Are modular motorcycles the answer to soft demand and a weak economy? The idea was floated on The Kneeslider a couple of years ago when I said the concept of the “category killer” was dead, the new model every company keeps trying to build, the one so successful it defines the category and sales skyrocket. The buying public has become so diverse, their tastes change so rapidly, their wants and needs are all over the map, how can any company build for a broad segment of the market without taking a huge risk? Except for racer replicas, essentially built to win championships, and big touring rigs, the rest of the market presents few clearly defined groups in large enough numbers to merit a new model all their own.
One comment in that previous article mentioned mountain bikes. Buying a big name mountain bike means buying a frame, after which components are added to meet specific performance requirements and budget. The commenter goes on:
Obviously, motorcycles are far more complex than bicycles, but a similar system could work. Motorcycle manufactueres are basically frame, engine and transmission manufacturers. Other components – suspension, brakes, wheels, etc. – and accessories – luggage, heated grips, seats, etc. – can be, and often are, sourced from specialty manufacturers like Brembo, Marchesini, Ohlins, etc. Theoretically, I should be able to walk into a bike shop, buy a frame, engine and transmission package, and have the shop outfit that package to my specifications. The motorcycle manufacturer wouldn’t even have to keep the parts they do not manufacture in stock, because the dealer would order them from Nissin, or Showa, or whomever.
The manufacturers could produce them in house, too.
An indication of how this might work was the debut of BMW’s new LoRider concept last week. The basic motorcycle configuration was set but many of the details are left to the customer. This one model is really many models, and though BMW’s indicated choices were much larger than you would normally find, they’ve hardly scratched the surface.
If the manufacturers focus on the base assembly, they could approach sales numbers like the old days, they just wouldn’t be manufacturing complete bikes. They could still sell complete racer replicas to fly the corporate flag or a large touring rig but one or two basic frame and engine packages could serve as the foundation for an entire fleet of standard models.
Final “production” would take place at the dealer who would order and install what the customer wanted, ordering from the manufacturer or elsewhere to complete the bike. That makes dealer ordering much simpler and less risky. Think of the marketing data this would yield for the manufacturer and the dealer! The manufacturer still builds the base frame and engine combination but makes more or less of various options depending on demand, plus designing new options if the customers keep looking elsewhere. What should they build? The customers will tell them! It’s like test marketing in real time. If many customers keep ordering a very similar package, manufacturers could optimize a selection of components to meet that demand and pre-configure a model in short order.
How about custom shops that buy the base model in quantity and complete them on their own? EPA requirements are met by the manufacturer, the custom shop makes the bike unique or produces a branded model based on a specific base model.
Build motorcycles like a computer: this engine, those wheels, that exhaust, until the entire bike is ready. Manufacturer risk is minimized, customer choice is maximized, everyone wins.
I think BMW is hinting they’re already moving in this direction, I wonder which company will be next? What do you think?
Dorzok says
could fill a niche market. BUT, the manufacture would need to build something to showcase for the journalists and for the public to sit on in the showrooms. it would also drive up the price of the bikes because production would drop considerably. remember, the auto industry had such a system before Henry Ford. buy a “rolling chassis” and have a coach builder build the body. costs were way too prohibitive for the vast majority of the public. Ford cahnges that with standardised parts and assembly line manufacturing.
Niche market. i believe Confederate Motorcycle is going this route kind of.
kneeslider says
Good point about the coach builders of the early 20th century, except with today’s CAD software and ability to rapidly produce parts and pieces, not to mention the sheer number of components already available, it wouldn’t be quite the same as hand building a complete car body.
mobilus says
This would kill Harley.
They love to build a 3/4 bike, then stick on odd handlebars (maybe semi-buckhorn or apehangers), spec insufficient brakes and gauges, use suppository two-up seats and weak suspension. Then they slide you a catalogue of components and options, so you can strip $thousands of brand new factory parts off the bike and create your own “custom”. In Harley’s case, custom = what should have been available from the factory to begin with.
I give H-D credit though, they’re smart mofo’s to convince people that creating an eBay account to get rid of unused bars, shocks, peanut tanks and railway gauge exhaust pipes is all part of the motorcycling lifestyle.
Andii says
UJM’s from the 70’s???
