From: car377@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (charles.a.rogers)
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
Subject: WARNING!! LONG SPOOGE-FILLED MIS-POST!! HIT "N" NOW!!!
Summary: Spooge warnings don't work, do they?
Date: 14 Oct 92 06:27:51 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct13.142257.16337@husc3.harvard.edu>, zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

> I recommend that you find a more direct and impartial source of information
> than letters and articles in the American magazines.  

Naah, I'll stick with Kevin Cameron, Joe Minton, and Jerry Branch.  There's
no way I'll ever open up as many engines as they collectively have, nor will
I ever develop their analytical capabilities or knowledge base.

> >is that their crank bearings do not require replacement after running 
> >185,000 miles.  
> 
> Does this oft-bandied figure represent a single data point, a result of a
> reliable poll, or the manufacturer's ironclad money-back guarantee?  

The figure is based on a statement made by Joe Minton in a technical article
on the development history of Harley engines.  He participated in a tear-down
at HD on a customer engine with 187K miles on it, and he described what they 
found when they took it apart.  What I find interesting is that I have encountered
no such data point on any Japanese inline-4 design, despite the considerable
material I've read.  Considering the popularity in some quarters of the myth 
that Japanese bikes are throwaway products, evidence to the contrary of
this nature ought to get immediate and noticeable print space.  So far, nada.

> As for the drawbacks of the said design, I indicated them elsewhere.

If the theoretical drawbacks don't result in experiential cost, they're not
*real* drawbacks.

> beater Laverda triple, which still has 160 p.s.i. compression in each
> cylinder after three owners and 78,000 miles on its iron bores.  

Isn't that a good argument for iron cylinders?

> >>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.  
> 
> When did I say `stock'?

You said "humble".  Actually, with "proper" care, a "humble" knucklehead
Harley from the early Fifties turned a 7.1 second quarter-mile at an
Atco, NJ ECRA meet this year.  :-)

> >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.
> 
> I rather doubt that either Jerry Branch or Eric Buell, or any of the racers
> still trying to run the Sportsters in the BOTT really *require* pushrod
> engines.  Have you really taken a poll?

Sort of.  The current HD sales experience is a reflection of HD's successful
polling of their customer base.  One of the things that customer base
consistently demands is an air-cooled pushrod vertical twin.   

>>[I enjoyed my Lowrider Sport mountain riding]

> Well, if your mountain riding is not compromised by that 30-degree maximum
> lean angle, that tells me more about your riding skill and/or pace than
> about the bike you were riding.  

Ah, good.  We may actually be communicating here.  And if I, a dyed-in-the-wool
sportbike lover, had a truly excellent time at that pace/skill-level, then 
perhaps the alleged shortcomings of the motorcycle turned out not to be
shortcomings after all, even by my sportbike-shaped standards.

> By the way, the issue is not only whether
> the current paying customers are already tickled pink with the product ...
> but whether the company is able to attract paying customers who are tickled
> pink with their competitors' product.

Even by that measure, they are outrageously successful.  I'm keeping my
sportbike when I get my Lowrider.  On the other hand, there don't seem
to be too many Harley riders chasing after the latest sportbike hardware.
The traffic seems to be largely in the other direction.

> >... also true of Japanese sportbikes, if the aftermarket braced 
> >swingarm, shock&spring, brakes, wheels, and fork suppliers' ads are 
> >any indication.
> 
> No, they are not.  However, racetrack time surely is.

Yeah, that's why there are so many bone stock suspensions out there 
on the roadracing circuit, right?   

> >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.
> 
> You will pardon me for not taking this assertion at face value, for it does
> not seem to make any sense.  Pray tell me, what does it mean for the forces
> to be "resolved" in frame flex?

It means that with a flexy frame, sudden high-magnitude forces transmitted
into the bike from the riding surface are partially absorbed by frame-element 
deformation,  then fed gradually to other parts of the bike as 
reduced-magnitude, longer duration force inputs.  With a stiff frame, these 
forces are instead transmitted as abrupt, high-energy shocks through the rigid 
frame.  Such shocks can upset rider control, cause loss of traction, and have 
other unpleasant results.  This is apparently a topic of some interest in the 
roadracing community, because that is usually where I see it discussed.

> >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.
> 
> From my limited personal acquaintance with their machines, most Harley
> owners feel differently.  Which accounts for the perennial popularity of
> Jerry Branch, C.R. Axtell, et al., never mind the factory's own
> "competition only" (nudge, nudge) "Screamin' Eagle" product line.

A minute ago, you claimed the extensive aftermarket for Japanese 
frame/suspension components was no reflection on the quality of the 
OEM product, but now you claim the same phenomenon *is* such evidence 
where Harley engines are concerned.  Can't have it both ways.

I'm afflicted with the tinker-with-it bug myself.  I've still got the
Dynojet Kit and K&N filters I ordered for my FJ when I first bought
it.  I never installed them.  It became unnecessary when the bike
proved to be more than competent as stock.  The nice thing about
the Lowrider is the *way* it delivers power.  That's also the
nice thing about the FJ.  I might find it desirable after a time
to start hopping up the Harley.  Then again, I might not. 

> ... There is an electronic ignition
> available for Vincent twins; many of them have been retrofitted.  

Ack!  Isn't that a little like putting special sauce, lettuce, cheese,
pickles, and onions on your filet mignon?

> Likewise, Egli Vincents and Norvins tend to have better brakes than 
> any production Harley.  

Hell, Harleys already brake better than ZX-11s.  Why pay Egli prices
for something that's already better than most of the stock sportbikes?

>As for turn signals, I prefer to use my left arm.

I presume you have retroreflective jacket sleeves so your signals 
can be seen at night?

> >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.  
> 
> By this standard, Macdonald's hamburgers must be regarded as the paragon of
> haute cuisine.  No thanks.  What about intrinsic value?

Your analogy is broken.  McDonalds doesn't sell in the haute cuisine market 
niche. They are the paragon of *fast food*, and they *are* successful.

As far as intrinsic value, priced a '47 EL Knucklehead lately?

> Don't know about yourself, but I don't buy bikes, or anything else, on the
> basis of their market success.  

You only buy market failures, then?   :-)

> if I could spend a truly
> obscene amount of money on an expensive Fifties-design V-twin, I would buy
> a Black Shadow before even considering a Lowrider.  

I'd get 'em both and wish that the 50's Vincent designers had had access to
all the CAD/CAM tools, materials science, component vendors, paint technology,
etc. that Harley has brought to bear in producing the Lowrider.

> ...  But this is getting us into the "die,
> Yuppie scum!"  territory, so let us end it right here.

Foul! Foul! That's a balk if I ever saw one!  Cripes, what kind of a
flame fest do you think this is anyway???!?!?  Into the penalty box with you!

> >Speaking of that, how's Vincent doing with their new bikes?   :-)
> 
> Since you are so fond of new bikes, may I assume that you will be trading
> your Lowrider for a new one every season?

Nope.  Since they're perfect already, Harley doesn't change 'em much
from year to year, and since they don't wear out, mine will always be
"new".  Just like my FJ.  

:-)
Chuck Rogers
car377@druhi.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles