Point/Counterpoint: Harley-Davidson

Two of our Car Lust contributors, Rob the SVX Guy and David Drucker, have a difference of opinion on the lustworthiness of Harley-Davidsons, and so we're convening this point/counterpoint to debate the relative merits of their cases.

Rob is a Harley cynic, while David is a Harley true-believer. I doubt either will change each other's opinions, but I do expect a very interesting and thought-provoking debate.

Gentlemen, to your corners, and remember--nothing below the belt. Rob, you're up.

Rob: Harley what? Oh, sorry, I can't really hear that well. More on that later. My name is Rob, and I live in a city called Milwaukee. This city is home to one of the most iconic American companies of all time, a company that represents America, freedom, patriotism, and adventure. So why does it deserve any disgust whatsoever?

It seems upon purchasing a Harley-Davidson, you receive a packet that informs you on the next steps to becoming a true Harley-Davidson fan. The first thing you must do is make your bike as loud as humanly possible. This isn't to increase the performance of your bike, or save gas, it's simply to be obnoxious. Once you have gutted any remnants of sound dampening from your exhaust system, you can then cruise down the road blaring your Harley ownership at 110 decibels to everyone within eight blocks.

When you pass a nice restaurant with outdoor seating, be sure to rev it to get as much attention as possible. Instantly most of the people eating outdoors will cock their heads in your direction, and that's what you crave--attention! I'm sure the attractive girl that caught your eye thinks you're incredibly macho and cool. On your way home, be sure to just play with the throttle at stop lights. If you fail to continue revving it, the bike may just die since the 1930s technology doesn't seem to idle very well.

Another part of being a Harley owner is to refer to Japanese bikes as crap, even though they are faster, more reliable, better handling, better braking, more efficient, and cheaper to buy. You must look down on these other bikes, and act like you're tougher, better, and more manly.

Once you get home, feel free to accessories your life with Harley-Davidson merchandise. You can get HD shirts, jackets, pants, shoes, hats, sunglasses, watches, bandanas, socks, and thongs, but let's not stop there. You should continue to accessorize your life until you're a rolling advertisment. Get HD stickers for your car, maybe some HD napkin dispensers, salt and pepper shakers, maybe even a spoon rest? Whatever you want, you can get it with a Harley badge stuck onto it! This will let everyone know how cool you are, and how devoted you are to this faux religion. Once you look like everyone else, people will know what an individual you are.

This is what Harley-Davidson is truly all about--selling an image, and getting the customers to advertise this image. It's not really about bikes, performance, cruising, or even a "lifestyle." It's about pretendingto be a rebel, pretending to be free, and pretending to be badder than you really are.

It's this innate fakeness that gets me. Harleys are not particularly fast in the bike world, nor do they handle or brake exceptionally well, exude creature comforts, run reliably, or push the envelope in terms of design or technology. In fact, the basic design of a Harley has remained pretty much the same for over 50 years. They do not try to improve much of anything, other than marketing, branding, and pushing an image onto the general public.

Yet this image could be yours, if only you'd pony up the dough to purchase the bike, clothing, dinnerware, stickers, and countless other accessories. Sure, one can say the same about people into Japanese performance bikes, but at least their bikes are actually pushing the envelope of performance, technology, and reliability.

David: As a long-time Harley-Davidson enthusiast, I'm going to take issue with Rob's comments, which seem to be based on a) having had his dinner interrupted by loud Harley-Davidson motorcycles, b) the
rehashing of decades-old stereotypes about the bikes and their underlying technology, and c) a dislike of the company's marketing strategy. My own opinions are based on 150,000 miles of Harley-Davidson experience, and quite a few miles spent on various alternatives in the ultimately vain hope that something else would suit me as well. (It's also worth noting, I guess, that I've also put 40,000 miles on a couple of Gold Wings.)

In the interest of full disclosure, know too that I've done some work for American Iron Magazine, including editing its H-D 95th Anniversary special and writing most of that publication's content. In common with many long-time and/or high-mileage H-D riders, I've been ill-treated by both the bikes and The Motor Company (which is the H-D's own self-referential phrase). And in common with most of those aforementioned riders, I still prefer to ride a Harley.

I'll begin by recounting two events that occurred this weekend, during a mini-vacation with my wife and two other couples, in Cooperstown, New York. The first took place during a stroll down that village's baseball-obsessed downtown area. We heard, in the distance, what sounded like the whine of ten-thousand angry sewing machines. The sound quickly got much louder, rising to a needle-in-the eyeball crescendo as a single crotch rocket flew by. It was quite possibly the loudest, most annoying sound I've ever experienced. The rider was bedecked in the official uniform of the young squid: from top-to-bottom, he wore a full-faced helmet, tank top, shorts, and flip- flops.

Later that day, while enjoying some al fresco cocktails, we heard another noise in the distance. It was the familiar basso profundo rumble of a small group of Harleys. Apparently, their riders never got the information packet to which Rob refers. While it was clear that all four bikes were equipped with aftermarket exhaust systems-–stock Harleys must meet Federal noise standards, and are surprisingly quiet-–none was annoyingly loud. Our fellow cocktail aficionados did, in fact, cock their heads in the direction of the noise, but all of them were smiling, and I noticed more than one thumbs-up gesture.

Half a block beyond where we sat, the Harleys stopped for a red light. They, like every Harley I've encountered, had no problem sitting at idle. Perhaps that's because the 1930s technology Rob mentions hasn't been used since, well, the 1930s. Of course, all of the 1930s Harleys I've been close to--perhaps a dozen, over the years--have been able to idle as well. And so can today's crotch rockets, whose throttles often get blipped at stop lights. Heck, I’ve blipped the throttle more than once myself. It’s just something that happens, sometimes, when you’re on a bike.

As for the notion of referring to Japanese bikes as crap... well, yes, I'm sure that sometimes happens. A few years ago, I decided to ride my Honda Gold Wing to Daytona Bike Week. Naturally, my hotel's parking lot was awash in Harleys of every description. I pulled into a spot right next to an aging Harley cruiser, which was being tended to by its even more aging owner. He was a biker of the old school: lots of leather, lots of muscles, and lots of tattoos. I'd learned, over the years, to expect some good-natured ribbing under such circumstances, and that overt hostility was very rare. Still, I couldn't help but be surprised by the aforementioned biker's effusive praise of my chosen ride. The phrase Jap Crap never came up.

In a subculture numbering in the millions, it's pretty easy to find evidence of any behavior you want to highlight and--especially in Milwaukee--I have no doubt that Rob has encountered Harley owners expressing that sentiment. in my experience, which is necessarily limited, but is still probably significantly broader than Rob's, most Harley riders will readily acknowledge that Japanese bikes are "faster, more reliable, better handling, better braking, more efficient, and cheaper to buy." And they don't care. The same can be said of a Mazda Miata as compared to, say, a Lincoln Town car, but really, so what?

