TwoTired doesnt totally convince me because he is a textbook kinda guy and anything besides stock setup rubs him the wrong way.
Not true. I simply recognize that there was WAY WAY more thought, engineering, and attention paid to the stock configuration and components in their final product than nearly all the home brewers in this forum. "Stock" has been proven by the many many original sales and miles driven by the marque. Even the few engineers in this forum admit that their changes were often emotionally driven rather than fact or science driven.
90 + % of the forum members base "upgrades"/changes upon external looks, and disregard any test parameters or specifications. (If they even bother to test the final assemblage in any way.) These are often the same members who get their hackles up when I question the technical merit of such changes. I suspect it is because they have no quantifiable data or reason for these changes other than "I wanna", and only hear a "nay-sayer" against their desires. Others have their goals deeply rooted on what is perceived as being "popular" or acceptable by the latest "in thing".
Many customizers often shun causal and predictive engineering 'cause it doesn't naturally look eye pleasing, or they simply can't comprehend how things actually work with regard to physics.
I am an afficionado of well engineered and proven performance machines. Certainly, "Stock" qualifies, as it's operational and functional envelope is fairly well known/understood.
Simply copying a style, fad, or a facade of a race machine (without performance credentials), does not qualify as an "improvement" it's just change for change sake.
I can appreciate the skill it may take to weld a graceful shaped shark fin into the middle of a stainless steel water slide. But, unless you only plan to run water down the slide, without people, its final functional benefit is in serious doubt.
You are not the first to call me a "stock purist". You are all wrong about that. I simply see very few examples of actual functional or performance improvements made to these bikes. Certainly it is rare to see actual proof that a change is beneficial. Most are simply "changed", with no other "benefit" other than personal aesthetics and it's clearly about how the machine looks when parked. (Seems like a waste of a functional machine, to me.
) I am, of course, speaking about the end product of the project. What makes any change to the bike more valuable than the bike itself is the knowledge gained during the project. For that, I forgive the loss of the host machine, even though it is lamentable. But, how else can you measure success without quantifiable test data? How much of that have you seen in this forum? Is simply "changing, rearranging parts" an admirable skill that counts greatly toward knowledge gained? Certainly "hobbies" can have goals other than "improvement". That's ok by me, too. Just don't proclaim that anything done by a hobbyist is automatically an improvement to be copied universally.
Cheers,
