Bikers' Images (good/bad)

this is exactly what you said:

the V-Twin configuration came out over 30 years earlier per HD.

The various engine models are often referred to by colloquial names for
the head design, but they are all V-Twins.

flathead, knucklehead, panhead, shovelhead, blockhead, fathead,
sprinklerhead refer to the head design, not the cylinder configuration
which are all V-Twin.

 

In other words, you don't know whether there's a difference or not and you
just insist on continuing this silliness.

Saying that, my "V-Twin" is the same as the Harley VTwin. Nice!

Tell ya what "sport", why don't you go ask Jay Leno what the differences
are...if the only thing you know is the "head design". He's probably rode
just about every bike made and owns half of them.

Johnny Moron believes that the only difference between the first VTwin
Harley made and the current VTwin is just the heads! What an idiot! Did you
learn that in Harley 101?

 

<>one of Wakko's comical comments<>
~~Earlier this year I was coming down the west coast and found 5 BMWs on
the side of the road. Traffic was slow and they were all overheating.
Good engineering?

That's funny, but gotta be true....ain't no motorcycle perfect.....ain't
none of em' that cant break down, or have a flat, And it's hell to
experience trouble on the side of the Road......(period) Just be
thankful (IF)you have a running buddy with ya.
yadda yadda.......I hear that wakko has ridden a few thousand....on a
HD.....
ALL of this discussion is based on what we like....what we think is the
best Ride..

abundance''' is as old as saying ''ya better have an oil pan under one
of em'''when their parked. They use to actually leak a lotta oil. They
dont now.
<>But, I still wouldnt pay that much, just to say I ride.....I ride a
Harley....Like that is really something!!.unnnhuh? (smiling and a
typing)

<>haveAgoodDay-Bjay<>

 

In other words, you don't know whether there's a difference or not and you
just insist on continuing this silliness.

Saying that, my "V-Twin" is the same as the Harley VTwin. Nice!

Tell ya what "sport", why don't you go ask Jay Leno what the differences
are...if the only thing you know is the "head design". He's probably rode
just about every bike made and owns half of them.

Johnny Moron believes that the only difference between the first VTwin
Harley made and the current VTwin is just the heads! What an idiot! Did you
learn that in Harley 101?

 

I think he was wrong to say they are the poorest engineered. I would admit
they are under-engineered, on purpose. I certainly bought my Springer
because it was.

Luckily I haven't had the problems some others have had with late model
HD's. This one has been a good bike.

 

I'd love to. My HOG guys are expecting me to ride there with them, tho. You
are more than welcome to come with us from Dallas HD, or meet me down at the
West End.

Then we can talk about our trip to Mexico.

 

You are claiming things I never said nor inferred. In the entire
paragraph from your post, you said:
----quoted-----
You do that. So far you've hit 0 for 5...and I don't even own a Harley. I
was hoping you'd say something about the age in the design of the engine,
and I was planning to slap that one down easily by pointing out that
Harley
has had three major engine design changes since BMW's. That's generally
the
argument is that the design of the engine is from the early 1900s...but
that's just plain wrong. Even the V-Twin configuration didn't come out
until
the mid 50s. Then it was the most powerful on the market. With the design
changes taking the engine to what we have now, in many cases they still
are
the most powerful of the configuration. You have some motors being built
with as much as 150hp straight off the gas. I don't know of anyone who's
building out BMWs to give as many choices of what Harley designs do.
-----end quote----

Now that certainly reads like you are saying the "Even the V-Twin
configuration didn't come out until the mid 50s." What were the large
HD motors before the 1950s if not V-Twins ?

HD says the V-Twin goes back to the 1920s and before. If you want to
argue it, argue it with them because they are the ones saying it and
they just may know something about it. They most assuredly don't say
the V-Twin came out in the 1950s. If you had said the first motor for
the Sportster came out in the 50s, that would be correct, but the
blanket statement you made of "Even the V-Twin configuration didn't come
out until the mid 50s." is not correct. The Panhead was released in the
late 40s and the Shovel didn't appear until the 60s. the Knucklehead and
the Panhead are definitely V-Twins produced prior to the 1950s, in fact
the Knucklehead offered the same displacment as the 60s Shovelhead, 74
inches. The V-Twin has been around a long time.

 

Like I said, to you a VTwin is a VTwin. You don't know the difference
between motors.

The panhead was the first motor to be used which resembled what Harley uses
today. That didn't go in until (using your timeframe) '49. Okay, sue me...I
was a year off....maybe a few. Who really cares?

The Sportster was more of a European design in both engine and transmission
than an American design and didn't resemble anything we have now. It was
built and designed to compete with the many makers of bikes over there. The
Nortons, Triumphs, BSAs and so on.

The knucklehead wasn't even a close resemblence to what they have now
because of the many workings of it. Again, the topic and discussion was
design of today and how long it's been around. Saying that a VTwin is a
VTwin, then by that, my VT1100 is the same as a Harley motor....that's
stupid. But in your haste, you can't see it.

As I said, either show different or shut up.

If you want to argue that the VTwin is a VTwin and the only difference
between the many motors built by Harley were the heads, feel free to go say
it to them. They'll get a charge out of someone being so silly as
you...especially someone claiming to be riding a BMW.

 

That is not the only difference, but HD does differentiate and names
their big twin motors by the head design.

A V-Twin is a V-Twin: a two cylinder engine arranged in a "V" shape.

