revtothelimit - motorbike forum

I want a bike that just works out of the box. I've had enough GSXR1000s to know they're bullet proof

Excellent- they're great bikes IMO, and I think the latest incarnation that you now have are real lookers, especially in the yellow

Yorick wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2023 11:06 am I want a bike that just works out of the box. I've had enough GSXR1000s to know they're bullet proof

1000s are a bit big for me. I get worn out quick riding them in the summer. Torque is addictive though

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2023 10:01 am Making reliable vehicles is really really hard, I'd argue (from experience) it's quite a lot harder than making high performance ones.

Crucially reliability takes up an enormous amount of testing and development. You've got to make/test a lot of parts. There's also a huge amount of company know how involved. For example, it's not possible to test something for 30 years so you need to make an 'abridged' process which generates the same level of wear/damage. There's no one way to do that and much of it is 'house style'.

Someone like Honda (a) makes a shit load more bikes, (b) makes all kinds of other vehicles too and (c) have loads and loads of 'generic reliability engineers'. It almost deosnt' matter if they know about superbikes, car, planes, or lawnmowers, most of the principals are the same.

Relatively small companies like Triumph just don't have the same resources.

For ref: My Dad has had pretty much nothing but Hondas for the last 20 years. I don't recall him ever having a warranty claim.

Triumph has been supplying engines for Moto2 the past few years,that's a pretty good test bed for reliability.

People say that, but it's not really. Motorsport is actually quite a poor test bed for 'real world' reliability IME. It's just a totally different set up. Vehicles get molly coddled, warmed up, thrased for an hour or two, then molly coddled a bit more with some pampering in between. Nothing on an international level race bike is likely to be more than 12 months old (well, maybe "dumb" stuff like big lumps of metal might) and quite a lot of it is probably not even 12 days old!

Put it this way, Toyota were shite in F1 whereas Ferrari have a stellar record (maybe not recently!). Which is more reliable though, a 15 year 100k Toyota or the same on a (not rebuilt ) Ferrari?

Skub wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:15 pm Triumph has been supplying engines for Moto2 the past few years,that's a pretty good test bed for reliability.

I disagree, the engines only have to last a season (at most) and will get warmed up properly and an oil change every time their used.

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:49 pm People say that, but it's not really. Motorsport is actually quite a poor test bed for 'real world' reliability IME. It's just a totally different set up. Vehicles get molly coddled, warmed up, thrased for an hour or two, then molly coddled a bit more with some pampering in between. Nothing on an international level race bike is likely to be more than 12 months old (well, maybe "dumb" stuff like big lumps of metal might) and quite a lot of it is probably not even 12 days old!

Put it this way, Toyota were shite in F1 whereas Ferrari have a stellar record (maybe not recently!). Which is more reliable though, a 15 year 100k Toyota or the same on a (not rebuilt ) Ferrari?

I'd argue that endurance racing (Le Mans 24hr, Spa 1000Km etc) is a "useful" testbed (and yes, there are a few long-distance bike races that are equivalent), but again, not exactly a real world test of long-term reliability.

If you look at how vehicles are actually used* something like 95% of the driving is <70mph and 90% is less than 25mph. That sort of order anyway, gonna be different for a bike. Low load, high cycle "jiggling", for want of a better terms, kills stuff just as readily as thrashing at max attack for 24 hours. Sometimes more easily. It just moves all the effects into a different sort of realm anyway.

A 24hr race might be really good at demonstrating you can thrash a bike for a few thousand miles straight. Probably not so much help for demoing it'll work for 27,000 miles of commuting at 9% throttle though

I'd also be wary of what any manufacturer says in the press about racing tech and research filtering down into their road work. They would say that, their racing endeavours are mostly about marketing!

*BTW if your vehicle has any kind of 'app' on it we know how you use it in quite fine detail. Even plugging it into a main dealer computer will upload a load of info to the mother ship for us to look at

Skub wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:15 pm

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2023 10:01 am Making reliable vehicles is really really hard, I'd argue (from experience) it's quite a lot harder than making high performance ones.

Crucially reliability takes up an enormous amount of testing and development. You've got to make/test a lot of parts. There's also a huge amount of company know how involved. For example, it's not possible to test something for 30 years so you need to make an 'abridged' process which generates the same level of wear/damage. There's no one way to do that and much of it is 'house style'.

Someone like Honda (a) makes a shit load more bikes, (b) makes all kinds of other vehicles too and (c) have loads and loads of 'generic reliability engineers'. It almost deosnt' matter if they know about superbikes, car, planes, or lawnmowers, most of the principals are the same.

Relatively small companies like Triumph just don't have the same resources.

For ref: My Dad has had pretty much nothing but Hondas for the last 20 years. I don't recall him ever having a warranty claim.

Triumph has been supplying engines for Moto2 the past few years,that's a pretty good test bed for reliability.

This is a fairly good report...

https://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/new ... ore-power/

Racing sells motorcycles. Win on Sunday, sales on Monday.

That's why the bike manufacturers race.