Buy the bike you wanted then buy all the after market parts to make the bike what you really wanted. Wasn’t very cost effective though. It is a nice concept but I can’t see how cost effective it would be as you would have to pay for the install of parts by a highly trained technician. The whole concept of mass production was to lower overall vehicle cost.
What about more choice of styles on an “order” basis. There are so many cool bikes out there but not always available in my country or yours!
That or the return of the UJM!!!
Jar says
A la carte motorbikes – seems like a decent thought, however, I think managing the logistics of it all would become difficult.
The volume of standardized parts is what makes for economical production, once the volume goes away, so does the economy. Also, who pays for all the inventory of parts that may or may not get used? Who pays for the creation of all the tooling to create those parts? How does one amoritize the costs of part produciton, say, for a piece that fails to become popular??
Ultimately, a neat idea that has little merit in the world of produciton reality. But, that’s why you have aftermarket folk, and Parts and Acessories crews, and to some extent your “coach builders”…
kneeslider says
Don’t compare this idea to manufacturing from 30 or more years ago, back then, standardized mass production was the only way to go. Today, many standardized mass manufacturers, like GM, are close to going bankrupt after economically building things not enough people wanted. Today, low volume, flexible production is far more feasible, especially for parts and accessories like we’re discussing here.
Blair says
I love the idea of being able to pick and choose personally, there’s been countless times I’ve wished there was a model somewhere in between what the manufacturers are offering. But I wonder how difficult it would be to make all of those unique parts work properly when fabricated into a final bike. I’m thinking in terms of weight distribution, spring rates etc. Essentially modular manufacturing makes the buyer, who’s not necessarily an expert, into the engineer which could cause problems. Unless the modular concept is limited to a family of parts that have all been tested in their broad combinations first.
Erik says
It seems to me that manufacturers would be best served by doing both. Selling complete bikes to people that just want to buy a motorcycle and selling the basics to be completed by customization, which would cost more because of parts and labor.
For my own person, I’m not really all about customization. I like my bike to work without issue. And custom bikes may look sweet but the systems haven’t been as rigorously tested, it raises all kinds of warranty issues and, at the end of the day, raises costs across the board. Not to mention it would create a nightmare for mechanics to have to figure out all those customized bits.
skadamo says
KTM might want to try this eith their dirt bikes. They already have so many variations on an engine/ chasis which shows consumer demand.
The electric Motosports GPR-s is also offering a lot of customization. Could let a dealer assemble per user spec.
The US DOT might not like this arrangment. Would all variations need DOT cert?
Great idea! Great post.
SwissJon says
I love this idea, and I really don’t think i’s gonna drive the cost up.. The concept already exists to a small extent, standard oilfilters, air filters, tyres etc are cheaper than those produced in smaller numbers.
If you could walk through a CAD program with the dealer, picking the parts from a list, a Kawasaki engine fitting with a Ducati frame for example, because the mount points were the same then it would make life a lot more interesting, although I would worry that it would drive smaller specialists out of business, and bikes would all begin to look the same, which really ain’t my cuppa tea at all!!
Gordo says
This option is already available from a custome bike builder. They have several different chasis and engine configerations to choose from. Do you want a rigid or fully suspended? what style do you prefer? Chopper, pro-street, bobber or bagger? The problem, I see, is cost and dealship support. Even the least expensive custom bike is $15,000 and that usually only gets you a solo seat and no rear suspension making the bike only suited for short rides. If you do get one of the larger custom baggers that is comfortable enough to take on a trip, where do yo go if something fails onthe bike? With Harley or the other Big 4 Japanese bikes you can go to just about any town to find parts and someone to work on the bike. This is not such an easy task.
B*A*M*F says
Kneeslider,
I’m a designer (and sometimes a fabricator too) at a company that makes entirely custom items. We have Solidworks, a CNC router and a well equipped shop. Those things make the work we do much less expensive than it was just a few years ago. Even so, there is still a lot of expense. I have found that economies of scale are more of a bell curve than a straight line. Making only one item is expensive, but making 5 can cost even more. Whereas making 100 would yield per unit savings. Of course, this all depends on materials and processes.
CNC production is only now starting to be viable. The new Macbooks have milled aluminum unibodies. I can’t imagine how costly that might be, but you would need fairly closely sized blanks in order not to waste material. I don’t see that working as well for a bike with its more complex shapes.
