From: randy@megatek.com (Randy Davis)
Subject: ZX-11 outperforms Harley, obviously (was Re: Harley Outperforms ZX11, Film at Eleven)
Reply-To: randy@megatek.com
Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:58:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.060211.22370@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> car377@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (charles.a.rogers) writes:
|In article <1992Oct9.233608.770@megatek.com>, randy@megatek.com (Randy Davis) writes:
|>   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
[...]
|Can't say that for ZX-11s, though.  Last I checked the want-ads here, there
[...]

  I really worry about the intelligence of ANYONE buying a motorcycle for
the "investment" possibilities, Chuck.  If that is the way you handle your
financial affairs, perhaps that explains why you are still riding the FJ.
Yes, it can be proven that a Harley will hold its resale value better over
time - I didn't dispute it or even address it, because it is not a criteria
to someone *I* would call a true motorcyclist.  If you will read my past
postings VERY carefully, Chuck, you will notice that I have clearly stated 
time and time again that *I* don't buy a motorcycle for its investment
potential.  If it doesn't do what I want, it ain't worth shit to me...

  If *you* do, then that *would* be a good reason for your infatuation with
Harley.

|> 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.

  To bad an Evo is slower than hell without major modification work.  Perhaps
if I detuned my bike for half the power, it would last as long also (which it
may do, anyway).  And, if you DO the modification work to hop-up an Evo - show
me one that makes as much power as the bikes I like and still follow that
maintenance schedule.  You do so, and it handles well, then perhaps you will
have made Harley another customer out of me.

|  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.

  Is the word "performance" in quotes to refer to my discussion about motorycle
performance, Chuck?   If that IS how you define "performance", then you might
as well be riding a Harley, I completely agree.  I think you would be alone in
that definition of "performance" - I've never heard of anyone saying an
old 1960's six-cylinder Chevy pickup is a GREAT PERFORMER, even if it has
500,000 miles on it with only oil changes.  If you want to intentionally
misinterpret my words and write a major treatise on it, I can't stop you.

  However, that is NOT one of my criteria for how well a motorcycle serves
me at the moment, nor is it a commonly accepted definition of "performance".
The bike lasting twenty years won't do me ANY good at the moment, doesn't
make it handle any better, accelerate any better, etc...  But, if you want to give up those capabilities to make sure you can still keep it running fifteen
years for now - GO FOR IT, yet I am not ready to make that trade-off.  Most
people clearly are ready to make that trade-off - those that aren't in it
just to be one-of-the-crowd.

  "KZ00B2"???  If those were the numbers you were telling the parts counter
guy, I'm not too surprised.

  However, considering parts availability, it seems that the Harley parts
aren't as available as you would like us to beleive.  I've had friends attempt
to restore Harleys.  I will accept that parts are more readily available,
but that STILL doesn't mean that they are EASY to get.

|30 years is long enough to notice trends.

  Thirty?  You having problems with arithmetic, again?

|  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.

  I would imagine so, since they weren't really imported in any quantity until
the early 70's.

|  Not so with Harleys.  I realize this is more due to the
|commodity nature of the bikes than to any inherent engineering characteristic.

  Exactly...  Also, Harley has been around a LOT longer.  They WERE the most
powerful and best PERFORMANCE machines built, which is the reason for the
beginning of the Harley mystique.  The stories my late grandfather told of
his Harleys were great, and he was very disappointed to note how far Harley
has fallen behind in the performance of their machines.

|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.

  Very true.  So, how is this the fault of Japanese machines?

|> 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?  :-)

  I didn't NEED to modify it, unlike if I owned a Harley.

  You seem to be failing to understand the point I thought I clearly made.
You HAVE to modify a Harley to get decent power out of it (ask Seth about
why he added the drag pipes) and to improve other shortcomings.  Other
than a $30 modification to change one sprocket, my bike is bone stock.
Show me a stock Harley that can perform TODAY (NOT twenty years from now)
on a road of its rider's choosing as well or better than my motorcycle...

|>   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.

