When is a Modification an Improvement?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

T95

Joined
Jul 7, 2010
Messages
356
I thought the following, partial, quote would make for some interesting discussions by the master mechanics out there! It was made in reference to G15 oil modifications but I thought it applied to the dozens of different modifications posted for everything Commando. I would love to hear your thoughts on Modifications and Improvements, what works and what is a myth.

"Referring again to the list of modifications it is understandable the owner should think a modification is an improvement but in fact is often the child of one designers brain against another."

http://www.motorbyte.com/norto

The link was provided by Hobot.
 
There are many cures where there are no problems. So the problem is invented afterwards to justify the modification.
 
At or during what time period are we to change somewhat the form or qualities of our Nortons to bring them into a more desirable condition and increase their relative worth, merit or usefulness ?
 
Mods & improvments are sometimes not related. I use clipons & rearsets, this is a mod but not really an improvement. It's just personal choice. Using steel braided brake lines to replace soft rubber ones is a mod that I would call an improvement. As noted in another thread Im trying to learn about our Iso mounts & wonderin if the "mod" to adjustable ones are an "improvement" or not. Some mods aimed at a higher level of safety are easy to understand but a lot like 1/2 the stainless stuff I have are just cosmetic.
 
A modification is what ever makes ya enjoy it more.
An improvement is some thing every one plus the bike enjoys more or longer.
Don't confuse no choice but replace - like point ignition as either of the above.

One can not modify or improve on a factory issue or it ain't factory issue anymore, then the morality vs mortality balance arises - like first widow maker Cdo frames.
We only live once, but I'm told if done right, once is enough.
 
Every mass-produced object or machine is a series of compromises where some quality or another was sacrificed in the name of ease of manufacture, reduction of cost, or mass appeal. Any modification (change) that brings back one or more of those qualities is an improvement. In the case of the first two, both are different sides of the same coin, which is coin itself. The third is aesthetic, individual, and a matter of taste. If a bracket fractures and you tie a part on with baling wire, that's not a modification, it's a fix. If you redesign and/or rebuild the fractured bracket in such a way that different (more expensive) material or better engineering keeps the bracket from fracturing again, that's an improvement. If you just buy a new stock bracket and paint it a different color or have it chrome plated, that's a modification, because the piece is different though not necessarily better.
 
a modification should both improve the part AND reduce the risk of that part's failure. Too many "improvements" are less reliable than the part they replace.
 
I believe a modification is an improvement if...

1. The bike becomes more reliable.

2. The bike requires less maintenance.

3. Road manners and driveability are improved.

Proddie racer tanks with apehangers and maltese cross tail lights don't count. Ever.
 
gtsun said:
but a lot like 1/2 the stainless stuff I have are just cosmetic.
Click to expand...

Ah, but stainless doesn't peel or corrode, so isn't that a mod or an improvement. And if I where to consider, say the styling of a high rider ugly and changed it to a roadster, that would be an improvement in my eyes even though it has nothing to do with function.
 
A modification can be classified as an improvement if:

A. It results in a lower cost to build

B. It performs as well as, or better than the original, over a very long time / hard use

C. Copies of the modification preform as well as the initial design, repeatedly, with 100% consistent success

E. It results in ease of service / maintenance

F. It results in improved engine performance (power and/or fuel economy)

G. It makes the bike easier to start

H. It makes the bike handle better in one or more situations, without detracting from any other area of operation

I. It increases the value of the bike by more than the cost of the modification

J. any combination of the above

These are SOME of the objective definitions of an improvement, there are MANY subjective ones.
 
T95 said:
I thought the following, partial, quote would make for some interesting discussions by the master mechanics out there! It was made in reference to G15 oil modifications but I thought it applied to the dozens of different modifications posted for everything Commando. I would love to hear your thoughts on Modifications and Improvements, what works and what is a myth.

"Referring again to the list of modifications it is understandable the owner should think a modification is an improvement but in fact is often the child of one designers brain against another."

http://www.motorbyte.com/norto

The link was provided by Hobot.
Click to expand...

In regard to any bike fitted with poor carburetion and ignition parts, then upgrades to these will mean very noticeable gains in performance, reliability, and economy.
 
ludwig said:
I like to think of a bike as a tool to do a specific job .
Not unlike a knife , a computer , a a car , a concrete mixer ..etc .. .
Any modification that makes it do its job better is an improvement .
If someone believes that his bike's job is to look like a rolling christmas tree , than for him every added piece of glitter is an improvement ..