Costs on forming plastic still aren’t low when making a small to medium volume run.
kneeslider says
Gordo, I think you’re straying from my point. This is an opportunity for the major manufacturers to build the base model, U.S., Japanese, German or Italian or whoever. The dealer for that brand would finish the customization based on your order. Custom shops could order some of those same base models, but they would still be basically a Honda, Harley or whatever, though the potential variations would be much greater. Service should not be an issue.
todd says
I think if they just offered all of the bikes they already manufacture to sell we wouldn’t need this scheme. Honda manufactures something like 4 times the number of models that they import into the US. If they brought in all the rest there would be a lot more choices. Even Harley has that Sportster that isn’t available.
People don’t have enough of an imagination. They only want what is available. It’s only the small numbers of us here at The Kneeslider that aren’t happy with the standard offering. Dealerships would have to employ designers to help people realize the look they’re after. Not everyone can look at a blank canvas and see a potential winner.
-todd
Ben says
It’s is already happening to some extent. Think about the SV650/V-strom & Versys/er650n/ex650r. Also the BMW GS/GSA
mark says
The modular concept was already used to great effect by Triumph when the company was relaunched in the early ’90s. It’s an extremely efficient way to produce a range of bikes for different purposes — stick with two or three engines, a couple of frame styles, bolt on the appropriate suspension and wheels and bodywork for a sportbike, dual-sport, cruiser, whatever.
This worked well for Triumph for a few years, but eventually they found that customers like more specialized motorcycles, so they moved away from the modular concept.
However, the idea of having the dealer instead of the factory add on the modular bits is pretty cool because it could result in much more specialized bikes at reasonable prices. Example: some V-Strom owners like to turn their bikes into “Thin-Stroms” by removing the cockpit fairing/bodywork and replacing it with a dual-sport-style or SV650 headlight; many of these Thin-Stroms also receive knobby tires. This modular concept would allow a bike to be configured that way right from the dealer, opening this type of bike up to owners who don’t have the skill or desire to customize the bike themselves. With proper marketing to get people thinking about what their options are, it could result in some pretty cool bikes.
tim says
I think its entirely unworkable, not from a technical standpoint but from a “We’ll have to change our business model and do WHAT?” from the manufacturers, through the dealers. Sure there is a section of the public that might want this but for most people, close enough is probably good enough.
And the mountain bike example isnt really that good IMO: the mountain bikes where you buy a frame and then kit it out are typically either niche use ones (Downhill race bike, say) or are a statement in bling and “look what I can afford”
A functionally equivalent mountain bike from say Specialized Giant Cannondale et al will cost half of what your custom spec Santa Cruz or other niche manufacturer will charge. Why?
because OEM can buy stuff a LOT cheaper than you can. Those $1500 forks might cost an OEM $500 (say) that $2000 wheelset might cost $800 or whatever. Even if your pusher (sorry, dealer) gives you stuff cheap or at his cost, there are two markups (manufacutrer, distributor) before that stuff gets in the shop.
So the paradigm shift required is immense.
kneeslider says
tim, “paradigm shift?” – Absolutely!
How about GM on the edge of bankruptcy? THAT’s a paradigm shift. We’re in an interesting environment right now and clinging to the old ways is fine, right up until the point they lock the doors. Companies that are going to survive and hopefully prosper, are the ones willing to try something different. Dealers unwilling to change? They’re already sliding under water.
The “we’ve never done it that way” or “it will never work” crowd needs to think about pushing the envelope a bit or they’ll face plenty of leisure time thinking about what went wrong.
Greybeard says
I think it’s a brilliant idea and fits the thinking of JIT, Flexible and Lean Manufacturing to a T.
From your dealer’s computer directly to a regional assembly area, bikes designed for big & small, fast & slow, rich and not so.
Democracy at its finest!
Mix & match.
I love it!
MotoWebbi says
Any warranty claim would turn into an absolute nightmare!
kneeslider says
“warranty claim would turn into an absolute nightmare”
Why? Especially if, like the BMW LoRider, the optional components are made by the manufacturer.
Remember, the engine and frame assembly, the “base,” is the starting point. The optional components are not things like pistons or cams or whatever. Besides, people already install all of that stuff and no one seems to worry about warranty issues.
lars says
This would great if you could still buy older models
of bikes they stopped making.
I would like to get a Honda CB160 or CB200 with better disc brakes
And what about very small people ,Can they only ride cruisers?
Why don’t bikes come in different sizes?
