[QUOTE=Lucky Luke;14559890 Of course, the problem with the Japanese is that they keep fiddling with their models and producing new ones every month so they are never supported by the aftermarket to the same extend as Harley's are. But I think the 1500cc Vulcans have pretty much settled into a similar space at Evo Big Twins have; perfectly adequate rides at great bargain prices. I've never owned one but would not be adverse to doing so.[/QUOTE]

I don't know if Harleys much better when it comes to spitting out different models or variations of existing models. I know I can't keep track of them all. Things definitely were much simpler in past decades.

 

I think the deal with HD is they can have 100 different "styles" on 2 or 3 different frames, with the same engine and transmission. It makes having an aftermarket very easy.

 

That's very possible. I am at the stage of my Harley evolution where the only thing I go to a Harley shop for is a t shirt or oil filter. Actually, earlier today I visited the Harley shop here in Hanoi, Vietnam, to grab a couple t shirts.

 

Yeah, the radio and the ignition module. The rest is pretty much just wiring and switches.

 

Yes, it's a sort of genius but unfortunately on par with Soviet era approach (one size fits, all rooted in 1950s technology), whereas the Japanese have two other different approaches.

One is a strong concept of "kaizen", a strategy of never-ending small efforts for "improvements" which makes a parts man's life hell because one part will only fit one year's releases.



You can see H-D's 20 year long steps in the second curve.

The other element is a kind of love of novelty or testing out new ideas in the market place. That is to say, they dump a dozen or more new and very different products in the marketplace to see which one catches, and then run with it dropping the others. If, unfortunately, you like a product which was not popular, you'll never see another part for it ever again.

It makes for an interesting and eclectic collection of vintage motorcycles, and some very cheap second hand vehicles, but not a very fecund aftermarket.

I like H-D's Soviet era "uni-wagon" approach to perfectly adequate transportation. It's very rational and it's allowed a rich aftermarket. All it really needed/needs was to be engineered to slightly higher standards, a standard equal to its paint jobs --- but that's the accountants' and management's fault, and not the workers or engineers.

Or something ...

 

The difference in the approaches is that the Japanese motorcycles were never designed to stand the test of time. The vast majority of them from their hey day of the late 70's and 80's ended up in salvage yards with no aftermarket support, and most parts discontinued for them within 18 months after the model's production run was over.

Harleys from the same era still have some limited dealer support, very rich aftermarket support, and most of them still on the road and being ridden.

I'm going to say that Harley-Davidson's strategy was ultimately more successful.

 

It would have been interesting to see how Harley would have evolved after the Evo in the absence of the EPA.

 

To me it isn't the EPA that did the most damage to the TC's.
They were brought down by the accountants IMO.

 

Accountants are good at that. They have nothing better to do. :-)

 

That's an interesting question. I guess it depends on how we define "success" -- by the bottomline (profits), by the numbers of miles travelled, by the jobs made and done, by the number of happy customers, by the races won?

I suppose the Japanese/Asian equivalent of the H-D, in terms of both utilitarian transport and customization would a 125cc 4-cycle single, or even a Cub. Over 60 million units shipped, and is still in production today.

I'm not dissing it but H-D itself controls a narrow niche in a fairly narrow socio-economic band, and it's pretty much US only. I appreciate it, I like the concept of sticking with one thing that is perfectly adequate and working, but I think we need a better definition, something like the "most sustainable engineering eco-system" (for big people with big roads). You couldn't run an H-D on half the road the Cubs manage (nor carry the usual 5 passengers and a couple of chickens).

These are the real dangers to its continued existence though, demographics and economic tendencies --


I've been wondering that. Looking at developments incorporated into the Sportster and TC top ends (better breathing, better sealing) is one clue. S&S is another (bigger inch, better more resolved engineering). If S&S could do it, why couldn't H-D?

Would the market have have consumed a non-pushrod engine like the X Wedge? Belt driven OHC, 3 or 4 valves per head? Water cooled top end? Nova?

Like them or not, Victory did resolve a lot of technical legacy problems in the engine design but that would have broken more of inter-exchangeability.

From an EPA point of view, what was/is the real problem with the Evo engine?