That is a complex question, there is a requirement for modern vehicles to be recyclable and the manufacturer is responsible for that recycling. Last industry estimates were for an average vehicle life of 130,000 miles, compared with just 60,000 in 1980. So yes they are a lot greener than they were. The difference is that normal servicing/ repairs are massively more difficult on modern vehicles due to CAD designed packaging making parts inaccessible and the complexity of modern petrol and diesel engines. Crossover point for vehicles where a new vehicle will be ‘greener’ than running an old one vary massively between cars and can be anywhere from 10,000 to 70,000 miles depending on model. I am not aware of any similar studies for motorbikes but due to lower mileages covered by ‘hobby’ bikes I doubt many would get to a crossover point so almost certainly greener to keep existing bikes. Going back to the post above, I think we often forget how disposable cars were in the 70s, not because people wanted to get rid necessarily but because the damn things rusted into the ground in no time. The peak of survivability was probably the late 90s. My 98 V70 had 280,000 on when I gave it to my nephew and is now on 310,000 but has been retired to ‘classic car’ duties as opposed to daily driver now.
I'm not sure if its some sort of a crime to even mention a V70 Volvo on a Ducati forum, BUT... I had one a several years ago. It was a big ugly monstrosity, horrible to look at, but by God was it a comfy, floaty mile-muncher! Hop on a motorway, set cruise control for 95mph, and relax. Often I would arrive after a long journey more relaxed than when I got in the car. It’s a shame their build quality has been watered down.
Ducati and Volvo V70 are the perfect mix, Proper ying and yang opposites that compliment perfectly Especially for picking up the inevitable spares
Chat GPT for cars/motorbikes in the EU: In Europe, car manufacturers are required to keep spare parts available for a specific period after a vehicle model is discontinued, ensuring that consumers can maintain and repair their vehicles. This obligation is largely guided by European Union (EU) legislation and national regulations. General Rule in the EU: 10-Year Availability (Common Standard): Under EU law, manufacturers are typically required to provide spare parts for a minimum of 10 years after a vehicle model has been discontinued. This ensures the availability of replacement parts for maintenance and repair during the vehicle's expected lifecycle. Type-Approval Requirements: EU regulations on vehicle type approval, such as Regulation (EU) 2018/858, stipulate that car manufacturers must ensure spare parts are available for a reasonable period to meet consumer needs. While the exact duration may not be specified in every case, 10 years has become the industry standard. National Variations: Some EU member states may have additional rules or shorter/longer timelines, but they generally align with the 10-year benchmark. Exceptions and Exclusions: Certain parts classified as consumables, like tires, filters, or wiper blades, might not be subject to the same 10-year rule. Consumer Rights Enhancements: Right to Repair: The EU promotes the "right to repair," requiring manufacturers to supply independent garages with access to spare parts, diagnostic tools, and repair manuals. Circular Economy Initiatives: Efforts to encourage recycling and reuse could influence future rules, potentially extending the obligation to keep parts available. If you are looking for specific guidance or a unique case, consulting the vehicle manufacturer, dealership, or local consumer protection agency in your country is recommended.
Its all to do with a phase shift in manufacturer priority. Once upon a time a car was assembled with a view to being serviceable by a mechanic or end user. Society has changed and the truth is that most vehicle owners never open their bonnets from one service to the next. Serviceability is a secondary consideration. Now the manufacturer is interested in how quickly it can be assembled on the production line. The more units you can get out the door the more profit you make, and therefore the more time you can shave off the process the quicker that becomes. Lots of sub assemblies that then get assembled into the whole. The manufacturer really won't be that bothered if the wheel arch fouls any attempt to change a headlamp bulb without taking a bumper off if it's saved 5 minutes on the line, which over the course of a production run of thousands amounts to days worth of saving. I looked at a panigale and I could see several distinct sub assemblies right from the off, the tech was saying how it was a bitch to get to stuff unless you ripped out whole sections of the bike, but in truth that's probably the best way to approach it, as that's the way the production line assembles them. Theoretical - you run a garage which specialises in one brand for example. man brings in car with suspension problems. Approach one: change bushes and arms and shock on an individual component basis. Approach two : knowing that the suspension sub assemblies are a common fault on that range, you keep a whole assembly in stock on the shelf. Undo shock buzz off upper and lower arms and fit whole new unit. A mfr will be encouraging the latter, as the cost of the sub assembly is offset by the labour time to fit, for example a couple of hours if that vs a day, as you're just cracking off half a dozen bolts and offering up the new assembly. But getting back to the thread - im not seeing the two wheeled industry marketing itself to a wider public. they're preaching to the perverted, unlike the mainstream auto industry who are ubiquitous across all media platforms. The industry needs to push itself into peoples living rooms and radar as the four wheeled industry has done.