Rob's dislike of the Motor Company's marketing tactics is shared by many of the Harley riders I know, even if they--like myself--have a drawer full of Harley-branded t-shirts. My own take on the "Harley-Davidson Lifestyle" is that if the company makes money selling all manner of things that aren't motorcycles or motorcycle parts, good for them. They still make motorcycles and motorcycle parts, and anyone who wants to limit his or her purchases to that department is free to do so, just as he or she is free to spend thousands on stickers, napkin dispensers, and salt-and-pepper shakers. Either way, the bike is what it is. In a similar vein, some people think that BMW owners drive like ego-maniacal dickheads, but that doesn’t make BMWs bad cars.

Which brings us, at last, to the crux of the matter: the Harley-Davidson motorcycle. Here, Rob has made the classic mistake of confusing form for function. Yes, Harleys look very much as they did 50 (or, in one case, 80) years ago. That is, in a nutshell, what accounts for whatever success the company has enjoyed over the last quarter-century. But the underlying technology has been replaced, then upgraded, and then replaced again, to the point where all of the issues Rob mentions have been satisfactorily addressed. Let’s have a look at those issues.

"Not particularly fast"

Well maybe not, but certainly fast enough. My most recent Harley was a very lightly modified top-of-the-line FLHTCU touring model (or, in Harley shorthand, Ultra), the heaviest bike the company makes. Two-up, with two weeks' worth of luggage for two stuffed into and on top of its luggage, it had enough power to out-accelerate the average sedan, and to cruise all day long at 85mph. And remember, mine was the slowest Harley money could buy.

"Nor do they handle or brake exceptionally well"

Harley builds motorcycles on several platforms, each of which has a different design brief. If canyon-carving at high speeds is on the agenda, Harley sells some splendid canyon-carvers. Those Harleys aren't in the Ninja-class in that regard, but they compensate by being good all-around motorcycles, rather than one-trick ponies. Harley's larger, heavier models are less agile at high speeds, but in my experience they're no less so than most of the competition's offerings in equivalent categories. As for brakes, if they're progressive in operation, and powerful enough to lock the wheels, isn't anything stronger pretty much irrelevant? And if you don't have enough training or experience to keep from locking the brakes in a panic stop, the Brembos on Harley's touring models can be equipped with ABS. In the end, even if they don't handle or brake exceptionally well, they don't handle or brake exceptionally badly, either.

"... exude creature comforts ..."

There are, in motorcycling, two kinds of creature comfort. The first is informed by the bike's basic ergonomics: the position of the handlebars, seat, and footpegs or floorboards. In this regard, Harley-Davidson is unsurpassed in its ability to provide a bike that will fit the physique and riding style of any and all potential customers. If someone finds that a given bike's ergonomics miss the mark, the judicious application of money will wrestle it into submission. The stock handlebars on my '90 FLHTCU were perfect for me, while the '98 model with which I replaced it--and which was built on an entirely new chassis, with different geometry--required a bit too much reach. I simply replaced them with a set that conformed to my preference, at which point I was able to enjoy the same 500-600 mile/day comfort that the older bike provided.

The second kind of creature comfort applies mostly to the accessories associated with long-haul touring bikes. That's where a large chunk of my experience was earned, and I was a pretty comfy fellow. Both of my Ultras were equipped from the factory with an air-adjustable rear suspension, four-speaker radio/cassette systems, CB radio, rider/passenger intercom, and cruise control. Today's Ultra replaces the cassette with a CD/MP3 player, and can also be had with a satellite radio receiver and integrated GPS. Further, the core audio components of my '98 were a significant improvement over those in the '90, and today's, provided by Harman/Kardon, are much better than what I enjoyed on the '98.

Then there's vibration, and I will have to admit that you can, in fact, buy a Harley that vibrates enough to be uncomfortable. Of course, it'll have to be a used one, because The Motor Company finally caved and dealt with the last two platforms (Softail and Sportster) where it was an issue. The dressers have had rubber-mounted engines for nearly three decades, century, and the traditional cruiser lines for nearly that long. The Softails still use a rigid mounting system; that platform's engine is fitted with an internal balancing system that calms things down. At this point, the only vibration that's even
close to being intrusive occurs at idle.

"...run reliably ..."

Sez who? Someone who believes that "the basic design of a Harley has remained pretty much the same for over 50 years" might have made a case for their being unreliable a few decades ago. Today, not so much. Over the course of 150,000 Harley miles, I've been left stranded only once, and that time it was arguably my fault. That's not to say that the older of my two Ultras didn't spend time in the shop. (I could tell you stories, but they’re not relevant to this discussion.) But when it came to getting me from one edge of the country to the other, my Harleys delivered the goods.

"... or push the envelope in terms of design or technology."

Design, of course not! Harleys look exactly the way they’re supposed to: like Harleys. They established the basic big-twin template in 1936 with the Model EL and nailed down the Cruiser/Custom with the 1971 Superglide. The contours of the touring series go back to 1958's Duo-Glide, whose appearance is echoed in today's Road King.

However, the technology on which those instantly-recognized shapes are hung has undergone constant refinement and upgrading. Let's take the engine, which has retained the air-cooled V-twin configuration introduced by the company a century ago. For better (says I) or worse, all of Harley-Davidson's subsequent mainstream powerplants have had to work within the constraints of that configuration. This means that from a distance, and to an untutored eye, it looks as though Harley technology is mired in the past. In truth, while rooted in the past, the technology isn't mired there.

That 1958 Duo-Glide's aluminum alloy "panhead" engine was introduced in 1948, refined over the years, and finally replaced, in 1971, by the completely new "shovelhead" design. In 1984, the shovelhead was replaced by the EVO (for evolution). My ‘98's EVO was replaced in 1999 by the all-new Twin Cam 88. And in 2006 the TC96, which retained only the head and basic architecture of the TC88, made its debut. The new engine is mated to an equally new six-speed transmission. Aft of the transmission, Harley replaced the dirty, high-maintenance drive chain, found today even on many technologically advanced bikes, with a long-lasting maintenance-free belt. (I replaced mine at 60K, just on general principle.) Harley first offered fuel-injection in 1995, albeit on a single model. Today, it's the norm, except on the smaller-framed Sportster. I've already mentioned Brembo brakes and optional ABS. Harley isn't pushing the envelope, which, I think, is as it should be. But neither is it building a 50-year old bike and hoping nobody will notice.

To sum up: it seems to me that most of what Rob doesn't like about Harleys has nothing to do with the motorcycles, about which he seems to know very little other than that some of them are loud, and everything to do with the image those motorcycles project. Fair enough. My own take is that the those are two very separate issues, and whether one chooses to embrace the image or be appalled by it, the motorcycles are just fine. And really, it's just a motorcycle, if that's what you want it to be.

Rob:

"In the interest of full disclosure, it's worth noting that I've done some work for American Iron Magazine, including editing its H-D 95th Anniversary special and writing most of that publication's content."

No bias there.  :P

"I'll begin by recounting two events that occurred this weekend, during a mini-vacation with my wife and two other couples, in Cooperstown, New York. The first took place during a stroll down that village’s baseball-obsessed downtown area. We heard, in the distance, what sounded like the whine of ten-thousand angry sewing machines. The sound quickly got much louder, rising to a needle-in-the eyeball crescendo as a single crotch rocket flew by. It was quite possibly the loudest, most annoying sound I’ve ever experienced. The rider was bedecked in the official uniform of the young squid: from top-to-bottom, he wore a full-faced helmet, tank top, shorts, and flip-flops."

