🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <HARKCOM.93Jan8092348@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp> harkcom@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp (Alton Harkcom) writes:

It seemed like this began as a semi-normal disagreement about why we are 
getting our butts spanked by Japan in the manufacturing area.  I made a 
comment about how Harley Davidson wasn't a great example of American 
manufacturing making a comeback because they have been stuck with the
same products for quite a while.  My saying that they are riding a 
nostalgic kick at the moment and are not really a state of the art
manufacturer with long term prospects got me called a batch of things,
including "ignorant," "closed minded," and a "non-biker" (the last one got
me, the first two I can live with).  So the gloves are off.  Not only
are you two dumb as bricks, but you don't know diddly about bikes.  You quote
stats that are as far from reality as Ronald Reagan's memories and you 
counter requests for references with insults.  Obviously, owning a computer
is as much evidence of ability and intelligence as owning a car.  I don't
mind being wrong, but I hate being told I'm wrong when I'm not.  Specially
by people who don't have a clue.

But, you two bad boys got me.  I wasted an afternoon trying to find some kind of 
evidence that you knew something about motorcycles.  I couldn't do it (see the 
following data).  Motorcyclist (2/92) had these words of praise for the 
1992 Harley Davidson XLH 883 Sportster, "It's the heaviest motorcycle here.  
It has the worst ride, vibrates the most and offers no passenger 
accommodations.  It has the least range and is the slowest bike here 
despite having the biggest engine."  This was out of a test of 5 
"cruiser-style" bikes.  The Harley did win one category, it was the 
"most expensive."

>   I have yet to see a yuppie on a hog.  If I did I would probably knock
>him off out of respect for the hog...

Better stay away from L.A., Colorado, Nebraska, and Texas, at least.  I've lived
in those places and those markets are pretty well filled with rich folks riding
Harleys.  At least the people riding relatively new Harleys fall into that
category.  I suppose you think Jay Leno is a non-yuppie representative,
though.  What do I know?  From my weekend's research, I'd guess that I 
wouldn't know how you rate a bike.  Can't be by horsepower, handling, or 
value.  Must be by the way you think you look on a bike.  I kind of like
they way you boys look, too; in my rear view mirror.  

You know, if you really are a semi-technical type working for a Japanese 
company and you own a Harley and are under 40, you probably had better 
avoid mirrors.  If you knock yourself off the bike when it is moving, you 
will get hurt.

>   The Japanese makers have some bikes in the Harley range.  The Honda
>Goldwing is one of them.  These bikes are 'sterile' and 'limp'...  It's
>hard to describe such aspects, but these are the aspects which Harley
>has the competition beat in.  (Yuppies ride the sterile, limp bikes...)
>These limp machines just don't offer the power or performance of a
>Harley...  Though they do offer complete wind shielding, on board
>computers and other perfectly useless limp stuff...

Don't look now, but there's some pretty "useless limp stuff" on the Electra 
Glide.  The other limp stuff on the Japanese bikes, like motors that Harley 
could die for, is debatable.  Depends on the bike.  Some of the things on 
the bikes I've listed are bike handling that actually allows the 
rider to make it though mountain roads without a crane.  Engines that don't
resemble weight reduction vibration motors.  I suppose you'd think a 10 second
1/4 mile is "limp."  No wonder you have "respect for the hog," it's the 
only thing you can hang on to.  Come on, admit it.  What you really like
about Harleys is the image and the noise.  I bet you look cool in your
Snoopy hat and black leather chaps.  You might even be one of the modern 
guys and wear bomber goggles.

The only fair comparison you can make to the Goldwing is the Electra Glide 
and they don't get much limper than a 15.27 sec 1/4 mile and 94mph top speed.
I guess you probably really like the handlebar streamers though, right?  All
the leather, the machismo?  Not a lot of macho doing a balls-to-the-wall 94mph,
boys.  

>   And if Harley is such a bad bike, then why are the Japanese bike
>companies trying so hard to duplicate it on their domestic market.
>there are so many Harley look-alikes which sound like tin cans here
>that I'm tempted to throw up on the next one I see...