Not sure serviceability is a secondary consideration, it's probably a serendipitous bi-product, or integral part of the design process, in order 'To capture the aftermarket'. I don't think we know how much profit OEM's make on each bike produced (complicated by the need to offset against development and production set up costs, etc, over the life cycle of the model), but the word on the street is that margins are really tight across all dealers on new bikes sales, perhaps something in PCP's and financing, but clearly there is some benefit in making sure all servicing and repairs are performed within the dealer network. In other industries the aftermarket can be a huge part of a company's revenue for each product line, and it's an integral part of the business plan. There's no doubt that vehicles are more complex nowadays, and that earlier, less litigious era, when personal responsibility was still considered a virtue, is long gone, so perhaps there's a bit of CYA involved, but across all manufacturers it's almost impossible to get service data (workshop manuals), maintenance tooling, etc, that would allow a competent home mechanic to do much of anything. I read that the owners handbook section on chain adjustment on some current bikes doesn't have any limits, adjustment details, torque tightening figures, etc, just says 'take the bike to the dealer', and there has been much discussion on this forum on resetting the service indicator when you have performed your own service. Not having a dig, pro's and con's to all these issues, and it's industry wide. Servicing costs are what they are, influenced by a dealers overheads, bespoke tooling, diagnostic tooling upgrades in what a cynic may consider an OEM ploy to keep ahead of the 'all can do' third party scanner market, and presumably because of the cost on non slip porcelain showroom tile cleaner, but I guess you accept this when you place your order, but from some of the servicing costs mentioned on this site, it's hard to see that all dealer servicing is a loss making exercise, especially when any alternative is becoming increasingly difficult. As an aside, a friend recently needed a new battery for his car, gutted he couldn't fit it himself as you needed to connect it to a bespoke computer at the dealers to tell it it, and the stop/start and charging system that it had a new battery. Furthermore, the dealer wouldn't fit a battery that he could supply (same make and type as original OEM but from Tayna batteries), and would only fit the same thing from their own stock at a higher list price, as well as 30 mins labour at their rate for the reprogramming. It is what it is, but as a result they are unlikely to sell him another new car when the time comes, so not really playing a long game there! What a world we live in today.....
Abhorrence of unnecessary complexity is one of the main reasons I keep my Supersonic Shed on Wheels (1990 Transit diesel based motor home) going. I positively don't want a modern one with an array of sensors and a different ECU for every function in pursuit of ever cleaner emissions and better fuel economy as that simply means more things which can potentially go wrong and I love the fact that it’s so simple it can be repaired at the roadside for pennies by any mechanic anywhere in the world from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe.
It’s not from the motoring world but if you want an example of complexity for complexity’s sake, just look at the way that toilets on trains have changed in the past 10 years. The door is no longer a simple wooden affair on a set of hinges with a handle and slip bolt costing a couple of hundred quid, but is a motorised sliding panel located in a curved track, secured by remote solenoid activated locks, all of which no doubt costs tens of thousands. Then the facilities inside are similarly over-elaborate, with infra-red hands free sensors for the water, soap and dryer dispensers, rather than a simple taps, soap pump and paper towel set up. The result - I don’t think I’ve ever used one where everything works and half the time half the toilets on a train are out of order altogether, doubtless because there are so many potential failure points and when they do fail, they need a specialist fitter and replacement parts which costs the train company an arm and a leg. A slip bolt costs a tenner from B&Q, can be fitted by a handyman and will last decades, whereas a remote locking system needs an engineer, costs thousands and will wear out in a couple of years.
