recount how many times that a weapon from side arm to medium range automated guns injured or killed their operators.
As for scientists, they will tell you how safe it is, an engineer will prove how safe it is. As many on here know, engineers will readily design, build and ride what they make, bringing together nearly all the detail mentioned in previous posts.
 
mdt-son said:
I am with you on this. One of the biggest limitations of the UK automotive industry was the incremental approach which kept going on for too long. In the automotive industry, complete model revamps occur every 5-7 years, with intermediate incremental changes taking place every 2-3 years. In the traditional UK bike industry, complete model revamps occured every 20th year - at best, and incremental upgrades were often so small that they were hardly noticeable. A further limiting
Click to expand...
worked well for hardley
 
One thing I have learned from road racing is that when you get blown to the weeds, you go and inspect the bike that did it. The Brits always seem to be inwards looking, rarely copying. The Japanese took note of everything and picked the best bits to include in their own creations. What has always amazed me has been their ability to create new models so rapidly. A lot seems to have to do with their American approach to industrial engineering and quality ethos. Our modern ISO9000 quality systems originated in the UK, but it seems that in that country social conditions and culture inhibited the way that knowledge was used. After WW2 Germany and Japan were rebuilt under Marshall Plans. There was no Marshall Plan to rebuild the UK.
To my mind, the Commando was a very good bike for it's time, but that type of bike is past it's use-by date. I like Commandos and I also like Blower Bentleys, for similar reasons. 'Some things are so bad that they are good'.
 
84ok said:
worked well for hardley
Click to expand...

I guess you mean HD. They form an exception because they operated in a protected marked until the 1970s. Since 1950 the big cruiser bikes which saw few changes over decades were supplementet by the Sportser models which saw rapid changes. Also, HD had the world's biggest home marked and an extremely brand loyal customer base. However, times were changing for HD since the 1970s. The advent of the big Moto Guzzi V7 and Kawasaki Z900 meant a loss of business with police forces. From what I know HD nearly went belly up in mid to late 1980's . They have been through several transitions and ownership changes.
Lucky for them, there was always an investor willing to inject more cash into the concern. HD had to restructure, improve on quality and modernise their designs in order to survive. Still, the model revamp intervals seem longer with HD than with other brands. I guess it's part of the cult.

-Knut
 
Last edited:
The Evolution engine that first sold in 1984 saved HD from certain doom. It featured aluminum barrels and long studs that pinched the barrels between the engine case and the heads. No problem controlling the stretch and maintaining the clamping force, no re-torquing needed. The replaced shovelhead was much like the Atlas-Commando engines with very short studs holding the barrels down and ditto for the head bolts. Another major improvement was moving to Keihin carbs. I took a continuous improvement course in the early 90's that used a story from another one of their clients, HD. Harley was pumped up on quality, and specified that a shipment of 1,000 carbs should have 'just 3 defects'. The Japanese shipped 997 perfect carbs and sent 3 'defective' ones in a separate box. They must have wondered what Harley wanted with them.....
 
mdt-son said:
I am with you on this. One of the biggest limitations of the UK automotive industry was the incremental approach which kept going on for too long. In the automotive industry, complete model revamps occur every 5-7 years, with intermediate incremental changes taking place every 2-3 years. In the traditional UK bike industry, complete model revamps occured every 20th year - at best, and incremental upgrades were often so small that they were hardly noticeable. A further limiting factor was that managers trusted incompetent in-house knowledge too much. Also, project management seems to have been very loose, allowing developments to drag over several years. Maybe the general productivity was feeble and the efforts spiritless? When the results were finally tested, too often the outcome was deemed unsatisfactorily or even useless and the project would be terminated.
I remember AMC's P10 disaster, where one designer's wrong ideas and stubborness cost the company a fortune and probably sealed the company's fate. An early review by external experts could have brought the project on the right track. The same thing happened with the N-V Cosworth project. With incompetent engineers and poor project management, even huge capital investments won't help.
The Commando project seems to be a deviation from the normal outcome, maybe thanks to strict project management by Dr. Bauer. I think it's a narrative of british bike industry that a german had to be brought in to help AMC/N-V to succeed with this project.
Click to expand...

