From: car377@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (charles.a.rogers)
Subject: Re: Harley Outbrakes ZX11, Film at Eleven
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:46:03 GMT
Summary: Equal time for differing views

In article <1992Oct12.205813.14783@megatek.com randy@megatek.com (Randy Davis) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Oct10.060211.22370@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> car377@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (charles.a.rogers) writes:
> |In article <1992Oct9.233608.770@megatek.com>, randy@megatek.com (Randy Davis) writes:
>
> Yes, it can be proven that a Harley will hold its resale value better over
> time - I didn't dispute it or even address it, because it is not a criteria
> to someone *I* would call a true motorcyclist.  

Well, that explains the disconnect.  Apparently, I'm not a true motorcyclist.

> ....  do so, and it handles well, then perhaps you will
> have made Harley another customer out of me.

I'm not interested in making a Harley customer out of you.  I'm just
staking out and defending my own little corner of opinionland in the
finest r.m tradition.

> I think you would be alone in
> that definition of "performance" - I've never heard of anyone saying an
> old 1960's six-cylinder Chevy pickup is a GREAT PERFORMER, even if it has
> 500,000 miles on it with only oil changes.  

As an engineer, I think of performance as a measure of how well a product 
satisfies its requirements.  That pickup would be a GREAT PERFORMER by any 
engineering or consumer standards, assuming planned obsolesence is not a 
requirement.  In fact, I use exactly that term to describe my own '83 pickup.  

> However, that is NOT one of my criteria for how well a motorcycle serves
> me at the moment, nor is it a commonly accepted definition of "performance".

You are completely entitled to your own set of criteria.  I do not agree
that your definition is the "commonly accepted" one.   Perhaps it is
the commonly accepted definition only among true motorcyclists.

> |30 years is long enough to notice trends.
> 
>   Thirty?  You having problems with arithmetic, again?

Nope, I got my first MC license in August of '63, after about a year 
of MC fever induced by hanging around my buddies and their rides.  One
thing I remember all too well is my own age.

> |  As much as I like Japanese bikes, I can't help but notice that 
> | the percentage of early 60s models around is very, *very* sparse.
> 
> I would imagine so, since they weren't really imported in any quantity 
> until the early 70's.

This is incorrect. Here are facts:

      1. Honda introduced its MC product line into the USA in 1958, and
	 2 machines were sold.

      2. Honda sold 65,000+ motorcycles in the USA in 1962.

      3. Honda sold 114,000+ motorcycles in the USA in 1963.

      4. Honda celebrated the sale of its one millionth MC in the USA in 1968.

These figures represent only Honda sales.  Yamaha, Suzuki, and Bridgestone 
were very busy during this time as well, and Kawasaki even exported to the 
US during this decade.  Lest it seem that a million+ bikes doesn't represent 
"any quantity", recall that it was only last year that BMW celebrated the 
production of its millionth bike.

Some of Honda's legendary bikes were sold in the USA only in the 60s, e.g., 
the CB77 Superhawk (1962-1967).  I bought my first Honda in '66.

> |> The only objective ability in relation to its operation on the 
> |> road that a Harley exceeds my ride is in gas mileage.
> | 
> |This statement is demonstrably incorrect.  From March '90 and October 
> |'86 "Cycle" road tests:
> |
> |         60-0mph dry braking distance:    ZX-11    124    feet   
> |                                          FXRS-Sp  117.14 feet
> 
>   Strange, I've NEVER had a Harley out-brake me...  Can YOU do it on a Harley?

Are you saying it isn't possible because it hasn't happened to you?  This would
seem to be an unusual methodology for judging "objective performance": toss the
carefully generated test data from a source generally accepted as credible in 
favor of personal opinion.

> You find a
> majority of these criteria's accomplished by ANY bike, including Harley, and
> I will be interested, and will evaluate it in light of other minor criteria's
> such as ride comfort, etc..  

I'm not interested in dissuading you from your ride of choice.
I could really care less whether you like or dislike Harleys.  I just
got a little tired of sitting quietly through your anti-HD commentary and
decided a different perspective and a few facts deserved equal time.  You
didn't ask for that, but I didn't ask for your bogus characterizations 
of HD either.  LTF-FTL

> So, Chuck, when are you going to buy *your* Harley?  The same time you buy
> the ZX-11 you were lusting after a while back?

I'd like to do it next year, especially if HD decides to discontinue the 
traditional FXRS frame in favor of the Dyna frame for '94.  Of course, 
if I win the Skoal Harley, that will move things up a bit :-).  As much as I 
like the ZX-11, from a practical standpoint it really won't do anything more 
for me than the (paid-for) FJ already does.  The Lowrider, however, will 
provide almost everything that FJ won't.  And of course, the KLR650 will 
cover anything missed by the other two.  

Unless one counts ABS and Italian hardware, of course.

:-)
Chuck Rogers
car377@druhi.att.com