Yup, it can burn ya. But the fact that the engine is hot is just plain common sense. If you're too dumb to know that, then you're too dumb to be allowed on the road, on a bike or in a car or anything else. Although all my burns have always come from the pipes, not the engine - seems to me that you'd have to touch the hot engine on purpose in order to get burned from it; it isn't gonna happen from just riding or getting on or off. The often quoted McDonalds coffee lawsuit was actually valid, despite what most people think. Coffee is NOT supposed to be hot enough to cause 2nd degree burns, and no consumer is going to expect the coffee they buy to be that hot. 1st degree burns (where it hurts and the skin gets red) would be reasonable to expect if you spill the stuff on yourself, but not 2nd degree (where it causes blisters). But this just isn't the same thing. If you open the hood of a car after driving 100 miles and hold your hand against the block, can you sue Chevy, or whoever, because you get burned? Same thing, as far as I can see. But I'd like to know something about that claim about setting clothing on fire under "normal operating conditions". What KIND of clothing? Paper jeans, maybe? And again, what is your clothing doing touching the engine for long enough to catch fire, if that claim is even true? On the other hand, if a pair of jeans can catch fire after maybe 2 seconds of contact with the engine, then it IS a defect. But I kinda doubt that's really the case. What did they do, lay a shirt on top of the engine and let it sit until it caught? That'd be just like complaining that you got hurt after you loaded your gun, chambered a round, placed the muzzle against your body, and fired the thing. Or like suing the people who make Louisville Sluggers because their baseball bats can break your leg if you hit yourself hard enough with one. Or suing HD because if you ride a Wide Glide into a tree at 60 mph you get hurt. There's an actual legal concept in liability law called "reasonable use". If a product causes damage during reasonable use, and the manufacturer didn't warn the consumer about the possibility, it's actionable. But I just don't see how touching a hot engine with your skin can be considered reasonable use, and I sure can't see any way, during reasonable use, that the thing can set clothing on fire.

OK, I hate conspiracy theorists. Kennedy was killed by the CIA, things like that, where the fact that nobody can actually prove that something didn't really happen that way seems to be enough to "prove" the conspiracy claim to some people. But.... I'd love to know what, if any, connection these plaintiffs (and/or their lawyers) have to the environmental movement. Let's face it, liquid cooled engines are a lot better, if all you care about are emissions, than air cooled. Unfortunately for the Eco-nuts, there are too many of us who feel that a liquid cooled Harley isn't really a Harley. Heck, I have problems even with the twin cam. As far as I'm concerned, Harley perfected the engine with the Evo, then started going downhill with the first twin cam. And most of that downhill slide has been caused by emissions and noise "pollution" concerns. But as long as enough of us want air cooled Harleys, I suspect they'll keep making them. But it's all dollars and cents, and if it gets so expensive for Harley to keep selling air cooled engines that it outweighs the profits from them, every HD coming out of the factory will be water cooled. And it wouldn't be the first time that some group with their own agenda used lawsuits to force someone to do what they wanted, when they couldn't accomplish it any other way.

 

The reason for the engine changes over the last few years have been directly in responce to the EPA and changing environmental regulations. VW quit selling the air cooled engine in the USA in 1979 because of regulations, They made them other places for another 20 years. The air cooled VW Beetle was the best selling vehicle in Mexico in the 1990's. WHEN, Harley changes over to water cooling it will be because of the government, not the public demand for such things.

 

tl;dr. Cliffs?

 

So Kennedy was killed by the CIA?

 

i heard they forgot to stop making the old style beetles in mexico.

 

"Kennedy was killed by the CIA" is probably the most popular conspiracy theory around, and it's actually believed by tens of thousands of people. One popular version of it is that the CIA hired the Mafia to do it and that Jack Ruby, who did have some gang connections, killed Oswald to shut him up.

About the EPA. Like I said, the downhill slide in the V-Twin was caused by pollution concerns. Yes, it was mostly forced by EPA regulations. But EPA regs still haven't gotten to the point where absolutely no air cooled engine can meet them, and there are people who want them outlawed completely.

No, I'm not saying that this lawsuit is part of some Eco-nut conspiracy, but on the other hand I wouldn't be too terribly surprised to find out that there was some connection there.