Two points that I wish that they would've touched on more in the article is the general downturn in motorcycle sales in the US, as well as the huge used market.
To the first point, motorcycle sales in the US never really recovered from the recession, and it doesn't seem like they're coming back anytime soon. Is this because new motorcycles (regardless of brand) cost more than they used to, a lack of disposable income among the target audience, or failure of motorcycle manufactures to branch out to new audiences? I don't have the answers to these questions, but I think that they all play a role into the sales decline.
Secondly (and more specific to Harley), the used motorcycle market is HUGE. Go on Craigslist and look at the motorcycles that are on sale. Near me, it seems that every 3rd or 4th bike is a Harley. When the used market is so large and the models don't change that much from year to year, why would you buy new when you could pick up a slightly used bike and save 10% to 20% off of the sticker price?
>Secondly (and more specific to Harley), the used motorcycle market is HUGE.
Kind of sucks if this is really hurting the company.
Companies that design things that last should be somehow rewarded. This is important and needs to be figured out. Otherwise we will drown in garbage that self-destructs after warranty expiration or things that are deliberately un-repairable.
Planned obsolescence is not as "smart" as some people make it out to be. It wastes natural resources, contributes to pollution, makes things less reliable and removes incentives to produce real innovation in the future.
Definitely worth reading. I wonder how a motorcycle can be unreliable and have a large second-hand market at the same time. Are they highly modular? Can you easily build one working motorcycle out of two broken ones?
HD is not known for having unusually good reliability and build quality. In fact, most people consider them below average.
I suspect the issue is not that their bikes last so long per se, but rather that so many people buy them, don't ride them much and then decide to stop riding motorcycles. There is probably a fairly high amount of purchases that go to middle-aged dudes looking for a new hobby that give it up pretty quickly.
I'm all in favour of that, and have reached an age that a cruiser style bike is starting to appeal.
Yet Harley have changed so little that they haven't had the benefits of handling and reliability all the other manufacturers have. Riding a new one is like teleporting back to my youth. Mostly for the wrong reasons.
I test rode one a few years ago and it quickly told me I'll never have a Harley.
To explain, the Triumph Bobber looks beautifully like an old hard tail. Like all the Triumph classics it handles and runs like a decent modern bike. It's got cartridge forks, Brembos, ABS, traction control and the reliable twin engine. There's way more ground clearance than I'm ever likely to run out of.
Harleys finally actually go around corners, but still pretty reluctantly. Still way too easy to ground without trying. They'll pair the big engine with a miniscule tank for range around 100m, sometimes down near 50! They're hot, heavy, and slow, you get OK but uninspiring handling with simple suspension, but the single disc up front never felt enough thanks to all that weight. Then they charge more than just about everyone else, but still have a reputation for being unreliable. That leaves just the big V twin sound and looks to buy for.
The Bobber is everything Harley could be doing, yet costs lots less than most Harleys. They have more than enough reputation, and they have more than enough decent looking bikes in their history to remake as modern classics.
Not really disagreeing with your larger point, but in this specific instance it's less "designed to last" and more "not actually used".
The article points out how owners are getting older, having more health issues, etc. and that the bikes aren't actually used for anything but fun rides on the weekends.
Harley Davidson is an incredibly powerful brand, but it's not a brand built off of ultra reliability and the creation of long lasting vehicles.
The brand is for a particular style; all of their attempts to expand out of that niche have failed for various reasons, especially resistance from their core audience.
Harleys are highly modular. That's why no two really look alike, for the most part. There's also a large custom builder market, often fabricating entire bikes from nothing but an engine and some aftermarket parts like wheels and brakes. That's probably another thing cutting into their market... the people who can afford a $25k luxury bike to express their individuality can often afford a $50k totally custom bike from a boutique builder, that is much cooler.
Harleys aren't very reliable, but they are durable. The basic structure and mechanical parts are fairly robust and when something breaks it's easy to repair. So you see a lot of old ones still on the road.
I bought my first bike around 1996 for $500.
Today with inflation that =~$740
It was a 1984 Honda NightHawk 650.
It cost me $5 to fill the fuel tank ($0.50/L)
That same bike now costs $1000-$1500. Depending on amount of work needed. (and would cost $20 to fill the fuel tank)
So it's a multi-part problem.
(a) disposable income
(b) actual cost
Used bikes are too damn expensive for what you are getting. If I can buy a used car (from a newer model year) for LESS then the cost of an older motorcycle then the 'value' proposition will never make sense.
I'd love to ride again. Until these 'hobby items' get priced accordingly they won't catch on again.
I'd also suggest that the 'kids' today grew up with helicopter parents and had to wear 'bike helmets' and other 'safety' gear. Being left alone to get a broken arm or other chances to 'get hurt' is a good thing. I wonder if we haven't scared that out of too many kids.
That second point is very important. I know a dozen motorcycle riders (only 1 harley owner), but all the bikes are used. With fewer parts, fewer features, and no phone/stereo/ac/heated seats/navigation/adaptive cruse control, there's not a lot of innovation in the actual ride of a motorcycle to buy.
Motorcycles have also not kept up with the times on engine technology. They only began switching away from carburetors around 2005. Drag your feet on technological advancement, and your year-to-year product consequently changes less.
Suspension design has also remained really simple to my eyes compared to cars. Maybe it can't be improved, but the last major innovation/change in suspension was in the mid 70's with single shock design.
"They" is somewhat misleading. My 1995 BMW R1100GS has fuel injection, terrifying ABS, and fancy suspension-wishbone front and paralever rear (to deal with the shaft drive behavior).
When you compare the rear suspension of modern mountain bikes to Harleys, it gets even worse. You get the overall impression that it is all about what is mechanically easy, not comfortable or performant.
