Rick, I'm going to have to reply to this even though I realize that you
will remain unconvinced.
Why does the boomer generation feel that no contribution is important
unless it is innovative? I like the analogy of pop music. Until the
Beatles, most big name stars didn't write their own stuff - they simply
performed it in a superior fashion. This superior performance generated
legions of fans who bought their records. Today, however, no performer is
given credence unless he/she writes his/her own stuff. This is bunk. The
art of performance is often entirely separate from the art of composition.
Carole King and Neil Sedaka were wonderful composers. They also performed.
They were much better composers.
Why do you feel that Japanese motorcycle/auto technology is inferior
because - as you put it - it was not innovative? What is innovative? I
consider that the very fact that the Japanese refined many of the ideas
which had gone before and made them reliable and affordable is true
innovation. As the Bard said, "There is nothing new under the sun". It is
pointless to demean such innovation by crowing that someone else did it
first. Indian had the first electric start before WWI. Who did it best
and most successfully?
I own a Honda CB92R Benly Supersport. This is a 125cc OHC twin. It
produces 16 horsepower at 10,500 RPM. No commercially available motorcycle
had ever presented such figures to the buying public. It was a racing bike
anyone could buy for small dollars. This bike was introduced in 1959 the
same year as the first Triumph Bonneville. On a good day, the OHV 650
Bonneville produced around 45 horsepower at 6,000 rpm.
The Honda produced 128 hp/litre. This was innovation in spades. The
Bonneville produced 69 hp/litre. The Honda had a top speed of 90 mph the
Bonneville 120 mph. The Honda was beautifully finished, had huge 8" twin
leading shoe brakes front and rear, a single carburetor and electric
starting. It was faster, more comfortable, and stopped better than many
British 500 cc machines. It was infinitely better than any smaller
machines. It was priced very competitively, didn't leak oil, had reliable
electrics and decent lighting. This was innovation.
The next machine was the Honda CB77 Super Hawk. From its OHC 305cc it
produced 29 horsepower at 9,500 rpm and was capable of 100 mph with
excellent handling. Compare its beautiful finish, oil-tight engine, superb
TLS brakes to any British 350 or 500. Compare its output of 95 hp/litre
with the typical British 350 pushrod engine which made about 18 horsepower
at 5,000 rpm.
The next was the Honda CB450. This was a DOHC twin which used torsion bar
valve springs to produce 45 hp @ 10,000 rpm from 444 cc. This was 101
hp/litre. It was also the first commercially-available DOHC twin which
anyone could afford. It was rugged and reliable with good handling and
economy. Compare this bike to any British 650. In 1970, this machine
could turn the quarter mile in 14.2 secs. at 90 mph. All this in a
comfortable tourer.
Then came the CB 750. Sure, MV Agusta had built a four. It was strictly a
racing engine. Honda made it available for sale to real people. MV tried
to sell theirs years after Honda did. It was only for millionaires. What
about the Kawasaki Z1?
I could go on. You spoke of innovation. Let me give you a few things you
have overlooked.
Japanese machines introduced or made possible the following:
Engines split horizontally instead of vertically. This eliminated leaks
and simplified assembly.
Engines which did not need perpetual adjustments and regular re-building
after only a few miles of use. As an example, 100,000 miles on a Honda 750
without any repair is common. Honda Gold Wings are capable of 200 to 300
thousand miles without major overhaul. Few British engines could go 50,000
miles without a rebuild.
Unit construction featuring engine and transmission as a single unit.
Triumph and BSA copied this in the early sixties. Norton never did.
Engines which were well-balanced and didn't shake the machine and rider to
pieces.
Effective high-pressure oiling systems which ensured that oil got to the
parts that needed it - all the time.
Wet sump engines which avoided the perennial problems of wet-sumping,
leaking oil lines and difficult-to-drain-and-clean oil tanks.
Decent clutches which stood up to abuse but didn't require a "grip of
steel" to operate.
Plain automotive-type bearings instead of finicky ball and roller bearings.
Oil injection in two stroke engines (introduced by Puch) was refined and
made reliable.
Electric starting using starter motors. The first electric start machines
were Lambrettas and NSU Primas which used dynamotors from 1954 on.
Reliable electrics with excellent headlights and visible taillights. Actual
ignition switches and kill switches. Good speedos and tachs which worked
accurately and would outlast the bike.
Signal lights which worked and were reliable with self-cancelling switches.
Very few British machines were ever equipped until legislation required
it.
Ignition systems using cam driven points not separate distributors or
finicky magnetos.
Effective air and oil filters which added years to engine service. British
machines usually had neither.
Overhead camshafts on mass-produced engines. In Britain the cammy machine
was an expensive rarity - usually reserved for racing.
Four valves per cylinder in racing engines - now very common.
Fabulously efficient and rugged engines which could produce very
significant hp/litre ratings while consuming very little fuel and no oil.
Pressure die-cast engine construction which allowed very precise control of
clearances and provided a smooth easy-to-polish surface.
Large TLS brakes which stopped the bike. Many Brit bikes had marginal -
even dangerous brakes.
Double pipe exhaust systems which eliminated heat-blued pipes. Effective
mufflers which were engineered to be quiet but didn't rob power.
Comfortable and durable seats which were designed to fit the rider not just
the bike. As an example, ride a '71 Triumph and question how anyone could
manufacture such a poorly designed and grossly uncomfortable piece of
machinery.
Rear view mirrors designed as part of the bike and supplied as standard
equipment.
The Honda Cub - the largest-selling motorcycle in history.
Effective marketing which exposed an entire new customer to the
marketplace. A friendly approach to a whole new generation.
You spoke of "tradition". Look at Honda's racing record of the sixties.
How about their Grand Prix wins and World Championships? What about the 4,
5 and 6 cylinder racers. The five cylinder was a 125. The sixes were 250s
and 300s. Were these not innovative? What about the 50cc twin that made
large horsepower at 22,000 rpm? These were all four stroke engines.
Because an idea is not "new" does not mean that it not significant.
Soichiro Honda contributed more to technology today than most people will
ever know. Many of his contributions are taken for granted as being the
"standard way of doing it". None should ever be diminished by suggesting
that he was a mere "imitator".
I've said my bit. Let's get back to LBCs. I got my MG out today for the
first run. Spring is finally and definitely here.
John
>In a message dated 97-05-10 04:00:30 EDT, you write:
>
><< How about the reed valve two stroke?
>
> (I'm limiting myself to the early '70s as that's when the British
> companies were still trying to compete with the Japanese)
>
> or to continue with Yamaha RD350 fun facts;
> First motorcyle to generate over 1.5g braking
> First motorcyle to generate over 1.0g skidpad
> both on factory street tires-'out of the box'-so to speak
> or Honda 750-4 fun facts;
> First production motorcycle to have a front disk brake
> First production inline four since WWII (Indian four before)
> Sold over a 100,000 by 1974 >>
><<SNIP>>
>
>You've made my point.
>
>NOTHING in the above list is new. Granted there are new bench marks, and
>"improvements"over previous attempts, but still nothing inovative.
>
>And I don't think the 750-4 Honda was the first Production inline four since
>WWII. I believe that honor belongs to MV-Augusta.
>
>And the one thing none of the Japanese bike had (or have) is a sense of
>history and character. A provence seemingly reserved for the Europeans.
>
>Rick
|