Remember how they "duplicated" the British bikes into non-existence?  When
a market is as profitable as the cruiser bike market (low tech and low 
performance for high prices), any manufacturer worth salt would go after it.
Take a look at the performance specs below, the cruisers are the macho-looking
bikes that go slow.  At least slower, by bike standards.

Bikes like the Shadow, the V-Max, and the Vulcan have more than duplicated 
the product Harley sells, they beat it hands down.  Except for the 
blubbering, out-of-EPA-noise-spec exhaust note that all non-bikers love to 
hate.  That damn sound is going to get real motorcyclists put off of the road 
and you're really going to see some butts in a sling then.  An HD patch will
be a bull's eye for every biker who can't ride because HD got bikes 
regulated into history.  Harley's crap emissions performance is going to
get us all catalytic converters, too.

>   Speaking of providing stats...  Why don't you reference your seemingly
>impossible claim?  A 1200cc Harley could chew up a 600cc H/Y/K and spit
>the pieces out faster than a 750cc H/Y/K could ever hope to go...

Harley only makes 883cc and 1340cc bikes.  And they've been making those 
engines, or variations of that theme, for about 20 years.  But your claim
ain't true.  You're not even close to right.
Just out of curiosity, how to you chew up and spit out something that you 
don't race?  I guess you do all your chewing and spitting in bars (or do 
you call them "bistros?"), since you stay away from tracks where you'd have 
to prove your claims.  

I did a bunch of work for you kiddies.  I found that the high end 
(performance wise) of HD is the Dyna Daytona which cranks out 72hp.  The 
high end Japanese Sport bike, the Yamaha FZR1000 puts out 117.7hp.  You 
have to drop back to a Yamaha FZR600R to get below HD's 72hp, but the FZR 
still has a faster 1/4 mile time and a higher top speed.  Probably thanks 
to weight and aerodynamic advantages.  I did find a very old magazine with 
the 1973 Yamaha TX-500 stats.  The HD FLXR 1340 can beat that relic by 
0.03 sec in the 1/4 mile and has a 6mph top speed advantage.  Remember the 
500 in TX500 stands for 500cc and the FLXR is a 1340cc engine, but fair is 
fair.  The Harley, in good repair, would win that race if the rider didn't 
vibrate off of the bike before the end.
Here goes, next it's your turn to provide some references for your idiotic 
claims.  This list is sorted by 1/4 mile times (in seconds, if you're not 
familiar with racing stats).  I included a whole stack of bikes from 250cc 
to 1400cc just to give you a feel of how things get chewed and spit in the 
"real world."  You can load the list into a spreadsheet and sort it by top
speed and you'll find Harley at the bottom of that list too.