S,M,L…
redline says
i think this is a good idea, not only does it let customers customize there bikes the way they want but it gives small business more of a role in motorcycle manufacturing. it opens the door for all manner of customization. and gets more people involved in building on big and small levels. ive thought this for years, and hope to see the day it happens
hoyt says
This paradigm shift could possibly make things better, globally and locally. The corporate hq & delaersips will be forced to become more skillful. Local, specialty motorcycle parts outfits could still be sustained….
For example, if I could buy a “bike” that only included: an assembled frame with engine & electrics, wouldn’t it cost much less than the traditional fully assembled bike?
I could then buy the suspension and wheels I want at the time of initial purchase instead of saving for them years later,…only to replace the stock wheels that I never wanted anyway.
The initial purchase of the completed bike would be higher, but in the end, it would be less. What if you and an online group of buyers could buy wheels in mass? Even cheaper.
Does a modular V-Max line-up sound enticing?
What if Yamaha one-up’d BMW and said we don’t just have one chassis platform for the new VMax motor, we have 2:
1. current cruiser chassis platform + all of its modular iterations.
2. sportier, standard chassis platform + all of its modular iterations.
B.Case says
Ahh, I like your thinking Hoyt. Kind of a “bittorrent” for motorcycle parts. So instead of paying retail for just one set of wheels for your new “base” bike, you log onto a “free markets” kind of site that pools other buyers together into a collective purchase order, if you will.
To me, the idea as Paul describes sounds like what American V-twin shops tried to do with kit bikes years ago. And we can all see how that turned out. But, I think he, and others here, have touched on something more and it’s very interesting…
-brian
QrazyQat says
This is what people are doing with Motards, right? Why not let them do at least some of it right from the factory. No, it wouldn’t be for everyone, just as ordering up your computer from components isn’t for everyone. But it isn’t that hard or expensive either.
Ry_Trapp0 says
i LOVE this idea! i do agree though that it couldn’t just replace “standard”(pre-configured) bikes, because there are those out there who just wouldn’t care much to customize their new bike. would it be safe to assume that atleast half of all harley buyers keep their bikes completely stock, maybe a new exhaust? i do think that you could offer say 2 pre-configured bikes per “base”, and these pre-configured bikes would just be a package of, say, the most popular items that the other customers who to customize their bikes pick.
one key difference to this versus the automotive world is that the bikes would be built at dealers or regional assembly facilities as opposed to being stuck to an assembly line. the 2008 ford focus is available in only 150 different configurations, 95% less than all previous years.
but one of the key features of the assembly line is the reduced workforce needed to build a product. so its definatly a risk to completely switch the entire structure of bike manufacturing.
BTW, i these op-eds! im really just starting to get into motorcycles as much as im into cars, and these articles help to put the bike industry in perspective. great ideas and great writing, ive picked the right bike blog!
FREEMAN says
One positive I can see off the bat is that insurance companies would have to cover your whole bike at the usual rate since it comes as you want it from the manufacturer. None of this nonsense about not covering your customizations or requiring additional coverage.
Wisedog says
1st of all. let’s think yin yang. nothing is bad without something good. if there’s no standard, what can we call custom?
i agree with modular package BUT there has to be standard one.
Not everyone bought a bike only to customize it in the end.
Recently i bought one old bike with intention to customize it. but after i ride it home and clean the bike, i saw the beauty of it, and even decided to restore the bike into original factory setup.
QrazyQat says
There can and no doubt would be standard bikes. Just because you can order up all the parts to build your own computer, or you can order a computer built with the parts you want, hasn’t meant you can’t just buy a standard one with no options available. All it does is create more options. In life, more options is good.
taxman says
the idea is great if your main focus is to get exactly what you want. but there is no way to stay cost competitive. honda makes $x.xx profit on the sale of a complete bike. they would want to make the same $x.xx from the sale of that frame/engine/transmission. granted there cost would go down due to not adding on all the other bits. but you would end up paying slightly more for that frame/engine/trans.
then there are all the bits. i realize that manufacturing is making leaps. but when they sell to a big company like Honda they sell at quite a low rate because honda is buying so many at a time. if you were to take your honda frame/engine/trans to a bob’s bikes dealership where he outfits it with all the parts you want he’s not buying in the same bulk that honda would thus paying more for the part. plus he wants a small profit on that part also.
i don’t see a way that you could build an equivalent bike for near the same money. granted buy doing what you talk about in your article you would have a bike tailored to exactly what you want. but you would pay the price.
mass manufacturing has been the staple for production for so many years because it is what works. you may not get the exact list of parts you want but you get a good equivalent for a lot less money.
