Urge to wear cammo.

For all that relates to both Armstrong MT 500 and Harley Davidson MT 350
TJRL
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:54 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Urge to wear cammo.

Post by TJRL » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:31 pm

Korky wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:05 am

...., plus they're cheap as chips.
Yup they are "cheap as chips" ... because like everything the Army has, they were made by the lowest bidder!! :shock:
0 x
1997 MT350 (with 500e) - Sold 2014 :(
1999 MT350 (With 604e) - Sold 2018 :( :(
2014 F800 GT
2018 R1200RT LE
1960 SII Land Rover SWB SW

User avatar
Derrick
Global Moderator
Posts: 2561
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:47 pm
Location: Leighton Buzzard

Re: Urge to wear cammo.

Post by Derrick » Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:28 pm

TJRL wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:31 pm
Korky wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:05 am

...., plus they're cheap as chips.
Yup they are "cheap as chips" ... because like everything the Army has, they were made by the lowest bidder!! :shock:
Including the MT500 and MT350
0 x
1997 HD MT350
2002 Honda Pan European 1300

deadgrass.
Posts: 991
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 5:32 pm
Location: sheffield

Re: Urge to wear cammo.

Post by deadgrass. » Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:34 pm

i had the urge once so i bought some,
put it down and now i cant find it.

dave.
3 x
born to be waserk
thank god for atheism.
sometimes your front legs need to be stiff and the fur on your arse vertical.

Wirralman
Posts: 5353
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:45 am
Location: Wirral, Merseyside

Re: Urge to wear cammo.

Post by Wirralman » Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:33 pm

Derrick wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:28 pm
TJRL wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:31 pm
Korky wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:05 am

...., plus they're cheap as chips.
Yup they are "cheap as chips" ... because like everything the Army has, they were made by the lowest bidder!! :shock:
Including the MT500 and MT350
If you look hard enough on the forum you can see the weaknesses found in all three bikes put forward by potential suppliers when the Armstrong was selected. Nowhere is price actually mentioned rather the Armstrong had fewer faults that the other two offerings. The recommendation to go with the Armstrong was on technical grounds. The insistence initially on Amal carbs was reportedly to increase the UK content of the bike.

As for the MT350 , I have seen no bidding documentation whatsoever, having a revised version of an existing bike where many parts are common makes sense from a spares perspective

Having personally tested a new vehicle type at MVEE (Military Vehicles Experimental Establishment)I know for a fact that a LOT of testing work was done. I'm not sure that the vehicle testing has been able to keep pace with the different theatres our forces now have to operate in, a factor I suspect in some vehicles being withdrawn after a very short service life.

Hence I would be interested to see what factual evidence there is to support earlier comments on this thread
1 x

TJRL
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:54 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Urge to wear cammo.

Post by TJRL » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:01 pm

Wirralman wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:33 pm
Derrick wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:28 pm
TJRL wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:31 pm


Yup they are "cheap as chips" ... because like everything the Army has, they were made by the lowest bidder!! :shock:
Including the MT500 and MT350
... I would be interested to see what factual evidence there is to support earlier comments on this thread
None from me :oops: other than, that is what I have been told repeatedly by various RQs for the last 31 years!
1 x
1997 MT350 (with 500e) - Sold 2014 :(
1999 MT350 (With 604e) - Sold 2018 :( :(
2014 F800 GT
2018 R1200RT LE
1960 SII Land Rover SWB SW

User avatar
Derrick
Global Moderator
Posts: 2561
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:47 pm
Location: Leighton Buzzard

Re: Urge to wear cammo.

Post by Derrick » Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:20 pm

Wirralman wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:33 pm
Derrick wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:28 pm
TJRL wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:31 pm


Yup they are "cheap as chips" ... because like everything the Army has, they were made by the lowest bidder!! :shock:
Including the MT500 and MT350
If you look hard enough on the forum you can see the weaknesses found in all three bikes put forward by potential suppliers when the Armstrong was selected. Nowhere is price actually mentioned rather the Armstrong had fewer faults that the other two offerings. The recommendation to go with the Armstrong was on technical grounds. The insistence initially on Amal carbs was reportedly to increase the UK content of the bike.

As for the MT350 , I have seen no bidding documentation whatsoever, having a revised version of an existing bike where many parts are common makes sense from a spares perspective

Having personally tested a new vehicle type at MVEE (Military Vehicles Experimental Establishment)I know for a fact that a LOT of testing work was done. I'm not sure that the vehicle testing has been able to keep pace with the different theatres our forces now have to operate in, a factor I suspect in some vehicles being withdrawn after a very short service life.

Hence I would be interested to see what factual evidence there is to support earlier comments on this thread
I went to the factory and talked to the guys who had built the Armstrongs. One example was no electric start to save £15. I was there because my workshop had found a batch of bikes with the bar that holds the front drum had not been hardened correctly causing them to fail. They showed me and my Tiffy how to identify correct and incorrect bars. All those with incorrect parts were taken off the road until new parts were supplied. Caused quite a problem as we were on exercise at the time.

I did have a paper on the analysis of the 1st tranche of SA80 but lent it to someone and never got it back. The weapon had to be redesigned and the manufacturing process significantly improved due to failure to meet the reliability in production. The ones submitted for the initial trials were fine, but they were effectively hand fitted. Production batches were made to the lowest cost.
1 x
1997 HD MT350
2002 Honda Pan European 1300

Wirralman
Posts: 5353
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:45 am
Location: Wirral, Merseyside

Re: Urge to wear cammo.

Post by Wirralman » Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:53 pm

Derrick wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:20 pm
Wirralman wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:33 pm
Derrick wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:28 pm


Including the MT500 and MT350
If you look hard enough on the forum you can see the weaknesses found in all three bikes put forward by potential suppliers when the Armstrong was selected. Nowhere is price actually mentioned rather the Armstrong had fewer faults that the other two offerings. The recommendation to go with the Armstrong was on technical grounds. The insistence initially on Amal carbs was reportedly to increase the UK content of the bike.

As for the MT350 , I have seen no bidding documentation whatsoever, having a revised version of an existing bike where many parts are common makes sense from a spares perspective

Having personally tested a new vehicle type at MVEE (Military Vehicles Experimental Establishment)I know for a fact that a LOT of testing work was done. I'm not sure that the vehicle testing has been able to keep pace with the different theatres our forces now have to operate in, a factor I suspect in some vehicles being withdrawn after a very short service life.

Hence I would be interested to see what factual evidence there is to support earlier comments on this thread
I went to the factory and talked to the guys who had built the Armstrongs. One example was no electric start to save £15. I was there because my workshop had found a batch of bikes with the bar that holds the front drum had not been hardened correctly causing them to fail. They showed me and my Tiffy how to identify correct and incorrect bars. All those with incorrect parts were taken off the road until new parts were supplied. Caused quite a problem as we were on exercise at the time.

I did have a paper on the analysis of the 1st tranche of SA80 but lent it to someone and never got it back. The weapon had to be redesigned and the manufacturing process significantly improved due to failure to meet the reliability in production. The ones submitted for the initial trials were fine, but they were effectively hand fitted. Production batches were made to the lowest cost.
You have this completely round your neck. The original specification did not include electric start, it was offered as an extra ( but I suspect it would be more than £15 for the starter gear, motor etc etc) that wasn't taken up.

Duff batches of parts, it happens everywhere

SA80 initial problems, what evidence is there to show that this was cost related rather than design related. If something that can't actually be made in large quantities , that is surely a design issue
0 x

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest