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.
Herb on September 05, 2008 at 08:02 AM
It's obvious Rob never drove a Harley and relies on rumors only.
I recently sold my "two wheeled car" 2007 Goldwing for a 2008 Harley Ultra and I don't regret it a bit. Rob says "I feel that motorcycles, today, have really lost what makes a bike a bike." and "why can't they just be a bike?" Well the Harley captures all of what a bike should be and always was.
The Wings' look and ride just like a Honda car without a roof, and what bike ever had an AIRBAG? I always that that was the old lady on the back!
Rob, you get an F- on your appraisal and knowledge of motorcycles.
Rob the SVX guy on September 09, 2008 at 09:11 AM
Sorry Herb, bikes were not meant to weigh upwards of 850lbs. No, I have not ridden (notice I'm avoiding using the verb 'driven' because on a bike the size of a harley, you are merely riding on it, not driving it anywhere) on a Harley. They do not build a bike that would suit my size, and I would look completely ridiculous. Course... all Harley owners look ridiculous, so I guess I'd fit in.
c note on December 06, 2009 at 09:35 PM
seriously. cut the crap.
harleys are the loudest things on the planet.
they interrupt everything and impress no one over the age of 19.
seriously. millions of people are on my side with this one.
why do you think there is an episode of south park about this very subject?
honestly im surprised there isnt more.
i also know this is a pro bike site...because you jokers gave the "counter-point" about 5 pages to the anti-harley guy.
give me a break!
Mike on July 13, 2010 at 12:55 PM
I'm riding a 1994 1200 sportster, It doesn't look like a sportster,
The torque is amazing,but it handles like a rock!
I'm thinking about a Honda Fury ?? I'll bet they handle!
C:\Users\Michael\Pictures\2009-02-03 PICTURES\PICTURES 249