From: root@elektro.cmhnet.org (Charlie Smith)
Subject: Well Reasoned Discussion of Technical Merits of Harvey Doodison Bikes, Was: Re: WARNING!! LONG SPOOGE-FILLED MIS-POST!! HIT "N" NOW!!!
Organization: Why do you suspect that?
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 22:03:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.062751.21276@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> car377@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (charles.a.rogers) writes:
>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


Charlie Smith   charlie@elektro.cmhnet.org  csmith@dsac.dla.mil  whois ces10
MOA# 52888, RA# 15633, DoD# 0709, AMA# 574722, Buckey Beemers 411, BK Ohio V
BMW K1100-LT, R69S, R27 and other even less worthwhile [ 2 | 3 ] wheel stuff

            {  Friends don't let friends ride Japanese bikes  }
                or Harley's either, without a lot of Grief!

Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles.harley