they manufacture motorcycles

Blog regular first_synn pointed me this discussion at xbhp (who are celebrating four years... congrats guys!). It is an interesting debate. The moot point is this. 'Are motorcycle manufacturers (in India) moving at an evolutionary or revolutionary pace?' Here's my two cents.

Let us first understand the manufacturer's perspective. First, they manufacture motorcycles to make a profit. Period. Please leave your romantic notions at the door. If it wasn't profitable, no one would bother. If I had just one sentence to set up the reality in which we are debating this, that would be it. At the end of the day, it is all about the profit. Market shares, inventories, dealer networks, service initiatives are all crucial so that the profit can be maximised. Second, as is usual in economics, you can make profit in two ways, one is to sell high volume products with low per unit margins (making money on the bulk of the sales) and the other is to sell high margin products with low volumes (making lots of money per unit sale). Since we live in a world where both work, you could also do both.

So, the question are they evolutionary or revolutionary? Depends on how you define it. In my book, a small change like adding a disc brake to a formerly drum braked bike (one of first_synns evolution examples) could be both. Is it a big enough change to represent a revolution? Of course it is. The amout of feel, reliability and sheer braking power it brings to a bike is a revolution! Take the same bike to a racetrack, lap as fast as you can with drum brakes and then take a few fast laps with a disc, you will find the difference is revolutionary. In the market, however, the addition of the disc could just be a marketing ploy, and hence evolutionary. So, the product evolved, but its braking performance underwent a revolution.

But that's a circular way to look at it, right?

Someone else (I'm sorry I can't remember you xbhp id, please leave a comment, and I will update this post) posted that evolution is a small step forward, while revolution is a big leap.

Fair enough. From that perspective, we've had no revolutionary products at all so far. I firmly believe that all technology is only as good as the benefit it provides. So, is fuel injection a revolution? Not really. Our carb-ed bikes were really very good already, so it is a new tech that replaces an old tech, but benefit wise, it is still an evolution. And I could (and I would) argue the same for all the little piddly bits (twin- vs monoshocks etc). Will a multi-cylinder motorcycle represent a revolution? Depends. Will you be happy with a 10 bhp 100cc twin? However, show me a 18 bhp 100cc bike, and I'll say, whoa, that's revolutionary.

I think what I'm trying to say, is that I don't care as much for the details as I do for the big picture. Revolution, to me, is a big shift in stance. Say from a economy-minded plodder to a super-sleek, hi-po machine. What technological aggregates when into it doesn't really matter. If Hero Honda were to launch a proper RC211V-style Unit Link Monoshock mounted on a CD100, would it be a revolutionary product?

First_synn also said something about the bean counter phenomenon, this I agree with. Not enough people in the motorcycle industry are in love with motorcycles in the first place. This does make it harder for people like us to get what we want. One of the first things Ishikawa, the Yamaha head, did when he joined was to ensure that all of Yamaha India rode a bike whenever possible. Also, when a large part of your business is low-margin-high-volume sales, then the bean counter has to be the biggest decision maker. That is just how it is.

Enough! evolutionary or revolutionary? So far, evolutionary. It had to be. You need critical mass for any big event, and the gather of that mass is always evolutionary. Revolution? It's just around the corner...