Visited a H-D Dealership

[atadaskew]

California and Northeast PA are two very, very different worlds my friend. I've done both for extended periods of time.

Neither have I in CA.

Wow.
Ok, I take it all back.
 

[Sport-Touring]

[Gary B.]

I despise all advertising. I find it almost insulting most of the time. Harley's advertising department just happens to be the most effective in the motorcycle industry.  
I find their particular style though to be arrogant, misleading and downright hypocritical at times. I mean sure, Suzuki plays the racing card but at least they have a successful racing history to back it up. There's substance behind the image (it's still annoying but at least there's something behind it).
Harley likes to portray themselves as this great American Icon with this rich history behind them when truth is, they've about went under numerous time for building total crap, for a complete inability to compete, or for pure and simple shortsighted greed (the most recent reason). Harleys "rich history" has been a roller coaster of modest successes and epic failures (VR1000 anyone?). It wasn't until they played the "lifestyle" card that they truly became successful. Their products alone could never seem to get them off the ground as a company. I have no respect for any company who's entire success is built off of smoke and mirrors or some storied past that only existed through rose colored glasses.

Thank you for putting MY thoughts into words.

[TwoWhldTerror]

To be honest, BEFORE I think about test riding a bike I would desire to have, I first check performance statistics and test reviews and IF the performance and looks of the bike appeals to me and I'm ready to buy then I test ride .  It has to be faster than most cars to begin with.  After that, looks.  This is why I never test drove any HD....none meet the minimum criteria of performance.  To me, performance is the very core of motorcycle riding experience.  Otherwise, I may as well drive a car.  This is also why I said the XR1200 is the only model that appealed to me.  I did not say ALL H-D are crap in my eyes.  Having said that, the XR1200 has LESS performance than the least performing Buell V-twin (Lightning XB9S).  So......no test ride.

This is fair, and certainly within your purview as your own individual requirements. However, those are YOUR requirements, not everyone else's. Nor is your definition of the "motorcycle riding experience" the same either. No I do not ride a Harley, but when I get the dual sport to add to the stable along with the FJR, "performance" certainly will not be the reason why, at least not by the criteria you are utilizing.

With that said, HD's are WAAAAYYYYY to $$$ for my blood, at least new ones.

[Tpoppa]

HD only sells motorcycle to support T-Shirt sales

/thread

[Kootenanny]

I despise all advertising. I find it almost insulting most of the time. Harley's advertising department just happens to be the most effective in the motorcycle industry.  
I find their particular style though to be arrogant, misleading and downright hypocritical at times. I mean sure, Suzuki plays the racing card but at least they have a successful racing history to back it up. There's substance behind the image (it's still annoying but at least there's something behind it).
Harley likes to portray themselves as this great American Icon with this rich history behind them when truth is, they've about went under numerous time for building total crap, for a complete inability to compete, or for pure and simple shortsighted greed (the most recent reason). Harleys "rich history" has been a roller coaster of modest successes and epic failures (VR1000 anyone?). It wasn't until they played the "lifestyle" card that they truly became successful. Their products alone could never seem to get them off the ground as a company. I have no respect for any company who's entire success is built off of smoke and mirrors or some storied past that only existed through rose colored glasses.

OK, I can't believe I'm actually gonna defend Harley--I despise them due to their treatment of Buell.  But...the thing is, they never DID go under.  Which other major American motorcycle company can say that?  Indian went under...were all their products "crap?"  How about Crocker? or Cyclone? or Ace?   The list goes on...

As for the "lifestyle card," well, keep in mind that that wasn't their original idea.  It was created in Hollywood (how more American can you get?) and Harley simply adopted it--successfully, I might add.  Harley is a good example of "give the customer what they want"--the problem is, if you aren't "their customer," their ads won't attract you.  Reminds me of watching a beer commercial with my cousin, who works in TV advertising...I said something about how idiotic and juvenile the ad was, and he laughed and said, "They don't care--you aren't their customer!"  The ad was aimed directly at 20-ish year old guys, who make up the vast majority of that brewer's customer base; I thought it was stupid, but the guys for whom it's intended probably thought it looked cool and fun.  In the same way, while you might find H-D's advertising "disgusting," a lot of guys might find it inspiring.

