The next Touring frame
#41
I'm in the new frame = better camp.
I totally get the argument on cost savings. But think about the efforts made to get the new M8 motor out to the public. I doubt they want to unravel the momentum by providing an inferior product just to save costs. No, I believe the biggest war Harley is fighting is with itself. They want to make a better bike, but the Willie G influence still has some legacy there. And that legacy is heritage. Which really means stick with what you know sells.
But there has been a changing of the guard at the Moco, and with it, a significant paradigm shift that understands that to be profitable in the future, they will need to up the ante.
I think the new frame will be part of that. It could be a win/win. Fingers crossed.
I totally get the argument on cost savings. But think about the efforts made to get the new M8 motor out to the public. I doubt they want to unravel the momentum by providing an inferior product just to save costs. No, I believe the biggest war Harley is fighting is with itself. They want to make a better bike, but the Willie G influence still has some legacy there. And that legacy is heritage. Which really means stick with what you know sells.
But there has been a changing of the guard at the Moco, and with it, a significant paradigm shift that understands that to be profitable in the future, they will need to up the ante.
I think the new frame will be part of that. It could be a win/win. Fingers crossed.
#43
But I also said one short ride on the V-Rod made the M8 slow by comparison. Both of which make my bike very slow by comparison unfortunately.
#44
They said we'd never break the sound barrier either.
Losing the full frame, putting the engine on a diet, going to an aluminum single-sided swingarm, and making another few changes would get you most of the way there. The Ultras ran around 750 pounds prior to 2008; they've gotten porky.
Getting the weight back down close to 700 pounds and losing as much unsprung weight as possible would make the bikes go, stop, turn, and ride a ton better. That's a serious win for everyone.
Losing the full frame, putting the engine on a diet, going to an aluminum single-sided swingarm, and making another few changes would get you most of the way there. The Ultras ran around 750 pounds prior to 2008; they've gotten porky.
Getting the weight back down close to 700 pounds and losing as much unsprung weight as possible would make the bikes go, stop, turn, and ride a ton better. That's a serious win for everyone.
The following users liked this post:
TwiZted Biker (09-04-2016)
#45
Poo-poo it all y'all like, a lighter bike will always be the more entertaining to ride.
#46
Most of the $15k-$22k Dual Sport bikes now come with electronic adjustable suspensions with three ride modes that the rider can select, 125 to 160 HP motors, and up to 8 gallons of gas. You'd sure think that for the high prices of Harley and or Indian / Polaris touring bikes the manufacturers would be at least coming up with modern electronic adjustable front and rear suspensions, ride modes, lean angle ABS, and a little bit bigger gas tanks like the less expensive dual sport bikes now come with.
Last edited by jamesroadking; 09-05-2016 at 06:28 AM.
The following users liked this post:
nevada72 (09-04-2016)
#47
Sitting side by side in my garage and for the life of me I cannot figure out what HD's excuse is with the weight. I like the SG but damn that RT just makes me wonder what century the SG is from
#48
Riding habits and skillz are the next big issue , most riders can't use a lighter bike to it's potential. Not going to go into the hardware, pegs, pipes and primary's I've roached getting busy on a twisty somewhere. It ain't sparking you ain't riding it.
#49
I'll agree to that in a general sense but a lot has to do with where an individual lives and rides. Grew up in Baltimore and learned to ride the surrounding country side and hills. Roads and conditions back there warrant a smaller lighter bike. Get out west a bit with the wide open plains or real mountains you like some weight on that sled, cross winds out here can be deadly if you aren't nailed to the rode with some weight behind you.
Riding habits and skillz are the next big issue , most riders can't use a lighter bike to it's potential. Not going to go into the hardware, pegs, pipes and primary's I've roached getting busy on a twisty somewhere. It ain't sparking you ain't riding it.
Riding habits and skillz are the next big issue , most riders can't use a lighter bike to it's potential. Not going to go into the hardware, pegs, pipes and primary's I've roached getting busy on a twisty somewhere. It ain't sparking you ain't riding it.
#50
I'll agree to that in a general sense but a lot has to do with where an individual lives and rides. Grew up in Baltimore and learned to ride the surrounding country side and hills. Roads and conditions back there warrant a smaller lighter bike. Get out west a bit with the wide open plains or real mountains you like some weight on that sled, cross winds out here can be deadly if you aren't nailed to the rode with some weight behind you.
Riding habits and skillz are the next big issue , most riders can't use a lighter bike to it's potential. Not going to go into the hardware, pegs, pipes and primary's I've roached getting busy on a twisty somewhere. It ain't sparking you ain't riding it.
Riding habits and skillz are the next big issue , most riders can't use a lighter bike to it's potential. Not going to go into the hardware, pegs, pipes and primary's I've roached getting busy on a twisty somewhere. It ain't sparking you ain't riding it.
"Road hugging weight" will always be trumped by superior aerodynamics and suspension.