Its a secondary consideration insofar that it's not the mfr's problem. It's a secondary consideration because until the day comes when a vehicle has a sealed engine (power source) which never has to have a fluid change for 300k miles then things will always wear out. What I was getting at was that an OEM won't design a package with the service requirement foremost in the priority. At the very most you design for tool access so that a line technician can get the appropriate tool in there to do the job within the time frame give before the vehicle or product moves along to the next station as to not hold up production targets. With respect to profit, think of a vehicle as being 2.5x markup on the base cost and that gives you the cost to a dealership, upon which they will have an rrp figure. So for example, lets say a high end vehicle in the 250k bracket, will have a build BOM (bill of materials) base cost of around the 60k mark. By the time you've factored in all the additional costs, what seemed like a massive number per item suddenly doesn't leave you with much in your pocket at the end of it all. Its why manufacturers in the auto industry do a mid cycle facelift, by changing a few cosmetic things they can refresh the range looks wise and get another three years out of it before the new model line comes in. that car is only making a profit in the truest sense in the last year of production when you've costed everything down to net zero and everything has been paid for - and that money will be ploughed straight back into the next model development. This is why brands such as skoda are so important for the likes of VW, because they are the brand that the trickledown happens with. All the development is done at the mainstream level, then when you've taken that and flogged it to death you trickle it down to skoda, who by their demographic and market segment profile don't want the latest and greatest, they want reliable and dependable. I had a friend who was a design engineer employed on the original fabia. He went to work in east germany and in the same plant where the polo was made - concurrent lines building the same car for two different brands. It came as a surprise to him when he was told the brief was to keep the quality but design in the perception of a cheaper vehicle - so it wouldn't step onto the toes of the mainbrand brother, and in turn VW design engineers were told to not put certain attributes in certain model lines as that would step on the toes of Audi sales for a similar platform demographic. At the time the skoda customer profile was one of a mature person who wanted reliability over aspiration to change their car frequently or have it loaded with whizbang toys, so you knew that person wasn't going to buy a new car every three years, but you know that if their car was reliable, they'd always come back to brand and have another. All of those engines and electronics had been done to death and in many ways were old hat, but they'd paid for themselves and you knew they were bullet proof. Ultimately a supercar owner will be less bothered when his car craps itself than a person who has to depend on the thing for a daily driver. Would it surprise you to know that most halo supercars are designed around a 2k per annum mileage vs a mainstream car's 10k. So it is with someone like Ducati et al with their trickle down engines and frames. A superbike customer will want a very different set of criteria than an SUV bike rider. Your market will forgive your mistakes and folly's on your halo vehicle because it's the latest and doesn't have to be reliable, but they won't forgive you on mainstream stuff. However, that said, when you get that tech / item / system right, you can trickle it down to the lower tiers and your buying public will feel that they have perceived value in their vehicle as it had the Skyflungdulator falangy system and display that was only available in the 2m limited to 100 units halo car. The arabs had the foresight to consider the possibility that the oil wasn't going to last forever. Harley are a perfect example of this dichotomy, Where do we go when they outlaw biker image dies out and there is noboby left that's born to be wild and they're all just worn out and mild. I remember speaking to a Mercedes engineer many years ago who had attended the Cologne motorshow in the mid 2000's. He was lamenting that he was trying to tell customers about the technology and engineering in the car, and all the customers for the most part wanted to know was how many cup holders it had. Roll the clock on 5 and 10 years and and replace cup holders with connectivity for mp3 and later smartphones. I stand by my original stance - motorcycling in general needs to look at what it is, and who it's trying to appeal to and needs to appeal to in order to survive, it also can't take for granted anymore that people know what a motorbike is let alone want one. Like any other commodity you need to tell people that they didn't realise they wanted one until they saw it, and I'm not seeing the industry marketing itself in any real way. its a product like any other and it has to find a way of making people want it.
I follow a YouTube channel called Itchy Boots and she travels the world on a motorcycle, this trip out she has decided to use an old carb model Tenere for that exact reason , it can be repaired at the roadside by pretty much anyone.
On the most recent episode she drops her sat nav and then runs over it. Just as she's crossing from Turkey into Iraqi Kurdistan. Shrugs her shoulders, laughs and carries on, reverting to asking directions and checking her phone for final mile check. Pretty inspirational and heartening
But that only worked for her because there aren't any speed cams. Navigating without a Sat Nav isn't hard, avoiding points on your license is...
Gulp. That’s a part of the world where if you make a wrong turn you could end up getting a free orange jumpsuit and your very own video on Live Leak.
Yeah I saw that one, she’s very laid back and just takes it all in her stride I think. I’m not sure she realises just how dodgy some of the places she goes though especially for a woman alone.
Best way is to keep off roads that have speed cameras. I try and stick to back roads now, there is no fun to be had on roads with lots of traffic and a high percentage of drivers who think every other road user is their enemy who needs to be taken down.