Make & Model		cc	Year	Price	1/4 mi Top Speed   Reference		Style
						time	
Kawasaki ZX-11		1100	1992	$6,999 	10.36	176mph	Sport Bike 6/92		Sport
Honda CBR900RR		898	1992	$8,299 	10.40	159	Sport Bike 6/92		Sport
Suzuki GSX-R1100	1100	1992	$7,499 	10.64	161	Sport Bike 6/92		Sport
Yamaha V-Max		1400?	1992	$7,699 	10.66	145	Sport Bike 6/92		Crusier
Suzuki GSX-R750		750	1992	$6,699 	10.82	151	Sport Bike 6/95		Sport
Kawasaki ZX-7R		750	1992	$9,449 	10.97	154	Sport Bike 6/96		Sport
Honda GBR600F2		600	1992	$5,699 	11.09	145	Sport Bike 6/97		Sport
Honda CBR600F2		600	1992	$5,499 	11.17	N/A	Motorcyclist 11/92	Sport (1)
Yamaha FJ1200A		1200	1992	$8,499 	11.17	140	Motorcyclist 7/92	Sport
Kawasaki ZX-6		600	1992	$5,649 	11.21	146	Sport Bike 6/98		Sport
Yamaha FZR600R		600	1992	$4,999 	11.26	139	Sport Bike 6/99		Sport
Ducati 851 Sport	851	1992	$12,500 11.53	147	Cycle World 8/92	Sport
Yamaha FZR1000		998	1992	$8,299 	11.68	168	Sport Bike 6/92		Sport
Yamaha TZR250R		250	1992	$7,200 	11.71	N/A	Motorcyclist 11/92	Sport
Ducati 900SL		904	1992	$9,800 	11.74	130	Cycle World 8/92 	Sport
Kawasaki ZR1100		1062	1992	$6,999 	11.88	140	Cycle World 8/93	Sport
Yamaha TDM		848	1992	$6,599 	12.19	125	Cycle World 8/92 	Sport DP (1)
BMW K100S		998	1992	$12,990 12.24	131	Motorcyclist 7/92	Touring
Buell RSS1200		1198	1992	$15,995 12.42	124	Cycle World 8/92	Sport (2)
Honda RC31		647	1991	$6,000 	12.48	124	Cycle World 10/92	Sport (3)
Kawasaki GPz550		550	1992	$2,599 	12.57	N/A	Motorcyclist 11/92	Sport
Honda ST1100		1992	1992	$11,199 12.59	127	Motorcyclist 7/92	Touring
Yamaha Seca II		599	1992	$3,999 	13.19	113	Cycle World 11/92	Sport
Kawasaki Vulcan 88 	1470	1992	$6,699 	13.49	110	Cycle World 11/92	Crusier
Honda Shadow 		1099	1992	$7,099 	13.56	119	Cycle World 11/92	Crusier
HD FXLR 		1340	1992	$10,730 13.90	114	Cycle World 11/92	Crusier
Yamaha TX500		498	1973	$1,395 	13.93	108	MC World 12/73		Traditional
HD FLSTN		1340	1992	$12,999 14.33	107	Cycle World 2/93	Cruiser
HD Electra Glide	1340	1992	$16,099 15.27	94	Cycle World 11/92	Touring
Footnotes: 
(1) Stats also reproduced with reasonable tolerance by Super Bike 
    12/92 (CBR600), Motorcyclist 8/92 (Yamaha TDM)
(2) The Buell RSS1200 is a pumped HD 883 engine which I included to show 
    that someone knows what to do with HD products, even if it isn't HD 
    (although the price is a little steep).  By the way, Buell dumped the 
    "high-tech" belt drive for a chain because he needed a better power 
    transfer and more reliability for a bike that might be raced.
(3) The RC31 is a faired and slightly tweeked Honda Hawk (647cc) which I 
    included as a balance to the Buell.  With a little work and a about $6k,
    a rider can have a 647cc twin by Two Brothers in CA that has the same
    top speed and is 0.06 sec slower in the 1/4 than the $16k Buell/HD.  In
    your non-biker racing situation, the Hawk would put up a hell of a fight 
    with almost half the engine.

>   Harley had that reputation in the beginning and that is why it became
>so popular.  A few years back they developed a reputation for low quality,
>but they have slapped themselves back into shape and again fit your
>description of 'quality'...

They "became so popular" because they had a reputation for unreliability?  
Sounds like a real bright market to me.  The change in Harley's reputation 
for quality exists only in the minds of a few collectors and history buffs.
Like American car manufacturers, HD is still a day (5-10 years) late and 
a dollar short (or $2-6k long, depending on how you look at it.

From the repair letters to bike mags that I waded through this weekend, I 
doubt that even their own owners think of them as a top quality producer.  
They still don't know that they have to take responsibility
for the parts that vendors make for them.  Read about the drive belt 
pulley fiasco and the excuse they make for that problem.  Read about the 
rear cylinder overheating problems.  Read about the air flow & leakage 
problems.  Read before you BS.

>   When customers start limiting their riding to the track then Harley
>might start worrying about such.  harley still offers the best on road
>performance (which is where the customers usually ride :)...