Moto Guzzi makes a V-Twin, as did Indian as does Ducati, as different as
each of those are from each other, they are V-Twins. Triumph makes
Twins, but they are not V-Twins. Honda and Yamaha make V-Twins as does
HD. HD made them long before the 1950s. The widely different designs
from each manufacturer are all subsets of the V-Twin engine definition

To say Harley didn't make a V-Twin before the 1950s is incorrect.

 

I guess my point is that one person might feel some things make a bike well
engineered and another might not.
I am sure there are people that say that any well engineered bike must have
a water cooled engine, for instance.

To me, it's just a matter of personal taste.
If you know your bike's limitations, then any piece of crap can be quite
fun.

 

And to put it back into context of the discussion and what I said, I own a
Harley VTwin motor in my Honda...because it's a VTwin: "a two cylinder
engine arranged in a "V" shape".

Go tell that to Harley Davidson. Better yet, go try selling that one to any
other motor manufacturer.

What I was referring to was what would equate to today's motor. Everyone but
you gets it.

 

The knucklehead engine certainly looks very similar to today's Harley
V-twin.
Pushrods and overhead cam and everything. Introduced in the mid-30's,
dontchaknow. Probably one of my next bikes. And you shouldn't fault him for
refering to web references.
We all are geeks, after all.

 

Brian, I don't think any of ya have mentioned the K-Model Harley, the
first soCalled Sportster. It was about a 900, I think. I rode one in
1953..(a friends) We all thought it was something. I had a little ole
125 Harley! I delivered Papers off of it, rain or shine...in those days.

<>haveAgoodDay-Bjay<>

 

I mentioned it in an earlier post. It was the completely new HD motor
introduced in the 50s. It followed the Panhead (1948) and preceded the
Shovel (1963/64) and was also for a completely new type of bike for HD.
It might have even been a V-Twin. <vbg>.

 

That's like saying a John Deere Backhoe is poorly engineered because it
won't go as fast, isn't as aerodynamic and won't handle like a Porsche
Boxter.

Even putting it cars to cars...insert Ford Fiesta (well, maybe not that one
since it truly is a piece of crap...but you get the idea) or Chrysler PT
Cruiser.

Once again, we have a misunderstanding going. I'm talking about other
companies using the Harley designed motor and building it out to extreme
power specs.

The S&S and Screaming Eagle motors ARE Harley Davidson motors. They might
have the parts in them different, but the design is a Harley motor.

This still isn't going into the many bikes out there running nitros oxide
and many other power boosts you can do to a motor.

My point was that people aren't doing these wild things to BMWs on a regular
basis. We don't have builders out here calling up the Discovery Channel and
saying "I'm going to build a chopper to win Daytona and compete with other
top builders of the world...and it'll look just like a BMW....right down to
the engine...but the biggest thing is....I'M GONNA CHANGE THE COLOR OF THE
PAINT".

Of all the motorcycles I've ever seen, I've never found the perfectly
designed motorcycle....never. Even as much as I like yours, it has many
flaws I've noticed in the design which draws it down. The bikes are built
for a "market" and they are suited well for that. Whether the Harley's are
overpriced is irrelevant, they are still designed to be what suits their
market base. If they changed their design because someone riding a BMW
wanted something more like a BMW, they'd lose their market base and might
not even gain the BMW base. How many people have said over the years they
wanted something sportier and water cooled? Then Harley built the VRod...and
how many are actually being bought by those same people who said they wanted
that in a motorcycle? I've seen two up close since they came out. Vibration
is a "feature" of Harleys which their riders want. The low revving engines
are something their riders want. The heavy frame and feel is something their
riders want. The air cooled engines are something their riders want. Their
ability to look and sound like anything their riders want to make is
something their riders want.

If that's something you don't agree with, go tell Harley that while they're
counting their money on Wall Street. Go over to Harry Hines and tell that to
Rick Fairless. I could go on and on.

I've rode with a whole bunch of Harley Davidson motorcycles in my years.
I've never seen one to lose parts on the highway. I've never seen one to
have a bunch of flats everytime we ride and need to have the inner tubes
"lubed". I've never even had one not be able to keep up. Back in the AMF
days, there were many times that the owners of those bikes would know the
limitations and leave their Harleys parked in the garage and take their
Goldwings instead...but times have changed quite a bit since then. Now those
same guys are taking their Harleys out on the roads and using their tow
straps to tow the jap bikes or strap down the beer. They might not be the
fastest out of the factory, but they certainly are not the clunkers that
were presented earlier in this thread.

 

I wish I could find that vibration damper on mine...so I could chunk it in
the trash.

My bike is a smooth running bike. I changed the handlebars on it and now if
I'm not holding the grips at an idle, it shakes like a Harley. Maybe it's
something to do with having Harley Davidson handlebars on it?

 

Nahhh. We are just shooting the shit.

Actually, I don't see much of marketing from the MOCO at all. I nearly fell
out of my chair when I saw an HD commercial on TV. Marketing is much more
evident with other marques. There is a mystique that HD surely will take
advantage of, but it came more from the public than anything the company
did.

 

It must be just the weather or the season, but it seems there's quite a bit
of confusion. What he was talking about was my hands...not my
waist...although I couldn't get "handles" from my waist.

 

X-No-archive: yes

You mean because they have such a high foreign part content?

 

X-No-archive: yes

I agree.