How many cylinders in a Harley?
aki
Ok trivia time...
A conversation came up between a few newbie moto-heads (tm) the other
weekend. In their MSF class, they said one of the instructors said that
ALL Harleys are two cylinder engines. HD doesn't make 4 cylinder engines.
I thought about this and thought, "yeah, Harleys rattle your teeth right
out of your head...this might make sense"...than I thought, "naw...I
couldn't
see an Electraglide rumbling down the road on two cylinders!
So...DO all Harleys only have two cylinders?
-aki
DoD #0628
85 Magna - definately a V4...
Jon Costa
I don't think there are any carp left that take that kinda bait Sparky =:^)
-- Jon DoD#1830
131P10000-FranklinKL(DR8219)252
Yep, ALL production Harleys are 2 cylinder - V twin, the configuration
is referred to. Harley has three engine displacements - 883 cc, 1200 cc
(74 cu in) and 1340 cc (80 cu in). So yes, that Electraglide IS rumbling
down the road on two cylinders.
Harley has sold bikes with other than 2 cylinders. Some of the Aermacchis
of the AMF era were singles. I think that Harley is also putting its name
on a Rotax powered machine intended for the European police market, but
for all practical purposes, all Harleys are V twins.
Erik van Bronkhorst Code C02313 Phone 939-1421
: Ok trivia time...
: A conversation came up between a few newbie moto-heads (tm) the other
: weekend. In their MSF class, they said one of the instructors said that
: ALL Harleys are two cylinder engines. HD doesn't make 4 cylinder engines.
Typical of MSF instructors. Their bikes are smarter then they are.
Harley made singles, including small displacement two-strokes for
a time.
--
Erik van Bronkhorst KC6UUT DoD#4342585443 AMA#438054
Advocate and practitioner of Death Or Glory Programming (DOG-P)
Alan Fleming
>
> Ok trivia time...
>
as incredibly obvious bait.
> So...DO all Harleys only have two cylinders?
>
Just for idle entertainment...
No. In fact, the original Harley was a small cc single. Many of the early
Harleys were single cylinder motors but none sold as well as their V twin
arrangments. Also in the 50 - 60s, Harley sold a large variety of small cc
single cylinder two strokes to try to bring people into motorcycling.
However, Harley has always been known for 45 degree V-twins and that is
currently the only street configuration manufactured by Harley. They are
currently selling a single cylinder machine, powered by a Rotax single, to
various military forces around the world.
Think Peace.
-- Alan (al...@eng.tridom.com)
KotBBBB (1988 GSXR1100J) AMA# 634578 DOD# 4210 PGP key available
Michael Nelson
>aki (a...@akidamme-233324.worldbank.org) wrote:
>
>Typical of MSF instructors. Their bikes are smarter then they are.
>Harley made singles, including small displacement two-strokes for
>a time.
They didn't actually manufacture those two strokes and singles, did they?
Didn't they buy them from some Italian company (Aermacci or something like
that) and put Harley Davidson insignia on them?
Michael Nelson 1992 Ducati 851
internet: nel...@seahunt.imat.com "It's RED, and it's LOUD!"
San Francisco, California Dod #0735
John Stafford
Yea, I know this is bait, but: NO! There were singles
made by Harley in the early years and singles made in
Italy bearing Harley's sig later. And the twins were not
all V configs; there was one horizontally opposed twin
that looked much like a BMW (or Zundap) made for the war.
Now, who knows about the Porche designed four banger Harley
did _not_ produce? Was it a V config or a Wing config?
OH, and who gives a shit, anyway?
Gaz
Is it true that all Harleys come with a factory set speed resrictor?
Gaz
Andrew Michael Woodward
>Is it true that all Harleys come with a factory set speed resrictor?
It is a distributed-system speed regulator.....
aki
writes:
>Sure that isn't fishing time? If this is an honest question it is
disquised
>as incredibly obvious bait.
>
..actually it *was* an honest question, after reading my post, I can see
how
it looked like bait. Honest! I had always assumed that the larger HD's
were V4's....learn something new everyday I guess..
So..I assume then that the Japanese were the ones that introduced the V4
twin? If so what company first introduced it? Honda?
cheers,
-aki
DoD 0628
Name withheld by request
> >So...DO all Harleys only have two cylinders?
> Yea, I know this is bait, but: NO! There were singles
> made by Harley in the early years and singles made in
> Italy bearing Harley's sig later. And the twins were not
> all V configs; there was one horizontally opposed twin
> that looked much like a BMW (or Zundap) made for the war.
Back in the 20s, HD also made a horizontally opposed twin, with the engine
mounted parallel to the frame (like a boxer engine mounted sideways). I
think they called it the Speed Twin or the Sport Twin. For its day it was
quite fast and quite radical. There was a write up in one of the Yankee
motorcycle mags (Cycle World I think) a couple of months ago. Neat
looking bike.
--
Bruce Clarke e-mail reply to: bcl...@galaxy.gov.bc.ca
John R. Daker
In a previous article, g...@aber.ac.uk (Gaz) says:
>
>
>Is it true that all Harleys come with a factory set speed resrictor?
>
>Gaz
>
Yes. It's called 'the engine'.
--
D# |
o6 | "That's one of the remarkable things about life. It's never so bad that
D5 | it can't get worse." - Calvin
0 |
Jim Groh
All current models of Harleys have 2 cylinders. Was not always true.
There were some 1 cylinder models in the past.
>
>-aki
>DoD #0628
>85 Magna - definately a V4...
--
Jim Groh gr...@sig.cs.fsu.edu | DoD #0356 | Hog# 0437643 |new improved
1959 XLH 900 ** 1982 FXR ** 1989 XLH 883 ** 1990 XLH 1200 | smaller sig
Jim Groh
Oh shit, I hate that when it happens!!!
Seth Zirin
My 1991 Softail is a four (4) cylinder model. It has two engine cylinders
and two master cylinders for the brakes...