Customer who brag about "chewing up and spitting out" other bikes are 
either on the track or BS artists.  From the above chart and your 
comments, we know which you are.  The track is the only place high 
performance bikes get tested.  If what you are saying is that you don't
care about a smooth ride, decent brakes, power, and handling and what you
do care about is looking cool (or silly, depending on your perspective) 
and making a lot of unproductive noise, you got the right bike.
More on racing: the race track is the only place a rider can "safely" 
learn about things like panic braking, emergency manuevering, 
and the dynamics of riding a motorcycle without the fatal handicap of
having some bozo in a 6,000 pound car with no more driving talent than 
the monkeys we sent up in the early Apollo tests in the wake.  In my years
of riding, I've seen riders, mostly Harley riders, disconnect or partially 
disable their front brakes (as bad as they are) because they are afraid 
of "going over the handlebars" in a panic stop.  In a real panic stop, the
rear wheel will have 0-10% of the bike's weight, assuming an existing and
properly used front brake.  Paraphrasing Keith Code's words, you'd be 
better off using the choke lever or turn signal than the rear brake in
panic conditions.  

So if you don't believe that "customers . . . ride" on the track, where 
do you learn how to do this stuff?  You better be a real natural if 
you expect to do it right the first time you need it on the street.  

One stat I read (no I don't remember the source) several years 
ago stated that 85% of all "reported" motorcycle accidents are fatal (bad)
or totally disabling (worse).  And most accidents occur in the first six
months of bike ownership or on borrowed bikes.  I spent my first eight 
years riding off road race bikes on the track.  Since 1981, I have put
over 200k miles on road bikes and I have no accidents (a few incidents, 
but no accidents).  My race training kept me alive for 9 years of daily
L.A. commuting.  My race training keeps me alive on Colorado's mountain
roads that are now being packed with the same people I avoided in 
California.  My race training also allows me to enjoy the parts of the
country that you can only read about riding a hog.  I'm not purged from
dirt roads and fire roads, tight winding two lanes, and I don't have to
stop and hide when the weather gets bad.  My "perfectly useless. . .
complete wind shielding" helps with that though.  It also helps my 850
get better 1/4 mile marks, higher top speeds, and gets me around corners
faster, too.  Too bad it's useless.

>  If by 'similar machine' you mean one that offers the same performance
>then you are wrong.  If you mean one that offers minimal performance
>then yes you are right.

Looks like Harley is the one offering minimal performance and we haven't 
even talked about cornering or braking or long distance comfort.  What 
do you define as performance?
 =}I don't think you want to get into the engineering aspect of motorcycling.  
 =}You don't seem to have a clue.  So I'm off of that tack from here out.
>   You might also want to get off that tack before your ignorance shows
>anymore than it already has.  (Yes, I have shown mine also...)  You
>apparently know much less than you seem to think.  Took too many spills
>with your helmet on?

Right, ignorance.  Your ignorance sure is showing.  I can read specs, you 
can't.  I can figure out why a huge group of riders ignores the competition 
that every other motorcycling group enjoys, you can't (Here's a clue: if you
aren't competitive, you don't compete.).  HD riders are notorious for riding
without helmets, I've been wearing mine (a Snell approved full face, today) 
since 1968, along with boots, leathers (now nylon & Kevlar), back support, 
gloves, shoulder pads and shin protection (off road), and insurance.  
Somehow, I doubt you can boast any of those possessions.  In fact, I doubt 
that you own a bike.  Speaking of helmets, Harley expected their market 
share to fall off considerably when California passed their recent helmet 
law?  Pretty bright market, don't you think?

=}As usual, with your eyes closed.
>   That is rather ironic coming from someone who's posts portray
>a closed mind...

As opposed to not possessing one, I suppose.  Back off, Jack.  You don't
know what you're talking about.  You don't ride.  You don't understand
mechanics.  You don't even know when you are beat.  You don't even know
enough to find a place where you could find out if you are beat.  You 
don't have a motorcycling foot to stand on.  You're convinced you look good
wearing black leather, sitting on a chrome-plated geriatric device.  Try a 
San Fransisco bar, you'd fit right in.