For sure. I ride a 2000 CBR929RR. 150 horsepower, only weights ~ 435 lbs, and it's fuel injected. Sure, a brand new CBR1000RR has ~40 more HP and is 2 lbs lighter, but 150 is still ridiculous for a street bike. I can't get to the top of first gear at a legal speed anywhere in the state (Road America aside), and wouldn't anyway because you can't keep the front wheel on the ground at WOT passed 8-9k RPM. The only thing I'm really missing out on are the fancy electronics like traction and wheelie control, but who wants those anyway?
Very valid points, and also people are making better decisions by deciding not to be organ donors. With cell phones, more drivers on the road are very distracted, this is a very dangerous time to be riding, perhaps when most of the cars on the road become self driving then that will become a safer time. It seems 1 out of every 10 drivers on the road is on their phone, it's already scary driving in a big car.
I bought my first bike here earlier this year aged 35. I took the MSF course at a Harley dealer and talked a bit about what bike might fit me best for riding as a casual/weekend rider (up to maybe 5k miles per year if I ride a lot). No one really recommended a Harley. I got a couple Indian recs, but mostly it was Yamaha and Honda. I ended up with a 2017 Honda Shadow Phantom after sitting on it for a while in the show room of the Honda dealer and I'm quite happy with it.
Harley absolutely feels like a fashion thing to me. I know a few folks who really like them, but it doesn't seem to be based on anything other than "they're Harleys, man." I don't think the Harley brand is going to die off, but it does feel a bit pigeonholed right now as the rough and tumble, leather & dome helmets type of rider right now. Honda doesn't feel like any particular type of bike. I don't feel like I should be wearing anything in particular on it, and I haven't had anyone look at me oddly for riding a matte black cruiser with a high-vis helmet yet. I feel like I would've if I were on a Harley.
Speaking as an engine mechanic, and avid motorcycle rider, Harley has burned a lot of bridges. This island they stand on now is their own doing.
At some point they killed themselves with the myopic nature of metrics. understanding the average rider age of a harley led them to start investing in motor homes and golf carts assuming the market was going to vanish underneath them. At the same time, the Milwaukee managers froze the plant in time out of sheer terror that any change would drive away their customers. in the 80's the "engine sound" patent was recognized which only nailed Harleys other foot to the floor.
Harley still ran on a chain primary drive by 2007...the last car that ran on this was the Packard in 1930. The only innovation that came to this was plastic guide shoes to replace the old metal ones out of a cost saving effort that basically empowered the transmission to kill the bike after 20,000 miles.
Management went completely deaf. in 2001 the death wobble for Dyna's sold to the california highway patrol was ignored twice by the company, and once proven by CHP riders on a closed course, the company begrudgingly issued a parts fix but no recall, and no replacement. Harley in 2010 still had single crankpin, inlay type piston rod engine made largely from pot steel iron that pushed 650lbs in their smallest sportster motorcycles. They were failing a plurality of foreign emissions controls for both noise and air quality but didnt seem to care. 33 years ago most managers remembered the tariff they lobbied government for, and how it saved harley. They expected another one.
comparatively they were getting crushed by better bikes. Japan had double crankpin, liquid cooled, fuel injected, balanced and computerized engines that outlasted harley davidson by hundreds of thousands of miles and ran on low maintenance solutions like belt drive and shaft drive that didnt need service for 100,000 miles. Even japans air cooled monsters like the Yamaha Raider 1900cc in 2006 could idle comfortably in 100 degree summer heat...something Harleys largest models that were still 300cc's smaller could not achieve without shutting down a cylinder and entering "parade mode"
Harleys v-rod, their only new design, came from Porsche, and their new exhaust came from a consortium of other motorcycle manufacturers who offered options and techniques for compliance. They desperately want to get out of the manufacturing business and into the 'branding' business. Sure, the milwaukee 8 is a nice new engine, but at 40-50 grand for a new dyna glide, harley still misses the point.
Gone are the boomers that will drop that kind of money. I'll go for a Honda Goldwing which is not only more powerful, but more reliable and cheaper, than a new bagger.
Harley arguably isnt a motorcycle company at all, its desperately trying to just be a household brand. Better US motorcycle companies like Victory and indian (polaris) exist with modern double overhead cam design, liquid cooling and keyless start to name a few features, but victory learned the hard way what it means to go toe to toe with a brand that exists as a living anachronism.
> Harley arguably isnt a motorcycle company at all
And they know it.... or did at one time.
"We're in the fashion business," Willie Davidson, the grandson of Harley co-founder William A. Davidson told People in 1981. "No one needs a motorcycle. It's your toy or hobby. It has to do something for your ego."
And like any fashion business, if you lock into a demographic, you're left with nothing once that demographic dies out.
An interesting set of points. It seems HD is still missing the boat:
And Harley’s response—an electric bike called the LiveWire set to debut next year—isn’t so much of a Hail Mary as it is a capitulation. It also won’t be nearly enough.
Zero Motorcylces: www.zeromotorcycles.com is shipping electric bikes right now and has ten, or almost ten, years of experience actually doing so. What's HD going to add to that besides branding?
It's interesting to watch these scenarios unfold, I bet there isn't a manager within the company that doesn't recognise the hurdles they face yet they are completely unable to rise to the challenge.
In some ways they may be better off by just doubling down on what they are good at. It's similar to the situation Kodak faced, should they embrace the new technologies knowing they probably won't be very competitive or just soldier on and make the most of a declining market.
I read recently that the chairman of Fiat said they aren't working on electric cars at the moment because they would rather be late than wrong.
Note: Harley has used belt final drives since the 90s. There's nothing really wrong with chains except for maintenance and the belt fixes that at the cost of performance, which had never been Harley's forte.