Seth Zirin
Ian Deeley
> aki (a...@akidamme-233324.worldbank.org) wrote:
>
> : A conversation came up between a few newbie moto-heads (tm) the other
> : weekend. In their MSF class, they said one of the instructors said that
> : ALL Harleys are two cylinder engines. HD doesn't make 4 cylinder engines.
>
> Typical of MSF instructors. Their bikes are smarter then they are.
> Harley made singles, including small displacement two-strokes for
> a time.
look-alike, & it was road legal. It used to get some amazing reactions
when people saw the Harley badge on the tank. I must get it back on the
road!
TTFN,
Ian.
--
Ian Deeley "...Whatever you do will be
School of Engineering | | insignificant, but its very
University of Sussex --=oOo=-- important that you do it.."
England. Anon
Ross Klippert
---
In article 18...@worldbank.org, aki <a...@akidamme-233324.worldbank.org> writes:
>In article <CEG5t...@tridom.com> Alan Fleming, al...@eng.tridom.com
>writes:
>>Sure that isn't fishing time? If this is an honest question it is
>disquised
>>as incredibly obvious bait.
>>
>
>
>...actually it *was* an honest question, after reading my post, I can see
>how
>it looked like bait. Honest! I had always assumed that the larger HD's
>were V4's....learn something new everyday I guess..
>
>So..I assume then that the Japanese were the ones that introduced the V4
^^^^^^^
>twin? If so what company first introduced it? Honda?
^^^^
I think he's drowned the first one and just put a fresh worm on the hook...
>
>cheers,
>
>-aki
>DoD 0628
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Klippert | '83 V65 Magna => "You wouldn't...
Motorola GSTG | ...but you KNOW you could."
Scottsdale, AZ | -Original V65 Commercial-
ro...@cso.geg.mot.com | DoD: 110065
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Ramage
^^^^
Twin refers to two cylinders. That's why Harley's, the
large bores, are called Big Twins. A V4 is a quad.
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
| Dan Ramage |ram...@charlie.ece.scarolina.edu |
|'86 Vulcan 750 |DoD#0798 |
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
|"Them bats is smart, they use radar." -D. Letterman |
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
Jim Groh
>
>
>Is it true that all Harleys come with a factory set speed resrictor?
>
>Gaz
compliance measure) which gives a top speed of 105 (dod minimum) indicated
with a 109 actual (radar measured, don't ask). On the other hand
it is easy to remedy.
Jon Costa
That's right, now you're learning! If a hook won't work just throw dynamite.
Knife? *Thats* not a knife, _this_ is a knife -- Crocodile Dundee
-- Jon DoD#1830
John Stafford
> Is it true that all Harleys come with a factory set speed resrictor?
Only the VTwins. The 1994 V4 Eagle is not restricted.
--
John Stafford Minnesota State University @ Winona
Wayne Orwig
>: Ok trivia time...
>: A conversation came up between a few newbie moto-heads (tm) the other
>: weekend. In their MSF class, they said one of the instructors said that
>: ALL Harleys are two cylinder engines. HD doesn't make 4 cylinder engines.
>Typical of MSF instructors. Their bikes are smarter then they are.
>Harley made singles, including small displacement two-strokes for
>a time.
Hey, watch that, I might resemble that remark.
This post HAS to be bait!
So, in playing along, and taking the bait. Obviously all production HDs are
twins, they imported some singles from Italy and used to built some
singles. They even had a shafty years ago. BUT, about 8 years ago there was a
rumor of a V4 that HD had contracted to be built! What happened to that
experiment, anyone know?
As always, my opinions are just that, mine!
Socrates was a famous Greek teacher who went around
giving people advice. They killed him!
AMA# 96126 other AMA# 416890
not a member of the third AMA.
131P10000-FranklinKL(DR8219)252
>
>Gaz
Yes, it's called an extremely leaned out, big bore, V-twin engine.
Bill Slack
Staf...@Ultra1.Winona.MSUS.edu (John Stafford) writes:
> Now, who knows about the Porche designed four banger Harley
> did _not_ produce? Was it a V config or a Wing config?
It was a V-4
> OH, and who gives a shit, anyway?
Well, it would have been the best engine any Harley ever had by far! Problem
was, Harleys sell to people who want bikes that vibrate like Harleys
(Harlies?). The Porsche engine was too smooth. It was configured as a vee so
that it would at least look like a v-twin from the side. I think Porsche
originally proposed a boxer 4.
Bill
__
w...@gozer.mv.com (Bill Slack) DoD #0430
But her tears were shed in vain and her every word was lost
In the rumble of his engine and the smoke from his exhaust! Oo..o&o
Chris BeHanna
>nk.org> writes:
>>
>>
>>Ok trivia time...
>>
>>A conversation came up between a few newbie moto-heads (tm) the other
>>weekend. In their MSF class, they said one of the instructors said that
>>ALL Harleys are two cylinder engines. HD doesn't make 4 cylinder engines.
>>
>>I thought about this and thought, "yeah, Harleys rattle your teeth right
>>out of your head...this might make sense"...than I thought, "naw...I
>>couldn't
>>see an Electraglide rumbling down the road on two cylinders!
>>
>>So...DO all Harleys only have two cylinders?
>>
>>-aki
>>DoD #0628
>>85 Magna - definately a V4...
You're quite correct in your belief, Aki. All Harleys are V4s, just
like your Magna.
Later,
--
Chris BeHanna DoD# 114 1975 CB360T - Baby Bike
beh...@syl.nj.nec.com 1991 ZX-11 - needs a name
Disclaimer: Now why would NEC <Looking for a race bike for this space.>
agree with any of this anyway? I was raised by a pack of wild corn dogs.
Gaz
>From: ta...@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Ian Deeley)
>Subject: Re: How many cylinders in a Harley?
>Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 14:12:18 GMT
>They certainly did & I've got one, its a 90cc monkey bike
>& it was road legal. It used to get some amazing reactions
>when people saw the Harley badge on the tank. I must get it back on
>the road!
> TTFN,
> Ian.
