How to save Harley Davidison
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Proper oil for cruisers
Next: 9-11 was an inside job.
From: Chuck Rhode on 15 Jul 2010 10:12 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 05:17:03 -0700, TOG(a)Toil wrote: > On 14 July, 12:37, "Vito" <v...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: >> 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. > That's an *interesting* suggestion. On the face of it, they are > chalk and cheese, but the Wing was the first real transcontinental > Honda. Yeah, you can cross continents on a C50, but the Wing really > was the first Jap bike intended to do that.... > Hmmm... but a Harley competitor? > <fx: tosses idea from hand to hand> > I'd prefer to mark the Wing as the bike which showed, absolutely, > how motorcycle engines were going to develop in terms of car-like > reliability and features, but yes, I'd agree with you on this one. It is at this point in the discussion I rise to give lip service to the notion that the original 1975 Wing was intended as a performance bike. Mind you I do this without knowing anything about the issue other than what I have heard bandied about here. I should point out I've heard similar from the Classic Wing Club mailing list, so Keith isn't the only source I rely on. Carbs were different for every year, but the 1978 redesign included cam modifications that improved fuel economy and emissions at the marked expense of performance. From then on the line was doomed to duty in the long-distance, over-the-road touring market. Aiding and abetting were companies a'la Vetter that were selling comfort-enhancing after-market doodads such as fairings and luggage, which were principally for touring use. In 1979-1980 Honda introduced a factory fairing, heavier engine, and electronic ignition, followed over the years by yet heavier engines with increasing prevalence of fuel injection. I'm assured the 2001 and later 1800cc Goldwings reflect the performance heritage that typified the classics. -- ... Be Seeing You, ... Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA ... Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX ... 73° — Wind S 8 mph — Sky mostly cloudy.
From: Mark Olson on 15 Jul 2010 10:31 Chuck Rhode wrote: > It is at this point in the discussion I rise to give lip service to > the notion that the original 1975 Wing was intended as a performance > bike. Mind you I do this without knowing anything about the issue > other than what I have heard bandied about here. I should point out > I've heard similar from the Classic Wing Club mailing list, so Keith > isn't the only source I rely on. I have also read this, from more than one source, and it certainly jibes with how the bike was offered "naked" in '75. I still think the last Wings to come without factory fairings ('84 GL1200) were sharp looking bikes. I liked my '86 Aspencade a lot but the repeated head gasket failures are a fatal flaw, in my opinion. Mine went bad twice, a co-worker had three episodes of head gasket leaks on his '85 (repaired by a pro each time).
From: tomorrow on 15 Jul 2010 10:40 On Jul 15, 2:20 am, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > don (Calgary) <hd.f...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:49:16 -0400, "J. Clarke" > > <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > >But what is their objection to getting more customers of a different > > >kind from the ones that they have? > > > So they should manufacture home furniture, because they could get more > > customers of a different kind? The fact is, that the people who are running Harley-Davidson have demonstrated for the past 29 years that they are pretty good at what they do, and lots of companies have gone under straying from things that they do very, very well.
From: tomorrow on 15 Jul 2010 10:43 On Jul 15, 2:20 am, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > don (Calgary) <hd.f...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:13:40 +0100, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk > > (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > > > >High Plains Thumper <h...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > >> Actually, I'd like to see Harley put the water cooled V-Rod engine into > > >> a cruiser. I know it would break the mould of oil cooled offerings at > > >> the loss of the potato - potato - potato sound. But I feel that it is > > >> inevitable that such should happen. > > > >Agree 100%. > > > >I'd also like to see it in a more coherent touring bike than what they > > >make at the moment. Something with a decent chassis, more power > > >(obviously!), more ground clearance and the sort of sophistication that > > >would give BMW a few worries. > > > >They could do it - they just *choose* not to. Which is a bit odd. > > > They could choose build a better mouse trap too, but that is not in > > their business plan. > > Ah, if you know their business plan, you're doing better than I am. > > > They know what they do well and they understand > > what their customers are looking for. To date they are doing a damn > > good job of keeping their customers happy. I doubt they care very much > > you find it "odd". > > Really. I find it odd that, for example, they've not made a flat twin > for the thick end of 40-50 years. > > (Actually, nor has anyone else I can think of except for the Russians - > and Chinese). Damn it, why isn't Honda responding to the OBVIOUS threat of the new Triumph and coming out with a line of their own three-cylinder motorcycles? They're losing sales and missing a GREAT marketing opportunity! For that matter, where is Honda's response to the Chevy Silverado HD2500 and HD3500? Just because GM does heavy duty pick-up trucks well, Honda is CONTENT to not challenge them and take over THAT market? Gee, I guess Honda just isn't INTERESTED in being *ALL* they could be!
From: tomorrow on 15 Jul 2010 10:44
On Jul 15, 2:43 am, Robert Bolton <robertboltond...(a)gci.net> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:54:39 -0700 (PDT), BryanUT > > > > <nestl...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >On Jul 14, 7:17 pm, "tomor...(a)erols.com" > ><tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > .... > >When governments subsidize industry we chastise local businesses > >because they can't compete. And some decry tariffs to level the > >playing field. > > >Tariffs, subsides are a double edge sword. Business men and > >governments don't play fair. Never have, never will. Actually, I don't know who wrote the above but it wasn't me. > That's for sure. The US Government spends quite a bit of its time > supporting business. Fights wars, overthrows banana republics, etc, > etc. Money is the name of the game. > > Robert |