I have a strong aversion to the Japanese superbike crowd also--they tend to drive recklessly (not enthusiastically), take stupid risks, look like a choch, and the bikes are pretty loud. However, in terms of pure ear-splitting decibels, they don't hold a candle to a Harley flying down a street surrounded by buildings, with its unique POTATO POTATO POTATO bouncing down the street for blocks. It's absolutely insane, and completely without any penalties whatsoever.

As an automotive enthusiast, I like cars tuned for actual performance (instead of just looking tough and making a lot of noise), and I know for a fact that many owners of sport compact cars have been harassed and ticketed by cops who feel their exhaust is too loud. They write these tickets, even if the exhaust is completely stock, while ignoring the thousands of modified Harley-Davidsons blaring their existence to the world.

And as an enthusiast, I feel the difference between a Harley and crotch rocket is quite vast. If they were cars, the Harley would be a 1980s Honda Civic all modded out with a fiberglass body kit, huge wing, neon lights, flashy rims and a gigantic exhaust system. Of course, it wouldn't be at all fast, but it would look mean and sound really loud and annoying. Just like a Harley. The super bike would be more along the lines of a Subaru STi, with a rock-hard suspension that punishes you for driving long distances, still really loud, but with actual performance to back it up.

I feel that motorcycles, today, have really lost what makes a bike a bike. Now, you either have to wrap yourself in a flag, wear black leather, and pretend to be a badass while riding an obnoxiously loud, obnoxiously large, obnoxiously chromed out Harley, or you have to dye your hair, dress like a brightly colored superhero, and pretend to be "extreme" while riding an obnoxiously fast, obnoxiously twitchy,obnoxiously boy racerish sport bike. Today, there is no middle ground. Why can't they just be a  bike? Case in point--the Honda CB series from the 1970s. A Honda CB wasn't large, it wasn't small. It wasn't fast, it wasn't slow. It didn't look like a chromed-out cruiser, it didn't look like a fiberglass racing machine. This is the bike that appeals to me, because it's reliable, reasonable, and it doesn't shove any pretext down the rest of the public's throats. You're just some guy on a bike.

"... stock Harleys must meet Federal noise standards, and are surprisingly quiet-–none was annoyingly loud."

Indeed. How many stay that way? How many ever receive tickets for having an obnoxiously loud exhaust system? I haven't seen any.

"Half a block beyond where we sat, the Harleys stopped for a red light. They, like every Harley I’ve encountered, had no problem sitting at idle. Perhaps that’s because the 1930s technology Rob mentions hasn’t been used since, well, the 1930s. Of course, all of the 1930s Harleys I’ve been close to--perhaps a dozen, over the years--have been able to idle as well."

I find it hard to believe that as quite an experienced Harley rider you rarely encounter one with idling problems. I see it a lot, and I try to avoid them as much as possible.

"In a similar vein, some people think that BMW owners drive like ego-maniacal dickheads, but that doesn’t make BMWs bad cars."

It is definitely an issue though. A 3-series is a good car, but I'd never own one purely for that reason. I don't want to be grouped as "that guy." I've experienced too many BMW owners with attitude problems for me to enjoy almost any of them (excluding the 850CSI!).

"Which brings us, at last, to the crux of the matter: the Harley-Davidson motorcycle. Here, Rob has made the classic mistake of confusing form for function. Yes, Harleys look very much as they did 50 (or, in one case, 80) years ago. That is, in a nutshell, what accounts for whatever success the company has enjoyed over the last quarter-century. But the underlying technology has been replaced, then upgraded, and then replaced again, to the point where all of the issues Rob mentions have been satisfactorily addressed. Let’s have a look at those issues."

Then why do they vibrate so much? Why do they make so little power out of such massive engines? Why do I see puddles under so many of them? Why do I see so many of them broken down? Just last night, on my way from Chicago to Milwaukee, I saw three Harleys stranded on the side of the road. I saw zero other kinds of bikes.

" 'Not particularly fast.' Well maybe not, but certainly fast enough. My most recent Harley was a very lightly modified top-of-the-line FLHTCU touring model (or, in Harley shorthand, Ultra), the heaviest bike in the company makes. Two-up, with two weeks’ worth of luggage for two stuffed into and on top of its luggage, it had enough power to out-accelerate the average sedan, and to cruise all day long at 85 mph. And remember, mine was the slowest Harley money could buy."

True, but almost any bike will be faster than most cars on the road. But in the bike world, Harleys are relatively slow.

" 'Nor do they handle or brake exceptionally well,...' Harley builds motorcycles on several platforms, each of which has a different design brief. If canyon-carving at high speeds is on the agenda, Harley sells some splendid canyon-carvers. Those Harleys aren’t in the Ninja-class in that regard, but they compensate by being good all-around motorcycles, rather than one-trick ponies."

Huh? So they're inferior to Japanese bikes in terms of performance, but are better at what exactly?

David:

David: "In the interest of full disclosure, it's worth noting that I've done some work for American Iron Magazine, including editing its H-D 95th Anniversary special and writing most of that publication's content."

Rob: "No bias there. :P"

Of course there's bias, as there should be behind every word posted in something called Car Lust. Lust is an irrational emotion, fueled by bias. My own developed slowly, during an agonizing couple of years during which I vacillated between Honda and Harley touring bikes, sometimes owning one of each. I eventually settled on Harley, because for my purposes--long-distance touring--The Motor Company's offerings were more comfortable. FWIW, it's been 10 years since I did any motorcycle-related work for hire.

"I have a strong aversion to the Japanese superbike crowd also--they tend to drive recklessly (not enthusiastically), take stupid risks, look like a choch, and the bikes are pretty loud. However, in terms of pure ear-splitting decibels, they don't hold a candle to a Harley flying down a street surrounded by buildings, with its unique POTATO POTATO POTATO bouncing down the street for blocks. It's absolutely insane, and completely without any penalties whatsoever.

As an automotive enthusiast, I like cars tuned for actual performance (instead of just looking tough and making a lot of noise), and I know for a fact that many owners of sport compact cars have been harassed and ticketed by cops who feel their exhaust is too loud. They write these tickets, even if the exhaust is completely stock, while ignoring the thousands of modified Harley-Davidsons blaring their existence to the world.

And as an enthusiast, I feel the difference between a Harley and crotch rocket is quite vast. If they were cars, the Harley would be a 1980s Honda Civic all modded out with a fiberglass body kit, huge wing, neon lights, flashy rims and a gigantic exhaust system. Of course, it wouldn't be at all fast, but it would look mean and sound really loud and annoying. Just like a Harley. The super bike would be more along the lines of a Subaru STi, with a rock-hard suspension that punishes you for driving long distances, still really loud, but with actual performance to back it up."

Again, you're shining the spotlight on owner behavior, rather than the bike's inherent qualities. You're also assuming that what happens in Milwaukee--Harley Headquarters--is typical of the entire subculture. In most of the country, "straight" pipes will get you a ticket.

I should add, too, that Harleys don't look at all "mean" to me.