Nice article Ian, I for one didn't realise that Harley at one time actually
had the balls to name one of their bikes after the average Harley rider.
I respect them for their integrity, tell me, what did they call the
larger bikes, The hairy-assed gorilla perhaps.................
Gaz
Gaz
>Back in the 20s, HD also made a horizontally opposed twin, with the engine
>mounted parallel to the frame (like a boxer engine mounted sideways). I
>think they called it the Speed Twin or the Sport Twin. For its day it was
>quite fast and quite radical. There was a write up in one of the Yankee
>motorcycle mags (Cycle World I think) a couple of months ago. Neat
>looking bike.
>--
>Bruce Clarke e-mail reply to: bcl...@galaxy.gov.bc.ca
Look, I am a fairly tolerant sort of guy, If people like Harleys, okay. If you
want to disscuss them on R.C., even thou you have your own group, thats okay,
it really doesn't bother me. I can even handle the fact that so many people
seem to think that they are so innovative and high-tech (must admit its sad
thou) :)
What really bugs is when the conversation slips into the absurd, since when
has any Harley been quite fast. You'll be trying to tell us next that that
some Harleys can corner without the use of a sidestand, or reverse gear.
One of the most endearing things about the Harley has always been the ability
to talk to all those lovely old folk as they walk beside you when your out for
a run, so please boys and girls, lets keep it believable, Ta.
Gaz
Andrew Michael Woodward
>All current models of Harleys have 2 cylinders.
The working one and a spare......
Andrew Michael Woodward
Andrew Michael Woodward
I find gratuitously tying a few unrelated threads together works well.
A hook only get one at a time but you can trawl buckets full at once with a
net....
>Knife? *Thats* not a knife, _this_ is a knife -- Crocodile Dundee
>
I subscribe to the Indiarubber Jones school of swordfighting........
BAAAAANG!
Josh J Fielek
>
>My 1991 Softail is a four (4) cylinder model. It has two engine cylinders
>and two master cylinders for the brakes...
>
It has six, if it's single disk, seven if dual.
Two in the engine,
Front master, front slave, second front slave if double disk.
Rear master, rear slave.
Don't forget - Slaves are very important to the system. Where would the south be...
Oops... Wrong slaves... Wrong era... Gee... a time period before Harley's last
new design. What a concept.
>Seth Zirin
Spot the flame bait, win valuable laughter.
--
Joshua J. Fielek Inter-National Research Institute
DoD#385 AMA#517381 WERA#969 j...@speedy.inri.com
Politics - From the Greek Poly, meaning many, and the English Tics, meaning
little blood sucking insects. - copyright 1991, J. Fielek
Jeffrey Friedl
I nominate Gaz as _Straight_Man_Of_The_Month_.
*jeff*
sean kerns
|>
|> >So...DO all Harleys only have two cylinders?
|>
|> made by Harley in the early years and singles made in
|> Italy bearing Harley's sig later. And the twins were not
|> all V configs; there was one horizontally opposed twin
|> that looked much like a BMW (or Zundap) made for the war.
|>
|> did _not_ produce? Was it a V config or a Wing config?
|>
Even though nobody gives a shit, I was reading a Harley picture book
recently ('cause those are the only kind I understand), and it made mention
of the Porsche engine. I believe it said it was a V-4, though you'd
probably expect a flat four from Porsche.
I wonder if anyone ever made one of those VW-trike thingies with
a Porsche motor instead of the VW.
Sean
=====================================================================
| Sean R. "Snake" Kerns e-mail: sean....@sdrc.com |
| DoD# 1052 '48 CJ-2A '79 F-250 4x4 429 '93 750 Virago |
| Structural Dynamics Research Corporation '79 AQHA |
| These opinions aren't SDRC's... They may not even be MINE... |
=====================================================================
Dave Tharp CDS
>
> I think that Harley is also putting its name
>on a Rotax powered machine intended for the European police market, but
>for all practical purposes, all Harleys are V twins.
Harley has bought out the famous old British frame maker, Armstrong.
Armstrong in the past has supplied Rotax powered bikes to the British
Army, and Harley-Armstrong recently landed another fat contract to
continue to do this. It's a 350cc OHC engine with a low compression
ratio, designed to run on NATO standard fuels and lubricants.
With a 600 Rotax, it would be a great dual-purpose explorer bike,
like a BMW P-D, but I don't think Harley has any plans in that
department.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dave Tharp | DoD #0751 | "You can't wear out |
| da...@interceptor.CDS.TEK.COM | MRA #151 | an Indian Scout, |
| '88 K75S '48 Indian Chief | AHRMA #751 | Or its brother the Chief.|
| '75 R90S(#151) '72 TR-2B(#751) | AMA #524737 | They're built like rocks |
| '65 R50/2/Velorex '57 NSU Max | | to take the knocks, |
| 1936 BMW R12 | (Compulsive | It's the Harleys that |
| My employer has no idea. | Joiner) | give you grief." |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE GRAHAM
>
>My 1991 Softail is a four (4) cylinder model. It has two engine cylinders
>and two master cylinders for the brakes...
>
>Seth Zirin
Yea, and the brake cylinders generate more hp.
Couldn't resist!
S. Graham
Erik van Bronkhorst Code C02313 Phone 939-1421
: My 1991 Softail is a four (4) cylinder model. It has two engine cylinders
: and two master cylinders for the brakes...
: Seth Zirin
Yes, but then how many pistons does it have?
--
Erik van Bronkhorst KC6UUT DoD#4342585443 AMA#438054
Advocate and practitioner of Death Or Glory Programming (DOG-P)
Paul M. Smith
>
>Typical of MSF instructors. Their bikes are smarter then they are.
Thank you very much. At least I know the difference between "then" and "than".
--
P.M. Smith
Bruno Melli
: They didn't actually manufacture those two strokes and singles, did they?
: Didn't they buy them from some Italian company (Aermacci or something like
: that) and put Harley Davidson insignia on them?
I have one of these rotting in my mom's garage in France.
250 cc 1 cylinder 2 stroke dirt bike.
