Japan taking over the motorcycle industry

[ledslinger]

I'm working on a friend's 1971 Triumph 500 Daytona. Replacing clutch, clutch hub ect. I'm looking at the engineering of these parts and mentally comparing with Japanese offerings of the same era. Sure the Brits had rested on their laurels and had technology stagnation due to having the market fairly cornered. The technology was essentially approaching half a century old.

I can understand their problems with anyone thinking of starting on new clean sheet designs, they were victims of their own success. A problem shared with Harley Davidson.

Japan went through a long period of copying existing designs but suddenly developed their own engineering style. What happened to cause this revolution which likely occurred in the early 60's? Is there other industries where the dominant players were so quickly left in the dust by new entities? Who drove the Japanese industrial revolution of this time period?

We are lucky they were about a decade behind on this or we may have lost WWII.

A peripheral question: What was the first mass produced motorcycle with a gear drive primary? This to me is a major technological development that improved motorcycles, a serious commitment to unit engines and transmissions using a common sump. British and American makers were amazingly slow at unitizing. Separate transmission is in hindsight quite a disadvantage vs unit.

 

[CT8]

Japan didn't have he resources.

 

[ledslinger]

It appears my initiation of this post might be poorly timed as I quickly perused the measuring contest in the CB1100 thread. Sorry if I'm rubbing raw nerves. This has absolutely nothing to do with that thread.

 

[CT8]

Except for specialty bikes Japanese bikes can't be beat.

 

[Wampahoofus]

Unitizing is great for packaging, but suboptimal for performance. Engines like different fluids than primaries, though they (obviously) will do fine on a common oil. Pros and cons either way.

 

[Robenstein]

What had a great impact on the Japanese surge in motorcycles was the fact there was a great amount of investment put into Japan in the 50's as a result of the Korean War as well as just making sure the nation economically recovered and would not drift towards communist sympathies. This really did save the Japanese industrial economy post WW2, which was being essentially built from the ground up again both physically as well as organizationally.

Another thing that helped some brands such as Honda was that they were awesome at marketing in the early to mid 60's, and that sold them a ton of bikes. The "You meet the nicest people on a Honda" campaign for instance targeted a whole different demographic of buyers for motorcycles. These sales allowed them to move up from smaller bikes to things like the CB450 "Black Bomber", which had stellar power for its displacement, and eventually the paradigm shifting CB750. Of course the other Japanese marques were quick to do similar things and soon after we got to the CB750, the UJM power wars were on with Kaw and Honda being the two main contenders for the 70's.

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: ledslinger

What happened to cause this revolution which likely occurred in the early 60's? Is there other industries where the dominant players were so quickly left in the dust by new entities? Who drove the Japanese industrial revolution of this time period?


several things:

1. We bombed their industry into dust and then spent the 1950's rebuilding it.
2. Now that they as a nation possessed the latest technology in manufacturing machinery and capability they were able to be a larger global force as an export economy.
3. Since they have little or no natural resources and must import add value and then export everything they make they reached a critical mass as to the amount of products they were capable of consuming internally and if they were to grow their corporations they had to create better export goods.
4. They reached their peak in "Japanizing" everyone else's designs and began to develop their own. They started by purchasing many design patents.

 

[Oro_O]

I have thought about this and read about it in the past. I think the answer is simple in that they had a classic capitalist recipe for success:

A) Strong domestic demand
B) Intense competition
C) Timing

The domestic Japanese motorcycle market was still refining products as European makers stagnated - Higher post-war income in Germany and UK, etc. saw sales declining as consumption shifted to cars, but in Japan the lower per-capita income kept motorcycle sales booming in the 60s.

There are many good articles and some business books out there on this subject. I'm a fan of Japanese motorcycles and a few years back went an got an early 70s CB750 SOHC - to me the real "breakthrough" bike that totally changed things for the Japanese in the US market. I also have an HD so I appreciate different bikes, but I really admire the Honda engineering when it comes to bikes (less so their cars in my book, but that's a different issue!).