"I feel that motorcycles, today, have really lost what makes a bike a bike. Now, you either have to wrap yourself in a flag, wear black leather, and pretend to be a badass while riding an obnoxiously loud, obnoxiously large, obnoxiously chromed out Harley, or you have to dye your hair, dress like a brightly colored superhero, and pretend to be "extreme" while riding an obnoxiously fast, obnoxiously twitchy, obnoxiously boy racerish sport bike. Today, there is no middle ground. Why can't they just be a bike? Case in point--the Honda CB series from the 1970s. A Honda CB wasn't large, it wasn't small. It wasn't fast, it wasn't slow. It didn't look like a chromed-out cruiser, it didn't look like a fiberglass racing machine. This is the bike that appeals to me, because it's reliable, reasonable, and it doesn't shove any pretext down the rest of the public's throats. You're just some guy on a bike."

When the CB750 came out it wasn't "just a bike." It was, by the standards of 1969, a gigantic superbike. Like many of the bikes that followed its lead, it was wonderfully quick and fast, but its flexible frame made for seriously scary handling. My own '77--the last year for the SOHC engine--tried to kill me on several occasions while I was still low on its learning curve. Harley's own Dyna platform consists of bikes very similar in form to the "standard" bike typified by the CB750. The Dynas will handle better, of course.

David: "... none was annoyingly loud."

Rob: "Indeed.  How many stay that way?   How many ever receive tickets for having an obnoxiously loud exhaust system?  I haven't seen any."

I used to ride with the Bergen County (NJ) Harley Owners Group. These rides would form up at the local dealer's parking lot, and before heading out there'd be lots of time to see what other members had done to their bikes. Being interested in aftermarket pipes at the time, that's what I'd look at. In a gathering of 40-50 bikes, maybe half would have their stock pipes, and one or two would be obnoxiously loud. (They'd be relegated to the rear of the pack, during the ride.)

My own reason for installing aftermarket pipes--street-legal aftermarket pipes--was simple. After enriching the air/fuel mixture and installing a hotter cam, I found the stock exhaust to be too restrictive. Replacing it with one having better flow allowed the other mods to work properly. Those mods yielded better off-the-line performance and mid-range passing power, and let the engine run cooler. I understand that current engines are now as powerful as my modified '90 and '98 were, so if I owned one I'd probably leave it bone stock.

"I find it hard to believe that as quite an experienced Harley rider you rarely encounter one with idling problems. I see it a lot, and I try to avoid them as much as possible."

A properly adjusted Harley will idle with no problem. Maybe Milwaukee is full of amateur mechanics who take pride in working on their own bikes but don't really know how.

"A 3-series is a good car, but I'd never own one purely for that reason. I don't want to be grouped as 'that guy.' I've experienced too many BMW owners with attitude problems for me to enjoy almost any of them (excluding the 850CSI!)."

Well, that pretty much sums it up. Your choice of vehicle can be informed by its innate characteristics, or by the image it projects. My own take is that I know who I am, and if others choose to judge me by my wheels, it's their problem, not mine.

David: "Which brings us, at last, to the crux of the matter: the Harley-Davidson motorcycle. Here, Rob has made the classic mistake of confusing form for function."

Rob: "Then why do they vibrate so much? Why do they make so little power out of such massive engines? Why do I see puddles under so many of them? Why do I see so many of them broken down? Just last night, on my way from Chicago to Milwaukee, I saw three of them stranded on the side of the road. I saw zero other kinds of bikes."

The nature of a 45-degree offset-crankpin V-twin is that it will vibrate. The key question, in terms of usability, is how much of that vibration reaches the rider. The answer, going back quite a while, is "very little." And why does the Motor Company continue to cleave to an configuration that vibrates? Because that's what its customers require.

I don't know how much power a contemporary HD engine makes, but the published torque spec is 92 ft. lbs at 3000 rpm. That seems to be enough, but plenty more is available, both from the dealer and the aftermarket. As for the engines being massive, compare them with other bikes in the same class. The air-cooled V-Twin is, in reality, a very compact package.

Puddles? Perhaps you're looking at older bikes. My '90, which had 110K miles when it finally left my custody, never leaked a drop. That's not to say that many of my friends' bikes were similarly dry. Some of them leaked a drop or three when parked. This was not perceived to be an issue worth worrying about.

Stranded? I'd bet that the stranded bikes had been subject to ill-advised modifications. On the way home from Sturgis some years back, one of my companions blew up the engine on his Harley. He took full responsibility, having knowingly bought a "stroker"--a bike whose displacement had been increased by lengthening the piston's travel within the cylinder--that wasn't equipped with a rev limiter.

David: "Well maybe not, but certainly fast enough. My most recent Harley was a very lightly modified top-of-the-line FLHTCU touring model (or, in Harley shorthand, Ultra), the heaviest bike in the company makes. Two-up, with two weeks’ worth of luggage for two stuffed into and on top of its luggage, it had enough power to out-accelerate the average sedan, and to cruise all day long at 85mph. And remember, mine was the slowest Harley money could buy."

Rob: "True, but almost any bike will be faster than most cars on the road. But in the bike world, Harleys are relatively slow."

So the goal is to buy a bike that's faster than most other bikes? Why? Who are we trying to impress?

Photos:
1. Rob had better not encounter this guy. Photo courtesy of Flickr user Jim Skea.
2. Photo courtesy of NYCHog.net.
3. Rob enjoys Harley-Davidson's marketing presence. Photo courtesy of Flickr user Shoeless Joe/64.
4. David Drucker rides his 1990 Ultra in New Hampshire in 1994.
5. David Drucker, his wife Tina, and his biker buddies Tina and Dennis.
6. Harleys are exceptional cruisers. Gorgeous photo courtesy of Flickr user David Giral.
7. David Drucker and friend at Daytona Beach Bike Week.
8. The V-Twin engine is a mainstay of Harley-Davidson propulsion. Photo courtesy of Flickr user Marta F. Gufstasson.
9. BMW agrees--Harleys aren't exactly quiet. Photo courtesy of Going Faster.com.
10. This biker is unlikely to be amused by Rob's opinion. Photo courtesy of Colorado Chaps.com.
11. One this is for sure--this isn't just "a bike." Photo courtesy of Flickr user Hans Viveen.
12. David Drucker in the wind on his 1990 Ultra, on the way to the Sturgis rally in 1997.
13. David Drucker (right), his wife Tina, and his stereotypical Harley-riding sociopath buddies.
14. A Harley-Davidson parked in front of Devil's Tower. Photo courtesy of Flickr user Through Joanne's eye.

Comments

[Mochi Mochi on July 29, 2008 at 03:38 PM]

hardly able son - there's a reason they call 'em that - I know it's a cheap shot - but this is round 1 and someone had to say it ;)

[Big Chris on July 29, 2008 at 04:49 PM]

Just a few words on this. I'm knowledgeable on the subject, having been to 19 years worth of Sturgis Rallies in my life, having lived in the cycle shop from ages 3-18, having worked in a cycle shop for 6 years of my life, having gotten my first cycle at the age of 4 for Christmas (a cool old little Indian dirt bike!).