The weird thing about that bike is that if you set the timing according
to specs it has too much advance (is that the right word ? What do you call
the time between when the spark shows up and when the piston actually reach
the top of the cylinder). Anyway the symptoms you get is that if you almost
stall the engine, or try to start it but don't give a real biker (TM) quick
the engine will actually run (like shit) in the opposite direction that what
it was designed to go.
You should have seen the look on the face of one of my friend who
borrowed the beast for a spin. He came back and told me that he
"front ended" the car waiting behind him at a red light !!!
I mentioned to him that he must have found the reverse gear.
"You mean this bike has a reverse ???"
To which I responded matter of factly: "Of course. this is an Harley"
Anyway, for off road purpose the bike is total jumk. Bad suspension,
classic tear shaped gas tank borrowed from the street version,
exhaust pipe coming up on the side of the bike... Its only redeeming
feature was the power of the engine and the tractor like traction in the
mud.
bruno.
131AA0000-RogersC(DR8926)273
>
>>.... For its day it was
>>quite fast and quite radical.
>
>What really bugs is when the conversation slips into the absurd, since when
>has any Harley been quite fast.
Since 1908, when Walter Davidson won the Federation of American Motorcyclists
endurance run with a 2-day 1000-point run.
Since 1912, when stock 8-hp twins won the Bakersfield and San Jose, California
road races. At San Jose, the winner finished 17 miles ahead of the second
place rider.
Since 1919 when Hap Scherer set the Three Flag (British Columbia to Mexico)
record on a Sport Twin.
Since 1920, when Harleys "swept the board" at the National Championship
sidecar races in Greeley, Colorado, after riders Lester Foote and Frank
Kunce had captured all 11 first places between them during the regular
sidecar racing season.
Since 1921, when Harley won every US National Championship (1,5,10,25,50,100,
200, and 300 miles). Harley's "Wrecking Crew" team also became the first
team anywhere in the world to win a race at over 100 mph. Rider Doug Davidson
(no relation) became the first rider to break the 100-mph barrier at Brooklands
(England, you know) with a 100.76mph mark over a flying kilometer on a 61-cubic
inch Harley. He and teammate Claude Temple also set the first Brooklands
90-mph lap, the world five-mile record (twice in three months), and then records
for the classic hour, flying kilo, and the flying mile (exactly 100 mph).
Since 1925, when Joe Petrali set the all-time 100-mile board track record
averaging 100.36 mph on a 61 cu-in IOE Harley at Altoona, Pa. He also set
records in 10-mile (111.18 mph) and 25-mile (106.08 mph).
Since 1930, when Bill Davidson won the Jack Pine 500 mile National Championship
endurance race in Michigan.
Since 1935, when Joe Petrali won every US National Championship in 21.35
cubic inch class, and Earl and Dot Robinson set transcontinenetal record
of 89 hours, 58 minutes.
Since 1936, when Fred Ham set a new Three Flags record of 28 hours 7 minutes
on a side-valve 74 Harley, and Bill Connelly and Fred Dauria set a new
transcontinental sidecar record of 69 hours 46 minutes (record held until
1959).
Since 1937, when Joe Petrali set a new American speed record of 136.183 mph
two-way average on a 61 cubic inch Harley at Daytona Beach.
Since 1939, when Ben Campanale became Daytona's first two-time winner on
a Harley.
Since 1940, when Arthur "Babe" Tancrede won both Daytona and Laconia on
a Harley.
Since 1947, when seven of the top ten finishers at Daytona rode Harleys.
Since 1948, when Harley mounted racers won 19 of the 23 US National races.
Since 1949, when Harley riders took nine of the top 10 finishes at Laconia.
and Harley won 17 of 24 US National races.
Since 1953, when Paul Goldsmith won Daytona on a Harley K-model, ending
the three-year domination of Norton with an average speed of 94.5 mph.
Since 1954, when Joe Leonard won 8 US National races, winning the #1 plate
and his first of three Grand National Championships.
Since 1955, when Brad Andress won the Daytona 200 on a Harley with an
average speed of 94.57 mph.
Since 1956, when Harley became the only manufacturer to ever win every
Class C US National for a racing year.
Since 1965, when Roger Reiman won the first Daytona 200 at the new
Daytona National Speedway on a KR.
Since 1965, when George Roeder set a speed record of 177.255 mph with a
15-cubic inch Sprint engine.
Since 1968, when Cal Rayborn on a KRTT became the first rider to win
Daytona at over 100 mph, and Harleys won 18 of the 23 nationals.
Since 1970, when Cal Rayborn set the single-engine MC LSR of 265.487 mph,
which still stands today.
Since 1974, when Walter Villa won the 250cc World Championship on an
Aermacchi Harley.
Since 1976 when Walter Villa won both the 250cc and 350cc World Championships
on Aermacchi Harleys, his 3rd 250 world title.
Since Harleys won 13 times at Daytona between 1953 and 1969, and all but
four of the sixteen US Grand National Championships.
Since Harleys dominated dirt-track racing with XR-750s, taking the national
title in 1972, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, taking all the first three places in
1980, 1981 and 1982, and taking the title again in 1983. Honda started
winning in the mid-80s, but HD is back on top again in the 90s.
Since a Harley-Powered Streamliner holds the world MC multi-engine LSR.
Since top-fuel drag racers like Pete Hill, Jim McClure, and Mark Conners
turn in 7.3-second 180mph 1/4-mile times. They're not as fast as the
multis, but 7.3-seconds is "quite fast".
Chuck Rogers
car...@torreys.att.com
Andrew Michael Woodward
Exploring forestry raods pehaps......
Ever wonder why the Army specified the 350 engine?
Andrew Michael Woodward
Since Oct 1993 when Chuck Rogers took a Harley thru the sound barrier
hole-diving........
Roserunner
>So..I assume then that the Japanese were the ones that introduced the V4
>twin? If so what company first introduced it? Honda?
It was Rod Serling Motors which introduced V4 Twins to a waiting world.
