How to save Harley Davidison
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Proper oil for cruisers
Next: 9-11 was an inside job.
From: TOG on 13 Jul 2010 05:35 On 10 July, 18:17, High Plains Thumper <h...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > I'd like to see a single cylinder 800 cc bike, HD style, with a 5 gallon > petrol tank - Thumpster. Make if fuel injected to meet EPA if required, > oil cooled, but a thumper nonetheless. Price it slightly below the > entry level Sportster. I think it would be a hit. > Sounds nice, but just about every roadgoing thumper made in the last 30 years has enjoyed mediocre sales, at best. Dirt thumpers - yup, they seem to sell brilliantly. Pure road bikes don't. There have been a few exceptions: Yamaha's SR500[1] was in production for a quarter of a century, and they still make it as a 400 for the home market, I think. BMW's 650 Rotax-engined thing, in various incarnations, has done well. For decades there have been calls for a nice roadgoing thumper, but my own feeling is that the thumper addicts make a noise out of all proportion to their number. People do like riding thumpers, agreed, but when it comes to putting their own money down, they frequently choose performance instead. And on a horsepower per £ or $ basis, thumpers really don't cut it.... [1] I still want another one.
From: J. Clarke on 13 Jul 2010 08:33 On 7/12/2010 11:32 PM, don (Calgary) wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:39:47 -0700, sean_q_<nospam(a)no.spam> wrote: > >> >> Bail-out or not? Other factors aside, the answer depends a lot >> on your views on government intervention in a "free" market. > > I am the last one to condone governments messing with the free market, > but it wasn't a free market. The Japanese had already screwed it up. > They had used similar techniques in the past to dominate the consumer > electronic product business. What techniques, making a better and more technologically advanced product? > I don't like protectionism, but with out government action in this > case it is conceivable HD could have died. Yep. Because they, like the American consumer electronics industry, thought they ruled the world and found out that they didn't. And they _still_ have refused to diversify their product line. > Whether you like the Motor > Company's bikes or the image, HD is a very successful American Company > and a lot of people rely on it for their livelihood. For certain values of "very successful". The had to kill Buell to make ends meet.
From: tomorrow on 13 Jul 2010 09:56 On Jul 12, 10:39 pm, sean_q_ <nos...(a)no.spam> wrote: > tomor...(a)erols.com wrote: > > What I want to know is how someone can claim that a nation's legal > > response to an illegal trade practice by the company of another > > nation, a legal response that did not put ANY money into Harley- > > Davidson's coffers... > > Were there any govt loans or any other kind of direct aid such as > subsidies or tax relief? I don't know for sure about this, > but at least one blogger mentions loans. There were no subsidies or loans. > > ...can be described as a "bail-out" of Harley-Davidson. > > > > > It most assuredly was NOT a bail-out. > > Bail-out or not? Other factors aside, the answer depends a lot > on your views on government intervention in a "free" market. I'll echo Calgary's point that with the Japanese companies receiving coordinated Japanese government assitance, and using profits earned (legitimately) in other markets and from other products to subsidize those products which competed with Harley-Davidson in the marketplace, the market was hardly "free" prior to the impositon of the tariff. > > However, "bail-out" is more drastic than a mere "come to the aid of" > for convenience etc. It has the sense of "rescue", as from > dire straits. I would object to "Leveling the playing field" or "correcting a Japanese-instituted imbalance" or "punishing unfair trade practices" > So I'd say the question really comes down > to whether or not Reagan's tariff saved HD from going under. That's a legitimate question, and one that can be debated based on lots of different historical factors. What I don't think is legitimate is calling the Reagan administration's actions a "bail-out" of Harley. > I'm no economist but my opinion FWIW is yes. Not only that, > I believe RR would have taken further measures to keep the MoCo > afloat if necessary. It's an American cultural icon after all. > > I found an interesting contemporary analysis at this site which > explores a number of aspects; social, economic and political:http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa032.html > "POLICY ANALYSIS - Taking America for a Ride: > The Politics of Motorcycle Tariffs" > > It was published January, 1984 by Daniel Klein, > Economics grad student at NYU. He says: > > Due to the change in market demand, its own entrepreneurial > deficiencies, and a crushing debt problem, Harley was quickly > approaching bankruptcy. The firm turned to the government for aid.... > > Besides aggressive (or predatory) Japanese competition, the MoCo had > other problems in the early 80's. For instance even after the break > from AMF their reputation for quality problems still persisted. > > The Wik sez, "Most analysts consider the Evolution to be the engine > that saved the reorganized Harley-Davidson company from certain > bankruptcy." However true this may be, the Company would have needed > a few years of good sales to recover the investment in the Evo's > R&D cost. > > > And the tariff was a VERY good thing that happened to work, unlike > > many other government interventions in free trade. > > A good thing? I'd tend to agree. But a VERY good thing? There was > a downside to the results, so this at least is debatable. What was the downside, if I may be so bold as to ask?
From: TOG on 13 Jul 2010 09:59 On 13 July, 13:37, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: <snip> > Or they wanted motorcycles made by a motorcycle company and not a > bowling-pin-setter company. Oh, that's *harsh* :-) Did you know that Norton Villiers Triumph, in the final months before it went down completely, assembled exercise bicycles? 'Tis true. Perhaps the sign of when a vehicle manufacturer is really on the brink is when it starts to make sporting goods. <Thinks, and then Googles> Thought so. Porsche has made tennis racquets....
From: S'mee on 13 Jul 2010 10:25
On Jul 13, 12:20 am, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: .. > [1] Unless you really believe that something like a Suzuki GS1000L was > equivalent to a Harley. Well excepting that it had better power, better brakes, better power, better quality and reliablity, handled better AND looked nicer...no, the harley was better. |