I think certain aspects of racing help development,mainly Isle of Man,24hr Endurance & Dakar,but I don't think a 40 minute race with all new parts gives much feedback.Racing helps evolve bikes,slipper clutch's,good lighting systems in Endurance etc,but as has already been mentioned they're ridden very differently to road bikes.Carbon discs anyone?
I wonder if the R&D departments buy in old or high mileage bikes to see what wears out or fails?
I think they must get a better idea on failure rates & problems from the dealers.

Where do you think all those used warranty claim parts go?

Yorick wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2023 11:06 am I want a bike that just works out of the box. I've had enough GSXR1000s to know they're bullet proof

Jap reliability is not to be sniffed at! 88000 miles on a 300 scooter and still ran like a swiss watch!

I always wanted the 595 speed triple when it came out but the ones I knew all had gearbox troubles. I still liked how they evolved though, even though back then i never liked the triple sound, but a guy at work had no end of trouble with his 675. I think the dealer had it more than he did! So my snapshot of T Triples isn't a good one and it put me off of them and I never did get one because of it, and I wont know I have the mighty AT!

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2023 10:01 am Making reliable vehicles is really really hard, I'd argue (from experience) it's quite a lot harder than making high performance ones.

Crucially reliability takes up an enormous amount of testing and development. You've got to make/test a lot of parts. There's also a huge amount of company know how involved. For example, it's not possible to test something for 30 years so you need to make an 'abridged' process which generates the same level of wear/damage. There's no one way to do that and much of it is 'house style'.

I can understand that making a disparate bunch of parts, in for example an engine, stay together and play nicely for 30/40/50,000 miles is not a simple matter, but that engine is made of parts that the manufacturer has been producing for decades and they really should know how to make those parts. The cam failures in Trinity's Triumph are frankly inexcusable and for it to happen twice is beyong belief. I'm guessing that production of the cams was outsourced and the supplier dropped the ball with material specification or case-hardening treatment, but for that not to be quickly picked up and remedied is very worrying.

But the point is that (except in rare circumstances) making a motorcycle reliable really should not be beyond the wit of man in the 21st century. In most cases a new model is same as the old model, but with a few eye-catching 'upgrades' and if the previous model was reliable so should the new one be. I'm pretty sure that reliability issues for the most part can be traced back either to supplier fuck-ups or the accountants shaving cost margins where they really should have left well alone.

Taipan wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2023 4:07 pm

Jap reliability is not to be sniffed at! 88000 miles on a 300 scooter and still ran like a swiss watch!

I always wanted the 595 speed triple when it came out but the ones I knew all had gearbox troubles. I still liked how they evolved though, even though back then i never liked the triple sound, but a guy at work had no end of trouble with his 675. I think the dealer had it more than he did! So my snapshot of T Triples isn't a good one and it put me off of them and I never did get one because of it, and I wont know I have the mighty AT!

I agree about Jap reliability & I was sorely tempted to buy a Yamaha MT09,but lordy they're so ugly that despite their reputation I decided to try the Triumph instead.It's worked out well so far...

mangocrazy wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2023 4:19 pm accountants shaving cost margins where they really should have left well alone.

I get tired of saying this, but IME there is no team of accountants going through all the work engineers do and saying "you can't have that, you can't have that". It simply doesn't work that way.

Triumph (and anyone else) have not been producing parts for decades, any one part might have been in production for a few years. Seemingly small changes from year to year all matter.

To give you an example, I've seen warranty claims come because of a wiring insulation change. Its nominally the same damned insulation made to the same spec, with the same certification, but supplier A did it one way and for whatever reasons supplier B's, which is theoretically identical, caused problems.

Edit: Actually that wire is a good example. Problem was actually caused by a tiny ingredient difference between wires and subsequent knock on to fluid compatibility. Wire was still in spec but this one ingredient wasn't controlled....I.e. it was allowed to be in the wire and still be compliant. Someone like Honda would have the man power and/or company wide knowledge to know much more about insulation/fluid compatibility that Triumph cause well....Honda buy and use a lot more wire than Triumph! Seemingly inconsequential change that leads to parts failing and vehicles breaking down.

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2023 4:53 pm

mangocrazy wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2023 4:19 pm accountants shaving cost margins where they really should have left well alone.

I get tired of saying this, but IME there is no team of accountants going through all the work engineers do and saying "you can't have that, you can't have that". It simply doesn't work that way.

So you're saying there is no oversight on costs, and no focus on shaving costs on individual components? That sounds very unlikely to me (and I'm being polite here).

No I'm saying the people involved are all the same people.

Anyway...this is not what the thread is about and I CBA to waste any more time on it.

Linked brakes now.

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2023 5:07 pm No I'm saying the people involved are all the same people.

Anyway...this is not what the thread is about and I CBA to waste any more time on it.

The thread will go where the thread will go, and reliability (or lack of) is a fairly big deal when considering buying a new bike, as Trinity made clear to the dealer in question. So whoever is involved in cost control and the never-ending drive to reduce those costs, decisions made in cost control whether it be sourcing from a new supplier or changing the specification of a component can have a material bearing on the reliability of that component. That's the point I'm making and I fail to see how anyone could disagree with that.

But I'm sure you'll try...