I like the cruiser riding style, and the aesthetic of at least some of the bikes. It can be very comfortable for long distances (I rode 1200 miles in NZ on a HD Road King), but I expect that style to be married to some substance. I'd like a bike that:
- Doesn't weigh more than the moon
- Can do 0-60 in 2.5 seconds or so
- Has a top speed >150mph
- Has fuel economy >40mpg (imperial)
- Has decent wind protection
- Hard, capacious luggage (both panniers and topbox)
- New OTR cost of £15-20k, ideally at the lower end of that range
The fundamental problem with Harley Davidson is they're all show and no go. All that sound and thunder sadly amounts to very little.
Triumph and Moto Guzzi do better, and the latter have embraced a more modern/futuristic aesthetic (as with the Suzuki M109R BOSS), but for almost all cruisers (Rocket 3 aside) power disappointingly tops out at around 100 +/- 20 bhp.
Yes, that's right: I'm saying I want it all, and I'm making no apology whatsoever for that. I want the riding style and looks of a cruiser (or futuristic cruiser), married to the light weight and performance of a sports or hyperbike (ZZR1400 weighs in at a "mere" 270kg or so).
Motorcycle companies: I know you can do this so please stop faffing around and get on with it.
There's only 3 production motorcycles here which can do 0-60 in 2.5 sec. You're asking for a cruiser which accelerates faster than, say, the (200hp supercharged liter bike) Ninja H2, with "capacious luggage", while getting double its fuel economy, and costing less.
I think if any motorcycle company could drastically increase performance and efficiency while dropping prices, they would. Harley's brand is married to vintage styling but others are not. Bragging rights for "fastest bike" have been hotly contested over the years.
I think mostly the problem you've got there is that people looking for most of those things would go out and buy a BMW 1200GS. Ok, it's not a cruiser but it's just about as comfortable to sit on. All the luggage options and wind protection you could ask for and well ridden can keep up with most sports bikes in the real world.
There are some bikes which get close to your brief; you mentioned the Rocket III but if you're willing to compromise on what a cruiser would look like you've also get the Ducati Diavel. I'm not sure how much more room there is in this segment.
I think in some ways that's probably part of the problem Harley Davidson. New genres of motorcycles have come an gone without them making any attempt at competing with them.
>Motorcycle companies: I know you can do this so please stop faffing around and get on with it.
Maybe they really can't do it. Cars are doing some pretty impressive things with their engines these days with regard to fuel economy and performance, but they also sell orders of magnitude more units, and can afford to dedicate enormous engineering resources to engine development to achieve that performance. Motorcycle engines, like lawn mower engines, seem to be permanently stuck technologically in the 1970s.
The Honda NC700 is about as close as you'll come. Its basically half of the Honda fits engine in a motorcycle. The problem is that motorcycles are rearly sold on practicalities alone.
Also, there is a bit of a diminishing returns element. My motorcycle (SV650) had an engine originally designed in the 90s, slightly modernised with some electronics and it gets 60+mpg comuting to West London. If it got another 10mpg it'd save maybe £2 a week in fuel, which means the return on investment time is basically infinite.
60+mpg (assuming US gallons here) isn't that impressive; that's just slightly better than a Prius.
But most motorcycles seem to do much worse, more like 40mpg (US). My car gets about that, while being many times heavier. Motorcycles generally have terrible fuel economy considering their size and power.
I'm under the impression that Harley customers (and customers of similar bikes of other brands) like noise and acceleration. An ebike has acceleration but by definition is quiet. I like speed and acceleration and I hate loud noise (one of the few that like modern Formula 1 hybrids.) I could buy an ebike but I'm not a biker. Would Harley be able to convert its customers to the new paradigm or should it rebuild a totally different customer base?
A Harley owner once told me that he'll never buy a silent electric bike. He was also worried about people not noticing a silent bike coming and crossing the road at the wrong moment.
This article is romancing a company that has had consistent quality issues in the last few decades, sold its image out to WalMart in the 2000s, and doesn't appeal to modern riders.
I'm not a boomer (38) and would still like a motorcycle now that I have the time and money to enjoy it but a Harley doesn't appeal at all (I'm English), they really haven't moved with the times, if I was going to get anything it would be something like an early 80's CB750 as when I was a kid they where the 'cool' bikes and I'd likely kill myself on anything more modern in short order.
"80's CB750 as when I was a kid they where the 'cool' bikes and I'd likely kill myself on anything more modern in short order."
Modern motorcycles are way, way safer than an early 80's CB750. ABS, traction control, brakes and tires that are light years ahead of 80's tech, lighter weight, more agile etc. The only reason to ride a CB750 is because they're cool, not safer!
1.
As 'more modern' bikes are lighter, have better brakes, suspension/handling and most importantly ABS.
2.
Harley can't move on with the times. They did with their 'V-Rod' featuring a 'modern' liquid cooled engine designed by Porsche. They discontinued it this year. Harley riders want the old Harley image.
My motorcycle has 70hp. I can tell you that on the average ride I rarely use half of that. I don't think that'd be any different if my bike had 170hp. Realistically on the road you can't use that kind of power unless you are just trying to lose your licence on an empty motorway (although it's still fun to have it).
I, for one, have refused to purchase a sport bike on numerous occasions - including my "dream bike" - because I know its too much bike and that might get me into trouble. I've never felt that way about any of my cruisers or dirt bikes.
That's it exactly, my friends went through a superbike phrase and it was crash after crash at best written off bikes at worst hospital stays (fortunately).
If I go modern I'll probably get something like an SV650.
It's more the ability to ride long distances comfortably I want not pant wetting speed.
As someone who was riding those 80s CBs, Zs, and GS's, at the time, all I can say is don't. Outside of things like the GPz900R, Katanas etc, they usually handled pretty horribly. Old Ducatis and Laverdas of that era handled really well compared to most of the Japanese bikes back then, but slowly. Flickable they were not, so plan Italian lines well in advance. :)
The biggest transformation of bikes the last 20 years has been handling. Now they generally all handle pretty well, with a few exceptions. So if you like the style of early CBs and Zs, pick one of the many retro remakes that have come out in the last 10 or so years.