Oh, and back to Suzuki--once again, sure the company has a strong history of racing (so does H-D, BTW, just a few decades earlier).  But "Own the Racetrack?"  I mean, come on...just how many GSX-Rs ever actually see a track?  Suzuki is advertising the dream that if you ride one of their bikes, you too might ride as well as Mladin (or whoever the current Suzuki champion is).  Now, every sportbike maker does this (it is a huge part of the reason factories sponsor race teams in any series), but it's no more misleading for Harley to say they're an iconic American motorcycle company (which they are), or that if you ride a Harley, you'll be seen as a "badass dude" (which is partially true as well, since Harley's image is strongly positioned in American culture--even little old ladies know what a Harley is, and what to think of a guy who rides one).  

[DogBoy]

All good points and well said Koot. However, Suzuki won't sell any R6s or R1s no matter how good their ads are.

[Kootenanny]

All good points and well said Koot. However, Suzuki won't sell any R6s or R1s no matter how good their ads are.

 

Fixed.

(I admit, much as I can't tell various Harleys apart--or even tell them from the clones--I can't tell the latest GSX-Rs, R1s, ZX-10Rs, or CBRRs apart without looking at the tank badge...guess I'm not their target market any more than I am Harley's...)

[atadaskew]

With that said, HD's are WAAAAYYYYY to $$$ for my blood, at least new ones.

New 2012 HD 883cc Sportsters start at $8K.
Which is less than some Honda 750cc cruisers.

[Tpoppa]

New 2012 HD 883cc Sportsters start at $8K.
Which is less than some Honda 750cc cruisers.

True.  But isn't the draw of owning a HD being acknowledged by others on HDs?  And HD riders know that a Sportster isn't a real HD.

[atadaskew]

True.  But isn't the draw of owning a HD being acknowledged by others on HDs?  And HD riders know that a Sportster isn't a real HD.

I see plenty of Sportsters being ridden with other Harleys.  There doesn't seem to be a problem.
Interestingly the best selling models are the cheapest - the Sportsters - and the most expensive - the gussied up touring rides.

Butt of course, that doesn't help a bashing thread.

[TwoWhldTerror]

New 2012 HD 883cc Sportsters start at $8K.
Which is less than some Honda 750cc cruisers.

OK...let me be clear, any Harley *I* would buy is too expensive. Though to be honest, not really when you look at it. No matter what though, I would not ride a Sportster. My HD riding friends do not look down on them per se' but say they ride like shyte compared to the rest of the models.

[bomber]

They say many things . . . . I'll lay you even odds that most of "them" havn't ridden a sportie . . . . in teh right hands, they are HUGE fun, and quick enough to be very entertaining . . . .

I will admit, though, that maintaining an entertaining pace will teach you a lot about preserving momentum, and not using the brakes ;-}

[ConPilot1]

I have and it was the most uncomfortable and retarded feeling SOB I've ever had my ass on in my life.

[Rattlehead]

They say many things . . . . I'll lay you even odds that most of "them" havn't ridden a sportie . . . . in teh right hands, they are HUGE fun, and quick enough to be very entertaining . . . .

I will admit, though, that maintaining an entertaining pace will teach you a lot about preserving momentum, and not using the brakes ;-}

Once you sort out a Sportster they are a very fun bike and quite capable. I had one and I could tell right away that there was HUGE potential in that thing. Some 13.5" Progressives, some thicker fork oil and some preload spacers completely transformed the way that bike handled.
Problem is, it takes several grand worth of suspension, brake and engine upgrades to begin to realize a Sporty's full potential. From the factory they are total crap for anything but profiling on perfectly smooth boulevards (1.5" of travel??? 24deg of lean??? REALLY???). The exception to this was the "Roadster" models and the Sportster "Sport", both of which are long out of production.  
The Sportster and a now extinct Street Rod are the only 2 Harley's I have any desire to own. Both will require me to come accross a huge pile of cash though as a Sportster will require quite a bit of tinkering to get it to where I want it (they are the perfect platform for tinkering though) and Street Rod isn't cheap to buy and kind of hard to find.

