Almost immediately people think of a bike with performance that can compete with the bikes of today. I think there is some misguided feeling here. What place has this desire for high performance? Is ego creeping in here? Laverda has made it's history. This should be appreciated in what we do. We should not think of giving these modern bikes "a run for their money". That seems to be getting away from accepting Laverda for what it is. No more should be demanded of it than to be able to compete with the bikes of yesterday ... and why even think of this?
Keep it simple and work on achieving quality. No high-tech sophistication which makes the project more difficult. The only place technical sophistication has is to contribute to reliability (electronic ignition, better brakes etc).
If someone wants to have a Laverda they have to buy one of the few bikes that still exist.
Some people want the Laverda for what it is and others want a new Laverda (a redesigned one).
Most agree that it could only deserve the name of Laverda if it had a largely original old engine. But then we are back to the problem of getting one of these. Why not get a Laverda? Why not improve it. Why not build entirely new bike around the original engine?
So that looks like the way a project might go - a new bike based on the old engine.
Then there were other thoughts - a new engine too. With enough care that new bike could have the Laverda spirit ... the Laverda character. But many people would not be able to think of this as a true Laverda.
What makes Laverdas deserve that name? They have to come from the factory that has long since dissappeared. But creating a new Laverda factory is out of the question. That isn't a bike project. That's a mammoth economic undertaking. But all this doesn't seem neccessary.
Thinking further - it isn't actually the factory that matters. It's the design team. In this case that would be some members of the Laverda family and others on the design team. But the family members would be the ones that can bestowe the Laverda name onto a machine. They can put their name to anything they choose.
So I think they could give their name to a new machine which was built in the ways they would want it to be built, but built by other people. The Laverda community could make the bike and that alone would enable the bike to be thought of as a Laverda substitute, but I wouldn't feel it completely deserved the name of Laverda. I feel the Laverda family would have to "adopt" the bike, or something (what words am I looking for?).
I have heard of many very practical schemes to build a new engine and the rest of the bike from existing components in a way that would embody the Laverda spirit.
I have no confidence that any market can be depended on, for anything.
The project must therefore have its own power and be a labour of love supported by those who are really interested. If the project is needed to be a viable business then this brings in all sorts of adverse outside influences and dependancies on other people doing other things ... and dreaded compromises and delays, and serious matters just being "up in the air". An administrative undertaking that may turn into an administrative nightmare ... and people NOT wanting to do it.
It should be done by just doing it.
If any business is to happen it should go no further than buyers covering the costs of makers, and the makers not persuing business.
No big business enterprise. Just some blokes doing stuff because they want to.
Someone makes this, another makes that. And nobody makes something else. "No matter - we can do without that"
I guess this scheme of building a new bike would depend on making a new bike by replacing major parts of existing Laverdas. Someone could make a front end. A few other guys could make an engine. Someone else makes a rear suspension, but not enough of them and nobody has made a new frame. The old original frame would have to be used till somebody made a good frame.
But there is another Laverda there!
But it costs so much. Well, get something else.
I feel that a project bike should have uniqe features at a fundamental level. This is what Laverda did with their 180 triple and V6. I don't know about the twins but many people talk about them as if they are uniqe.
Anyway, a 180 triple is fundamentally uniqe. Nobody else has ever made one and I believe they never will. The reason they is very important - there is too much freedom of thought. There must be hords of people in the world that think the conscept isn't right and I don't see how there can be any reason that deserves attention ... just prejudice.
I guess most people will think of balance. It is smoother than a twin, and twins are accepted without any psychological discomfort. And I reckon 120 triples are made for smoothness, sometimes unsuccessfully. No reason that matters.
A 180 triple is a big, uniqe Laverda feature and so important because there is freedom from what ignorant people think is the way things should be done ... the designers themselves had spirit. That's why it has such significance. Many bikes have spirit when you ride them, but few have spirit that comes out by just thinking about them.
No V6s are made of any significance (the Honda is a "no V6 of any significance" Not in this discussion). The successful radical engineering which was done on the Laverda V6 is a real tribute to Laverda. But what a daunting project! Wouldn't this be a major engineering undertaking which must progress to an administrative nightmare? Wouldn't it be like resurecting the Laverda factory?