Exactly which world was waiting, and which dimension it is in, has yet
to be determined.
----
A motorcycle is like a toothbrush. Everyone should have their own.
rose...@noller.com -- lotsa names, lotsa numbers, lotsa kids, lotsa bikes
e-mail Nethead t-shirt questions to my address listed above.
Gaz
>From: jfr...@nff.ncl.omron.co.jp (Jeffrey Friedl)
>Subject: Re: Speed restrictor in a Harley?
>Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 05:20:04 GMT
> *jeff*
Why thanks Jeff, but I really don't know what you mean.
Gaz
Gaz
>Subject: Re: How many cylinders in a Harley?
>Chuck Rogers
>car...@torreys.att.com
ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.................SNAP.
Hey Chuck, can I have my hook back, its the only one I've got thats that
big............................................................................
.... SHIIIIIIIT, I gonna have to use a steel-trace and a gaff in future if you
bite that hard :-)
Gaz
131AA0000-RogersC(DR8926)273
>In article <CEKD3...@bigtop.dr.att.com> car...@torreys.att.com (131AA0000-RogersC(DR8926)273) writes:
>>In article <gjs.31....@aber.ac.uk> g...@aber.ac.uk (Gaz) writes:
>>>
>>>>.... For its day it was
>>>>quite fast and quite radical.
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>What really bugs is when the conversation slips into the absurd, since when
>>>has any Harley been quite fast.
>
>
>Since Oct 1993 when Chuck Rogers took a Harley thru the sound barrier
>hole-diving........
Wow, when I constructed this old-tire "catch", I never thought I'd find
*you* on the other end of the line! What happened, did Gaz leave you
minding the poles while he visited the loo?
:-)
Chuck Rogers
car...@torreys.att.com
Seth Zirin
> In article <CEHJ5...@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, s...@mare.att.com (Seth Zirin) writes...
> >
> >My 1991 Softail is a four (4) cylinder model. It has two engine cylinders
> >and two master cylinders for the brakes...
>
My bike makes about 85 hp @ 6000 rpm on a dynojet dyno. A stock big twin
reaches about 48 hp @ 5000 rpm. If I switch to Branch heads and a
Mikuni carb, I can squeeze about 102 hp @ 6000 rpm. These are corrected
rear wheel numbers, not crankshaft numbers.
The average stock ZX-11 does about 126 hp. The Harley is easily capable of
102. Not bad for an antiquated piece of farm equipment, huh?
Stock Harleys don't make big hp because of pencil necked liberal EPA geeks...
Seth Zirin
Blaine Gardner
>>Knife? *Thats* not a knife, _this_ is a knife -- Crocodile Dundee
>>
>I subscribe to the Indiarubber Jones school of swordfighting........
Yea, but as demonstrated in the first or second movie?
>BAAAAANG!
Duhh, where'd the gun go?
:-)
--
Blaine Gardner @ Evans & Sutherland 580 Arapeen Drive, SLC, Utah 84108
blga...@sim.es.com BIX: blai...@bix.com FJ1200 XR600R LT250R DoD#46
"We usually don't stop until friction and gravity are finished." Merf
131AA0000-RogersC(DR8926)273
>In article <CEKD3...@bigtop.dr.att.com> car...@torreys.att.com (131AA0000-RogersC(DR8926)273) writes:
>>From: car...@torreys.att.com (131AA0000-RogersC(DR8926)273)
>>Subject: Re: How many cylinders in a Harley?
>>Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 05:40:12 GMT
>
>>In article <gjs.31....@aber.ac.uk> g...@aber.ac.uk (Gaz) writes:
>>>
>>>>.... For its day it was
>>>>quite fast and quite radical.
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>What really bugs is when the conversation slips into the absurd, since when
>>>has any Harley been quite fast.
>
[multi-line tedious Harley race victory listing deleted]
>ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.................SNAP.
>
>Hey Chuck, can I have my hook back, its the only one I've got thats that
>big............................................................................
>.... SHIIIIIIIT, I gonna have to use a steel-trace and a gaff in future if you
>bite that hard :-)
You're also going to have to get your hook out of the large tire.
:-)
Chuck Rogers
car...@torreys.att.com
131P10000-FranklinKL(DR8219)252
>
>Seth Zirin
Not QUITE true Seth. You are correct, albeit snide, in your assertion
that the reason Harleys are underpowered is that compromises have to be
made in order to allow the air cooled, big bore V-twin engine to meet the
requirements, both for emissions and noise.
The point that you completely ignore, however, is that other manufacturers
manage to live within those regulations and still produce machines with
respectable performance in stock trim. Why, for example, will a stock
Virago 1100 beat a stock Harley big-twin? Both are air cooled, both are
v-twin, and the Virago has a displacement deficit. Yet, the Virago
delivers respectable performance in stock trim, while the Harley does
not. The Virago is the poorest performer of the Japanese cruisers.
The Honda Shadow will out perform it, but it is liquid cooled.
Harley is still relying heavily on mystique and they have allies in all
the moto-jounalists who rave about the "wonderful syncopation of the
big V-twin" or the "wonderfully off kilter idle" of a Harley big twin.
The fact is, that the modern Harley big twin engine has undergone
relatively minor changes since the Knucklehead engine of the 30's.
Most of the motorcyle manufacturers have passed Harley by in terms
of engine technology and sophistication. It shows in the performance
of the product and will continue to do so until a change is made.
Seth Zirin
> >My bike makes about 85 hp @ 6000 rpm on a dynojet dyno. A stock big twin
> >reaches about 48 hp @ 5000 rpm. If I switch to Branch heads and a
> >Mikuni carb, I can squeeze about 102 hp @ 6000 rpm. These are corrected
> >rear wheel numbers, not crankshaft numbers.
> >
> >The average stock ZX-11 does about 126 hp. The Harley is easily capable of
> >102. Not bad for an antiquated piece of farm equipment, huh?
> >
> >Stock Harleys don't make big hp because of pencil necked liberal EPA geeks...
