Reliability

TriumPhil said:
A fully Carpenterized Bonneville should beat the snot out of an R III with the same engine kit - theoretically, that is, coz' I sure wouldn't dare going that fast on a little Bonnie!
Click to expand...


Not a chance in hell a 95hp bike is going to run from a 270hp beast. Maybe the hole shot, but hold it more than 1 gear, it's over. Hell, I'd reckon a Brute pipe and tune would be enough, it's enough to run from 115hp 600 super sports.
 
Last edited:

To me this would be like kissing your sister.
Tis indeed a kiss (Bonnie), but not as satisfying as the real thing (Rocket.
 
Your telling me. Still have a lot of research to do but have the time. Looking at 120 horse power or better. Just have to find the right platform to work from. Reliability is not a issue. The rocket has that covered. Unlike the Harley this next bike will be a screaming $ss #itch.
 
Last edited:
So really, you don't mean "reliability" in the strict sense.

All physical systems are a study in trade-offs. Back when the F-15 was new, the USAF decided it was time to try for a time-to-climb record. They took a plane that was about to be retired, and stripped it of all but essential components. Then they got some F100 engines that were close enough to write-off that they could dispose of them. Working carefully with the factory, the engine's "tune" was tweaked (sound familiar?) to gain more thrust. Then they took the plane and a small crew to North Dakota where the air is both cold and thin -- cold for better performance of the engine -- thin for faster flying. And they did obtain the record, having made the requisite two runs.

So what an engineer will tell you, is that pushing a boundary will result in a contraction elsewhere. In the F100's case, increasing the tune, shortened the time between major overhaul.

We see this in the aviation industry in general, and our own automobiles. As the flight hours, and miles (as the case may be) increase, we see an increase in the required maintenance both in frequency and extent.

So, if you're modifying the rocket to make it do more, then you're either eating into its overbuilt margins, and/or, you are changing the curve by which one should be performing required maintenance, usually referred to as "Mean time between _____".

When I was a kid I cut my teeth at an independent Mercedes shop. Sometimes, the doctors and lawyers who made up the bulk of the clientele would remark, "These cars sure are expensive to maintain." They were ignoring the consequences that they had chosen to purchase an automobile that in most respects ran rings around most American cars of the day - when they were in tune and kept up to date. But they were heavy, and ran through tires and brake pads. They had mechanical lifters back then, which required regular valve adjustments. They ran at higher RPM and were harder on their oil. And so on.

The practical aspects have been spoken here -- ask the folks who are running those mods, what they've had to do and how often they've had to do it, relative to the stock maintenance schedule.

If you're contemplating running something no one else has done, you would be well served to analyze what the contemplated changes would do to the stock maintenance schedule, and take really careful records that may reveal trends.

Or just say, "To heck with it -- I'm gonna have me some fun, and I'll cross those bridges when I get there."

Wish you the best.
 
HEY that new THRUXTON is a cool looking bike I love the CAFE RACER look and 1200cc should make it a fun bike and then we modify the engine and it is going to make some serious power and its going to be even more fun
 
I have a feeling that a new Thruxton will find its way into my garage before too terribly much longer.
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register