FFuture

The Virtual Motorcycle Factory

Which witty old cove was it who said that we used to believe that an infinite number of monkeys pounding an infinite number of typewriters would eventually type out the works of Shakespeare, but since the advent of the lnternet we now know this not to be true? Well, this article aims to show that things useful to motorcyclists can emerge from cyberspace; in particular concerning a couple of subjects close to the collective heart of MCS&L readers.

The ideas expounded in this article were first aired before the public via the medium of the Feet Forward Mailing List (FF@bikeweb.com) as were one or two criticisms of it. So knock out your pipes, wrap your cardigans close around you, and if somebody could just wake up old Brian at the back we'll explain how to build reliable FFs cheaply and if you like, start a general revival of the British bike industry. We shall use a mixture of manufacturing methods from the 1930s, communication techniques from the '90s and probably set up the whole thing using the Victorian legal framework.

Anyone who has owned or built a special will be well aware of the difficulties that the lone inventor or constructor usually fails to overcome whilst trying to duplicate the efforts of the teams of professional designers and engineers employed by full-scale commercial motorcycle factories. These range from construction difficulties like making sure that your suspension arms are the same length, to maintenance problems like having to drop your petrol tank to do an oil change (These examples are not made up).

So hats off to the biker who can get a concept out of their head and make it real enough to actually ride about on, and greater plaudits to the much rarer individual who can make a one-off that is as reliable and convenient as the products of, say, Honda or Triumph. Engineering beatification awaits the virtually unknown soul who can make successful duplications of such a machine.

So why should we care about this? If we are happy with the products of the mainstream motorcycle manufacturers, the no reason. Equally, if our dream machine is simplified version of one of these offerings as say a chopper is, we can confidently gol any number of reputable craftsmen who w happily construct us a thoroughly admirab motorcycle. The application of craft methods will work because the builder is simplicating an existing design - "removing the garbage from the garbage wagon", as someone pithily described the process that produces that spare and elegant end product so beloved through the aqes.

THE ALTERNATIVE

If, however, we are after something entire new, like an FF, we face an entirely differti set of problems which are difficult to reso by using craft methods. For instance, one cannot imagine the begetters of the Sever Bridge starting off by thinking about using very, very big scaffolding board because it worked jolly well to bridge a ditch in the back garden. In other words, we will need professional skills of engineers to design a bike and some skilled fabricators to make just like BMW or Triumph do. Otherwise we will end up trying to solve engineering problems in the building stage rather than the design stage. Remember the FF airbox design sagas that have permeated these pages over the years?

So, all we need to do is approach an engineering factory and ask it nicely to make us a bike so radical that none of the volume manufacturers have dared touch it. Development and tooling costs can probably be kept below £5 million. However, there is an alternative for those of us foolish enough not to have been born eccentric millionaires. What we propose is a method of building a number of well-developed motorbikes whilst keeping development and manufacturing costs down.

First, post an invitation on the FF mailing list, such as: Are there enough of us agreed that a V-Max FF is a really neat idea (what a dreadful phrase) to get together to design and build (or have built) identical machines? We would be able to whizz drawings to and fro on the 'net. We can have one-off parts made as 'n-off' which is better and cheaper. I'm tired of one-offs and promise solemnly not to do it again.

We did this, and received some helpful replies, such as, "if you build a prototype with the intention of copying it for the second machine, it's only the prototype that ever gets built" (Julian Bond) and, "This means that you probably have to stick to the plans - no improving it halfway through the machining stage" (Michael Moore).

Fortunately, there are a number of ways around these problems which are oddly reminiscent of both how the old men used to do things and current practice. Back along in the 1930s, most manufacturers were small operations assembling parts bought in from specialist manufacturers like the near- ubiquitous JAP engine.These low capital firms mixed and matched from lots of suppliers, in curous parallel with the back street PC manufacturers of today. Of course the component supply situation is a bit different now (Triumph have to make their own high- tensile bolts because they can't find a reliable supplier at the right price) but equally, a lot of FF bits won't be yer actual mo'cycle components, will they?

