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 12:05 On Jul 15, 11:19 am, "TOG(a)Toil" <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > 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.... Well, yes, but it is the Hinckley triples that are taking sales from them now. They also need a 2-liter-plus sized engine in their lineup, since both Triumph and Kawasaki offer one.
From: tomorrow on 15 Jul 2010 12:07 On Jul 15, 11:26 am, "TOG(a)Toil" <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > 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. I specifically stated that "MANY PEOPLE THOUGHT it was Honda's response to dethrone the Kawasaki KZ900;" I never so much as hinted that that was Honda's marketing thrust for the bike.
From: TOG on 15 Jul 2010 12:13 On 15 July, 16:43, Mark Olson <ols...(a)tiny.invalid> wrote: > 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. You see very few 1800s here. Looks like the dedicated Wing Nuts prefer the older bikes.
From: tomorrow on 15 Jul 2010 12:16 On Jul 15, 12:13 pm, "TOG(a)Toil" <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 15 July, 16:43, Mark Olson <ols...(a)tiny.invalid> wrote: > > > 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. > > You see very few 1800s here. Same here. The 1500s still dominate in sheer numbers where I live.
From: Mark Olson on 15 Jul 2010 12:21
TOG(a)Toil wrote: > On 15 July, 16:43, Mark Olson <ols...(a)tiny.invalid> wrote: >> 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. > > You see very few 1800s here. Looks like the dedicated Wing Nuts prefer > the older bikes. Well, one factor might be that they're expensive here, and I can't imagine how much more they sell for in the UK. Doesn't seem to stop the generally affluent middle-aged crowd from buying them here in great numbers, and also getting them "triked", which is /really/ eye-wateringly expensive. |