> The point that you completely ignore, however, is that other manufacturers
> manage to live within those regulations and still produce machines with
> respectable performance in stock trim. Why, for example, will a stock
> Virago 1100 beat a stock Harley big-twin?
The only place a stock Virago 1100 will beat a stock Harley big-twin is
to the scrap heap.
> The fact is, that the modern Harley big twin engine has undergone
> relatively minor changes since the Knucklehead engine of the 30's.
This is not correct. A modern Harley engine can be inexpensively
modified to reliably increase horsepower by more than 100 percent
(102 vs. 49). A Knucklehead cannot then or now. The horsepower of a
knucklehead can be increased without losing reliability but the costs would
be greater than for similar gains with a modern Evolution engine.
> Most of the motorcyle manufacturers have passed Harley by in terms
> of engine technology and sophistication. It shows in the performance
> of the product and will continue to do so until a change is made.
They have not surpassed very far. With all of its sophistication, a water
cooled, DOHC, multi-valve, ram air, quad carbed, 11:1 compression,
digital ignition ZX-11D1 produces about 127 hp at the rear wheel while
an air cooled, pushrod actuated, overhead valve, single carbed, breaker
point fired, 9:1 compression Harley Super Glide (that "has undergone
relatively minor changes since the Knucklehead engine of the 30's") with
a few inexpensive (EPA violating) bolt-on modifications manages to produce
102 hp.
The ZX-11D1 has four 40mm carbs (32hp/carb) and the Harley has one
(102hp/carb). The ZX-11 has four cylinders (32hp/cylinder) and the
Harley has two (51hp/cylinder). The ZX-11 has 16 valves (8hp/valve)
and the Harley has four (32hp/valve). The ZX-11 spins at 11,500 rpm
at max power (.011hp per rpm) and the Harley spins at 6000 rpm
(.017hp/rpm).
With all that technology, why does the Harley produce more work per
revolution with fewer parts than the ZX-11D1?
If you want to discuss price, I can bring up the pencil necked liberal geek
politicians that sold our country to the self-serving labor unions...
Seth Zirin
Jon Costa
>
>The ZX-11D1 has four 40mm carbs (32hp/carb) and the Harley has one
>(102hp/carb). The ZX-11 has four cylinders (32hp/cylinder) and the
>Harley has two (51hp/cylinder). The ZX-11 has 16 valves (8hp/valve)
>and the Harley has four (32hp/valve). The ZX-11 spins at 11,500 rpm
>at max power (.011hp per rpm) and the Harley spins at 6000 rpm
>(.017hp/rpm).
>
>With all that technology, why does the Harley produce more work per
>revolution with fewer parts than the ZX-11D1?
>
>If you want to discuss price, I can bring up the pencil necked liberal geek
>politicians that sold our country to the self-serving labor unions...
>
>Seth Zirin
>
You forgot that a Harley gets 2.8 hp per spoke assuming a standard 36 spoke
wheel. =:^) What a bunch techno_babble_BS!!! Get a clue.
If you ride a Harley because you like Harleys, then only a Harley will do.
For me, thats reason enough. But when you start to swap stats, Harleys just
don't measure up.
-- Jon DoD#1830
Jonathan E. Quist
>>So..I assume then that the Japanese were the ones that introduced the V4
>>twin? If so what company first introduced it? Honda?
>
>I think he's drowned the first one and just put a fresh worm on the hook...
>
Didn't Honda actually have a V4 Formula 1 engine that was built by bolting
two V2 moto engines together? (Or was that an 8 made of 2 4s?)
If so, it could be called a V4 twin, or perhaps twin V2...
--
Jonathan E. Quist j...@lachman.com Lachman Technology, Incorporated
DoD #094, KotPP, KotCF '71 CL450-K4 "Gleep" Naperville, IL
__ "I love Boris Yeltsin. He's kind of like Ted Baxter's
\/ chubby older brother." - WBEZ (Chicago) personality Aaron Freeman
Grant DeLorean
>Ok trivia time...
>A conversation came up between a few newbie moto-heads (tm) the other
>weekend. In their MSF class, they said one of the instructors said that
>ALL Harleys are two cylinder engines. HD doesn't make 4 cylinder engines.
>I thought about this and thought, "yeah, Harleys rattle your teeth right
>out of your head...this might make sense"...than I thought, "naw...I
>couldn't
>see an Electraglide rumbling down the road on two cylinders!
>So...DO all Harleys only have two cylinders?
The very early Harleys were one lunged, and they did experiment with a
4 cylinder that never got released... The rest are all V-twin (well,
there was that model during the war...), including the touring bikes.
--
\ Grant DeLorean - IHMSA & NRA Life Member - (gr...@bluemoon.use.com) /
Good leaders being scarce, following yourself is allowed.
David DeCoster
Yea, a buddy of mine in NY put a 924 engine in a trike. He rotated it 180 degrees so that you were almost
sitting on it. Then flipped the guts of the trans axel over and used a shift linkage from a formula V1 race
car. Ran and handled pretty good.
David Taylor
>Ok trivia time...
>A conversation came up between a few newbie moto-heads (tm) the other
>weekend. In their MSF class, they said one of the instructors said that
>ALL Harleys are two cylinder engines. HD doesn't make 4 cylinder engines.
>I thought about this and thought, "yeah, Harleys rattle your teeth right
>out of your head...this might make sense"...than I thought, "naw...I
>couldn't
>see an Electraglide rumbling down the road on two cylinders!
>DoD #0628
>85 Magna - definately a V4...
They did build a 1 cylinder but I can't remember the name of it,
My roomate in the Air force had one for a while.
Dave.
####################################################################################
David Taylor Office Phone (503) 642-8563
Porsche '69 911T Fun/Fast/Loud - Real Porsches have Air cooled Engines.
DOD#979 93'DR350S Now Ive got to get a road bike, Darn,Darn,Darn. :)
My opinions are mine ,, and nobody elses(Jeese whod wantem anyway).
