Hello everyone
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Alec <[email protected]> wrote:
> First thank you all for these very enlightening discussions, what a
> wonderful resource! My intent had been to use these resources on a "read
> only" basis but questions keep arising. It is my hope that they aren't too
> elementary - and I try to search the archives to see if they have been
> repeatedly answered..
Hi Alec
Good of you to join us! Welcome.
>Alec:
> I've just finished my second reading of ZMM (for me a "reading" means lots
> of going back and re-reading). The first was when it was originally
> published and I apparently wasn't ready for some of the concepts at that
> time, I am now reading "Lila" and trying to get a handle on the MOQ. Some
> background which I hope will allow my questions to make sense:
Dan:
LILA is the more important of the 2 books, especially when it comes to
this discussion group. Glad to see you are reading it.
>Alec:
> In my original reading back in the 70's I was mildly aware that we never
> knew the identity of Mr. Pirsig's mount. I could tell that it was a vertical
> twin from some of his descriptions and assumed it to be what I had been
> driving during those times, some form of British twin readily available in
> the US:: Triumph; BSA or Norton. This didn't carry much importance and still
> doesn't beyond the questions brought to me (below).
>
> During my recent second reading this mystery came a bit more to the fore.
> The Sutherlands' machine is identified as a BMW and the narrator
> acknowledges it to be a quality machine, but the machine upon which he and
> Chris were borne was still unidentified. The Googling that brought me to
> MOQ.org also produced a photo of the Pirsigs ... astride an early Honda
> twin.
Dan:
I run a small motorcycle repair shop. We've always (affecctionately)
referred to Japanese bikes like Hondas as "rice-burners" on account of
the noises the engine makes. Many died-in-the-wool Harly riders tend
to use that as a derogatory term though.
>Alec:
> My first reaction to this revelation was "I wonder why he passed up an
> opportunity to use his Honda as an object lesson in quality?". Those early
> Hondas initiated a paradigm shift in the quality levels expected of mass
> produced motorcycles. The easily available cycles in the States during the
> 60's were the British machines, Harley Davidsons, Beemers and a smattering
> of small bikes from Puch, Zundapp and the like - all lacking in basic
> quality with the exception of the BMW's.
Dan:
Ahem. Excuse me while I choke on my coffee. Until 1969, Harleys were
manufactured entirely in the United States. Now they are assembled at
4 plants, still in the US, but using parts made globally.
That aside, the Japanese used W. Edward Deming's theories to produce
high quality products by requiring rigid adherence to conformity.
Continual improvement was his mantra. He stressed thinking of
manufacturing as a system, not just as a series of parts being put
together. His ideas have been pretty much universally adopted these
days.
> *Alec:
> *After quick thought it occurred to me that the reason for Mr. Pirsig's
> failure to identify his machine may have been the fact that the perception
> of Japanese machines at that time was roughly analogous to that of Chinese
> machines today: The Japanese were beginning the production of quality
> equipment. The overall perception of Japanese products in the States,
> however, was that of "cheap junk". I thought that perhaps this general
> perception kept the identity of the Pirsig's ride in secrecy.
Dan:
I never got the impression of secrecy. I didn't think it mattered that
much what kind of bike they were riding. The maintenance vs
non-maintenance seemed the bigger issue. But that was just my
impression.
>Alec:
> While I'm curious as to the real reason for this omission and welcome new
> knowledge, this line of thinking launched me into considerations of quality
> and value in rather pedestrian terms and since I am grappling with these
> terms as they relate to the MOQ, I hope that you can place them in this
> context for me:
>
> I have always used the terms "quality" and "value" in those sort of old
> fashioned, material senses, basically "well crafted" and "high bang for the
> buck" respectively.
>
> Considering the possibility that Mr. Pirsig didn't wish to dilute his
> arguments by trumpeting the high quality of something (the Honda) that most
> may have considered a "cheap" machine forced me to think about the Super
> Hawk vs. the Beemer.
>
> Salient details about the Beemer are missing as well but my assumption was
> (is) that it was probably a 1960's vintage R-60. If you will indulge me this
> assumption then:
>
> My first thought was "Lord, a long cross country trip on that little Honda
> with two people???". But on reflection, I realized that although the Honda's
> exhaust volume was roughly half that of the BMW, performance was really
> pretty equivalent. Those Beemers were always very flat and quite low "zip"
> for the displacement. The Hondas were relatively highly tuned and were
> capable of the same top speed (90 mph-ish).
>
> Not wanting to start "Ford-Chevy" arguments but when I think about them the
> Honda 305 Super Hawk and the BMW R60/2 are really pretty comparable: both
> in quality and performance. Given a modicum of care they would both run
> almost indefinitely. They would go down the road in very similar manners.
>
> Both lacked the designed-in flaws and sloppy manufacturing of the American
> and British bikes of the day. The one big difference between them was the
> purchase price. Here comes my question ("at last" says everyone reading
> this).
>
> If these two machines were roughly equivalent why would people pay a much
> higher price for the BMW and regard it as a better machine?
Dan:
The same reason they would refuse to use a piece of beer can for a
shim when one's handlebars are loose.
Alec:
What I am
> getting at is that (in my mind at least) there are two versions of quality
> at work here: (what I would call) "real" quality - good engineering, careful
> manufacture, performance and satisfaction delivered by the machines versus
> the "perceived" quality - that which would get people off their wallets:
> German quality engineering vs. Japanese "junk".
Dan:
Celebrity is the word to use. The BMW confers a higher source of
celebrity that the rice-burner does not. It is all about status.
>Alec:
> To me, if the "real" quality is vaguely equivalent and one (Honda) costs
> much less, then that lower priced machine has a much higher value ... and
> yes I am aware of the potentially Jamesian slippery slope of couching things
> within this monetary framework.
>
> All of this is to ask: Where do my two qualities fit within the MOQ? Is my
> "perceived quality" a static latch? e.g. if all other factors are equal, we
> will select the Beemer because they have always been "quality" and the
> Japanese have always been "junk"? Where (if anywhere) does my "real quality"
> fit within your framework?
Dan:
Though I work on motorcycles I do not ride. I associate with many
bikers though during the course of my business. There are your basic
Sunday afternoon riders who ride Goldwings. And then there are your
Harley enthuisists who wouldn't be caught dead on a Honda. Most bikers
(who live the life, so to speak) fall into the latter category.
It is the force of celebrity that drives people to ride the bikes they
ride. Your doctors and lawyers ride big expensive Harleys because they
can afford it, while a biker does the same but is known as
"Harley-poor." They tend to live in a hovel, collect cigarette butts
to roll their own cigarettes, and dress in second-hand clothing, all
to afford their bike. It is a status symbol.
>Alec:
> Once again I hope that these questions aren't too elementary. As I read I'd
> like to see where my avenues of thinking lie in relation to the MOQ. All
> thoughts will be much appreciated.
Dan:
I think once you get through LILA a couple times you'll come to see
what I am saying in a better light.
Thank you once again,
Dan
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