The new HD's are nothing like the old ones. The older bikes, ESPECIALLY the AMF (for shame Harley, for shame) were the unreliable leakers. To state otherwise is pure denial. The new bikes run better, more reliably, and use far less oil. I remember years at the Sturgis Rally where many of the Harley guys would have to spend the first half day at camp wrenching on their bikes, while anyone on a foreign made bike (BMW's being the primary non-Japanese bike) could ride to town, tour the hills etc. With the Harley riders it was a labor of love, but a labor nonetheless.

I like the new Harleys, and wouldn't hesitate to own one. Except I am unwilling to pay the extra price, and wait in line for a bike that doesn't perform as well as it's Japanese competitors. The image isn't that important to me. Now if I want a bike to mod, there is no question I'm buying Harley. I have a relative who owns a custom Harley Mod shop, and makes some of the most wicked pieces of iron I've ever seen. I'd take one of those in a heartbeat, but again, I don't (at this point in my life) want to tie up the $40-50K to get the bike that I would want. Rather I'll buy a simple Rice Burner that'll get the job done.

My current bike is an 82 Honda Goldwing. 40-45mpg at 75+MPH all day. My dream bike is the 1978/79 Honda CBX. My second dream bike is a highly modded Fat Boy.

Big Chris

[Big Chris on July 29, 2008 at 05:00 PM]

http://www.kustomcycles.com/

This is my relative's site (albeit distant relative). I used to hang out with him at his shop and watch them work. Truly artwork on wheels. Brian Klock has won one of the Discovery Channel's Bike Build Off's, so he's high quality!

Big Chris

[TurboDave on July 29, 2008 at 05:15 PM]

This piece on Harleys had a photo of a BMW bulletin board, but no real reference to BMW motorcycles or other Euro machines. There is truly a motorcycle for everyone. I like neither a crotch rocket Japanese bike, nor a cruiser style bike (whether Harley or a similar Japanese design); I like a "standard" or an "adventure bike" with an upright seating position.

It is important, though, that a motorcycle handle through the corners - really important. I have not tried a Harley product that fills that bill. My admittedly brief try-outs reminded me of trying to steer a pick-up truck without a steering wheel - maybe if I shift my weight all the way over, this thing will move in that direction?? They like to go straight, in my experience.

[sillypickle on July 29, 2008 at 05:19 PM]

I love motorcycles, and plan on buying one someday. I'll never own a Harley, but that's just because I don't see myself putting up with a design that compromises function (read: handling) for the sake of style, especially since that style is something I will never understand.

I'll also never own a superbike. Too much power, too much noise, and a waste of gas if you're not on the racetrack. Better to stick with a 250 or 500 for maximum efficiency in a lighter, better-handling package.

It seems like all of the obnoxious riders out there are people who think they can buy something that should be worked for. The people who are annoying on Harleys are the ones who buy it because they think owning a Harley will make them automatically badass. Annoying sportbike owners tend to have very little riding skill, an inability to wear proper protective equipment, and apparently feel the need to point out that now they have something big and powerful between their legs.

I can't respect anyone whose vehicular choices so obviously have nothing to do with their love for the bikes themselves. The difference between I biker I respect and one I don't is not what kind of bike they ride, or even how loud it is (although I would prefer if their choices were less annoying to others) but whether they got into motorcycling because of bike lust.

[Mochi Mochi on July 29, 2008 at 09:18 PM]

A few thoughts:

David: "most of what Rob doesn't like about Harleys has nothing to do with the motorcycles."

That's true. And Similarly most of what David does not like about whining crotch rockets is also shared by Rob, and again has less to do with the Bike than it does with the rider and the modifications he has made to it. And I agree with both of you. On this point you are both correct.

David: "After enriching the air/fuel mixture and installing a hotter cam, I found the stock exhaust to be too restrictive."

Ok. I have spent a lot of time re-jetting carbs and modding engines. There is an order to engine mods. Plan the mods: air filter, intake manifold, port & polish heads, drop in new cam with appropriately selected profile, if needed put in high capacity coil, add low restriction (not open) headers and exhaust, THEN REJET THE CARB TO MATCH THE PREVIOUS ENGINE MODIFICATIONS!!!!! NEVER change the carb settings and then mechanically balance the Air/Fuel change!

The SuperTrap Exhaust may be one of the best inventions for the engine tuner since it allows the mechanic to balance and vary back pressure and noise. And it can be used to very precisely mate performance and carb jetting. But the SuperTrap unlike other exhausts is specifically tunable. The idea of buying and installing a fixed non-tunable exhaust to match a carb jet aperture is ludicrous.

Please notice I am not taking any stand on the bikes. Bad modifications that are based on superstitions and mythologies lead to crap bikes and cars. Sport Bikes or Harleys that are badly, stupidly, or ignorantly modified are a pox - anathema. They do no one any good at all.

Rob: "I find it hard to believe that as quite an experienced Harley rider you rarely encounter one with idling problems. I see it a lot, and I try to avoid them as much as possible."... "Indeed. How many stay that way? How many ever receive tickets for having an obnoxiously loud exhaust system?"

Put these two questions together and you have your answer. If Harleys have idle problems it's because their owners either don't know how to tune them, or else they have pulled the exhaust packing without rejetting the carb... and therefore dropped their A/F ratio to an ultra lean. The good news for these morons is that they will burn their valves and spend a lot of money on repairs and gasoline.

David: "it had enough power to out-accelerate the average sedan"

Oh puullleeeezzze! What an inditement! In that case get a 250cc Scooter and save some gas. Any motorcycle that can't out accelerate the average sedan should not be on the road. The rider is literally risking his or her life on anything that slow.

David: "My own take is that I know who I am, and if others choose to judge me by my wheels"

That's great and I appreciate it, but I think what Rob is getting at is that he does not want to be part of certain types of "Clubs". He doesn't want to be part of the "Harley Image Club", and he does not want to be a member of the "BMW (Beemer) Attitude Club". For him its not about the ride - it's about the company he keeps. There are a lot of clubs I don't want to join because I don't like the internal rules or the company I would either keep or be lumped with. Nothing wrong with that. You wont find me riding a sport bike wearing a tank top, shorts, and flip-flips. It's not about the machine. Sometimes when you buy something or become an owner you are making a statement. While this is not always true, buying a BMW or a Harley can be considered a "fashion statement". We make statements about what we find important or valuable with our purchasing dollars, and I think it is good to be cautious of what statements we are making.

I personally have a problem when groups develop around objects and language develops to form an inside and an outside. "The Motor Company". "Beemer". "Stuttgart". It's all kind of obnoxious and irrelevant. Some folks just need to feel "in" or "cool". When you are on the inside it probably seems natural. When you are on the outside it seems like a messed up religion or cult.

Rob: "Then why do they vibrate so much?

All motorcycle vibrate. All motorcycles need to have their fasteners frequently checked because they all vibrate. Some vibrate more some less. It's just a fact of riding. Some people care about that some don't. Sport Bikes vibrate at high frequencies. Singles and Twins at low frequencies. It's just not an issue for someone who likes the bike that matches the way he rides.

Rob: "Why do they make so little power out of such massive engines?"

Lots of torque. Lots and lots of torque. These engines are the opposite of the high reving honda engines.

