How to save Harley Davidison
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Proper oil for cruisers
Next: 9-11 was an inside job.
From: tomorrow on 15 Jul 2010 10:47 On Jul 15, 10:31 am, Mark Olson <ols...(a)tiny.invalid> wrote: > 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 - at one time - had all the magazines that heralded the then-new GL1000, and yes, it was the new "superbike," and at the time, many people thought it was Honda's response to dethrone the Kawasaki KZ900 that had dethroned Honda's own CB750/4. The bike was a 12-second quarter-mile machine in stock form in 1975, but it was soon eclipsed by other purpose-built superbikes, and folks got down to serious touring on the GL-series.
From: J. Clarke on 15 Jul 2010 10:49 On 7/15/2010 10:11 AM, T.J. Higgins wrote: > In article<i1lq360239a(a)news2.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke wrote: >> On 7/14/2010 9:17 PM, tomorrow(a)erols.com wrote: >>> On Jul 14, 7:47 pm, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >>>> On 7/14/2010 7:02 PM, don (Calgary) wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:12:37 -0600, "Bob Myers" >>>>> <nospample...(a)address.invalid> 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. >>>> >>>>>> But you're not thinking in the right context. Any product that >>>>>> is sold in a given market which can take a share of that market >>>>> >from you is a competitor. At the time, Japanese standards, etc., >>>>>> were seen as a possible alternative for buyers that might otherwise >>>>>> have purchased a product from H-D. >>>> >>>>>> Bob M. >>>> >>>>> Excellent point. >>>> >>>>> When I was in the retail business, my stores were in competition with >>>>> every other store in a shopping center, regardless of whether they >>>>> sold identical products to what I was selling. We were all competing >>>>> for the consumers disposable income. >>>> >>>> Of course if someone wants a standard and Harley doesn't make one, >>>> that's Harley's error. You can't win unless you play the game. >>> >>> Of course, untold previously successful businesses have gone under, >>> "playing" that game. >> >> And every motorcyle manufacturer in America except Harley has gone under >> by _not_ playing it. > > AFAIK, Victory does not make a standard. But Victory is a sideline for a snowmobile manufacturer that also owns a good sized chunk of KTM, and Victory has been in existence for just over a decade so it's a bit soon to be betting on their long-term stability.
From: TOG on 15 Jul 2010 11:19 On 15 July, 15:43, "tomor...(a)erols.com" <tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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! > Well, Japan has made a fair few triples in its time... :-) It's just that the flat twin seems to be the only engine configuration they've ignored. Apart from things like Lilacs....
From: TOG on 15 Jul 2010 11:26 On 15 July, 15:47, "tomor...(a)erols.com" <tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 15, 10:31 am, Mark Olson <ols...(a)tiny.invalid> wrote: > > > 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 - at one time - had all the magazines that heralded the then-new > GL1000, and yes, it was the new "superbike," and at the time, many > people thought it was Honda's response to dethrone the Kawasaki KZ900 > that had dethroned Honda's own CB750/4. The bike was a 12-second > quarter-mile machine in stock form in 1975, but it was soon eclipsed > by other purpose-built superbikes, and folks got down to serious > touring on the GL-series. I remember the original Bike roadtest that lost the managzine Honda's advertising. I've got the issue in my archive. It wasn't sold as a touring bike at the time and it wasn't sold as an out-and-out sports bike, It was sold as, er, um, as a fast sophisticated motorcycle. There was no way it was intended to dethrone the Z1 because it was about 10mph slower, and Honda must have known this. Bike slated it as a sports bike because the handling and ground clearance[1] were not really up to the job, and as a touring bike because with the highish bars fitted as stock, it was a parachute act to ride. "The only way to win is to fit a fairing" they said: with hindsight, how prescient! Oddly, I really, really liked the original GL1000 Wing (owned one) and will buy another maybe. I didn't like the 1100 Aspencade I bought becuase all the tinsel and tat didn't actually improve its touring ability - the fairing didn't really work, for example. And having to bolt a bloody great lump of cast iron to the forks to stop the front wobbling was an admission of some failure or other. I've ridden (but not owned) a 1500 and loved it. Never ridden the 1200 nor the 1800.
From: Mark Olson on 15 Jul 2010 11:43
TOG(a)Toil wrote: > I've ridden (but not owned) a 1500 and loved it. Never ridden the 1200 > nor the 1800. The 1200 is a lot like the 1100 except heavier and more tat, with a little added poke. The 1500 is more of the same, obviously more power and weight but still a lot like the 1200. The 1800 is a *completely* different thing, you have to ride one to appreciate how different. My impression is it's a pseudo-sportbike with fairing and luggage. |