From: car377@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (charles.a.rogers)
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
Subject: Harley Outperforms ZX11, Film at Eleven
Summary: "Objective" Measures
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:02:11 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct9.233608.770@megatek.com>, randy@megatek.com (Randy Davis) writes:
> ... 
> After riding a number of different bikes, I decided that, no matter *what*
> they looked like, I liked the *abilities* of sport-bikes more than any other.
> ...
>   Arguments of the "investment" potential value of Harley's are laughable,

Not compared to the "investment" potential value of any of the sportbikes.
Harleys may not keep up with stocks (or they may: things aren't looking all
that good in the financial markets lately), but right now you can make
money buying and selling Harleys just as if they were commodity options:
i.e., plunk down a deposit and order the bike, then when it comes in,
sell it to a desperate customer who can't stand to wait in line a year 
to get a new one.  People are doing exactly that, and reaping handsome
profits.  

Can't say that for ZX-11s, though.  Last I checked the want-ads here, there
were seven or eight of them listed.  Folks aren't holding onto them for some 
reason, and the prices would seem to indicate that they're willing to take a 
loss to move them.  This might just be a local anomaly.  Still, I'm pretty
surprised to see bikes that commanded a premium as limited edition models
a couple of years ago going in such numbers now.

> Arguments of longevity are also
> unfounded in many cases, as most every older Harley I've seen has had major
> work on it to keep running, 

*Any* bike has major work sooner or later.  Evos get it *much* later, 
especially where cylinder wear is concerned.  More importantly, when
*much* later arrives, you can still get all the parts for an HD, or
even build one from the ground up using aftermarket replica parts.
As I've found out with my '79 KZ00B2, this is "performance" that Kawasaki
doesn't really deliver.

> nor do the detractors of foreign bikes have any
> evidence that the imports *won't* last that long (since they haven't been
> imported THAT long) 

30 years is long enough to notice trends.  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.  Not so with Harleys.  I realize this is more due to the
commodity nature of the bikes than to any inherent engineering characteristic.
If the Japanese bikes were more scarce to start with and riders were more 
fanatical about preserving/restoring them, there'd be more old ones around.

> performance is simply not available anywhere else.  Then, the clincher - the
> fact you have to modify a Harley to do what want, I can buy elsewhere, stock.

Oh, you mean like changing the rear sprocket on a ZX-11?  :-)

> ...
>   None of these are criticisms of the bike or the company.  

Yeah, but to people who appreciate Harleys for *all* that they are, it
sure sounds that way.

> ... the fact that they will offer more objective
> performace than any stock Harley I've yet to see, where "performance" is
> measured by objective metrics such as acceleration, cornering ability, etc.

There are many, many objective metrics beyond the simple ones you 
mention.  Defining "performance" only in such narrow terms is the central
tenet of the sport bike dogma which is the staple of bench-racing.  It is 
thus that Harleys are easily relegated to the oblivion of "inferiority".  
However, even in one of these narrowly-defined terms, you're mistaken (see 
below).  

>   I am not saying that there is not something special about a Harley, in the
> rumble of its V-twin, on the amount of chrome that is often used, etc...  

I'm sure that it's not your intention, but this really sounds patronizing.
To someone who appreciates Harleys for what they *are* and *can do*, what 
you just said is, "Harleys: Nice sound, flashy looks.  Nothing else."

> I admire the looks of Harley's as much as many people, yet I think they are
> the wrong tool for a motorcyclist such as myself.  

And I truly admire the ZX11.  I *really* *do*, and you know this.  It is a 
superb accomplishment in its own limited way,  but it is simply the wrong
tool for a motorcyclist whose subjective *and* objective performance needs 
are better satisfied by Harley.

> But, should they say that my motorcycle is inferior to
> theirs for reasons that are clearly laughably incorrect, they will have to
> endure hearing the proof of their inaccuracy.

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.