Gordo says
What i meant was it is not cost effective to do a “build your own bike” with lower mass production costs. There are to many variables and an assembly line could not do it and if the dealership installs the bits and pieces you are paying for the base frame and drive train PLUS the other parts, PLUS $75 a shop hour for the tech to put it together. Harley and Buell already use this type of modular build as it is. Look at how many different models use the same chasis and drive train with the only difference being what is bolted on. There are seven different touring bikes riding around on the same frame and drive train and aside from the new 1125 series and the X12XS, Buell uses the same chassis on its bikes too with only a few changes per each model.
mark says
The more I think about this idea, the more I realise there’s no reason it couldn’t be done, aside from resistance on the part of the existing manufacturer/dealer network.
Look at the car industry — Subaru, for example, offers the Impreza in a very basic version, or you can start ticking the boxes for various option packages until you wind up with a WRX STI. There are plenty of options you can select at various levels to order the car you want; some of these options are installed at the factory, some at the dealership.
It seems like it ought to be even easier to do this with motorcycles. The manufacturer could offer a base-model bike or even several standard options packages (like BMW already does with the R1200GS and GS Adventure, for example), but the available options could go even further and allow the customer to select from two or three different engines, a few different levels of suspension quality and wheel configurations, etc. Given the compact nature and relative simplicity of motorcycles, much of this build-to-order type of customization could be done at the dealership. The manufacturer would crate and ship frames with engines already mated to them, and also ship subassemblies comprising the other parts, and the dealership would simply mix and match these subassemblies based on the option boxes the customer has ticked. Since all of these interchangeable subassemblies are factory-produced utilizing standardized components, the economies of scale involved in purchasing large numbers of wheelsets or shocks or whatever are retained, and since the various subassemblies have all been engineered by the manufacturer to work together, there are no safety concerns. Furthermore, insuring the completed bike is no more complicated than insuring a car that’s been ordered with upgraded wheels, better stereo, etc.
PaulN says
Could you even get insurance for something like this? What about the engineering and liability hurdles? It sounds like an intriguing idea, but if I offer a bike with 1 frame, 3 engines, 2 transmissions, 3 different front ends, 2 different rear shocks, 4 sets of controls, 2 different sets of brakes, I get 288 different cnofigurations, all of which have to be engineered, tested, and EPA approved.
BMW is apparently thinking about dipping their toe into these waters, but I can’t see it flying, even though I like the idea.
Insideous says
Let’s take this modular design to a new level and have interchangeable parts to make a bike into a quad, or a snowmobile, or a jetski and then back again!! This will truly allow a total entertainment package of off- and on-road fun. All to fit the needs of the user at that time.
todd says
I just wish everything was standardized like in the bicycle industry. All front ends are interchangeable, all seats bolt up the same way, bars, wheels, cranksets…
If there was an industry standard steering neck, fuel tank mounting, seat mount wouldn’t that be sweet? Not only could you swap parts from one manufacturer you could cross brands or go aftermarket. This would also make it easier for custom shops to design components reducing costs all across the board.
Too bad motorcycles are just too complex of a system to accept the compromises of standardization. Imagine if you couldn’t develop perimeter brakes because you were required (officially or not) to follow a standard mounting scheme.
I guess there are different levels of this whole idea and we keep driving off to the extremes. The Triumph Bonneville is a good example of the system working.
-todd
tim says
Uh, Todd, its been a while since you looked at pushbikes, huh?
headset size: 1″ 1 and 1/8th (the de facto standard now) threaded or threadless, or 1.5″
Forks: single crown or double
cranks: ISIS, square taper, OCTALINK or that new one whose name Ive forgotten.
wheels: Is that a 100mm “old” track hub, a 126 “old road” hub, a 135mm “standard” hub or a 150mm DH hub?
Have you got the correct size rotor and adapter for your disc brakes? 140, 160, 180, 203 mm disc (or my personal favourite, my “We dont match ANYONE else, Hope 165mm rotor”)
How we going to attach our front wheel to the fork? Standard QR (BAD IDEA if you run disc brakes BTW) MAXLE, 20 mm thru, or the “new” 15mm captive QR?
