StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Link
Interesting development, even if I know many people here are not crazy about the company.

Zor

I know many people here are not crazy about the company.

Really? Why is that?

Electric motorcycle is a good idea, on the whole, but I'm not sure how much a market there is for one by Harley Davidson. They seem to have marketed themselves on the "badass cruiser" image and the distinctive rumble's absent for electric.

Another company, on the other hand, could see success with it.

Borgholio wrote:

I know many people here are not crazy about the company.

Really? Why is that?

While I'm not acquainted with the board population's general opinion on the matter, they undeniably sound a lot like skipping tractor engines (but tractors are freaking awesome). A lot of Harley owners also tend to prefer their bikes be air cooled anachronisms and likewise shun fancy, "fuel injection". So I guess it's the culture that's the problem?

Regardless, Consumer Reports also says they're not terribly reliable when compared to competitors, which is not terribly surprising.

Will they attach a siren or air-horn to the drive-belt, too? I don't think there is a market for a silent Harley...

Far from the trademark thumping rumble of traditional HD V-twin engines, Project LiveWire reportedly makes a noise like that of a jet-plane landing on an aircraft carrier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecoeU2OugSg

So...what happens if this takes off and some idiot in his diesel pickup vents exhaust on a pack of Hells Angels for riding electric bikes?

then we all win

Gill wrote:

Borgholio wrote:

I know many people here are not crazy about the company.

Really? Why is that?

While I'm not acquainted with the board population's general opinion on the matter, they undeniably sound a lot like skipping tractor engines (but tractors are freaking awesome). A lot of Harley owners also tend to prefer their bikes be air cooled anachronisms and likewise shun fancy, "fuel injection". So I guess it's the culture that's the problem?

Harley-Davidson hasn't produced a model with a carburetor since 2007. Their touring bikes have been predominantly fuel injected since 1999.
Oh and that "tractor sound", Harley tried to trademark it. It's a purposeful thing.

Regardless, Consumer Reports also says they're not terribly reliable when compared to competitors, which is not terribly surprising.

It's not surprising at all. I mean a company that gives it's customers exactly what they want? What a crap business model.

madd0ct0r wrote:then we all win

Someone is going to lose.

Havok wrote:Harley-Davidson hasn't produced a model with a carburetor since 2007. Their touring bikes have been predominantly fuel injected since 1999. :roll:
Oh and that "tractor sound", Harley tried to trademark it. It's a purposeful thing.

I'm aware that they've since switched, but the emphasis was on the Harley culture not liking them anyway. The long awaited (and much maligned) transition to fuel injection still doesn't prevent people from preferring older, carburetor run models, as Stephen Mullen explained in a preamble history of fuel injection on the family. The same sort of skepticism still continues into the arena of air cooling versus water cooling.

That the manufacturer purposefully wants them to sound like skipping tractor engines just makes the whole an even funnier pretense. It sort of reminds me of a certain recent thread on making trucks blow out large amounts diesel exhaust.

It's not surprising at all. I mean a company that gives it's customers exactly what they want? What a crap business model. :lol:

If auto companies can get away with making mediocre pickup trucks, I suppose we should expect there'd be a similar market for mediocre motorcycles.

Gill wrote:

Havok wrote:Harley-Davidson hasn't produced a model with a carburetor since 2007. Their touring bikes have been predominantly fuel injected since 1999.
Oh and that "tractor sound", Harley tried to trademark it. It's a purposeful thing.

I'm aware that they've since switched, but the emphasis was on the Harley culture not liking them anyway. The long awaited (and much maligned) transition to fuel injection still doesn't prevent people from preferring older, carburetor run models, as Stephen Mullen explained in a preamble history of fuel injection on the family. The same sort of skepticism still continues into the arena of air cooling versus water cooling.

No it doesn't. The reason why Harley riders didn't and don't like fuel injection is because they can't work on it themselves with a fucking screwdriver. Don't be an idiot and stop confusing not liking something with being stupid about it or thinking it won't work. And back to the water cooled engines, Harley has had patents and fully engineered and designed water cooled bikes since the 80s. The reason they haven't put them into production en masse isn't because of engineering, or because Harley riders are afraid of radiators. It's because Harley riders don't like the way they look, which is why fucking Softails still sell, they look like the old rigid frame bikes, and why V-Rods sell like shit because they don't "look" like a Harley, and because a water cooled engine doesn't "sound" like a Harley.