Even as a slow and careful driver you are much better off with a newer bike. They handle better, brakes are better, you have much more leeway in an emergency. Just don't get a 100+hp monster.
There are modern bikes that fall into the same market niche as the old CBs.
For small displacement bikes that are light, inexpensive, and reliable, you could consider the Honda CB300F, which is available with ABS and a modern 300cc engine. If you must have a slightly more retro style, there's the Suzuki TU250X - it's a solid all-around bike, but no ABS.
Both will likely be just as fast as the older CB750, handle better, stop better, and probably not cost much more money (CBs have gone way up in value, plus whatever time you spend brining it back to reliable condition).
If you want a mid-displacement bike, yeah, they're fast, a bit more money, but still better bikes in just about every way compared to anything form the 70s.
There are a couple modern bikes out there that would be great for you! The Rebel 500 is gorgeous, a bit retro, and will keep you out of trouble. Since it's being made today, you won't run into the parts availability issues you will see with a vintage CB750. https://powersports.honda.com/2018/rebel-500.aspx
You Brits manufacture some of the most beautiful bikes like Nortons, Royal Enfields and Triumphs. Great looking bikes and very easy to live with and maintain. I'd definitely pick one of those instead of a Harley any given day. Harley's are very cumbersome to drive, and maintenance costs are very high.
As someone who loves Japanese supersport bikes, I wonder if in 40 years I will be the dying breed of people who just want to cling to old glories on a 600cc petrol engine thats about 50x more bike than I'll ever be able to handle :,)
I rode 10,000 miles all over the US one summer on a harley 883 sportster. Loved it and the bike ran great. I actually like the lack of technology on the bikes because they are easy to fix.
Not a rider, but HD's story sounds very similar to Gibson's and Fender's - whose past is going extinct but having difficulty moving or even figuring out their future.
I don't think these match up very well. While Gibson's most iconic guitar is the LP and Fender's is the Strat, they still make a bunch of different guitars that are NOT expensive, but play great. This is moreso true of Fender, who makes amazing guitars in the $500-750 range. They also don't come with any particular image associated with them. Strats have been used for all sorts of music, from Iron Maiden to John Mayer.
Gibson feels a bit more stuck to an image, but it doesn't feel old and crusty the way Harley does.
No "faiulure" here...HD has lasted far longer than the average corporation and created an iconic product that still has hardcore devotees.
The electric bike will sell poorly and HD will retreat back into its market for obnoxious hogs. One day when that market goes away, they can sell the brand to some Chinese billionaire and call it a day.
Any company that operates profitably for a generation is a success in my book regardless of how it ends.
I’m surprised a company whose whole business model is allowing old white guys to essentially troll (be so loud and annoying as to bother everyone else in the visinity) is not doing well in the age of Trump.
A Harley traveling past you at speed is loud enough to cause physical pain if you don't cover your ears. It's a product designed such that normal use is anti-social behavior. If you want to drive a painfully loud vehicle you should do so on a private race track. They should be banned from public roads.
When I had my motorcycle I refused to ride on a group with anyone who has open pipes or a Harley. The sound is fun for a few seconds and then it's just annoying before it gets painful after a while. I don't understand why there are no rules on sound emissions. There are some riders who wake up the whole neighborhood in the morning.
>I don't understand they there are no rules on sound emissions.
There are, in some localities. When I lived in Arizona, there was a big flap because the Harley bikers liked to cruise through a town called Carefree on the way to some biker bar in Cave Creek, and Carefree got tired of it an enacted a noise ordinance, and started pulling over and ticketing motorcycle riders who were too noisy. The Harley riders all screamed "discrimination". As far as I know, Carefree never let up on its ordinance, and the bikers just had to go around the town.
In the other Jalopnik article, one of the commenters worked at the Harley dealership and said basically every single bike sold had the exhaust "upgraded".
I ride stock and everyone is always surprised. They always comment on how my Harley isn't loud. So a group has spoiled the perception for the rest of us. They may be the majority but they are not "all"
I never ride with a large group. I don't care what kind of motorcycles you are talking about when you put 10 of them together they annoy everyone. A group of crotch rockets sounds just as awful as a group of cruisers.
I used to ride in groups but we usually spread out so everybody could find their own rhythm. I never understood the appeal of riding in a staggered formation close to each other.
Two points that I wish that they would've touched on more in the article is the general downturn in motorcycle sales in the US, as well as the huge used market.
To the first point, motorcycle sales in the US never really recovered from the recession, and it doesn't seem like they're coming back anytime soon. Is this because new motorcycles (regardless of brand) cost more than they used to, a lack of disposable income among the target audience, or failure of motorcycle manufactures to branch out to new audiences? I don't have the answers to these questions, but I think that they all play a role into the sales decline.
Secondly (and more specific to Harley), the used motorcycle market is HUGE. Go on Craigslist and look at the motorcycles that are on sale. Near me, it seems that every 3rd or 4th bike is a Harley. When the used market is so large and the models don't change that much from year to year, why would you buy new when you could pick up a slightly used bike and save 10% to 20% off of the sticker price?
>Secondly (and more specific to Harley), the used motorcycle market is HUGE.
Kind of sucks if this is really hurting the company.
Companies that design things that last should be somehow rewarded. This is important and needs to be figured out. Otherwise we will drown in garbage that self-destructs after warranty expiration or things that are deliberately un-repairable.
Planned obsolescence is not as "smart" as some people make it out to be. It wastes natural resources, contributes to pollution, makes things less reliable and removes incentives to produce real innovation in the future.
Edit:
There is another post here that points out that Harleys might not be particularly reliable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18450005
Definitely worth reading. I wonder how a motorcycle can be unreliable and have a large second-hand market at the same time. Are they highly modular? Can you easily build one working motorcycle out of two broken ones?
HD is not known for having unusually good reliability and build quality. In fact, most people consider them below average.