All good points well made as they say. I didn't work in the automotive industry so you have a better insight than I do there, but I'd maintain that servicing, and the associated spare parts revenue must be a primary consideration for the manufacturer, particularly the bean counting division. As you note, the BOM (all the parts required) for a 250K car cost the OEM maybe around 60K, then that's around 25% of the vehicles list price. Back in the day, several bike publications contained articles on 'how much it would all the spare parts to build a bike cost against the RRP of that bike itself', Honda 600 and a Suzuki used as examples I think, and recollect it was between 6x and 8x more expensive to buy all the bits separately than in a pre assembled lump. I wouldn't think this is much different today. I'd suspect that spare parts pricing isn't linear either, so not all spare parts cost 25 times their actual cost to the OEM, and certain high usage parts are probably higher than this (perhaps cam belts, valve shims, filters, bodywork and other bits that stick out and are easily damaged, etc?). It's a shame expensive new bikes can be written off if they fall awkwardly in a car park with minor fairing and casing damage, but then there's an opportunity for the OEM to sell another new unit! OEM's are no doubt wondering how to prevent the scrapped bike from being dismantled and entering the used spares market, perhaps, like a printer cartridge, an RFID chip in major parts so they are not recognised and rejected by the receiving bike's brain, unless fitted by a dealer with the correct programmer, or some unique fasteners that need special dealer/authorised repair facility only tooling to remove and refit, but presumably that's the business model across the industry, or in fact several industries. As a result OEM spare parts must be a huge revenue stream for the manufacturers that has to be part of their business model over the life cycle of a product, so if you can capture that market by at a dealer level by limiting the owner from doing it themselves using alternate parts (or identical ones having found out the same vendor part is fitted to a less premium brand at 20% of the cost - oil pressure switch?) by limiting access to maintenance data and tooling, suggesting warranty is dependent on everything being done at a dealer, only being able to have an aftermarket parts such as an exhaust and up-map installed at a dealer, then the OEM secures spare parts and aftermarket revenue and the dealer has a busy workshop, plus some spares mark up, again, industry wide. A secondary benefit is that having captured the servicing market, the improved quality of dealers reporting of parts usage against vehicle mileage, and condition, automatically, from the connected IT systems, must be manna from heaven to the OEM's parts forecasting dept, better spares availability, less unused stock and improved revenue planning. I agree with your comments on common platforms, and wouldn't be surprised if a common part across a Skoda/Seat/VW/Audi platform had four different part nos and four different prices, and also the move to more efficient production processes at the expense of maintainability (Panigale spark plug change?), but that may be intentional, who knows....but that's business. Out of interest, just wondering if your employer had a maintainability department, that reviewed maintenance tasks to make sure the weren't too difficult (A famous engineer from the pre CAD/CATIA era once said 'Any fool can tighten a bolt with a pencil?'), I presume they must have in order to set warranty task timescales and service planning guidelines? but did anyone in design/planning react to their feedback, or that from production? I'd also agree with your comments on motorcycling and its future being somewhat bleak, no idea what the answer is, but not sure its 200HP + superbikes costing over £20K is the answer. Times have changed since I started riding, at that time most drivers had probably started out on a bicycle, possibly a moped/bike, before moving on to a car, so had some awareness of what it was like to be on the highway on two wheels and acted accordingly. Nowadays with more cars, poorer driving, deteriorating roads, increased thefts, mobile phones, less road policing, even recreational drugs, I'm not sure many parents would be encouraging their kids to get in amongst it on a motorbike in the UK, even less so if they aren't bikers themselves. For there to be any future I think the Govt must be involved in supporting and promoting it, which is increasingly unlikely in an ever increasing nanny state. I could quote Dad's Army's Private Frazer, but I won't....
The shame is that a shift of even 10% of commuters to motorbikes would make a massive difference to congestion in our towns and cities. That reduction in car traffic/ traffic jams would also benefit air quality. If any government were genuinely interested in improving our cities they would be promoting a hierarchy of transport on the lines of walking cycling, then public transport, then motorbikes and only using cars as a last resort. But no government of either colour has seriously looked at doing that. Solution to congestion - build more roads which are then often full again in no time. Small commuter motorbikes could really benefit so many communities but it’ll never be pushed by anyone in power as there is no money in it for them.
She's going to have a lot to answer for... She planted the idea in my brain to also do a world tour by motorbike...been mulling it over for the last few months...