####################################################################################
Grant DeLorean
>The point that you completely ignore, however, is that other manufacturers
>manage to live within those regulations and still produce machines with
>respectable performance in stock trim. Why, for example, will a stock
>Virago 1100 beat a stock Harley big-twin? Both are air cooled, both are
The Virago 1100 is definately liquid-cooled, not air cooled (unless
you count the air cooling the liquid via the radiator, which means ALL
bikes are air cooled...). Liquid cooled makes for a much quieter
engine, so they can use the higher performance parts and still be
under the EPA crap...
>v-twin, and the Virago has a displacement deficit. Yet, the Virago
>delivers respectable performance in stock trim, while the Harley does
>not. The Virago is the poorest performer of the Japanese cruisers.
>The Honda Shadow will out perform it, but it is liquid cooled.
Again, the Virago is liquid cooled. It is also faster than the Shadow,
as is a stock Lowrider Custom (stock expect for slip on replacement
mufflers). The Shadow rides better than the Virago 1100 though...
You really haven't spent much time looking into the cruiser scene,
have you...
Roserunner
>of the Porsche engine. I believe it said it was a V-4, though you'd
>probably expect a flat four from Porsche.
Porche did the design as an engineering contracting firm. Harley was
the customer, and they specified a 'V' configuration.
131P10000-FranklinKL(DR8219)252
>k...@longs.att.com (131P10000-FranklinKL(DR8219)252) writes:
>
>>The point that you completely ignore, however, is that other manufacturers
>>manage to live within those regulations and still produce machines with
>>respectable performance in stock trim. Why, for example, will a stock
>>Virago 1100 beat a stock Harley big-twin? Both are air cooled, both are
>
> The Virago 1100 is definately liquid-cooled, not air cooled (unless
>you count the air cooling the liquid via the radiator, which means ALL
>bikes are air cooled...). Liquid cooled makes for a much quieter
>engine, so they can use the higher performance parts and still be
>under the EPA crap...
>
Uh, Grant, I'd suggest that you hie yourself down to your local Yamaha
dealer and check 'em out. The Virago is most assuredly NOT liquid cooled.
In a recent comparison in Rider magazine of the Japanese cruisers that was
one point brought out - that, although the Virago is a good performer, it
is outperformed by its liquid cooled competition (ie Honda/Suzuki).
Dave Tharp CDS
>
>This is not correct. A modern Harley engine can be inexpensively
>modified to reliably increase horsepower by more than 100 percent
>(102 vs. 49). A Knucklehead cannot then or now. The horsepower of a
>knucklehead can be increased without losing reliability but the costs would
>be greater than for similar gains with a modern Evolution engine.
The design of an Evolution engine is very similar to the design of
a Knucklehead. The Evolution is built out of modern materials. This
does not make it a modern design.
A 102 HP Evolution engine is a grenade waiting for a place to
explode.
131P10000-FranklinKL(DR8219)252
>In article <CELAy...@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> s...@mare.att.com (Seth Zirin) writes:
>>
>>This is not correct. A modern Harley engine can be inexpensively
>>modified to reliably increase horsepower by more than 100 percent
>>(102 vs. 49). A Knucklehead cannot then or now. The horsepower of a
>>knucklehead can be increased without losing reliability but the costs would
>>be greater than for similar gains with a modern Evolution engine.
>
> The design of an Evolution engine is very similar to the design of
>a Knucklehead. The Evolution is built out of modern materials. This
>does not make it a modern design.
>
> A 102 HP Evolution engine is a grenade waiting for a place to
>explode.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| Dave Tharp | DoD #0751 | "You can't wear out |
The portion of Seth's quote above was from his posting in response to
one of mine. Dave has deleted a lot of technobabble from Seth's posting.
My perspective on performance is simple. When I purchase a motorcycle,
one of the things I look at is its performance. I am not at all
interested in the performance possibilities of the bike - just how the
bike performs as it rolls off the dealers floor. If the performance
of a stock Harley is adequate for you, fine. If you have to modify the
bike to bring it up to your standards of performance, then that is a
tacit admission that the stock performance was inadequate.
Seth compares (in gory detail) the performance related specs of a ZX-11
and a modified Harley. It seems more fair to compare the modified Harley
to a ZX-11 WITH SIMILAR MODS.
The bottom line is (at least to me) that a $12,000+ motorcycle should provide
more than a platform for acceptable performance. Why should I buy a bike
that I have to spend nearly $1000 on to bring its performance up to
acceptable, when there are a lot of other bikes that offer that level of
performance in stock trim. Oh yes, don't regale me with that tired old
excuse "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand". I understand
perfectly well, I just don't buy the bullshit!
Jon Costa
L(DR8219)252) writes:
>In article <41...@tekgen.bv.tek.com> da...@interceptor.cds.tek.com (Dave Tharp C
DS) writes:
>>In article <CELAy...@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> s...@mare.att.com (Seth Zirin) write
s:
>>>
>>>This is not correct. A modern Harley engine can be inexpensively
>>
>> The design of an Evolution engine is very similar to the design of
>>a Knucklehead. The Evolution is built out of modern materials. This
>>does not make it a modern design.
>>
>> A 102 HP Evolution engine is a grenade waiting for a place to
>>explode.
>>
>one of mine. Dave has deleted a lot of technobabble from Seth's posting.
>
>My perspective on performance is simple. When I purchase a motorcycle,
>one of the things I look at is its performance. I am not at all
>interested in the performance possibilities of the bike - just how the
>bike performs as it rolls off the dealers floor. If the performance
>of a stock Harley is adequate for you, fine. If you have to modify the
>bike to bring it up to your standards of performance, then that is a
>tacit admission that the stock performance was inadequate.
>
>Seth compares (in gory detail) the performance related specs of a ZX-11
>and a modified Harley. It seems more fair to compare the modified Harley
>to a ZX-11 WITH SIMILAR MODS.
>
>The bottom line is (at least to me) that a $12,000+ motorcycle should provide
>more than a platform for acceptable performance. Why should I buy a bike
>that I have to spend nearly $1000 on to bring its performance up to
>acceptable, when there are a lot of other bikes that offer that level of
>performance in stock trim. Oh yes, don't regale me with that tired old
>excuse "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand". I understand
>perfectly well, I just don't buy the bullshit!
