From: car377@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (charles.a.rogers)
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
Subject: Re: Harley Outperforms ZX11, Film at Eleven
Summary: Sport bikes, Harleys, success
Date: 11 Oct 92 23:15:05 GMT
Organization: AT&T

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:
> >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.
> 
> 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.  

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.

> 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.  

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?

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.  

> 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.

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.

> 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).  

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.

> 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.  

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. 

> 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.  

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

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.

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.

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

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.  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.

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

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".  

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*.

> 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.

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.  

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?

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

Chuck Rogers
car377@druhi.att.com