From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
Subject: Re: Harley Outperforms ZX11, Film at Eleven
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:22:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct13.142257.16337
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Oct11.231505.28430@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
car377@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (charles.a.rogers) writes:

>In article <1992Oct10.141032.16234@husc3.harvard.edu>,
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>>In article <1992Oct10.060211.22370@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
>>car377@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (charles.a.rogers) writes:

CAR:
>>>OK, prove that *any* inline-four will go 185,000 miles and require nothing
>>>more than a top-end job and a cylinder honing to put it back on the street.   
>>>This capability has been demonstrated and documented where Evos are concerned.  
>>>I doubt you'll find that it's true of any sport bikes.

MZ:
>>As someone who has seen the insides of a good number of motorcycle engines,
>>I'll venture to make a few observations on this subject.  Regardless of the
>>engine configuration, any roller-bearing crankshaft motorcycle with a
>>decent oil filtration system will be able to best your numbers.  

CAR:
>Assuming they didn't have or develop crooked cranks, and assuming their
>cylinder bores wear as slowly as the iron-sleeved HD ones.  To judge from
>letters and articles in the American magazines, these are not conservative
>assumptions where Japanese sport bikes are concerned.

I recommend that you find a more direct and impartial source of information
than letters and articles in the American magazines.  In particular, you
might open up some engines to see what is going on inside.  That way, you
might even find out that plated bores wear a lot longer than iron-sleeved
ones.

MZ:
>>In particular, this is true of Laverdas, which are known for their crank
>>bearing longevity ...  In this respect, Harley engines
>>suffer from a disadvantage shared by Ducati and Vincent (which managed to
>>log on 100,000 street miles in early Fifties), of forcing two connecting
>>rods to share a single crankpin.  

CAR:
>It's not clear to me how they are "suffering" if HD maintenance experience 
>is that their crank bearings do not require replacement after running 
>185,000 miles.  Perhaps you could define "suffering" in this context?

Does this oft-bandied figure represent a single data point, a result of a
reliable poll, or the manufacturer's ironclad money-back guarantee?  As for
the drawbacks of the said design, I indicated them elsewhere.

CAR:
>I wasn't talking about crank bearings, although either plain or roller
>bearings would last OK if they had good oil and if the crank were
>straight (which is much more likely to be the case with a solid crank
>than with a built-up crank that hasn't been welded.)  I *was* talking 
>about cylinders not/needing boring.  

Again, I would like to hear whether it is an isolated case, or something
more significant than that.  If the former, I am about to pick up a teenage
beater Laverda triple, which still has 160 p.s.i. compression in each
cylinder after three owners and 78,000 miles on its iron bores.  On a dare,
I just might try to beat your figures, -- just give me three years or so.
Incidentally, Laverda crankshafts require about five times the pressure to
disassemble, compared to the Japanese-made ones.

MZ:
>>So I assure you that even a humble Suzuki
>>Four from the late Seventies will, with proper care, readily duplicate the
>>above feat, 
>>all the while producing twice the horsepower with less
>>displacement than an 80-inch Harley.

CAR:
>I'm not aware of any stock "Suzuki Four from the late Seventies" that
>generated 118 BHP at the rear wheel.  In fact, my stock '85 FJ1100N only
>produces 102 BHP at the rear wheel, and it was "fastest" "quickest"
>production bike when introduced in '84.  The original GSXR1100 didn't 
>even break 100 BHP.

When did I say `stock'?

MZ:
>>As for the general merits and shortcomings of the latter, there remains a
>>lot to be said for the aesthetics of its engine design, the needless
>>complexity of the valve train notwithstanding (a rockerless DOHC design
>>simply cannot be beat from this standpoint).  

CAR:
>Depends on the *reason* for "beating" it.  If all your customers *require*
>pushrod engines, then you *can't* beat a pushrod engine with anything
>else, no matter how efficient or cleverly-designed it is.

I rather doubt that either Jerry Branch or Eric Buell, or any of the racers
still trying to run the Sportsters in the BOTT really *require* pushrod
engines.  Have you really taken a poll?

MZ:
>>Alas, all this is compromised
>>by the factory's insistence on saddling it with a twin monstrosity of a
>>bulky clutch and wide drive belt, thereby severely limiting both the
>>potential ground clearance and footpeg placement, as well as the rear tire
>>width.  

CAR:
>That's odd, I didn't have any trouble with any of that stuff when
>I rode the Lowrider Sport up in the mountains last month.  Had plenty
>of ground clearance and footpegs were pretty close to where the
>bottoms of my feet were.  In fact the only *real* problem I had was
>returning the demo bike to the rally instead of just riding it right
>on home.  Oh yeah, my cheeks (the ones on either side of my head)
>hurt from all that grinning, too.  Nothing has been "compromised" if the
>paying customers are tickled pink with the product. 

Well, if your mountain riding is not compromised by that 30-degree maximum
lean angle, that tells me more about your riding skill and/or pace than
about the bike you were riding.  By the way, the issue is not only whether
the current paying customers are already tickled pink with the product (I
assume that you have put the deposit on your own Lowrider Sport), but
whether the company is able to attract paying customers who are tickled
pink with their competitors' product.

