Why is it called a "build" when someone repairs/paints/modifies a bike?

Some people carry on as though building a motorcycle is difficult. During my lifetime I have built different motors and gearboxes into about 5 different frames. If I am anything, I am probably an industrial chemist. My trade skills are all self-taught. It is not rocket science to make a set of engine plates out of aluminium plate with a jig-saw, drill and linisher. The only problem is in getting the centre of gravity correct. Many people self-defeat by thinking too much. I bought my Seeley 850 as a rolling chassis :

ibb.co

LHS-1 hosted at ImgBB

Image LHS-1 hosted on ImgBB
ibb.co ibb.co
 
marshg246 said:
So, Norton didn't build motorcycles since they assembled them from sourced parts? I don't rebuild motorcycles, I reassemble them? AFAIK, I rebuild bikes when I start with a (nearly) complete one and I build bikes when I start with very little like this one: https://www.gregmarsh.com/MC/Norton/Norton_1974.aspx

I do get your point but when someone builds a house, rarely do that cut down the trees, dig the limestone and gravel, make the water pipe, make the wire, and so on.

Sounds to me like you're mixing up building and designing. I don't design bikes, Norton, Triumph, and BSA did that part for me; but, I do much more to build a Norton than Norton did since I have to restore in some way many parts and source others, not just stick them together.
Click to expand...
Triumph made many parts in-house. Norton did not. When you build a house, you take raw material, and convert them to what you need. Buying s bunch of dimensional lumber and cutting to the sizes needed is just like Triumph buying steel and making timing gears, or buying tubing and making frames.

Build or assemble - semantics, often used imprecisely and probably even different based on your version of English and your industry.

You missed the point! Whether you call it building or assembling, Norton didn't make the parts and others did.

Yes, I say I rebuild bikes. I don't say re-assemble because pretty much every part requires work before it can be used. If I were to order all new parts and then put them together, I would say I was assembling a bike.

So, IMO, Norton designed bikes, had parts made, assembled bikes, and sold them.

If anyone has a list of parts made in a Norton factory, I would love to know.
 
marshg246 said:
Triumph made many parts in-house. Norton did not. When you build a house, you take raw material, and convert them to what you need. Buying s bunch of dimensional lumber and cutting to the sizes needed is just like Triumph buying steel and making timing gears, or buying tubing and making frames.

Build or assemble - semantics, often used imprecisely and probably even different based on your version of English and your industry.

You missed the point! Whether you call it building or assembling, Norton didn't make the parts and others did.

Yes, I say I rebuild bikes. I don't say re-assemble because pretty much every part requires work before it can be used. If I were to order all new parts and then put them together, I would say I was assembling a bike.

So, IMO, Norton designed bikes, had parts made, assembled bikes, and sold them.

If anyone has a list of parts made in a Norton factory, I would love to know.
Click to expand...
Most "factories" today are only assembly lines.

Component parts are sourced from the lowest bidder across the globe.

Norton was no different.
 
baz said:
I am able to rebuild a bike
I'm able to modify a bike
I can build one from scratch and have done many times
But I am not able to restore one
I don't have the patience for that! and the blokes that drag mint looking bikes around on a trailer wind me up
I would never own a bike that I couldn't go out in the rain on
So to me a standard bike that's built from parts or a restoration is a "rebuilt bike "
Click to expand...
I like to look for just a moment at the trailer queens, but then they are too nice to ride. Fails the whole purpose.
 
concours said:
I like to look for just a moment at the trailer queens, but then they are too nice to ride. Fails the whole purpose.
Click to expand...
I see no point in row upon row of the same restored bikes at the same shows that never get ridden
But hey they have "the all important matching numbers"
I basically stopped going to shows many years ago because of it
My bikes have to perform at least as good as when they left the factory gates
But I fall down when it comes to finish or originality
If I had something incredibly rare I would probably go the extra mile and keep it as pristine and original as I could but that's just me
 
baz said:
I see no point in row upon row of the same restored bikes at the same shows that never get ridden
But hey they have "the all important matching numbers"
I basically stopped going to shows many years ago because of it
My bikes have to perform at least as good as when they left the factory gates
But I fall down when it comes to finish or originality
If I had something incredibly rare I would probably go the extra mile and keep it as pristine and original as I could but that's just me
Click to expand...
Do you use upholstered plywood?
🤣
Why is it called a "build" when someone repairs/paints/modifies a bike?
 
Or you can do like Jay Leno - Restore them to over the top condition and ride them any way . When they start to look not as nice restore them again . It’s only time and money and I know we all have limitless amounts of both … $$$
 
Richard Tool said:
Or you can do like Jay Leno - Restore them to over the top condition and ride them any way . When they start to look not as nice restore them again . It’s only time and money and I know we all have limitless amounts of both … $$$
Click to expand...
If they get ridden hard and regularly that's brilliant
Over restored and never used is a crime imo but each to their own,they may well die or the bike gets sold on to someone that will use it
When I bought my t160 it was clear to me that it'd never actually been ridden,!!
 
baz said:
If they get ridden hard and regularly that's brilliant
Over restored and never used is a crime imo but each to their own,they may well die or the bike gets sold on to someone that will use it
When I bought my t160 it was clear to me that it'd never actually been ridden,!!
Click to expand...
In the US, lots of bikes are barely ridden.

I've had 4 T150Vs in recent years. The one with the most mileage had 29254 and was never apart but did have a repainted tank. One had 10600 when I bought it, has never apart and has original paint (the only one I kept), one had 10187 miles, and one was a basket case with no speedo.

All the Nortons I've bought that had known mileage were under 10k miles, most under 6k.

It's rare here for bikes to be used for transportation. When I was in college, I only had a Triumph 500 for two years - sure was nice when I finally got a $200 car - heaters are wonderful as are four wheels in the ice and snow!
 
marshg246 said:
In the US, lots of bikes are barely ridden.

I've had 4 T150Vs in recent years. The one with the most mileage had 29254 and was never apart but did have a repainted tank. One had 10600 when I bought it, has never apart and has original paint (the only one I kept), one had 10187 miles, and one was a basket case with no speedo.

All the Nortons I've bought that had known mileage were under 10k miles, most under 6k.

It's rare here for bikes to be used for transportation. When I was in college, I only had a Triumph 500 for two years - sure was nice when I finally got a $200 car - heaters are wonderful as are four wheels in the ice and snow!
Click to expand...
Years ago there was a feature on high mileage bikes in the motorcycle news in the UK ,bikes that'd done over 100,000 miles
There was all the usual suspects, Honda goldwings etc but a smattering of tridents and commandos too
 
Back
Top