[Rattlehead]

OK, I can't believe I'm actually gonna defend Harley--I despise them due to their treatment of Buell.  But...the thing is, they never DID go under.  Which other major American motorcycle company can say that?  Indian went under...were all their products "crap?"  How about Crocker? or Cyclone? or Ace?   The list goes on..........

They survived by buyout (by a bowling ball company of all things), CRAZY lop-sided Government intervention or ridiculous loans from private investors (not to mention a little "under the radar" Gov't bailout $$$), not from pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and building a better bike or tightening up their business practices (sub-prime loans to boost sales=short sighted, BAD idea). They did finally get their quality inline but it took them 30-some years to do that. By all accounts they should have gone under. They're not the rough and tough survivor they like to portray themselves as, they just lucked out and found others carry their burden or take the bullet for them.

I can't speak for the other mfg's but Indian was killed by greed and bad business practices, the same thing that nearly killed Harley moer than once. If Harley hadn't had so many crazy successful years prior to the crash this time there wouldn't have been any saving them either. Ol' Mr. Buffet Is only gonna loan so much to them at 15% interest you know.

[atadaskew]

Problem is, it takes several grand worth of suspension, brake and engine upgrades...

That also applies to any Japanese cruiser.

Basically if you want a cruiser that stops, turns and manages bumps stock like a proper motorcycle, you are looking at Italian bikes.  Either a Guzzi Cali or the Ducati Diavel.

Triumph's cruisers - at least some of them - come close but even they have mediocre suspension.

[Rattlehead]

That also applies to any Japanese cruiser.

Basically if you want a cruiser that stops, turns and manages bumps stock like a proper motorcycle, you are looking at Italian bikes.  Either a Guzzi Cali or the Ducati Diavel.

Triumph's cruisers - at least some of them - come close but even they have mediocre suspension.

Yamaha (Star) Warrior. Quite possibly the best cruiser ever made. I've ridden a couple and they are fabulous bikes; good power, comfortable, good suspension, plenty of ground clearance and great "character".  
As far as the "other" Japanese cruisers, I agree for the most part; some aren't bad and some are "bottom shelf" to be sure. I'd really like to take a ride on an M109 sometime though. I think there's potentential there for a good cruiser as long as Suzuki didn't screw it up.

[black hills]

Yamaha (Star) Warrior. Quite possibly the best cruiser ever made. I've ridden a couple and they are fabulous bikes; good power, comfortable, good suspension, plenty of ground clearance and great "character".  
As far as the "other" Japanese cruisers, I agree for the most part; some aren't bad and some are "bottom shelf" to be sure. I'd really like to take a ride on an M109 sometime though. I think there's potentential there for a good cruiser as long as Suzuki didn't screw it up.

did a 700+mile day on a VTX1800, it wasn't bad

[Tpoppa]

They say many things . . . . I'll lay you even odds that most of "them" havn't ridden a sportie . . . . in teh right hands, they are HUGE fun, and quick enough to be very entertaining . . . .

The sportster is the most fun HD I have ridden, although I do think they are looked down on by many in the HD crowd.  The least fun I've ever had on 2 wheels was on a 2011 Fatboy that I had as a loaner for 10 days...it was genuinely unpleasant to ride, I kinda wanted to kick it into the woods and walk home.

While the sportster was the most fun HD, it wouldn't crack the top 50 most fun motorcycles I have ridden.  The most fun cruiser for me was a 3rd gen Magna 750.  I'd love to see Honda make a 4th Gen Magna with the VFR1200 motor   :finishedrambling  

[atadaskew]

 I'd really like to take a ride on an M109 sometime though. I think there's potentential there for a good cruiser as long as Suzuki didn't screw it up.

That bike has wicked shaft drive driveline lash.

Harley's belt drives are smooooooth.