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.
RELIABILITY isnt an issue as the engine parts used in the modded bikes are superior to the OEM items and using the very best engine oil is another plus The most important thing is how you treat the bikes if your a maniac street racer stunt rider doing wheelies and burnouts everytime you ride your going to tear up any bike you ride and the same goes for your cars I know some riders that are complete aholes they run flat out everywhere they ride and as a result are always get chased by police loose their licences ,crash and total themselves and the bikes ,and have destroyed the engines and gearboxes on every bike and car they own you cannot abuse anything if you care about it and want it to be reliable The modded bikes dont need any more maintenance than a stock bike so thats not an issue
 
Ship it to Carpenter and when their done I ride it back to you no charge. Oh yea send me the 5k and I'll drop it off for you, no charge!!! Lol

You are indeed a gentleman and a scholar!
BTW - how would you get back home from WA?
 
You are indeed a gentleman and a scholar!
BTW - how would you get back home from WA?
HEY ill go one better Ill keep the bike and break it in for ya say 2000 miles that will save you from having to drive under 120 MPH
 
Back
Top