Since the 1970s, UK manufacturing industry has shrunk by somewhere between a third and three-quarters. As a result, the survivors are ver astute and do not waste anything. Small to medium-sized job-shop manufacturers will have a core of design skills, but the component parts of the finished product will be made by sub- contractors and only final assembly will take place on the premises. As the MD of one such company told us, "Making everything under one roof went out with button-sided boots." So we know we could get our hypothetical bike made as a series of contracted-out sub- assemblies. The final assembly part can be done quite happily in the comfort of our own garages-

ALL AT THE CO-OP

We will be departing from convention at this point by running much of the design and specification part of the operation as a co- operative venture. You know, like the hippies, and those nice people who used to make Triumph Bonnevilles. We must retain this control because we don't as yet have a sufficiently clear vision of what the end product looks like, so we must come to some sort of common agreement.

If the co-op can agree on, say, a V-Max or Yamaha GTS as a starting point, then the qualifier for inclusion in the team might be to go and buy a working one, this having the twin benefits of proving commitment and sufficient depth of pocket. It needs to be a working bike because you will want to rob quite a lot of the bits off it for your final product. Don't forget that when it comes to reliability the thing that sidelines most specials is not wearing it out by riding it (you wish!) but the interminable crappy electrics, leaky fuel systems etc. Buying a complete working bike is expensive, but offset that against the time and effort of making a disparate set of components work together; don't re-invent the wheel! And when one considers grown-up things such as product liability, how nice to be able to say that you are using matching brakes, wheels, suspension elements and so on from the same bike.

2CV steering, Suzuki power, Co-op handeart front wheels - how could any mere committee come up with a machine such as this? Soon after this picture was taken, the rider's husband wrote it off against a tree

As we row about which donor bike to start with, we have started the process of coming up with a detailed design concept - in other words, a picture of what it ought to look like and a feature wish iist, followed by a model at as large a scale as possible. There are lovely techniques like stereolithography that can be used to make solid models directly from your CAD data, albeit at a price that would make a lottery winner weep. Or we can always set to and butcher an Airfix kit. The idea of this model-making stage is to make sure that we haven't made any gross errors in our layout. The donor bike manufacturer might be cajoled into giving us drawings for engine mounting points etc. Perhaps they might need a confidentiality agreement, so this may be the time to start a company.

The nature of this company will be dictated by our need to address the biggest difficulties in the whole project which are, as ever, people related. How will we ensure that the co-op members have enough money and enthusiasm (and mechanical skills) to carry the whole thing through? How will we cope with people who want to drop out of the project? Can such an unusual company use the laws of limited liability? All solvable I'm sure.

It may be that the model provided by the old-style building societies is appropriate. These useful institutions let a group of investors save up to buy houses, and after everyone had a house the society was wound up. In our case the company would terminate when everyone had a bike, a useful way of limiting product liability. One could even imagine the group moving through the manufacturing phase and becoming more like an owners club.

Anyway, the next stage involves proper engineering. We will need a proper mechanical engineer to design the spaceframe and sundry other widgets. A spaceframe probably wins out over a monocoque because we want to support a lot of point loads rather than cope with a uniformly distributed load, as for example air pressure on an aeroplane fuselage. It is also cheap to fabricate, and does not need expensive tooling, as would a hull of advanced composites or steel. An electron basher will be needed for the wiring loom. We will now be producing engineering drawings (Autocad or MicroCad) and parts lists. It will then be possible to make detailed costings, start tendering with our sub-contractors.

Next, assemble bike No l, using sample parts from the sub- contractors. Then put as many road miles as possible on the bike - the co-op members will help here. Use it to tout for new members. Also at this time there will be a horde of minor mods to make, which will have to be communicated to the sub- contractors.

The final manufacturing phase runs like this. All the members now need to design what we might call delivery contracts. The sub-contractors then swing into action, despatching the various sub-assemblies for final assembly in members' own garages. This should need no welding or machine tool work. Everybody should be doing the same bits at the same time, giving the best opportunity for mutual support. An e-mail list would help disseminate hints and tips.

Having put them together, you then ride them about...

NT Et DT
Nick Tucker and Dave Turner