Streetwise: Most American men want a Harley

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | Friday, April 23, 2004 | Lauren Rudd

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Kicjing over a cold Norton could also ruin a good buzz.

[MineralMan]

Thanks. I've considered the new Enfield, for sure. What's interesting is that it's cause the prices for old REs to drop a bit.

All things being equal, I'd take the old one. I'm not planning any trips on my next (probably last) bike. It's going to be a weekend rider only, at least on the weekends I'm not tinkering with it.

I want the historical feel, not a new bike.

I've owned a couple dozen bikes in my life, from my first 1959 Harley 165 lightweight to the last bike I had...a humble Suzuki 450T. Lots of interesting bikes in between, ranging from a little 50cc ex-racing bike to that old Velo I wish I still had. Even shifting with the wrong foot isn't too hard to relearn.

No hurry. I'm moving right now, so it'll have to wait a bit.

[Range Rover]

This is the guy turning out "new" rapide powerplants:Terry Prince Classic Motorbikes clmotorbikes@hawknet.com.au

As for the '72 XLH/XLCH hitting 1000cc's, I don't really think it was a big improvement. I had a '72 and I borrowed a friend's '69 "900" for a spin. Really didn't see or feel much of a difference.

Indian may have been better served (hindsight, surely) if they had absorbed Crocker's Indian OHV conversion business and incorporated it into their own model lines way back in the '30s. Too bad HD had some part in crushing Crocker (by messing with parts suppliers Crocker was dealing with rumor has it)before it MAY have made the jump beyond custom "to-order" and into regular mass production. They had a unit V-Twin that could outrun most Indians and HD models at the time according to what I've read of testing they did. Of course, the fact that Crockers were being sold at a loss didn't help. Their speedway motors were also not performing on the level that cheaper JAP motors were.

Have a great weekend....signing off.

[Cogadh na Sith]

but those of us that have sat more hours on a Harley than on the can will disagree.

I would prefer to spend more hours on the can than a Harley. The toilet has less vibration, more horespower, goes faster, is more reliable, and even costs less to fix.

[Range Rover]

Just one more before I shut the door...

Been riding since I was 7 and I swallowed my pride taking a few MSF (motorcycle Safety Foundation) courses in the early 1990's.(and I should take more now, thinking about it)

I HIGHLY recommend taking a certified course even if you have been riding for decades. I un-learned bad habits and some instinctual behaviour that would have lead to my injury or death on several occasions since....even on the way home from one of the courses.

There are enough risks out there coming from all directions. The best thing you can do is to minimize those risks that you yourself have control over. By all means, learn and become a good rider. You will thank yourself and meet good people while you do.

[Betis70]

Thanks! There is a good course that is run in San Francisco, from what I hear (which is just up the penisula from me).

[uglybiker]

If I was in the market for a cruiser or touring cruisers, other things being equal, I'd likely go for the Harley.

There are alternatives.

[elbucko]

To each his own.

[BraveMan]

Thats a mighty long walk from the bike to the body bag (presuming the cops in the distance are next to the body). That picture has Rice Rocket Boy-Racer wannabe written all over it.

Most Harley riders I know have matured and outgrown the need to scare the snot out of themselves on a wheeled rocket. Its a different demographic.

A Novice rider on a Harley is still a novice rider; riding skill sets have to be learned through training and repetition. Its reasonable to assume you'll see significantly less examples of Harley Davidsons like the motorcycle in your picture simply because they don't appeal riders willing to engage in that form of risky riding style. The available accident data bears that out; big touring bikes tend to be underrepresented in the aggregate accident data.

[Hank Rearden]

Point taken.

I think I paid a little less than $15k for mine; waited about 4.5 months and refused to pay bribes like some.

I don't think either of us are impressed by driveway jewelry, but as long as a 2-wheel scoot is ridden, I don't care what people ride.

Unless it's a pussy scooter, of course.

[Melas]

I beg you're friggin pardon! A single engine Sportster held the land speed record of over 260 mph for over 25 years. Not very fast, indeed.

I'm from Missouri, show me.

[judywillow]

What do men want more than anything else? No, not that ... well maybe that also; but that is not the topic of today's column. According to a survey of 1,000 men nationwide, besides wanting more money and keeping their wives happy, six out of 10 men dreamed of owning a Harley-Davidson motorcycle.

That only says that six out of ten American men are totally ignorant of motorcycles. That's really pathetic.

[Hank Rearden]

That's true of the Harley from virtually off-idle.

I used to think Harleys were junk and Harley owners crazy until a friend made me ride his SuperGlide. The attraction became immediately obvious.

Yep, there's something very appealing about a big, heavy beast that pulls like a farm tractor off the line. Big grin every damn time.

[BraveMan]

$21k for the Heritage Softail I spent a few years ago was the best investment I've ever made, bar none.

I paid $5800.00 "out the door" (incl. tax, license, title, registration) for my FXRS in 1982. I was offered $9500.00 for the same bike last year. I wish my 401k held its value as well.

Twenty one years old last year, averaging 8-10k miles a year. Still as reliable as a railroad spike.

[elbucko]

. It certainly didn't hold the overall land speed record.

It certainly did. On Oct. 16th., 1970, Cal Rayburn, in a single engine streamliner, powered by a modified Harley-Davidson Sportster engine, set the ULTIMATE AND SINGLE ENGINE motorcycle land speed record of 265.492 mph. The single engine record stood for over 20 years.

Many attempts by other motorcycle companies were unsuccessful. Even those with multi engine streamliners. Two, three, four engine Honda's, Kawasaki's, and Yamaha's could not better the Sporty for two decades.I don't know when the 2 record's were finally bettered and or by what. What's more, I don't care. For 20 years the Sporty was the "Best of the Best".

[Pagey]

read later bump

[elbucko]

As for the '72 XLH/XLCH hitting 1000cc's, I don't really think it was a big improvement.

I agree, that and the fact that HD was going to become part of AMF was the reason I kept my '68XLCH. Besides, I already had "Sportster Leg" and could cold-kick start mine on a 30deg. day at Ft. Lewis, Wash.

[-YYZ-]

Well, then, I stand corrected.

I should mention that by overall land speed record I meant for all vehicles, including cars. Still, impressive even so. Simple math would suggest that if they set the record in 1970 and it stood for 20 years, then it was broken in or around 1990. BTW, I did attempt to search on the web for more information, but I've been unsuccessful in finding much information about motorcycle land speed records.

I think this probably says more about the overall package that Rayborn (I think that's the right name, he was a well known racer) and his team put together, than the power potential of Harley engines. Streamliner motorcycles are notoriously fiddly things. Know anymore about the engine they used? Naturally aspirated or supercharged? Gasoline, alcohol or nitromethane?

[elbucko]

I'm from Missouri, show me.

You'll have to look it up yourself. I had to refer to my Harley History.

[Iberian]

For my taste I'll take a Ninja. Quiet deadly and Fast, not just a noise maker.
As a Corvette owner, I'll blow the socks of a Harley any time anywhere but I have yet to beat a Ninja.

The Harleys are just anoying noise makers with no kick.

A great american tradition, yes.