Design versus Decay

We all know what a rat bike looks like - the rusty, bodged hack so many of us have used as temporary transport, picked up for a song from the small ads and ridden with no care until something terminal occurs. Looking over these machines, some not more than a few years old, one marvels at the level of depreciation that has taken place in such a short time. The normal reaction is to blame Jap Crap that extraordinary combination of awful design and poxy materials that results in a bike so wholly unsuited to its purpose, it makes you wonder how any of the Big Four stay in business. The fact that they do suggests a fundamental flaw in this argument, and that other factors must have contributed to the present condition of the machine.

Let us take an example, a '79 Japanese 250, tracing the course of its life:

1979 - bought new with 12 months warranty. Serviced (not too well) by the dealer in its first year. Sold after 18 months when the owner passes his test.

1981 - bought 2nd hand from a dealer by a lad who then paints the frame and tank, replaces the chain but not the sprockets, and rides in all weathers.

1983 - sold after several minor crashes to new owner, who paints the tank again and ignores all the major wear points that have arisen, save those actually necessary for MOT. Leaves it standing in back yard for 3 months, as he cannot afford insurance.

1985 - bought by conscientious chap who changes oil, filter, plugs, points, air filter, chain, sprockets, bulbs, indicators, leaking gaskets, chafed and taped up wiring, only to have the massively worn gearbox give up on him. Swears never to. buy Jap again, as the materials are crap, gearbox design weak, etc.

Sounds familiar? Ask any breaker if he's ever seen a used bike that's been properly maintained, and £10 says he'll say no.

It is a good idea to put yourself in the position of the designer. He is under pressure to produce a design which can be manufactured using existing technology and working practices that needs as little complex tooling and as few intricate assembly techniques as possible, and that must eventually not give the company a bad name for reliability, despite the inevitability of neglect and abuse. To the designer, it is reasonable to expect oil changes every 5000 miles - after all, it's only a matter of half an hour to do it. Similarly, he feels he is not asking the impossible to expect the owner to check the level of all fluids once a week, and adjust things like chains and valves. What he is not doing is taking account of the fact that the bike will be ridden after minor crashes without so much as giving it a workshop check over; nor that even basic precautions like checking the wiring now and again will not even occur to many owners,

What actually takes place is a vicious circle, something like this - the owner buys the bike, masters its power and handling and grows bored with it, and he starts to ride like mad everywhere, while stopping whatever maintenance he might have been carrying out. As the bike's performance and appearance suffer, so his contempt grows, and the treatment gets worse.

By the time the bike reaches the breaker, its condition is dangerous and irretrievable but in many cases it still runs, a tribute indeed to the designer. There are some inherently bad designs, but considering the cost of tooling, the extensive test programmes and the possible consequences for the manufacturers reputation in, a declining and competitive market, it is not surprising that they rarely make it to the showroom.

To withstand the life most bikes lead without needing regular attention, bikes would need to have chrome-moly frames, stoved tank, stainless exhausts, aircraft standard wiring, anodised engines, nickel plating throughout, and Kevlar drive belts. All this is possible but the result would be so expensive to manufacture that no-one could sell it economically. It is also unnecessary, as conventional motorcycle technology will last a surprisingly long time with proper maintenance. Motorcycles are intelligently designed as a rule; old hacks like our example have not been treated with the same intelligence. Until they are, used bike buying will continue to be fraught with danger, as even a Rolls-Royce that has been owned by a moron will be a bad buy.

If the bike you own plays up, it's unlikely that the designer is directly at fault; pause before you blame him for the unforeseeable consequences of selling highly-engineered bikes to a tight fisted and largely mechanically ignorant public.

Paul Callomon