From: ggrevera@gradient.cis.upenn.edu (George Grevera)
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles.harley
Subject: Re: Why belt drive?
Date: 28 Dec 92 17:47:24 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Dec27.012256.28552@tcsi.com> markk@tcs.com (Mark Kromer) writes:
>
>To say that Harley is not significently developing their bikes is
>wrong.  The Dyna chassis and the large scale renovation of the
>Sportster engine that accompanied the recent change to 5 speeds are
>proof.  Belt drive is another.  

First let me say that I love Harley's.  I love that fact that they are a
mostly-American product (why not 100%?) and are beating the crap out of
the competition.  And I would never want them to go the way of Indian.
But I don't believe that they are infallible in their business sense or
their aesthetic sense.

Although I didn't state that they weren't significantly developing their
bikes, I do see how you could infer that from what I wrote.  I guess how
significantly they are developing their bikes is relative and subjective.
And since you brought up new developments, you forgot to mention that in
'93, you don't have to remove the cover of the front brake fluid reservoir
to determine the brake fluid level any more.

I think that the Sportster change from 4 to 5 speeds should have happened
some time before '91.  It is called a SPORTster i.e. it's not a sLow Rider.

>
>What you want to know is why Harley doesn't develop more powerful
>engines.

They do up engine displacement from time to time so they must have some
interest in power.  And from reading some "Harley's only" magazines, many
other Harley enthusiasts are also interested in Harley performance.

>Harley, like any other company which sells to the general
>public, weighs the development costs against what they expect the
>value of the changes to be to the market segment they target.

And like many other companies, they can be correct, wrong, or lucky in spite
of themselves.  Also keep in mind that they have an almost fanatical following.
How many other company names are tattoo'ed on their "general public."

>Apparently, they are not targeting the sportbike market.  While their
>bikes may not satisfy the needs of all motorcyclists, Harleys
>trouncing of all the other makers in the cruiser bike market suggest
>that they know that market very well (they DEFINE it).  More power to
>them (pun intended ;-).

At one time Harley's were the fastest, meanest, baddest bikes on the road.
They didn't DEFINE cruisers but they DEFINEd MOTORCYCLING.  And it seems a
significant portion of Harley enthusiasts are interested in performance.
Just flip through some of the 'Harley only' magazines.

Actually your statment above is what motivated my initial question about
belt drive.  Given that Harley DEFINEs their market, why did they bother
to DEFINE belt drive?  And I received a lot of good answers.  Many thought
that I didn't like belt drive.

>
>Why doesn't Harley build more powerful bikes?  What percentage of
>Harleys sold wind up being modified to increase power output?  What
>are the risks to Harley?  Would a modified engine pass increasingly
>stringent noise and smog laws?  What about Harley's hard won
>reputation for reliability?  Just bolting on some aftermarket-like
>parts could generate excessive risks for Harley down the line.

On the other hand, making the wrong decisions by choosing not to change
with the times could also have troublesome ramifications down the line.

>
>I suspect that Harley concluded that the best way to produce a more
>powerful engine that will meet reliability criteria and current and
>future government regulations is from the ground up.  They may be
>doing that now, they may not, but given their success I won't attempt
>to second guess their analysis of their market.
>
>--
>- )V(ark)<  FZR400 Pilot / ZX900 Payload / RD400 Mechanic  DoD #400

Why not second guess their analysis of the market?  Can't they do any wrong?
Do you expect their success to continue forever? Looking at the bikes you
own, it looks like they can't do anything right for you.

I wish we could discuss under better circumstances (i.e. beer).  I think that
we all like Harley's but we would customize them in different ways.  Maybe
that huge aftermarket makes them the best bikes for us.

George
ggrevera@gradient.cis.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles.harley