How to save Harley Davidison
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Proper oil for cruisers
Next: 9-11 was an inside job.
From: Vito on 14 Jul 2010 07:37 Beav wrote: >> I'm interested to know which bikes the Japanese produced were in >> competition with Harley? Until they produced the Harely clones I >> can't think of one. >> Honda Gold Wings for one. Big road bikes were H-Ds bread & butter back then.
From: Vito on 14 Jul 2010 07:41 The Older Gentleman wrote: >>> Because, ostensibly, the Japanese VASTLY overestimated the sales >>> growth curve of large displacement motorcycles in the U.S. based on >>> sales from 1978 through 1980, and produced approximately 1.5 times >>> as many motorcycles as the market could bear in 1981, 1982, and >>> 1983. >> >> Partial reason. There was another, bigger one. I'm still waiting for >> someone to identify it. >> The reason they themselves gave at the time was to avoid high unemployment.
From: Vito on 14 Jul 2010 07:44 The Older Gentleman wrote: >> Vito <vito(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: >> >>> The only reason Ducati didn't go was a group of enthusiests saved >>> them too, and the only reason BMW still makes bikes is that bike >>> performance sells cars. >> >> No, this isn't true, quite. It is true that BMW considered giving up >> bike manufacture in the past, but continued because of the reflected >> sparkle it gave the cars, but these days the business is very much a >> profit centre in its own right. >> Could be - these days. But we were discussing 1980.
From: TOG on 14 Jul 2010 08:09 On 14 July, 12:44, "Vito" <v...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: > The Older Gentleman wrote: > >> Vito <v...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: > > >>> The only reason Ducati didn't go was a group of enthusiests saved > >>> them too, and the only reason BMW still makes bikes is that bike > >>> performance sells cars. > > >> No, this isn't true, quite. It is true that BMW considered giving up > >> bike manufacture in the past, but continued because of the reflected > >> sparkle it gave the cars, but these days the business is very much a > >> profit centre in its own right. > > Could be - these days. But we were discussing 1980. Ah, that's pretty much it, then. More than one BMW exec told me that the first time they considered ending bike production was when they had to replace the R69 and similar bikes. These were the fabulously built ones Earles forks things with all ball-and-roller bearing engines, and phenomenal quality. And they were incredibly costly. Anyway, that was the first time they decided to keep going because of the 'car sparkle effect', and the result was the /5 series (cheaper to build etc etc). The second time was around 1980[1] when they knew that the old airheads had had their day and would have to be replaced with something more modern, almost certainly water-cooled[2], more powerful, etc etc. And they knew the development costs were going to be horrrendous for what was a relatively small player. And they came to exactly the same decision: the influence on their cars' image could not be under-estimated. And this time the result was the K series[3]. Launched in 1983[4], and still around a quarter of a century later - just. Nowadays, of course, BMW bikes are definitely a profit centre in their own right. And BMW is spending sums on R&D which must have seemed unimaginable 30 years ago... [1] So you are absolutely right on the money with that date! <Doffs hat with respect> [2] They actually built a water-cooled, er, airhead mule just to see if it would work. Charmless, apparently. [3] The mule that led to the development of this had a Peugeot 104 engine (small one-litre four from what you'd call a sub-compact car) dropped sideways into a bike chassis. The idea worked damn well, and the rest is history. [4] I was there!
From: TOG on 14 Jul 2010 08:10
On 14 July, 12:41, "Vito" <v...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: > The Older Gentleman wrote: > >>> Because, ostensibly, the Japanese VASTLY overestimated the sales > >>> growth curve of large displacement motorcycles in the U.S. based on > >>> sales from 1978 through 1980, and produced approximately 1.5 times > >>> as many motorcycles as the market could bear in 1981, 1982, and > >>> 1983. > > >> Partial reason. There was another, bigger one. I'm still waiting for > >> someone to identify it. > > The reason they themselves gave at the time was to avoid high unemployment. Wrong. They might have given that as the reason, but it definitely wasn't. |