I suspect the issue is not that their bikes last so long per se, but rather that so many people buy them, don't ride them much and then decide to stop riding motorcycles. There is probably a fairly high amount of purchases that go to middle-aged dudes looking for a new hobby that give it up pretty quickly.
I'm all in favour of that, and have reached an age that a cruiser style bike is starting to appeal.
Yet Harley have changed so little that they haven't had the benefits of handling and reliability all the other manufacturers have. Riding a new one is like teleporting back to my youth. Mostly for the wrong reasons.
I test rode one a few years ago and it quickly told me I'll never have a Harley.
To explain, the Triumph Bobber looks beautifully like an old hard tail. Like all the Triumph classics it handles and runs like a decent modern bike. It's got cartridge forks, Brembos, ABS, traction control and the reliable twin engine. There's way more ground clearance than I'm ever likely to run out of.
Harleys finally actually go around corners, but still pretty reluctantly. Still way too easy to ground without trying. They'll pair the big engine with a miniscule tank for range around 100m, sometimes down near 50! They're hot, heavy, and slow, you get OK but uninspiring handling with simple suspension, but the single disc up front never felt enough thanks to all that weight. Then they charge more than just about everyone else, but still have a reputation for being unreliable. That leaves just the big V twin sound and looks to buy for.
The Bobber is everything Harley could be doing, yet costs lots less than most Harleys. They have more than enough reputation, and they have more than enough decent looking bikes in their history to remake as modern classics.
Not really disagreeing with your larger point, but in this specific instance it's less "designed to last" and more "not actually used".
The article points out how owners are getting older, having more health issues, etc. and that the bikes aren't actually used for anything but fun rides on the weekends.
Harley Davidson is an incredibly powerful brand, but it's not a brand built off of ultra reliability and the creation of long lasting vehicles.
The brand is for a particular style; all of their attempts to expand out of that niche have failed for various reasons, especially resistance from their core audience.
Harleys are highly modular. That's why no two really look alike, for the most part. There's also a large custom builder market, often fabricating entire bikes from nothing but an engine and some aftermarket parts like wheels and brakes. That's probably another thing cutting into their market... the people who can afford a $25k luxury bike to express their individuality can often afford a $50k totally custom bike from a boutique builder, that is much cooler.
Harleys aren't very reliable, but they are durable. The basic structure and mechanical parts are fairly robust and when something breaks it's easy to repair. So you see a lot of old ones still on the road.
I bought my first bike around 1996 for $500. Today with inflation that =~$740
It was a 1984 Honda NightHawk 650. It cost me $5 to fill the fuel tank ($0.50/L)
That same bike now costs $1000-$1500. Depending on amount of work needed. (and would cost $20 to fill the fuel tank)
So it's a multi-part problem.
(a) disposable income
(b) actual cost
Used bikes are too damn expensive for what you are getting. If I can buy a used car (from a newer model year) for LESS then the cost of an older motorcycle then the 'value' proposition will never make sense.
I'd love to ride again. Until these 'hobby items' get priced accordingly they won't catch on again.
I'd also suggest that the 'kids' today grew up with helicopter parents and had to wear 'bike helmets' and other 'safety' gear. Being left alone to get a broken arm or other chances to 'get hurt' is a good thing. I wonder if we haven't scared that out of too many kids.
That second point is very important. I know a dozen motorcycle riders (only 1 harley owner), but all the bikes are used. With fewer parts, fewer features, and no phone/stereo/ac/heated seats/navigation/adaptive cruse control, there's not a lot of innovation in the actual ride of a motorcycle to buy.
Motorcycles have also not kept up with the times on engine technology. They only began switching away from carburetors around 2005. Drag your feet on technological advancement, and your year-to-year product consequently changes less.
Suspension design has also remained really simple to my eyes compared to cars. Maybe it can't be improved, but the last major innovation/change in suspension was in the mid 70's with single shock design.
"They" is somewhat misleading. My 1995 BMW R1100GS has fuel injection, terrifying ABS, and fancy suspension-wishbone front and paralever rear (to deal with the shaft drive behavior).
Fair point, BMW has been ahead of the curve. Thank you. You could, in a way, look at them and say to the others, "This is where you should be!"
When you compare the rear suspension of modern mountain bikes to Harleys, it gets even worse. You get the overall impression that it is all about what is mechanically easy, not comfortable or performant.
How many Harleys are still sold with hardtail rear ends? It's part of the aesthetic. It's not supposed to be comfortable. Or "safe".
they just look like hardtails but have hidden shocks.
Lame.
You say that like moving away from carburetors to complicated, error-prone computerized injection systems is a positive thing...
Modern fuel injection is miles ahead in reliability, but of course you can make shitty error prone versions of it - but so can you with a carburetors.
For sure. I ride a 2000 CBR929RR. 150 horsepower, only weights ~ 435 lbs, and it's fuel injected. Sure, a brand new CBR1000RR has ~40 more HP and is 2 lbs lighter, but 150 is still ridiculous for a street bike. I can't get to the top of first gear at a legal speed anywhere in the state (Road America aside), and wouldn't anyway because you can't keep the front wheel on the ground at WOT passed 8-9k RPM. The only thing I'm really missing out on are the fancy electronics like traction and wheelie control, but who wants those anyway?
Very valid points, and also people are making better decisions by deciding not to be organ donors. With cell phones, more drivers on the road are very distracted, this is a very dangerous time to be riding, perhaps when most of the cars on the road become self driving then that will become a safer time. It seems 1 out of every 10 drivers on the road is on their phone, it's already scary driving in a big car.
I bought my first bike here earlier this year aged 35. I took the MSF course at a Harley dealer and talked a bit about what bike might fit me best for riding as a casual/weekend rider (up to maybe 5k miles per year if I ride a lot). No one really recommended a Harley. I got a couple Indian recs, but mostly it was Yamaha and Honda. I ended up with a 2017 Honda Shadow Phantom after sitting on it for a while in the show room of the Honda dealer and I'm quite happy with it.
