Some good points Mort; I have noticed the lack of changes or upgrades to British cars as well as motorcycles. Was this a cost problem or because the manufacturers didn’t think necessary? If it was the latter, I could see in the immediate post war years but ‘52 to ‘69 will ring the death knell every time.
Richard,
In common with most of these industry things, there is never a one-size-fits-all answer. However, there are always a few common points: a lack of investment leading to a lack of development, and most certainly a business model based on its previous reputation, customer brand loyalty, and management pushing production, not quality.
I once looked at a Norton Commando, only just over a year old—a guy's pride and joy—that was making strange noises from the primary chain case. The alternator nut had come loose and the alternator had popped off its taper. Not hard to fix, but on a new bike, it should not have happened. While I had the primary chain case off, I noticed the crank had almost 1/8 inch end float. Not good for a new bike.
I then had a new Triumph Trident apart to find the sump and the sludge trap in the crank were full of swarf from the manufacturing process. My immediate thought was, what condition are the big end shells in? As expected, they were well-worn and scored. This was a new bike too and not cheap either.
Talking to some of the guys who worked there, they said it was all about pushing bikes through the production line with known faults. Management would say if they broke, it's ok as we can fix it under warranty. Well, not when you had just spent a relative fortune as a customer.
I also believe there was a change in the UK culture. Motorbikes once were an essential utility and a part of everyday family life. By the late 60s, cars had taken that crown, and bikes became a hobby for the enthusiast. However, in Japan, bikes were still an essential utility for people to get to work. Therefore, they had to be reliable.