 

[Silk]

The Japanese fell into a perfect hole left for their motorcycles in the late '60's, and cars in the early '70's. Mismanagement and union problems were the biggest contributor, but there was no money to make new products, and the ones they did do were mistimed, the 350 twins the best example. Norton's last ditch bodge up turned into one of the most iconic motorcycles ever, but the Commando was really just a patch up until they could think of something better.

For me, starting riding as a 16 year old in 1970, it was all about handling. The new Japanese bikes were really fast, and reliable, but the frames were terrible, flexing dangerously, suspension was substandard, oversprung and under damped, and the tyres had no grip at all, wet or dry. A British bike came with a superb handling frame, girling shocks and Dunlop or Avon tyres. I rode British and European bikes in the '70 and '80's, loved the handling, and enjoyed working on them. No negatives from me.

I owned a '71 XS1 for 15 years, so have a good grounding in frame flex, and bullet proof engines. I have only owned one Japanese 4 cyl, a sohc CB750, one was enough....to me a motorcycle is a single or twin...although I will get distracted by a Trident.

 

[john_pifer]

The Japanese have been way behind certain European marques in design for years now, especially in dirt bike design.

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: Silk
The Japanese fell into a perfect hole left for their motorcycles in the late '60's, and cars in the early '70's. Mismanagement and union problems were the biggest contributor, but there was no money to make new products, and the ones they did do were mistimed, the 350 twins the best example. Norton's last ditch bodge up turned into one of the most iconic motorcycles ever, but the Commando was really just a patch up until they could think of something better.

For me, starting riding as a 16 year old in 1970, it was all about handling. The new Japanese bikes were really fast, and reliable, but the frames were terrible, flexing dangerously, suspension was substandard, oversprung and under damped, and the tyres had no grip at all, wet or dry. A British bike came with a superb handling frame, girling shocks and Dunlop or Avon tyres. I rode British and European bikes in the '70 and '80's, loved the handling, and enjoyed working on them. No negatives from me.

I owned a '71 XS1 for 15 years, so have a good grounding in frame flex, and bullet proof engines. I have only owned one Japanese 4 cyl, a sohc CB750, one was enough....to me a motorcycle is a single or twin...although I will get distracted by a Trident.



In the USA though, the fact that they were extremely reliable in comparison to the competition and fast in a straight line was all that was needed to draw in customers. Most people then and now want to hop on and go and do not particularly find pleasure in setting valves, tickling carbs, or tuning frames(in the case of the Norton Commando). As for suspension and handling, I think it was less of an issue here in the states. In the late 60's and early 70's, the most popular cars here in America were straight line fast but did not handle well at all. So the bikes like the CB750 and the Kawasaki H1 and later Z1 were motorcycle analogs of the American muscle cars of the era. It seems to be an era all about speed.

The stats seem to bear that out, especially with the Brit makers. According to 1984 article on Honda, in 1959 the British bikes had a 49 percent market share in the USA. By 1973 this fell to just 9 percent.

 

[donnyj08]

Originally Posted By: john_pifer
The Japanese have been way behind certain European marques in design for years now, especially in dirt bike design.




Bingo! The Japanese build fantastic, reliable, and affordable bikes. The build quality is very good and they are a great value, however they are not as high tech as some European designs(BMW, DUCATI, MV). what they do offer is the same real world performance at half the cost.

They aren't far behind and they can build a bike just as good or better than the Europeans, but as we see from the new Yamaha R1M it will cost you just as much as a 1199/1299 panigale,S1000RR, or MV F4RR.

The real appeal to Japanese bikes is that they are the most reliable, the cheapest to maintain, and the cheapest to buy. The build quality is pretty darn good for the $$.

I'd love to own a European bike, but my pocketbook says the Japanese bike is more than sufficient.

 

[JetStar]

It also helped that the Japanese listened to Deming and Shewhart.

 

[alarmguy]

I read through your post and I guess I am just responding to the subject line that you typed.
I think, all countries are putting out some world class bikes and much of what these countries are putting out are one type of bike, versus a whole line up of different types.

Example, Japan is putting out some great sport bikes, as well as Italy and Germany.
But Japan has been left in the dust with the heavy weight cruiser market, except maybe the goldwing but that is a class almost to itself.

