From: fdvlba@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Fort Davis VLBA site)
Subject: Re: rec.moto.harley
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 18:14:33 GMT


>>>fdvlba@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Fort Davis VLBA site) writes:
>>steve@bucolix.ncsu.edu (Steve Garnier) writes:

>>>If I am right that the cruiser look is an attempt at HD styling, then how
>>>can I be wrong that the Japanese invented it?  The cruiser look started as
>>>a harley\british style attempt, the Yamaha 650 Special twin. 

>>Then how would you classify the pre-Yamaha 650 Norton Commando?  The first 
>>Commando I ever saw was on a showroom floor.  It was pearlescent white and
>>chrome...BEAUTIFUL...enough to take your breath away.  I'd call that Commando
>>a cruiser.  The Yamaha 650 tried to *copy* that _look_, as well as the
>>_look_ of a long-low Harley with spoked chrome wheels.  Those are *all*
>>cruisers.  My classification of "cruiser" includes most Harleys, as well as
>>many British bikes, and the motorcycle designs that attempted to *copy*
>>them (Viragos, Shadows, Intruders, Vulcans, etc.).  The fact that a 
>>manufacturer tries hard to copy a _look_ assists in classifying the copy 
>>along with the original.  Note: the FatButt, a.k.a the Honda Pacific Coast,
>>is *not* a cruiser...it's disgusting. :-)

I believe most moto people regarded the Norton as a sport bike when it came
out.  This (what's a cruiser) would make a great thread to move to r.mc....


>>I perceive that part of the problem you and I are having is in forming a
>>concise, exact definition of "cruiser."  I will admit that this is probably
>>nontrivial.

>>>The point here is that I don't regard my bike as a cruiser, and would not
>>>post to .cruisers about it.

>>And I regard your bike as a cruiser.  So what's the difference?  The bike
>>hasn't changed, only the definition we place on its classification, and hence
>>the other motorcycles allowed within that classification.  Perhaps you 
>>don't want a newsgroup which includes those other cruiser-type motorcycles,
>>because maybe you consider their input as noise compared to what you would
>>like discussed.  Again, the definition and perhaps the lack of exclusion is
>>the rub.

The "other motorcycles" you mention bear certain similarities to each other
that make them distinct from the HD.  These include overhead chain driven
camshafts, multiple carburetors, shaft drive, wet sump oil systems, water
cooling, engine and transmission in same lube.

>>> [...] There are too many
>>>posts (of *any* kind) to rec.mc, with little meat between the bones. 
>>>Offloading this bandwidth to apropriate groups seems logical.  Obviously the
>>>establishment of .harley by itself is stepping on too many toes.  I propose
>>>the establishment of companion subgroups, such as rec.moto.yam, .honda, etc.
>>>This seems the equitable solution, and would make rec.moto leaner and at the
>>>same time more universal, with hardware specific poop pigeonholed properly.

>>Like I said before, I oppose the formation of *any* motorcycling subgroup
>>on the basis of *marque*.  I think that you'd have a difficult time, *more*
>>difficult than rec.motorcycles.harley, trying to form any other subgroup
>>solely on the basis of marque.  If rec.motorcycles.harley fails on this CFV,
>>your best bet is to form subgroups on the basis of function or activity, and
>>I base that opinion on observations of subscribers posts as well as precedent
>>such as r.m.{dirt|racing}.

I've heard others voice their opposition to groups based on marque.  I have yet
to hear valid reasons for this.  I believe users will be better served with 
the easy availability of specific information.  What argument counters this?

Do you believe that other marque-specific groups would have a difficult time
forming because of opposition or lack of interest?  What does the obvious 
answer tell you?  Is this a reason to vote against r.m.h.?  My motorcycle
model has been adapted for race, offroad, cruise, bonneville wfo, hillclimb,
and others I haven't even heard about.  I want to participate in a group
where the function or activity is broad-spectrum with brand specific info.
I am interested in many activities, but own one bike.

The argument "r.m.h will contribute to splitting the r.m crowd" has at its 
root an unspoken assumption; that voting down r.m.h will not.  I propose
that the unspoken assumption is false, as history has shown.

Am I totally out of line or has anyone noticed how large r.m is?  Why can't
we get some of this stuff into daughter groups?


Steve Cowell, Site Tech, VLBA, Fort Davis, Tx...D0D#0627...883, 1200 soon...