Form follows function .
Click to expand...

MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY
Norton built these machines to sell them, and make a profit. So they looked real sweet on the showroom floor, but with using the thing as intended, obvious shortcomings quickly become known. A good example is that rubber hose for the front brake... saved them some money, but what a joke.

If the machine is clean, and not rusty... a chore in itself around here, I'll spend what I have to enable speed, handling, and safety.
 
DonOR wrote:

A good example is that rubber hose for the front brake... saved them some money, but what a joke.
=============================================
I don't get the joke. My '72 single rotor disc with fresh Lockheed made rubber hose works just fine. Not sure a stainless line would be an improvement by itself.
 
my apologies David, I wasn't intending to dis anyones setup, but....
before I replaced my old rubber hose with the stainless one, when the lever was pulled, if you watched it closely you could see it inflate like a balloon! Yes, it was old, but also not made to last a long time. I think the stainless one will outlast all of us here...
Cheers,
Don
 
Regarding Norton fitting the rubber line to handle the hydraulic fluid for the disc brake:

Did Norton have a choice on this?

Were braided steel lines available in the early 70s that they could have fitted?

I seem to remember the bikes from all the manufacturers fitting rubber hoses for their disc set ups.
 
ok, so maybe the brake line isn't the best example. What about the original headsteady?
 
DonOR said:
my apologies David, I wasn't intending to dis anyones setup, but....
before I replaced my old rubber hose with the stainless one, when the lever was pulled, if you watched it closely you could see it inflate like a balloon! Yes, it was old, but also not made to last a long time. I think the stainless one will outlast all of us here...
Cheers,
Don
Click to expand...

Hi Don,

I didn't take offense. A stainless line in my experience doesn't provide any improvement over a new Lockheed rubber line given stock master cylinder and caliper. The rubber line fits the "J" hooks that hold it in place on the right headlight ear, new one doesn't bulge and rubber doesn't have the potential to hack saw through anything it comes in contact while the engine vibrates.
I'm just cranky because I have a Goodrich stainless rocker feed pipe that doesn't seem to be able to stop leaking at the threaded joint to the banjo at the timing cover. I'm ready to go back to black plastic...those never leaked.
 
grandpaul said:
A modification can be classified as an improvement if:

A. It results in a lower cost to build

B. It performs as well as, or better than the original, over a very long time / hard use

C. Copies of the modification preform as well as the initial design, repeatedly, with 100% consistent success

E. It results in ease of service / maintenance

F. It results in improved engine performance (power and/or fuel economy)

G. It makes the bike easier to start

H. It makes the bike handle better in one or more situations, without detracting from any other area of operation

I. It increases the value of the bike by more than the cost of the modification

J. any combination of the above

These are SOME of the objective definitions of an improvement, there are MANY subjective ones.
Click to expand...

I would beg to differ with "A." 99and 44/100% of the time, making something cheaper is not an improvement. Quality almost always costs more.
 
highdesert said:
Regarding Norton fitting the rubber line to handle the hydraulic fluid for the disc brake:

Did Norton have a choice on this?

Were braided steel lines available in the early 70s that they could have fitted?

I seem to remember the bikes from all the manufacturers fitting rubber hoses for their disc set ups.
Click to expand...

Your suspicions are correct. Our great protectors - the government, the DOT specifically - had not yet approved braided stainless steel lines for highway use. Therefore it was illegal to use it on a motorcycle. All those guys in the late '70's and '80s who bought braided stainless and improved the function and reliability and safety of their bikes by installing it were, and still are, subject to criminal enforcement. Same as if you remove a smog device.

Same BS with all the new bikes' fugly fender/taillight extensions and the illegality of mini LED turn signals. The location and size of the rear tail light/signals is dictated by DOT.

DOT regs assume incandescent bulbs and dictate the area of tail light lenses and the area of turn signal lenses therefrom. The regs fail to allow for the possibility of increased brightness. A tiny blinker can be more visible than a big one, if its an LED as opposed to an incandescent bulb. The burden is on the OEMs to get it changed . . . . at great cost.

Innovation is squashed by safety crats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top