The heavy cruisers from Kawaski, Yamaha and Suzuki have not been selling, the line up stale/dated and anyone can confirm by going to the websites of the companies mentioned, many well known heavy cruisers are no longer being offered in the USA and havent been for the last year or two. Now its possible they are redoing the lineup, but not much is happening.
Dont misunderstand my post, just stating some facts with the heavy weights, not their sport bikes and some midweight models.

British/Triumph is putting out some nice midweight to heavy weight cruisers as well as respectable sport bikes but the cruisers are the more well respected part of their lineup and I think they have some GREAT models out there and well reviewed too.

As far as the USA, yes timing of this post might not be ideal ) but Harley does rule the heavy weights right now. Their Rushmore bikes have blown away the competition and yes, they should, they are not cheap but they are awesome well performing bikes and right now, Japan is not offering anything to compete and as I stated, Japan pulled back their line up of heavy weight bikes.
We also have the Polaris brand in the USA, Indian and Victory but despite the love affair the press has had with them, they are still a very small segment of the market, tops 5%.
Indian seems to be onto something but Victory is still having an identification crisis. It seems they may be moving more towards the sport segment. This is fact, both brands have been told by Polaris board of directors to get their act together and start showing profits or else.

By heavy weights, we are talking 1700 cc class, not 1300 or 1400.

Back to Harley, no matter the talk, in the USA, its still king of the heavy weights, in fact, in sales it sells over 50% of ALL motorcycles in the USA over 601cc's then ALL other makers combined. Other companies have been struggling to compete and be profitable in the HEAVY weight segment.

So ends today ... ummm ... whatever but anyone can verify what I typed. I am in NO way taking any sides, I like ALL bikes but there seems to be so much [censored] out there, thought I would type my thoughts... ) I do not think Japan rules the market, not in the USA. They build some great bikes and wow, at great prices too, but in that segment there is also some respectable competition from Germany and Italy and also very good bikes.
The good news is, in the USA, we can buy whatever bike that floats our boat, their all good, its about the ride, pride of ownership, not one brand over the other.

 

[alarmguy]

Originally Posted By: donnyj08
Originally Posted By: john_pifer
The Japanese have been way behind certain European marques in design for years now, especially in dirt bike design.




Bingo! The Japanese build fantastic, reliable, and affordable bikes. The build quality is very good and they are a great value, however they are not as high tech as some European designs(BMW, DUCATI, MV). what they do offer is the same real world performance at half the cost.

They aren't far behind and they can build a bike just as good or better than the Europeans, but as we see from the new Yamaha R1M it will cost you just as much as a 1199/1299 panigale,S1000RR, or MV F4RR.

The real appeal to Japanese bikes is that they are the most reliable, the cheapest to maintain, and the cheapest to buy. The build quality is pretty darn good for the $$.

I'd love to own a European bike, but my pocketbook says the Japanese bike is more than sufficient.


I agree, well said ...

 

[Robenstein]

The OP I think is wondering how the Japanese were able to come out of no where to basically shutting down the British and nearly doing so with Harley in a little over a decade and a half.

What the Japanese did do that is evident today, is make other people build better bikes. The Harleys coming off the line today are better machines than what was coming out during the AMF era by orders of magnitude. They learned how to make more reliable, user friendly bikes, and to market them to a wider demographic.

It also made the British start to build better bikes. John Bloor, when he resurrected Triumph at Hinckley, learned from the errors of Norton, Triumph, and BSA in the 60's and 70's.


Competition is good, and nowhere has it been more evident than in the motorcycle world.

 

[Silk]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein

fast in a straight line was all that was needed to draw in customers.


I used to read all the magazines back in the day, and in the US rags it was all about hp, 1/4 mile times and top speed - that's all you need to know. I've always been on the side of push a slow bike fast, than cope with the problems of too much power and not enough handling. I've never been a straight line rider, NZ has too many roads with corners. I currently ride a 650 2 valve pushrod twin, and have done with many brands over my life (the XS1 didn't have pushrods, but may as well have), it seems to be a sweet spot for me.