MZ:
>>Furthermore, none of the Harley frames, much less the rest of their
>>chassis components, are adequate, either in material or design, to the
>>levels of horsepower and torque which can be readily obtained by tuning
>>their engines.  

CAR:
>This is also true of Japanese sportbikes, if the aftermarket braced 
>swingarm, shock&spring, brakes, wheels, and fork suppliers' ads are 
>any indication.

No, they are not.  However, racetrack time surely is.

CAR:
>Also, if you get a *truly* rigid and light frame and stick a 100+
>horsepower engine in it, you can get really nasty surprises when
>the forces that used to be resolved in frame flex start showing up
>unexpectedly as handling hazards.  Frame flex isn't always a bad thing.

You will pardon me for not taking this assertion at face value, for it does
not seem to make any sense.  Pray tell me, what does it mean for the forces
to be "resolved" in frame flex?

CAR:
>In any case, I'm not sure I'd feel any need to retune the engine
>on the bike I rode last month.  It felt just right just like it
>was.

From my limited personal acquaintance with their machines, most Harley
owners feel differently.  Which accounts for the perennial popularity of
Jerry Branch, C.R. Axtell, et al., never mind the factory's own
"competition only" (nudge, nudge) "Screamin' Eagle" product line.

MZ:
>>Thus, any sport rider whose first priority is handling and
>>control, is automatically excluded from the Harley club.  

CAR:
>Naah, if you feel it necessary to be a "sport rider" in the Harley 
>Club, you just have to tweak 'em (the bikes) enough.  Nick Ienatsch at 
>"Motorcyclist"  did just that, and he claims he can run with the 
>Japanese product on his XLCR replica.

Put him on the track with a decent rider on a bone-stock Ducati 851, which
would cost about the same as a tweaked Harley Sportster (leftovers
available at circa $8,500), or any cheap Japanese sport 750.  If he can run
with them, surely he can approximate their track times.

CAR:
>				        However, if a "sport rider" 
>decides the only performance criteria (s)he cares about are output power 
>and cornering quickness, then the obvious choice is a sportbike, not a 
>Harley.  My point wasn't that Harleys are sport bikes: they obviously 
>are not.  I asserted that that there are more legitimate performance 
>criteria than the few the bench-racers typically flog about, and that 
>Harleys' excellence in many of those criteria make them superb motorcycles.

I never contested the validity of this point.  All I am saying is, it's a
damn shame Harley can't (or won't) make sport bikes.

MZ:
>>To sum up, the modern Harley engines are getting by on technology inferior
>>to that of the Vincent Series B.  

CAR:
>If "getting by" is selling everything you can produce two years in
>advance and watching the used HD market go nuts, then I'll bet the
>sport bike makers would *love* to be "getting by".  

Do check out the Vincent collector market, or if you want to get really
ostentatious, the MV Agusta one (would that I had the druthers to buy one
for $3000 five years ago!).

CAR:
>I wasn't aware that the Vincent had electronic ignition, self-cancelling
>turn signals, or 50,000+ mile primary drive chain life.  
>
>Or brakes.  
>
>Especially *brakes*.

I said engine technology, didn't I?  There is an electronic ignition
available for Vincent twins; many of them have been retrofitted.  Likewise,
Egli Vincents and Norvins tend to have better brakes than any production
Harley.  As for turn signals, I prefer to use my left arm.

MZ:
>>Given that the Vincent is often available
>>on the collector market at but a slight premium above the cost of a Big
>>Evolution Harley, and possesses an enormous advantage of class, speed, and
>>authenticity, the picture does not look too good for the Milwaukee marvel.

CAR:
>Welcome to the planet Earth, Mikhail.  Here, we judge the success of
>a motorcycle by its popularity and profitability and its manufacturer's 
>ability to remain in business and cultivate a loyal customer base, as well 
>as attract new customers.  To say that Harley is having no problem in
>that regard is to make the understatement of the decade.  

By this standard, Macdonald's hamburgers must be regarded as the paragon of
haute cuisine.  No thanks.  What about intrinsic value?

CAR:
>I'm not sure what "the picture does not look too good for the Milwaukee 
>marvel" means.  If it means the bench-racers don't won't buy it, what of 
>that?   Who do you imagine is having *better* market success than HD?

Don't know about yourself, but I don't buy bikes, or anything else, on the
basis of their market success.  To spell it out, if I could spend a truly
obscene amount of money on an expensive Fifties-design V-twin, I would buy
a Black Shadow before even considering a Lowrider.  As the matter stands, I
can only afford a cheap Seventies V-twin, which would run circles around
both of them, even if it could never keep up with its wounded mid-priced
contemporary already in my stable.  But this is getting us into the "die,
Yuppie scum!"  territory, so let us end it right here.

CAR:
>Speaking of that, how's Vincent doing with their new bikes?   :-)

Since you are so fond of new bikes, may I assume that you will be trading
your Lowrider for a new one every season?

>Chuck Rogers
>car377@druhi.att.com

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."

1977 1200 Mirage
1980 900SS
1986 1000 LeMans (coming up today, if I am lucky!)