I made a disparaging comment about the Hardly Able Son - but I did so with a smile for good old times. Harleys have gotten better. A lot better. And I like some of the Buels quite a bit. I'm glad that there is still an American motorcycle manufacturer. I don't care that the bikes are old fashioned or antiquated. To me a Norton Commando or a BSA Gold Star is a beautiful bike and they are ancient. My head got completely turned by a 2008 Triumph Thruxton. I'm sure that bike is nothing in comparison to a Ninja 250, but my god it is beautiful. I have similarly seen new Harleys based on 1930s and 1940s designs which are beautiful, classic, and quiet.

I do however have a small bone to pick. In the early 1980s I was intensely interested in motorcycles. Harley was at it's nadir. They bounced back. But they did so by convincing the Reagan Administration to levy unfair tariffs against any foreign motorcycle over 700cc. I'm glad they survived and have prospered, but this was just an unfair and cheap move that impinged on the riding enjoyment and riding choices of all US motorcycle buyers.

Many think of Japanese motorcycles as coming from enormous and wealthy corporations. The truth is that they tend to be small divisions of much larger industries. They are not wealthy and often operate as a loss for their corporations. But they are innovative, efficient, and excellent in most all respects. While Harley was plaguing its riders with leaky badly manufactured crap the Japanese were building better and better bikes. While Harley was sitting back and taking the same dissolute attitude that Detroit exhibited in the 70s, the Japanese were building marvels of efficiency and engineering.

I'm glad that Harley reversed itself and now makes decent quality rides. But for this company which lays claim to such a tough image to take such a pathetically weak approach to reversing its fortunes... well... enough said.

David thanks for pointing out how the anti-japanese sentiment is settling down. That kind of thing was always something that really did not reflect well on Harley riders. It just just seemed racist and ignorant.

Stock Harleys today are nice but pricey rides. Of course with a few exceptions all motorcycles today are pretty over priced. The Kawasaki Ninja 250 being an exception.

[Mochi Mochi on July 30, 2008 at 12:19 AM]

TurboDave: "I like a "standard" or an "adventure bike" with an upright seating position."
SillyPickle: "Better to stick with a 250 or 500"

I'm with TurboDave and SillyPickle. One of the things that really bothers me is that it's very hard to find "a motorcycle" these days. Everything that is being built is built according to a styling fetish. SuperSport Bike or cruiser. The bike that TurboDave is talking about is all too rare. Formerly the standard, now the minority. The closest thing to it are the reborn Triumphs - but you pay an enormous premium for those.

Whether its a Harley or a Honda, as long as the rider is responsible with his bike and riding, the only thing that matters is, is he happy with his bike.

[Kasey Kagawa on July 30, 2008 at 02:58 AM]

Unfortunately, I don't think that you can fully divorce the idea of owning a Harley-Davidson from the image and the marketing campaigns that the company does, because they try so hard to cultivate that image. BMW doesn't go out of their way to emphasize that self-important rich gits own their cars (aside from not having people wearing ratty old clothes in their ads), neither does Porsche or other such sports car manufacturers (Ferrari and Lambo definitely do, though). Harley-Davidson, on the other hand, has spent millions of dollars emphasizing that hard man, biker gang, black leather, obnoxiously loud bike image. I live in southern California, and at least two or three times a week I have a Harley drive past me on the road that has an exhaust so loud that it shakes the windows in my car. Harley-Davidson has made it quite clear from their marketing that this is something that they find acceptable and part of the image that they want for their company, so it's no good saying that you don't think that's what the perception should be when the manufacturer itself is putting that image out there. Sport bike riders are, in my admittedly somewhat limited experience at least, mostly known for killing themselves rather than other people. The asphalt of Ortega Highway is littered with black single-line skid marks that stop at a shiny new piece of Armco, as I'm sure is true on similar roads across the nation. And as one last point on the attitude of bike owners, I've never had a problem with sport bike riders in my life, while I've been harassed and followed twice by Harley riders, once involving the rider purposefully blocking me on the freeway, swerving towards me, and threatening to pull out a gun and shoot me and my sister, who was in the car with me at the time, all because I had the audacity to make a lane change and go around him. I'm sure there's plenty of sport bike riding thugs out there, but you don't see Honda or Kawasaki trying to work some of that into their advertising.

That said, they do it for the same reason they trademarked that "POTATO-POTATO" sound and still use the V-twin engine design: That's what makes a Harley a Harley. For example, when BMW announced that they were going to enter the Superbike World Championship as a manufacturer and were building a brand new bike, I know I wasn't the only one who secretly dreamed that it would be some ridiculous opposed-four hyperbike that revved to 1 million RPM thanks to the boxer engine design and had some insane and revolutionary new form of suspension that used multiple ball joints and a balanced hydropneumatic system instead of a traditional shock. When they did debut their racing bike, it was identical in basic design as every other bike on the grid. I know I wasn't the only one who was a little bit disappointed, and this is from a company that actually makes other engine designs than the flat-twin. Imagine the revolt that would happen if Harley came out with a straight-four engine! They had a hard enough time convincing some of the faithful to accept the V-Rod (which uses a brand-new engine, by the way). For better or for worse, Harley-Davidson is married to that design, and since they're not intended to go out and embarrass a GSXR1300 in a straight line or take on a CBR1000RR on a mountain road, it works just fine for them.

Honestly, Harley-Davidsons are no different than old British sports cars, old Citroens, Alfa Romeos, some Porsches, VW Beetles (Isn't that the same thing? *rimshot*) or any other set of distinctive and specialized niche vehicles. Sure, they're a bit flawed in places and if you looked at it as a purely analytical exercise, they don't make much sense, but if you want to be sensible, buy a Toyota Corolla. People buy Harleys because they want one, and nothing else will do. One could almost say that they lust after them, which is something I think this blog is all about. :)

[Kasey Kagawa on July 30, 2008 at 03:12 AM]

Damn, forgot to mention that in my brief moments of seriously considering getting into motorcycle riding, I quite like the "I'm just a motorcycle, okay?" looks of Honda's Nighthawk 250cc motorcycle. It's not all that powerful as far as bikes go, but it's got that classic look to it. It's only the realization that I trust my fellow drivers about as far as I can throw their cars and the thought that all that separates me from the rough, face-unfriendly asphalt is air, my helmet and some leather and padding instead of all that nice, safe metal that my car uses that keeps me from following through with my fascinations.

[Chris Hafner on July 30, 2008 at 08:14 AM]

I could write a lot on this subject, but I think Rob and David have already hit the electron quota for this debate. So, briefly:

- I would look asinine astride a hog, but I can definitely understand the appeal and can't shake the thought that it would be fun to own one someday.

- Harleys aren't as fast as sport bikes, their hardware is more notable for how they look than how they perform, but boy, do they look good. Harleys look *great,* they sound mean, and they cruise like nobody's business. As much as I love high-tech hardware, there's something intrinsically awesome about how a v-twin looks and sounds. It's pure attitude. Don't agree? Think of Arnold Schwarzanegger riding a Harley Fat Boy in Terminator 2 with a shotgun in his hand--that bike was pure, raw, unsaturated, unhomogenized, FDA-approved, Grade A awesome.