Here's an easier one: prove that sport bikes don't go through tires faster
than Harleys.  The cost of an ME55A is an *extremely* objective measure
for those of us who have to put a new one on every 4-5000 miles.

How about chains?  I had to pay a premium to buy my fancy super-tuff
RK o-ring chain, but it's only guaranteed for 20,000 miles, and it spit 
off its master link clip within 1000 miles.  Ever walk into a nice restaurant
and sit down to a meal that had really strange overtones of chain lube?
I have.  Oh yeah, that's subjective.  Well, the 50,000+ mile design life of
a Gates Polychain belt *isn't*.

Ummm, how about brake system corrosion?  New Harleys come with DOT-5.
I can tell you that I was objectively pissed in truly measurable terms
when I had to clean up all the DOT-3 + moisture-generated corrosion on
my FJ's reservoirs and master cylinders.  Ask Tom Barber about the
DOT-3 brake fluid paint damage on his CBR1000's gas tank.  His insurance
company considered that pretty measurable in units of dollars.

How about gas tank rust?  Never happen on a new Harley.  Has happened on
*all* my Japanese bikes, sport or otherwise.  You can measure it objectively, 
too.  I measured about 1.5 teaspoons of it jammed into the float chamber
filters on my four BS36 Mikunis last time I tore 'em down because of
uneven carburetion.  Oh yeah, speaking of carbs, the four float needle 
valves for an FJ cost $27.00 apiece,  and need replacing every 5 years 
or so.  A lowrider needs only one.

Lay a fully-faired sportbike and a crash-bar equipped Lowrider down at 15 mph 
on the street, and I'll bet you can measure the Harley's "performance" 
advantage in damage cost-avoidance in fairly discrete terms.  

>   I didn't say riding needs.  I said abilities.  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

Not only does the ZX-11 stop almost 7 feet later than the HD, it is 
*measurably* inferior in a performance parameter *critical* to street 
survival, i.e., straight-line braking.  While the Harley stopped at the door 
handle of Oscar Grope's left-turning cage, the ZX-11 plowed right through 
the door and probably launched the rider into the roofline.

If I want to go 170mph or do a 10.5 second quarter mile or get the
rush that comes only from wicking up the strongest production motorcycle
engine ever produced, or experience the "look and feel" of sport bike
twisty performance, the ZX11 is a clear choice.  It is also very  
smooth, quiet, and comfortable for sport-touring riding, and it has killer
good looks and good reliability (except for the usual few nits any new
production bike suffers).  It is relatively inexpensive (although
I come from a time when a good *big* bike cost $1500.00).  However,
if I want to avoid chain/shaft-effect, provide spacious passenger 
accommodations (on a bike that weighs only 22 pounds more), have a nice 
upright windshield to keep the bugs off (which quickly comes off if the 
desire for bugs resurfaces), killer torque just off-idle, superb 2-finger
braking with Bob's Own Brake Lever (as well as an *effective* rear brake, 
something I've never experienced on *any* sportbike), a rear tire that 
lasts 10,000-20,000 miles, no water-cooling to mess with, incredibly 
trouble-free maintenance access, good resale value, the largest MC 
aftermarket supply system in the world, an enormous national owners 
association with numerous benefits *including* HD Fly 'n Ride rental 
services, DOT-5 brake fluid and rust-proofed gas tank standard, 
unshakeable cornering stability ("rails"), light maneuvering feel at 
low speeds, designed/built in the USA (this is no bogus argument for 
me: buying from HD reduces the foreign trade deficit, sustains real 
jobs, and rewards engineering/manufacturing/marketing excellence,) a 
bike that I can ride *fast* in sensory input terms, but never get a 
ticket, as well as lots of subjective performance measures like sound, 
flash, cool, joie d'vivre, why the clear choice is an FXRS-Con, for 
*performance* reasons.  It might not be a good choice for you, but
that's a matter of *preference* of a few selected parameters, not
the non-existence of all of the ones you personally don't value.

Chuck Rogers
car377@druhi.att.com