Christ even the article you linked constantly talks up the "skepticism" as based in nostalgia and tradition and looks, not because Harley riders don't understand or are afraid of new technology like you insinuate. Everyone that understands engines knows you will get more power from a water cooled engine over an air cooled one.

I think you should look up skepticism.

That the manufacturer purposefully wants them to sound like skipping tractor engines just makes the whole an even funnier pretense. It sort of reminds me of a certain recent thread on making trucks blow out large amounts diesel exhaust.

Again, you're an idiot and don't know the difference between engineering and marketing. The sound was distinctly recognizable as Harley and was a carry over from the fucking 30s and 40s when the engines were made in casts and not by machines. Harley, even then, recognized that the brand was just as important as the product and put that into their business model. They relied on it so much that they in fact did let the quality wane and relied far too heavily on the name and not the product, especially when AMF owned and ran them and almost buried the company.

Look at it like this FattyNerd, if the TARDIS made a different sound when Doctor Who took off, you would lose your shit. Or a TIE Fighter, or a lightsaber or a phaser or whatever franchise you love that has "tradition". You think that is any less important in motorcycles? Every company with lineage and tradition points to those things, especially when it is what makes them distinctive from the competition. For Harley it happens to be the look and the sound. Stop being a moron.

It's not surprising at all. I mean a company that gives it's customers exactly what they want? What a crap business model.

If auto companies can get away with making mediocre pickup trucks, I suppose we should expect there'd be a similar market for mediocre motorcycles.

Harleys are hardly mediocre. They also "don't get away with" anything. They are doing what their massive, repeat customer base wants from them. You clearly don't understand the Harley brand, market or it's customers and that's fine, but don't try to act like it's an idiotic company because it is wildly successful and knows exactly what it is doing. You just make yourself look like an idiot.

Oh and that guy citing Buell? It was a Sportster engine in a cool frame designed for racing that they then parlayed into a nifty little city bike. It was hardly ground breaking and Harley put about zero seconds into trying to market it to their regular customer base.

Someone putting a Harley engine in a custom frame? UNHEARD OF!

They could go and install a sound module in the Harley, the way we do in tank modelling. I mean, if we manage to get a 1/16th model sound like a real Tiger tank, they should manage to do this for the iHarley, too...

You could even customize the exact model it should sound like.

Havok wrote: :lol: No it doesn't. The reason why Harley riders didn't and don't like fuel injection is because they can't work on it themselves with a fucking screwdriver. Don't be an idiot and stop confusing not liking something with being stupid about it or thinking it won't work. And back to the water cooled engines, Harley has had patents and fully engineered and designed water cooled bikes since the 80s. The reason they haven't put them into production en masse isn't because of engineering, or because Harley riders are afraid of radiators. It's because Harley riders don't like the way they look, which is why fucking Softails still sell, they look like the old rigid frame bikes, and why V-Rods sell like shit because they don't "look" like a Harley, and because a water cooled engine doesn't "sound" like a Harley.

Christ even the article you linked constantly talks up the "skepticism" as based in nostalgia and tradition and looks, not because Harley riders don't understand or are afraid of new technology like you insinuate. Everyone that understands engines knows you will get more power from a water cooled engine over an air cooled one.

I never specified why they didn't like them: I just said that they didn't like them.

I think you should look up skepticism.

Yet many are skeptical over a total transition because they think it would make them more unreliable and harder to maintain, whereas this really isn't the case in practice as virtually ever other motorcycle company (except for BMW, perhaps) has demonstrated. Have you ever looked at what Harley riders themselves think on the matter? For example, from here we get Harley riders criticizing others for the issue of water cooling versus air cooling respectively as liquid cooled models are now being introduced. Skepticism is defined by having doubt and reservations, and that's what we see when we have people thinking coolants are going to constantly leak or explode on their legs. That many simply dislike the appearance in spite of the technical advances water cooling brings is not particularly admirable.

Again, you're an idiot and don't know the difference between engineering and marketing. The sound was distinctly recognizable as Harley and was a carry over from the fucking 30s and 40s when the engines were made in casts and not by machines. Harley, even then, recognized that the brand was just as important as the product and put that into their business model. They relied on it so much that they in fact did let the quality wane and relied far too heavily on the name and not the product, especially when AMF owned and ran them and almost buried the company.