- My Harley knowledge is tiny and insignificant, but David's arguments that Harleys are no longer outdated seem pretty convincing and rooted in knowledge. But even if Harleys were outdated, so what? Based on the cars I've featured on the blog, it's pretty obvious that outdated hardware doesn't particularly bother me, as long as the vehicle manages to be appealing. For me, at least Harleys have the same sort of basic, raw appeal of an old muscle car. Buying a brand-new, right-off-the-assembly-line 1974 Trans-Am HD455 at a premium price might not make a lot of strict financial sense, but wouldn't it be great to have the option? Heck--Morgan sells brand new British sports cars that are fundamentally 40 years old and gets worshipped for it.

And again, this is even if Harleys are outdated. If I could buy a '74 Trans-Am HD455 that got double-digit fuel mileage, ran reliably, and had modern disc brakes, I'd jump at the opportunity.

- I agree about the all-consuming Harley marketing. The old Piggly Wiggly supermarket in Sturgis is now a Harley store, with roughly 2 percent of the floor space dedicated to parts sales and the other 98 percent to selling every imaginable product branded with the Harley logo. To my uninformed eyes, Harley seems to have made the transition from a motorcycle manufacturer to a marketing and lifestyle company that manufactures motorcycles to help legitimize its apparel and accessory sales alive.

But even so, once you're immersed in the world, it makes perfect sense. Last summer, I was back in Sturgis for a family wedding a few weeks before the rally. After several days spent immersed in the rising tide of Harleys, I was irresistibly pulled towards the old Piggly Wiggly to buy some merchandise. I wound up buying a shirt with a bald eagle on back--the eagle was screaming in apparent anger, which is understandable since it was on fire and draped with barbed wire. My wife, who would normally sneer at anything motorcycle-related, came *this* close to buying a leather jacket with an embroidered turqoise screaming chicken on the back.

There's something weirdly compelling about it, and while I'm not a Harley guy, I find it hard to judge either the bikes or the people who own them. My own tastes are strange enough, and as I said in the SUV thread, I live in an incredibly fragile glass house and am not about to start throwing stones.

[Rob the SVX guy on July 30, 2008 at 08:31 AM]

Mochi, I said about the same thing in the small novel above ;)

"I feel that motorcycles, today, have really lost what makes a bike a bike. Now, you either have to wrap yourself in a flag, wear black leather, and pretend to be a badass while riding an obnoxiously loud, obnoxiously large, obnoxiously chromed out Harley, or you have to dye your hair, dress like a brightly colored superhero, and pretend to be "extreme" while riding an obnoxiously fast, obnoxiously twitchy,obnoxiously boy racerish sport bike. Today, there is no middle ground. Why can't they just be a bike? Case in point--the Honda CB series from the 1970s. A Honda CB wasn't large, it wasn't small. It wasn't fast, it wasn't slow. It didn't look like a chromed-out cruiser, it didn't look like a fiberglass racing machine. This is the bike that appeals to me, because it's reliable, reasonable, and it doesn't shove any pretext down the rest of the public's throats. You're just some guy on a bike."

David, being obsessed with cruisers, associated this comment with a CB750, which isn't what I was writing about. I meant the CB series. Specifically, 125s, 175s, 250s, etc. They're just motorcycles... not cruisers, not sportbikes. To me, it just doesn't get much better than this:

http://www.bradsbikes.net/image_collection/picview.aspx?maxWidth=500&pic=20050609220824.jpg

[Rob the SVX guy on July 30, 2008 at 08:34 AM]

Chris, Honda civics with a fart cannon and bodykit look and sound mean, but that doesn't make them cool.

[Chris Hafner on July 30, 2008 at 08:41 AM]

Rob the SVX guy: "Chris, Honda civics with a fart cannon and bodykit look and sound mean ..."

Yikes, you think so? With a few rare exceptions, I think they look ridiculous, like a 12-year-old girl wearing brass knuckles. I think a Harley Fat Boy lives in an entirely different zip code.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that Harleys are all sound and fury, signifying nothing, and I'm reluctant to give up ability for a look. But at the same time, car lust (and, I'd assume bike lust) is all about visceral response, and the Fat Boy stirs my viscera.

And, again, David and Big Chris make some pretty good arguments that Harleys aren't all sound and fury anymore, that the bikes themselves are pretty decent.

[Mochi Mochi on July 30, 2008 at 08:50 AM]

The attitude thing is a problem with some Harley riders as it is with "sportbike" riders. Kasey's experiences are a case in point. One can correctly say that there are bad apples in every lot, and that the majority of riders are good responsible people. But attitude can be an issue with subcultures as they interact with the larger public. And group behavior is something that often negatively enhances attitude.

In the case of bad "sportbike" riders they usually self-destruct, and because they are interested in speed rather than "lingering" they usually go away as quickly as they arrive. So interactions are typically brief and infrequent.

My only real problems with the Harley riders I've encountered on the roads is poor riding skills (never heard of "counter-steer") and a tendency to stubbornly "hog" the road. It would be amusing to watch these behemoths try to navigate a canyon or back country road, if it weren't frustratingly slow and rude. In canyon country there is a rule of etiquette that most adhere to - "pull over and let the faster vehicles safely pass". When, unlike the majority of motorists and sportbikers, Harley riders refuse to pull over an let traffic pass, it's just rude. Are these the same guys who drive boring sedans, trucks, and SUVs that block the highspeed lane - the "passing" lane - on freeways? If you can't go fast and don't want to, that's fine, but get out of the way. Enjoy the breeze and the views and make good use of turn-outs. I've had sportbike riders clear the road for my Civic when they realized they couldn't make speed and were holding me up. Likewise when I want to focus on the foliage or the view I make sure I'm not holding anyone up. Any good driver or rider is aware of what's behind him as well as what's in front of him. Is the "image" so fragile that politely stepping aside and letting people pass somehow becomes a personal embarrassment or shame?

[David Drucker on July 30, 2008 at 09:24 AM]

Rob wrote: "David, being obsessed with cruisers, associated this comment with a CB750, which isn't what I was writing about. I meant the CB series. Specifically, 125s, 175s, 250s, etc. They're just motorcycles... not cruisers, not sportbikes."

Well, I'm obsessed with touring bikes, not cruisers, but I take your point. I wouldn't want to ride one of those small-displacement CBs all day long, but within their capabilities they were splendid bikes, one and all.

Mochi Mochi wrote: "My only real problems with the Harley riders I've encountered on the roads is poor riding skills (never heard of "counter-steer") and a tendency to stubbornly "hog" the road."

I certainly don't contenance poor riding skills, and have gone out of my way to avoid riding with those who exhibit them. All of the people I rode with on a regular basis took the Motorcycle Safety Foundation's Experienced Rider course, and we all were much better riders for having done so.

In that context, I was going to avoid responding to the "shift my weight" comment about Harley handling. But since countersteering has been mentioned, I'd like to add that a trained rider will never have to shift his weight to get a Harley to respond in corners. A little more throttle, a little more pressure on the opposite grip, and you're good. Even my pig of an Ultra could lean far enough to scrape the floorboards without compromising stability. (The floorboards were hinged.)

[Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame on July 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM]

Chris said: "...and the Fat Boy stirs my viscera."

...as well as the Diet Dew in my car, and the pile of leaves across the street, and some kid's oatmeal 3 blocks away.