The Austrian , not German ,was bought in by Dennis Poore who knew him from Cambridge. Old pals act. Just who were these incompetent engineers ? Do tell. And ,by the way , AMC was basically doomed by the disastrous decision to make in house its own gear box. And this was the call of the outgoing head bean counter not the engineers
 
Last edited:
German or Austrian - never mind - they are basically the same tribe :)
There is nothing wrong with using the network of acquaintances - we all do, don't we? With an acquaintant, you normally have the benefit having someone you can trust. If that person also has management skills - even better!
I will tell you about incompetent engineers in a seperate posting.
Why do you think the decision to make in house gear boxes was a "disastrous" one? I think it's one of the better decisions made, as AMC had a fleet of models to support - from 2-stroke lightweights to the biggest 750/800 cc bikes. They had all the resources to make the gears and machine the cases - so why shouldn't they? Economics of scale in my view.
You seem to know a lot of the goings at AMC. However, no single person could decide on a project of this scale. They had a very elaborate accounting and estimation department at AMC, far more advanced than at Tri/BSA according to reports. Given the financial magnitude and the strategic nature of the development, this would have been a decision taken by the board of directors, no question.
 
Actually it was the economics of scale that caused the problem - huge expenditure for tooling that could not be recovered for there was not a sufficient internal demand. The AMC box is superb for its time ,but they could have bought in from Burman at a very significantly lower cost and have left working capital for the tooling needed for new models or engines.And it was the much fabled accounting system the brainchild of Heather that lay at the heart... And much later the bean counters made another outstanding contribution to the Norton engine. They stopped balancing the rods , vibration was now resolved by the isolastics. Main bearing failures ...

It is of course easy to criticise with the benefit of hindsight , and certainly the later NVT was a very slippery terrain on which one suspects Poore was not always sure footed. But that is a different issue from the specific one of engineering. It was the inability of the new incoming management to supervise production that seems to have spelt problems both at Plumstead and elsewhere and to adequately exploit or appreciate the expertise that was available and to hand . These were management issues not specifically engineering ones. As regards the isolastic frame , whether it was actually designed by Bauer or not , it was revolutionary and works very well indeed. It had faults that were rectified , but If they had consulted internally ,or with Reynolds then it would never have got the reputation of being widow maker. Reynolds were not exactly unknown to either AMC or the old Bracebridge Street factory.
 
Last edited:
N-V was doing OK, but not super-well, when I bailed out at Easter of 1968. From an distant viewpoint (the US Northwest), it looked to me that trying to rescue Triumph, on top of the problems N-V were having, was not a good idea.

Can anyone tell me what happened to AJS and the Villiers "Starmaker"-powered "Stormer" street/trail bike after NVT finally died? I assume it went down the drain. Towards the end of my stint at N-V we were having problems with the Starmaker engine having "instantaneous" brief seizures of the piston rings in the area of the cylinders adjacent to the exhaust ports. By the time I left it was still a big issue. Using Castrol "R" in the fuel/oil mix solved the problem, but you had to shake the bike about to re-mix the oil/petrol mixture if the bike had stood for more than a couple of hours. Castrol "R" didn't dissolve in the petrol like regular 2-stroke oil.

They were still scratching their heads when I left. When I met the M-X team at a meeting in Washington State about 18 months later there was no mention of the issue.
 
acotrel said:
.. After WW2 Germany and Japan were rebuilt under Marshall Plans. There was no Marshall Plan to rebuild the UK.
..
Click to expand...

Nonsense .
UK received twice more Marchall aid than Germany :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

Plus :
" Even while the Marshall Plan was being implemented, the dismantling of ostensibly German industry continued; and in 1949 Konrad Adenauer, an opponent to Hitler's regime and the head of the Christian Democratic Union,[86] wrote to the Allies requesting the end of industrial dismantling, citing the inherent contradiction between encouraging industrial growth and removing factories.." (quote )

Plus :
All its intellectual property and patents where stolen ..
 
ludwig said:
Nonsense .
UK received twice more Marchall aid than Germany :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

Plus :
" Even while the Marshall Plan was being implemented, the dismantling of ostensibly German industry continued; and in 1949 Konrad Adenauer, an opponent to Hitler's regime and the head of the Christian Democratic Union,[86] wrote to the Allies requesting the end of industrial dismantling, citing the inherent contradiction between encouraging industrial growth and removing factories.." (quote )

Plus :
All its intellectual property and patents where stolen ..
Click to expand...

There is more to History than Wikipedia...
 
oldmikew said:
There is more to History than Wikipedia...
Click to expand...

Precisely
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Germans_after_World_War_II

Quote :
"..In 1946 a fifth of all agricultural work in the UK was performed by German prisoners.[26] An emotional and public debate ensued in the UK, where words such as "slaves", "slave labour" and "forced labour" were increasingly used .. In 1947 the Ministry of Agriculture argued against rapid repatriation of working German prisoners, since by then they made up 25 percent of the land workforce, and they wanted to use them also in 1948.."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top