via a contorted path, I got this message which was originally posted
to rec.motorcycles...
------- Start of forwarded message -------
Subject: Re: Technology vs Harley - rec.motorcycles #13049
In article <1993Aug19.202226.12088@Virginia.EDU>, jpr9c@Virginia.EDU ("Scott
Ruffner") writes:
|> BTW, for anyone who thinks they are riding Japanese High Tech,
|> all of that technology ALSO dates to the 30's, 40's, and 50's.
|> The vast majority of Japanese "design innovation" is lifted
|> from the 50's british sports car industries. In particular,
|> Triumph, Jaguar, and Healy (all pre-leyland). Triumph
|> pioneered rack and pinion steering, and Jag gave us disc
|> brakes. I don't know if Healy pioneered it, but they certainly
|> were willing to use the multi-sidedraft-carb approach. If you
|> look at the design of any current japanese caburator on any
|> sportbike, you will see that it has clearly been lifted from SU
|> carbs. These SU's were introduced in England in the 30's.
|> Same is true of multi-valve applications, and alumninum block
|> and head use. Nobody else saw any point in refining production
|> techniques on this stuff, and that's why the Japs took off and
|> took over the industry, but DON'T BE FOOLED INTO THINKING A
|> MODERN LOOKING FAIRING MEANS THE TECHNOLOGY IS MODERN. You
|> know I'm not biased, becuase I'm a Yank and ride serious rice
|> (CBR600). I am tired of hearing how "ingenious" these
|> shop-keeper copy cats from Japan are. They ARE good at
|> manufacturing and GRINDING things out, but they are NOT
|> high-tech or innovative. Why do you think silicon valley has
|> been able to hold the edge in chip design, despite all of the
|> corporate crap that goes on on Wall Street?
|>
|> Enough, let the Harley's be...
|>
|> Scott Ruffner
|> DoD 1014
|> '87 CBR600
|> '82 650 Special II "Spirit in the Sky"
------- End of forwarded message -------
|