 

[alarmguy]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
The OP I think is wondering how the Japanese were able to come out of no where to basically shutting down the British and nearly doing so with Harley in a little over a decade and a half.

What the Japanese did do that is evident today, is make other people build better bikes. The Harleys coming off the line today are better machines than what was coming out during the AMF era by orders of magnitude. They learned how to make more reliable, user friendly bikes, and to market them to a wider demographic.

It also made the British start to build better bikes. John Bloor, when he resurrected Triumph at Hinckley, learned from the errors of Norton, Triumph, and BSA in the 60's and 70's.


Competition is good, and nowhere has it been more evident than in the motorcycle world.


Yes, competition is good for all of us and it also was extremely evident in the auto industry and just about any industry Japan entered, including the boating industry. Japan made the US auto makers start building cars that would not disintegrate after 70,000 miles.

With all this said, lets remember one thing that I KNOW no one is thinking about or mentioning. NOT as a ding to products from Japan. I also bought what was best for my wallet including my share of cars from them going back decades. I also benefited with my boats, as my marine engines became much more user and maintenance friendly after Japan entered that market.

But, one thing Japan did have was an EXTREMELY favorable dollar exchange rate. This lasted for decades, I guess all gone now. But it did allow them to sell superior products cheaply in the USA because of the exchange rate. We, the USA helped them rebuild their war time industries into world class consumer product industries, yes, at the expense of highly paid US workers. I think the exchange rate has now been gone for a decade or two and their economy has stagnated for that long as well.

I think on the world stage things are pretty much level now and have may even swung around.
I wonder how many know what company is the largest exporter of US made automobiles?
Answer: BMW, right here in South Carolina.

 

[Papa Bear]

I remember well riding my '65 BSA Lightning on a nice long stretch of highway one afternoon in 1966.
I had my chin on the gas-cap and the throttle wrung out.....

The next thing a heard was a ringing in my ear and the smell of Castrol as my buddy, Neil, went by me on his new X6 Hustler.

I saw the future at that moment .

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: Silk
The Japanese fell into a perfect hole left for their motorcycles in the late '60's, and cars in the early '70's. Mismanagement and union problems were the biggest contributor, but there was no money to make new products, and the ones they did do were mistimed, the 350 twins the best example. Norton's last ditch bodge up turned into one of the most iconic motorcycles ever, but the Commando was really just a patch up until they could think of something better.

For me, starting riding as a 16 year old in 1970, it was all about handling. The new Japanese bikes were really fast, and reliable, but the frames were terrible, flexing dangerously, suspension was substandard, oversprung and under damped, and the tyres had no grip at all, wet or dry. A British bike came with a superb handling frame, girling shocks and Dunlop or Avon tyres. I rode British and European bikes in the '70 and '80's, loved the handling, and enjoyed working on them. No negatives from me.

I owned a '71 XS1 for 15 years, so have a good grounding in frame flex, and bullet proof engines. I have only owned one Japanese 4 cyl, a sohc CB750, one was enough....to me a motorcycle is a single or twin...although I will get distracted by a Trident.



In the USA though, the fact that they were extremely reliable in comparison to the competition and fast in a straight line was all that was needed to draw in customers. Most people then and now want to hop on and go and do not particularly find pleasure in setting valves, tickling carbs, or tuning frames(in the case of the Norton Commando). As for suspension and handling, I think it was less of an issue here in the states. In the late 60's and early 70's, the most popular cars here in America were straight line fast but did not handle well at all. So the bikes like the CB750 and the Kawasaki H1 and later Z1 were motorcycle analogs of the American muscle cars of the era. It seems to be an era all about speed.

The stats seem to bear that out, especially with the Brit makers. According to 1984 article on Honda, in 1959 the British bikes had a 49 percent market share in the USA. By 1973 this fell to just 9 percent.


In the 70s, and even into the early to mid 80s, one number was the driving factor...1/4 mile time...CB750, H2, CBX, GS1100, V-65, V-Max...all were king of the 1/4 mile at one time...you're right, the bike market was much like the muscle car market back then...muscle cars are starting to make a comeback, could muscle bikes as well?