When did I make it seem like an engineering issue? I simply said they're selling a machine that sounds like a skipping tractor, which is even more hilarious when one takes into account that it's a feature that has to be added. My comment was all about the advertising from the very beginning. It's not unlike a company branding its trucks by selling all of them with the testicles that hang on the trailer hitch. It wouldn't matter if they're distinctly mediocre under the hood or have a tendency to break down, but the balls are what their consumer base wants!

Look at it like this FattyNerd, if the TARDIS made a different sound when Doctor Who took off, you would lose your shit. Or a TIE Fighter, or a lightsaber or a phaser or whatever franchise you love that has "tradition". You think that is any less important in motorcycles? Every company with lineage and tradition points to those things, especially when it is what makes them distinctive from the competition. For Harley it happens to be the look and the sound. Stop being a moron.

So I can't claim that many traditions are silly if not outright obnoxious? I'd argue that a rider whining about a new Harley sounding like a normal machine would be just as petty as some fanboy complaining about how an Episode VII Tie Fighter doesn't sound like the original. I suppose that would make that rider the motorcycle equivalent of a FattyNerd?

Harleys are hardly mediocre. They also "don't get away with" anything. They are doing what their massive, repeat customer base wants from them. You clearly don't understand the Harley brand, market or it's customers and that's fine, but don't try to act like it's an idiotic company because it is wildly successful and knows exactly what it is doing. You just make yourself look like an idiot.

I do understand it completely: They're marketing to people who want loud motorcycles that look like something from the past, instead of reliability, performance, etc. That's not a criticism of Harley (except for the fact they're not very reliable), it's a criticism of the people who buy them anyway. Harley readily admits that the overwhelming majority of their customers are white males over the age of 35. They also see this as a problem for the future, since those guys are eventually going to get too old to ride or simply die.

I've never said they Harley was unsuccessful as a company or unpopular. I said that they were obnoxious sounding like a skipping tractor and not terribly reliable, and that a lot of the dislike towards them is more accurately a dislike of the culture that made selling the superficial Harley appearance take precedence over selling a good bike. I suppose I should have been clearer that I didn't like the general fan base, but it goes without saying that dislike should have been obvious when I pointed out that Harley riders were wary of changes to the products as opposed to the brand itself. Harley's acutely aware that their aging fanbase is going to eventually die, and that's why they're making very visible improvements in spite of the complaints.

Gill wrote:I do understand it completely: They're marketing to people who want loud motorcycles that look like something from the past, instead of reliability, performance, etc. That's not a criticism of Harley (except for the fact they're not very reliable), it's a criticism of the people who buy them anyway. Harley readily admits that the overwhelming majority of their customers are white males over the age of 35. They also see this as a problem for the future, since those guys are eventually going to get too old to ride or simply die.

I just... Christ. Your lack of homework here showing, slow down. Do you really think the world is going to stop producing 35 year old white males suddenly?

I said that they were obnoxious sounding like a skipping tractor and not terribly reliable.

That's a personal opinion and an unsubstantiated 'fact' rolled into one. I think Hav's got this in the bag, mate.

tim31 wrote:

Gill wrote:I do understand it completely: They're marketing to people who want loud motorcycles that look like something from the past, instead of reliability, performance, etc. That's not a criticism of Harley (except for the fact they're not very reliable), it's a criticism of the people who buy them anyway. Harley readily admits that the overwhelming majority of their customers are white males over the age of 35. They also see this as a problem for the future, since those guys are eventually going to get too old to ride or simply die.

I just... Christ. Your lack of homework here showing, slow down. Do you really think the world is going to stop producing 35 year old white males suddenly?

I think Harley Davidson's concern is that the average age of people interested in that specific type of bike is getting steadily older and will eventually fade away. I imagine at one time their market was mostly late teens and early twenties. I know when I think "motorcycle" the first image that pops into my head is something closer to a Yamaha or similar more modern designs, which the electric Harley Davidson bike resembles.

There will always be people who want a cruiser/touring, rather then a sports bike.

Yup. The company needn't be concerned when so many do their marketing for them.

tim wrote:I just... Christ. Your lack of homework here showing, slow down. Do you really think the world is going to stop producing 35 year old white males suddenly?

Mmmm....maybe?

Ohhhh nooooooooo