I'm kind of surprised there aren't documented cases of avalanches and earthquakes being triggered by Fat Boy sonic assaults.

The only time I care about Harleys is when I'm angered that I can't hear the music in my own car with the windows up and the air system on high because the Hog in front of me drowns out everything accelerating from the stoplight.

Enjoying your own loud sound is good and all, I guess, but when you can prevent me from hearing what I want to hear in my own car, you've gone too far.

[sillypickle on July 30, 2008 at 11:40 AM]

We have Diet Dew at my work, and I just tried one...I think I'll be sticking with regular Dew from now on. Aspartame is a very poor substitute for sugar.

[Mochi Mochi on July 30, 2008 at 12:58 PM]

Touring bikes are great. I don't care what the brand or the size. These are bikes built for long distance. And as far as I'm concerned that's great. They are not about being tough, tearing up the tarmac, or even being particularly fast - it's about being in the elements and experiencing all that is great about the outdoors. The bikes are about stability and comfort in the long haul. In that context I fully understand and appreciate the Harley.

Warning: To anyone who is riding a motorcycle and who does not know what counter-steer is - STOP RIDING RIGHT NOW because you don't know what you are doing and you are endangering your life and the lives of others. It is not possible to effectively steer a motorcycle through "weight-shifting". Unless you learned naturally to counter-steer and never formally heard what it was called - take a course and/or read up on it.

Counter-steering is the most basic and important skill any rider can employ in steering a bike at speeds above walking pace. In a seemingly counter-intuitive manner, you steer briefly in the opposite direction of a turn to blank the bike into the correct lean angle for executing a turn. For a right turn, steer briefly left to set the bike up, the bike will bank to the right, then correct the steering to balance the bike in its banked attitude. Some believe this is based on gyroscopic effects - it is actually based on inertia/momentum and the distance of the contact patch from the motorcycles center of gravity.

Other motorcycle riding myths "never use your front brake". If you believe this you need to start over and take a course in motorcycle safety. 80 or more percent of effective braking takes place in the front brakes.

Other signs of a bad rider relate to the riders feet - what he does and does not do with them:
1) dragging your feet at anytime or any speed
2) dropping a foot to the inside of a turn on the road (it may work on the dirt at low speeds - on the road you'll just brake something - like your foot).
3) leaving your feet dangling as you pull away from a stop.
4) riding with your feet on the passenger pegs to look like a racer
5) riding with your feet on the handle bars to look like a reckless idiot
6) riding while standing on the seat or tank of a motorcycle - check youtube and see how that can end.
7) riding with feet out-splayed on "touring" pegs where you have no access to the shifter or the rear brake. And where your riding position is probably more about show than comfort or motorcycle control & safety.

A good rider should be able to bring a motorcycle to a full and complete stop and then just balance there, only putting a foot down when desired. When pulling away from a stop feet are immediately on the pedals. Some of the best street riders I've ever seen were motorcycle cops. Those guys get drilled to death on form and skill. No matter how many donuts they may look like they've consumed they usually have great form. The California CHP motorcycle cops are some of the best and they stay away from donuts - more sprouts and granola I think.

Oh and as to the question of leaning off a racing motorcycle. This is not about steering, this is about weight transfer. The only reason to do it is that all available cornering clearance is used up, the bike is leaned over as far as it can go, and you need to shift the center of gravity lower and towards the inside of a curve in order to go faster. It is a technique that is almost entirely useless in street riding. The technique was pioneered by Kenny Roberts in the 70's and is an effective, now standard technique, in tarmac racing. Don't use it on the street. In the canyons? Give it up - you should be riding an RD400 (anything else is too wide, too slow and too heavy) and you'll never have time to the need to hang off the bike.

[Anthony Cagle on July 30, 2008 at 01:21 PM]

I find this whole thing rather fascinating. It touched a lot of the same nerves as the SUV thread, as others have mentioned. Our opinions of vehicles are so mashed up together with all the sociocultural associations we place on them that it's sometimes difficult to dissociate the technical from the visceral. Someone mentions "Harley" I think Hell's Angels. BMW = yuppie who thinks he's (it's always a "he") on the Autobahn. SUV = yuppie who thinks they look outdoorsy. Mustang II = charming, witty, erudite and altogether smashingly good-looking driver.

Okay, I made that last one up.

It's tough to get past all that. I recall I once mentioned to my Spousal Unit that I might be interested in a BMW 3-series if I replaced my (*ahem*) Mustang II. She gaped and said something like "But they're all A**HOLES!" I admit to feeling similar if I imagined myself actually driving one. Would I want to associate myself with that?

[Brian on July 30, 2008 at 08:42 PM]

Most of them are too loud, but otherwise cool. A friend of mine has a '96 Sportster which is a fine bike that's very reliable and economical to run. I can certainly understand the appeal of a HD or any decent bike. You get the wind, air, all the sense of being outside, but you're not walking. That's cool. I've had a good number of smiles, waves, otherwise positive gestures from bikers while cruising in my 924, which I guess they approve of. I don't have anything negative to say about Harleys except that they're usually too damn loud. If it were me, I'd get a '79 Honda. haha. You can only ride a bike in my part of the country (AK) from late May through early September, but people still do it, there's nothing like riding through mountain passes and nice scenery on a bike. There are rallies throughout the state all summer long.

[Mochi Mochi on August 03, 2008 at 12:00 AM]

I think we're looking at Harleys monolithically. There is diversity and some really interesting work. You just don't get to see enough. To that end I present what I think are some of Harleys best and most exciting bikes. The flat trackers !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk-mV4ybQgw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijacjrglVNo&feature=related

The 70's sound track really works for me.

And this 1965 aermacchi harley davidson sprint 'C' 250 CC single is gorgeous. Talk about a nice sound. This is music to my ears. I'd be proud and honored to ride one of these beauties.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bONySgC_Q9A&feature=related

The more I look at them the more I see something wonderful in harley-land.

[Rob the SVX guy on August 04, 2008 at 08:53 PM]

I saw this online, and had to share:

"There are three kinds of motorcyclists:

1) Those that ride in a reasonable manner. Most people don't even notice.
2) Those that ride like a jackass, passing between lanes and going through every slim opening they see.
3) Those that have made their bike loud as ****.

So, as you can clearly see, two thirds of bikers are obnoxious and the other third goes unnoticed. So, you could probably say that all bikers are obnoxious."

Heh.

[Sillypickle on August 05, 2008 at 08:45 AM]

I disagree with the notion that lane-splitting automatically makes one a jackass. Done carefully, at reasonable speeds, with the proper gear on, it's actually very safe. It's also one of the best reasons to own a motorcycle, since it allows you to keep moving when traffic is stopped.

I would substitute riders who do wheelies, don't wear proper gear, and bought a 600 or 1000cc sportbike as their first ride thinking they could handle the power for the jackasses in number 2. Every time I see someone like that, I know it's only a matter of time before they are going to get in a huge accident and probably kill themselves.

[SFBadger on August 19, 2008 at 01:41 PM]

Rob, I'm curious to know what bikes you currently own or have owned?

[Rob the SVX guy on August 27, 2008 at 08:24 AM]

Something I promise you that you've never heard of. The manufacturer is Tatran.