Bicycles, mountainbikes particularly are a product in the early stages of development. We’ve talked about it before in the context of the Buell MTB a week or so ago. Motorcycles on the other hand are a much more mature product. A lot of the questions and answers were found years ago. I bet that they are more interchangeable than any two pushbikes. For example, one of my NC30’s has a full Suzuki RGV250 front end in it… straight bolt up.
dave says
Very interesting read… This is something Paul and I have talked about before, but it’s interesting to get other’s views on the subject.
My question to the masses: Are we expecting the big mfg’s to jump on this wagon, or are we expecting a small-batch mfg to do it? Of course, the Biggies would have an easier time with it, if you crunch the numbers, but are they interested? H-D does do something of the kind, with thier big book of goodies, but you are still buying a base-model and adding parts to it. That leaves you with all the bits you’ve removed, and either keep it (storage) or sell it (ebay, craigslist) Gone are the days you could ‘special-order’ an automobile from the big 3… Now most cars/trucks come in specific trim levels, ordered by the dealerships, base models being mostly non-existant.
Here’s my idea for a small-batch production bike, that fits this formula:
A single frame-set, with adjustablity built into it (swingarm pivot, multiple footpeg mounting points)
Stressed-member engine design (allows optional motors that may be offered in the future)
Standardized triple-tree/fork assembly (most sportbikes already use VERY similar dimensions)
Mutiple rear suspension mounting points (dual shocks, single shock)
5 different “basic” configurations… All interchangable with one-another… (Standard, Cafe, Tracker, Motard, Bobber)
With the purchaser’s ability to mix/match components after the initial purchase of a ‘basic’ model, the only things left would be performance upgrades, that would accompany the bike in the form of a catalog. (suspension, exhausts, carbs, cams, brakes, etc..)
Yes this bike’s already been designed. It’s currently in prototype stage. Pics and a release date are both pending.
Thoughts?
B.Case says
Sounds like a great idea Dave. I think there will be a market for this kind of stuff. Same engine in all 5 config’s? What are you using?
-brian
dave says
Ah, Brian… I was hoping you’d pop in..
I could use a man like you for 3D CAD work, to shop this project around.. (much easier to send files, than a real bike)
The motor is from a previous project with Bienville. It’s a 400cc triple air-cooled engine designed by Ian Drysdale. It’s been finalized, and as far as I know, is going through the EPA/CARB process as we speak. There is room for other powerplants built into the design, so that’s always an option for later. Let me know if you’d be interested…
coho says
Dave,
That is a spectacular idea. Maybe even better than the Renovatio Sport-Tourer (which I don’t think is ever coming).
I would gladly help with the urban-combat reliability/longevity testing…I’m in Seattle, though, is it waterproof?
Real question: Will the different configurations be user-interchangeable (if one had already purchased the various components)?
B.Case says
Well Dave, your comment was too good to pass up. Besides, I do tend to frequent the ‘Slider if you haven’t noticed.
That sounds like a good little motor. But it also sounds like a lot of work, and right now I’ve got my hands full. If CAD is all you need, then I’d say there’s plenty of help out there. Having a design that works is the tricky part. Best of luck!
-brian
BillyB says
As Gordo pointed out, this is already happening in the custom bike market, based on Harley-Davidson designs. 90% (give or take) of all “custom” bikes built are based on the exact same architecture: the Harley FL-series from the 1950’s. Even when these rigid frames got replaced with swing arms in the 60’s the motor and tranny mounted exactly the same. When the Softail was introduced in the 80’s, it too used the same layout. And most custom bikes are based on that. When a builder says he raised the trans 2-inches or stretched the downtubes by 10, or the backbone by 6, it’s all based off of standard FL architecture. Harley’s newer Twin Cams and all the rubbermount bikes have a different layout, but that’s a whole other topic. You can even get a “standard” style S&S bottom end for a Twin Cam top end so you can fit it in a “standard” custom frame.
Basically in the american custom market, most everything is based on that standard with the exception of frames based on Harley’s other layouts. So effectively, you’ve got what you’re talking about right now. The only problem is a non-unit-construction, air-cooled pushrod-equipped dinosaur motor is only good for so much. It would be cool if you could get a compact, motor-trans unit in single or twin configuration that would fit a number of uses from street to dirt to utility.