  If appreciating one for "*all*" that it is includes some smugness about
it being "powerful" or "fast", then perhaps the reality check will be good
for them, since that was most of what I was addressing in response to
criticisms of "riceburners".  If they appreciate them for being "investments",
then I couldn't care LESS if I offend them.  If they appreciate them for being
what satisfies "them", then why the hell are they telling ME that *my* bike is
inferior, is "jap-crap", is a riceburner, etc.., etc.., when it will do more
things AS A MOTORCYCLE right NOW than theirs ever could?

|>   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.

  That is up to you to interpret.  Perhaps it *is* patronizing to anyone
that tries to tell me what is best for *me*, or criticise my ride.  I've
never been the first to criticise someone's ride, only to defend mine
when it is slandered.  In so doing, I *do* state *my* criterias for a
motorycle, which usually insults those who have different criterias.  If
they are so offended, then my heart just bleeds for them...

|To someone who appreciates Harleys for what they *are* and *can do*, what 
|you just said is, "Harleys: Nice sound, flashy looks.  Nothing else."

  Just what CAN they do?  Just what ARE they?  Last I checked, they are a
motorcycle.  Attaching a lot of extra mystique to it doesn't make much sense
to me, sorry.

|> 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.

  As I believe I said, in a phrase you failed to quote from me in this very
posting.

|> 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.

  I don't beleive this is one of the reasons I was addressing, as you are
fully aware of.

  *YOU* show me a Harley that can make decent power that only needs headwork
after so many miles, and THEN perhaps I might get interested in a Buell...

  You COMPLETELY fail to recognize one fact that I have stated MANY times.
In fact, you ignore it about three times in this posting, alone, although
you are responding to words *I've* been clearly stating: the fact that I 
couldn't care LESS what the motorcycle will do twenty years from now - if
it is as slow and handles no better than a fast car, I see no reason to ride
it!  I ride motorcycles to enjoy MORE freedom of movement on the road,
which includes acceleration, handling, etc...  Even so, perhaps a motorcycle
isn't better than cars in all these things, but a Harley satisfies this even
less than other motorcycles, TO ME.

  I've never ONCE tried to tell *anyone* that they are a moron for riding a
Harley, only for trying to bench race one.

  If I've sounded patronizing, then so be it - it is because *I* do look
down on a Harley when considered from the framework of what *I* want.  That
does not mean I look down on people for riding them unless they ride it just
for the image (if they are so weak to need that bolstering of their ego, they
have more problems than we can address, here).  I greatly respect certain
friends that ride Harley's, because I respect someone for who they are, not
their choices that don't affect me.

|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.

  Again, who cares, Chuck?  If I was so inclined, I could put REAL hard
rubber on my bike.
  
|I have.  Oh yeah, that's subjective.  Well, the 50,000+ mile design life of
|a Gates Polychain belt *isn't*.

  And, that again proves the issue that I'm addressing.  If the gates belt
could handle the horsepower of a sportbike without being three inches wide
and thus affecting cornering clearance, they would use it.  Another trade-off.

|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

  Strange, I've NEVER had a Harley out-brake me...  Can YOU do it on a Harley?
Neither have I ever had one out-corner or out-accelerate me...  You find a
majority of these criteria's accomplished by ANY bike, including Harley, and
I will be interested, and will evaluate it in light of other minor criteria's
such as ride comfort, etc..  Assuming that one CAN out-brake me on a Harley -
which shortcoming do you think is cheaper to correct - less engine power
(bring the Harley up to the acceleration of a sport-bike) and handling (which
Jeff Kasky seems to have succeeded for about $4k on his Harley), or less-
owerful brakes?

  Nice try, but that arguement won't fly, when examined...

|*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.

  You know, Chuck, I do beleive I said that - I guess you weren't watchign
for that particular phrasing.  I'm happy that you had the time to write in
another major novel, though.

  So, Chuck, when are you going to buy *your* Harley?  The same time you buy
the ZX-11 you were lusting after a while back?

Randy Davis                            Email: randy@megatek.com
ZX-11 #00072 Pilot                            megatek!randy@uunet.uu.net
DoD #0013                                     ucsd!megatek!randy