Harley absolutely feels like a fashion thing to me. I know a few folks who really like them, but it doesn't seem to be based on anything other than "they're Harleys, man." I don't think the Harley brand is going to die off, but it does feel a bit pigeonholed right now as the rough and tumble, leather & dome helmets type of rider right now. Honda doesn't feel like any particular type of bike. I don't feel like I should be wearing anything in particular on it, and I haven't had anyone look at me oddly for riding a matte black cruiser with a high-vis helmet yet. I feel like I would've if I were on a Harley.
Speaking as an engine mechanic, and avid motorcycle rider, Harley has burned a lot of bridges. This island they stand on now is their own doing.
At some point they killed themselves with the myopic nature of metrics. understanding the average rider age of a harley led them to start investing in motor homes and golf carts assuming the market was going to vanish underneath them. At the same time, the Milwaukee managers froze the plant in time out of sheer terror that any change would drive away their customers. in the 80's the "engine sound" patent was recognized which only nailed Harleys other foot to the floor.
Harley still ran on a chain primary drive by 2007...the last car that ran on this was the Packard in 1930. The only innovation that came to this was plastic guide shoes to replace the old metal ones out of a cost saving effort that basically empowered the transmission to kill the bike after 20,000 miles.
Management went completely deaf. in 2001 the death wobble for Dyna's sold to the california highway patrol was ignored twice by the company, and once proven by CHP riders on a closed course, the company begrudgingly issued a parts fix but no recall, and no replacement. Harley in 2010 still had single crankpin, inlay type piston rod engine made largely from pot steel iron that pushed 650lbs in their smallest sportster motorcycles. They were failing a plurality of foreign emissions controls for both noise and air quality but didnt seem to care. 33 years ago most managers remembered the tariff they lobbied government for, and how it saved harley. They expected another one.
comparatively they were getting crushed by better bikes. Japan had double crankpin, liquid cooled, fuel injected, balanced and computerized engines that outlasted harley davidson by hundreds of thousands of miles and ran on low maintenance solutions like belt drive and shaft drive that didnt need service for 100,000 miles. Even japans air cooled monsters like the Yamaha Raider 1900cc in 2006 could idle comfortably in 100 degree summer heat...something Harleys largest models that were still 300cc's smaller could not achieve without shutting down a cylinder and entering "parade mode"
Harleys v-rod, their only new design, came from Porsche, and their new exhaust came from a consortium of other motorcycle manufacturers who offered options and techniques for compliance. They desperately want to get out of the manufacturing business and into the 'branding' business. Sure, the milwaukee 8 is a nice new engine, but at 40-50 grand for a new dyna glide, harley still misses the point.
Gone are the boomers that will drop that kind of money. I'll go for a Honda Goldwing which is not only more powerful, but more reliable and cheaper, than a new bagger.
Harley arguably isnt a motorcycle company at all, its desperately trying to just be a household brand. Better US motorcycle companies like Victory and indian (polaris) exist with modern double overhead cam design, liquid cooling and keyless start to name a few features, but victory learned the hard way what it means to go toe to toe with a brand that exists as a living anachronism.
> Harley arguably isnt a motorcycle company at all
And they know it.... or did at one time.
"We're in the fashion business," Willie Davidson, the grandson of Harley co-founder William A. Davidson told People in 1981. "No one needs a motorcycle. It's your toy or hobby. It has to do something for your ego."
And like any fashion business, if you lock into a demographic, you're left with nothing once that demographic dies out.
An interesting set of points. It seems HD is still missing the boat:
And Harley’s response—an electric bike called the LiveWire set to debut next year—isn’t so much of a Hail Mary as it is a capitulation. It also won’t be nearly enough.
Zero Motorcylces: www.zeromotorcycles.com is shipping electric bikes right now and has ten, or almost ten, years of experience actually doing so. What's HD going to add to that besides branding?
It's interesting to watch these scenarios unfold, I bet there isn't a manager within the company that doesn't recognise the hurdles they face yet they are completely unable to rise to the challenge.
In some ways they may be better off by just doubling down on what they are good at. It's similar to the situation Kodak faced, should they embrace the new technologies knowing they probably won't be very competitive or just soldier on and make the most of a declining market.
I read recently that the chairman of Fiat said they aren't working on electric cars at the moment because they would rather be late than wrong.
Maybe theirs can make louder noises. As far as I can tell that's the main selling point.
Great, then we'll have to listen to inverter whine all summer when the next generation hits their midlife crisis.
Wouldn't that be similar to the sewing machine noise ofa BMW K-bike? :-)
And there's the new slogan - loud whines save lives
Note: Harley has used belt final drives since the 90s. There's nothing really wrong with chains except for maintenance and the belt fixes that at the cost of performance, which had never been Harley's forte.
I like the cruiser riding style, and the aesthetic of at least some of the bikes. It can be very comfortable for long distances (I rode 1200 miles in NZ on a HD Road King), but I expect that style to be married to some substance. I'd like a bike that:
- Doesn't weigh more than the moon
- Can do 0-60 in 2.5 seconds or so
- Has a top speed >150mph
- Has fuel economy >40mpg (imperial)
- Has decent wind protection
- Hard, capacious luggage (both panniers and topbox)
- New OTR cost of £15-20k, ideally at the lower end of that range
The fundamental problem with Harley Davidson is they're all show and no go. All that sound and thunder sadly amounts to very little.
Triumph and Moto Guzzi do better, and the latter have embraced a more modern/futuristic aesthetic (as with the Suzuki M109R BOSS), but for almost all cruisers (Rocket 3 aside) power disappointingly tops out at around 100 +/- 20 bhp.
Yes, that's right: I'm saying I want it all, and I'm making no apology whatsoever for that. I want the riding style and looks of a cruiser (or futuristic cruiser), married to the light weight and performance of a sports or hyperbike (ZZR1400 weighs in at a "mere" 270kg or so).
Motorcycle companies: I know you can do this so please stop faffing around and get on with it.
I don't see how this is realistic. Here's Wikipedia's list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_mot...
There's only 3 production motorcycles here which can do 0-60 in 2.5 sec. You're asking for a cruiser which accelerates faster than, say, the (200hp supercharged liter bike) Ninja H2, with "capacious luggage", while getting double its fuel economy, and costing less.
I think if any motorcycle company could drastically increase performance and efficiency while dropping prices, they would. Harley's brand is married to vintage styling but others are not. Bragging rights for "fastest bike" have been hotly contested over the years.
I'd argue that the difference in riding position between a cruiser and a performance motorcycle make this a largely impossible proposition.
I think mostly the problem you've got there is that people looking for most of those things would go out and buy a BMW 1200GS. Ok, it's not a cruiser but it's just about as comfortable to sit on. All the luggage options and wind protection you could ask for and well ridden can keep up with most sports bikes in the real world.
There are some bikes which get close to your brief; you mentioned the Rocket III but if you're willing to compromise on what a cruiser would look like you've also get the Ducati Diavel. I'm not sure how much more room there is in this segment.
I think in some ways that's probably part of the problem Harley Davidson. New genres of motorcycles have come an gone without them making any attempt at competing with them.
Was going to say GS (RIP my G 650 GS) but you beat me to it. If I get another bike it'll be a bigger GS, V-Strom, etc. They're fantastic machines.
>Motorcycle companies: I know you can do this so please stop faffing around and get on with it.
Maybe they really can't do it. Cars are doing some pretty impressive things with their engines these days with regard to fuel economy and performance, but they also sell orders of magnitude more units, and can afford to dedicate enormous engineering resources to engine development to achieve that performance. Motorcycle engines, like lawn mower engines, seem to be permanently stuck technologically in the 1970s.
The Honda NC700 is about as close as you'll come. Its basically half of the Honda fits engine in a motorcycle. The problem is that motorcycles are rearly sold on practicalities alone.
Also, there is a bit of a diminishing returns element. My motorcycle (SV650) had an engine originally designed in the 90s, slightly modernised with some electronics and it gets 60+mpg comuting to West London. If it got another 10mpg it'd save maybe £2 a week in fuel, which means the return on investment time is basically infinite.
60+mpg (assuming US gallons here) isn't that impressive; that's just slightly better than a Prius.
But most motorcycles seem to do much worse, more like 40mpg (US). My car gets about that, while being many times heavier. Motorcycles generally have terrible fuel economy considering their size and power.
> - Has a top speed >150mph
Sorry, what...?
If you want solid acceleration from 60 to 90 you need a top speed in excess of 150. Not sure if that's what GP is referring to though.
I too want a futuristic Tesla motorbike, but in addition to your requirements I'd add in FaceID.
Face ID would not be a good idea because helmets obscure faces.
Slap a QR code on the helmet.
"Motorcycle companies: I know you can do this.."
That seems doubtful...
I'm under the impression that Harley customers (and customers of similar bikes of other brands) like noise and acceleration. An ebike has acceleration but by definition is quiet. I like speed and acceleration and I hate loud noise (one of the few that like modern Formula 1 hybrids.) I could buy an ebike but I'm not a biker. Would Harley be able to convert its customers to the new paradigm or should it rebuild a totally different customer base?
A Harley owner once told me that he'll never buy a silent electric bike. He was also worried about people not noticing a silent bike coming and crossing the road at the wrong moment.
Short, easy answer: Nope. They've tried before.
(Argh. "Loud pipes save lives." Gah.)
He can put a speaker on it and make it sound like the light cycles from Tron.;)
This article is romancing a company that has had consistent quality issues in the last few decades, sold its image out to WalMart in the 2000s, and doesn't appeal to modern riders.
I'm not a boomer (38) and would still like a motorcycle now that I have the time and money to enjoy it but a Harley doesn't appeal at all (I'm English), they really haven't moved with the times, if I was going to get anything it would be something like an early 80's CB750 as when I was a kid they where the 'cool' bikes and I'd likely kill myself on anything more modern in short order.
"80's CB750 as when I was a kid they where the 'cool' bikes and I'd likely kill myself on anything more modern in short order."
Modern motorcycles are way, way safer than an early 80's CB750. ABS, traction control, brakes and tires that are light years ahead of 80's tech, lighter weight, more agile etc. The only reason to ride a CB750 is because they're cool, not safer!
Not necessarily true.
1. As 'more modern' bikes are lighter, have better brakes, suspension/handling and most importantly ABS.
2. Harley can't move on with the times. They did with their 'V-Rod' featuring a 'modern' liquid cooled engine designed by Porsche. They discontinued it this year. Harley riders want the old Harley image.
They're trying to pivot into new markets as their customer base is becoming too old to ride or simply dying off. https://www.harley-davidson.com/us/en/motorcycles/future-veh...
Anyone who says they think they might kill themselves on a certain type of bike shouldn't be allowed near any type of bike.
They are incredible fun but unquestionably dangerous.
" Anyone who says they think they might kill themselves on a certain type of bike shouldn't be allowed near any type of bike."
Or maybe they are self aware. Realistically only a very small share of the people who are riding a 100+hp bike can really handle that power.
My motorcycle has 70hp. I can tell you that on the average ride I rarely use half of that. I don't think that'd be any different if my bike had 170hp. Realistically on the road you can't use that kind of power unless you are just trying to lose your licence on an empty motorway (although it's still fun to have it).
Or they know their limits.
I, for one, have refused to purchase a sport bike on numerous occasions - including my "dream bike" - because I know its too much bike and that might get me into trouble. I've never felt that way about any of my cruisers or dirt bikes.
That's it exactly, my friends went through a superbike phrase and it was crash after crash at best written off bikes at worst hospital stays (fortunately).
If I go modern I'll probably get something like an SV650.
It's more the ability to ride long distances comfortably I want not pant wetting speed.
As someone who was riding those 80s CBs, Zs, and GS's, at the time, all I can say is don't. Outside of things like the GPz900R, Katanas etc, they usually handled pretty horribly. Old Ducatis and Laverdas of that era handled really well compared to most of the Japanese bikes back then, but slowly. Flickable they were not, so plan Italian lines well in advance. :)
The biggest transformation of bikes the last 20 years has been handling. Now they generally all handle pretty well, with a few exceptions. So if you like the style of early CBs and Zs, pick one of the many retro remakes that have come out in the last 10 or so years.
Even as a slow and careful driver you are much better off with a newer bike. They handle better, brakes are better, you have much more leeway in an emergency. Just don't get a 100+hp monster.
There are modern bikes that fall into the same market niche as the old CBs.
For small displacement bikes that are light, inexpensive, and reliable, you could consider the Honda CB300F, which is available with ABS and a modern 300cc engine. If you must have a slightly more retro style, there's the Suzuki TU250X - it's a solid all-around bike, but no ABS.
Both will likely be just as fast as the older CB750, handle better, stop better, and probably not cost much more money (CBs have gone way up in value, plus whatever time you spend brining it back to reliable condition).
If you want a mid-displacement bike, yeah, they're fast, a bit more money, but still better bikes in just about every way compared to anything form the 70s.
There are a couple modern bikes out there that would be great for you! The Rebel 500 is gorgeous, a bit retro, and will keep you out of trouble. Since it's being made today, you won't run into the parts availability issues you will see with a vintage CB750. https://powersports.honda.com/2018/rebel-500.aspx
You Brits manufacture some of the most beautiful bikes like Nortons, Royal Enfields and Triumphs. Great looking bikes and very easy to live with and maintain. I'd definitely pick one of those instead of a Harley any given day. Harley's are very cumbersome to drive, and maintenance costs are very high.
As someone who loves Japanese supersport bikes, I wonder if in 40 years I will be the dying breed of people who just want to cling to old glories on a 600cc petrol engine thats about 50x more bike than I'll ever be able to handle :,)
Ride on, old dudes.
I rode 10,000 miles all over the US one summer on a harley 883 sportster. Loved it and the bike ran great. I actually like the lack of technology on the bikes because they are easy to fix.
Not a rider, but HD's story sounds very similar to Gibson's and Fender's - whose past is going extinct but having difficulty moving or even figuring out their future.
I don't think these match up very well. While Gibson's most iconic guitar is the LP and Fender's is the Strat, they still make a bunch of different guitars that are NOT expensive, but play great. This is moreso true of Fender, who makes amazing guitars in the $500-750 range. They also don't come with any particular image associated with them. Strats have been used for all sorts of music, from Iron Maiden to John Mayer.
Gibson feels a bit more stuck to an image, but it doesn't feel old and crusty the way Harley does.
Weird, they don't mention the recently cancelled V-Rod.
To me, Harleys and their equivalently ignorantly noisy UK cousin(Triumphs) should be legislated out of existence in their current form.
It's the equivalent of a child banging a drum for attention.
Buell(er)?
Yeah, HD didnt really understand the Buell brand when they bought them, and eventually killed the product in the process.
No "faiulure" here...HD has lasted far longer than the average corporation and created an iconic product that still has hardcore devotees.
The electric bike will sell poorly and HD will retreat back into its market for obnoxious hogs. One day when that market goes away, they can sell the brand to some Chinese billionaire and call it a day.
Any company that operates profitably for a generation is a success in my book regardless of how it ends.
Brutal, but sounds about right.
I’m surprised a company whose whole business model is allowing old white guys to essentially troll (be so loud and annoying as to bother everyone else in the visinity) is not doing well in the age of Trump.
A Harley traveling past you at speed is loud enough to cause physical pain if you don't cover your ears. It's a product designed such that normal use is anti-social behavior. If you want to drive a painfully loud vehicle you should do so on a private race track. They should be banned from public roads.
When I had my motorcycle I refused to ride on a group with anyone who has open pipes or a Harley. The sound is fun for a few seconds and then it's just annoying before it gets painful after a while. I don't understand why there are no rules on sound emissions. There are some riders who wake up the whole neighborhood in the morning.
>I don't understand they there are no rules on sound emissions.
There are, in some localities. When I lived in Arizona, there was a big flap because the Harley bikers liked to cruise through a town called Carefree on the way to some biker bar in Cave Creek, and Carefree got tired of it an enacted a noise ordinance, and started pulling over and ticketing motorcycle riders who were too noisy. The Harley riders all screamed "discrimination". As far as I know, Carefree never let up on its ordinance, and the bikers just had to go around the town.
What astounds me are the ones with really loud stereo set ups that are twice as loud as the engine! Troll indeed.
Those vehicles do not come like that from the factory. They've been modified by the owner to be louder.
In the other Jalopnik article, one of the commenters worked at the Harley dealership and said basically every single bike sold had the exhaust "upgraded".
I ride stock and everyone is always surprised. They always comment on how my Harley isn't loud. So a group has spoiled the perception for the rest of us. They may be the majority but they are not "all"
Yeah, I love when a pack of them pull up beside a restaurant downtown when you are sitting outside. Really adds to the ambiance.
Those are generally after market pipes that are that loud.
I never ride with a large group. I don't care what kind of motorcycles you are talking about when you put 10 of them together they annoy everyone. A group of crotch rockets sounds just as awful as a group of cruisers.
I used to ride in groups but we usually spread out so everybody could find their own rhythm. I never understood the appeal of riding in a staggered formation close to each other.