>
This really hit the nail on the head for me. Why on earth would someone try
to justify owning a Harley based on a "Statistical" comparison. If you judge
a motorcycle based only on the spec sheet, Harleys fall to the bottom of the
list. But so what! Obviously [sic] we all choose motorcycles based on what
it *does* for us as individuals. If you want a Harley, then only a Harley
will do. Don't sour the experience by trying to compare it's specs.
BTW, I was cruising along this weekend on my cbr900rr and coming the other way
was a guy on a Harley. I say to myself, "Net wisdom: this guy ain't going to
wave, I know I always *used* to wave, but hey I read the '10 reasons why
Harley riders don't wave' so I won't wave" The guy smiled and wave as he
passed by!
Moral: Fuck this brand bigotry. Ride what you want and wave to your fellow
biker. =:^)
-- Jon DoD#1830
Michael Nelson
>The bottom line is (at least to me) that a $12,000+ motorcycle should provide
>more than a platform for acceptable performance. Why should I buy a bike
>that I have to spend nearly $1000 on to bring its performance up to
>acceptable, when there are a lot of other bikes that offer that level of
>performance in stock trim. Oh yes, don't regale me with that tired old
>excuse "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand". I understand
>perfectly well, I just don't buy the bullshit!
Ah, but that is what prove you no understand, Grasshoppa! In oda
unnastan, muss buy bullshit! Part of mistake^H^H^Hique of Hawrey
onaship!
You unnastan now? ;-)
Michael Nelson 1992 Ducati 851
internet: nel...@seahunt.imat.com "It's RED, and it's LOUD!"
San Francisco, California Dod #0735
Josh J Fielek
>
>>The point that you completely ignore, however, is that other manufacturers
>>manage to live within those regulations and still produce machines with
>>respectable performance in stock trim. Why, for example, will a stock
>>Virago 1100 beat a stock Harley big-twin? Both are air cooled, both are
>
> The Virago 1100 is definately liquid-cooled, not air cooled (unless
>you count the air cooling the liquid via the radiator, which means ALL
>bikes are air cooled...). Liquid cooled makes for a much quieter
>engine, so they can use the higher performance parts and still be
>under the EPA crap...
Grant, you are so full of shit that your eyes must be brown.
The Virago is air cooled. Fins on it are real.
Geeze, listen to me... defending a damned _cruiser_!!
>
>>v-twin, and the Virago has a displacement deficit. Yet, the Virago
>>delivers respectable performance in stock trim, while the Harley does
>>not. The Virago is the poorest performer of the Japanese cruisers.
>>The Honda Shadow will out perform it, but it is liquid cooled.
>
> Again, the Virago is liquid cooled. It is also faster than the Shadow,
>as is a stock Lowrider Custom (stock expect for slip on replacement
>mufflers). The Shadow rides better than the Virago 1100 though...
Yeah, but the Virago is funkier lookin'.
>
> You really haven't spent much time looking into the cruiser scene,
>have you...
Neither have you, apparently...
Shadows - All of 'em are water pumpers.
Viragos - All of 'em are air cooled.
Vulcans - Water pumpers.
Intruders - The little one is a water pumper, the big one is air cooled.
Harleys - Air cooled (wheezer shake like a wet dog) motors.
>
>--
>
>\ Grant DeLorean - IHMSA & NRA Life Member - (gr...@bluemoon.use.com) /
>
> Good leaders being scarce, following yourself is allowed.
--
Joshua J. Fielek Inter-National Research Institute
DoD#385 AMA#517381 WERA#969 j...@speedy.inri.com
Politics - From the Greek Poly, meaning many, and the English Tics, meaning
little blood sucking insects. - copyright 1991, J. Fielek
David DeCoster
Give up Seth, A Million and one DICKHEADS can't be wrong.
Davey D
Harleys best Fuck the rest
Dan Sorenson
>My perspective on performance is simple. When I purchase a motorcycle,
>one of the things I look at is its performance. I am not at all
>interested in the performance possibilities of the bike - just how the
>bike performs as it rolls off the dealers floor.
Then I certainly hope your idea of performance is the same
one the engineers think of. There are different aspects to the
all-encompassing word "performance" you know.
>Seth compares (in gory detail) the performance related specs of a ZX-11
>and a modified Harley. It seems more fair to compare the modified Harley
>to a ZX-11 WITH SIMILAR MODS.
Certainly. Seen many de-stroked ZX-11's on the dirt track
these days? Racing supercross? In trials or enduro runs? How
about hillclimbs? The ZX-11 goes like stink and corners pretty
well too. I'm glad that's your idea of performance, but it's not
mine. I'd quite glad I spent the money on an 883XLH rather than
the ZX-11, as I'd have had to dump thousands into the ZX to get
it to perform to my level of satisfaction in fitting my riding style.
Not that some extra horsepower isn't a welcome addition, but
I'm not willing to make the trade-offs yet.
--
* Dan Sorenson, DoD 1066 vik...@iastate.edu z1...@exnet.iastate.edu *
* Vikings? There ain't no vikings here. Just us honest farmers. *
* The town was burning, the villagers were dead. They didn't need *
* those sheep anyway. That's our story and we're sticking to it. *
Gaz
Sunday night there was a superb program tracing the history of the motorcycle
industry in the USA.
I never realised that the Indian company made such good bikes for the time,
one of the first companies to make a straight 4 engine for example.
The makers of the program were in no doubt at all that the Indian was the only
quality bike made in the USA at the time. It was this insistance on quality
that led to their downfall. As by the time of the War (number II) a new
Indian, with its quality finish and high standards cost 3/4 of the price of a
nice new ford cage, so people tended to buy the cage instead.
Harleys on the other hand, being a cheap and basic bike managed to maintain
themselves a place in the market.
It was apparently the American army that finally shafted the Indian company
with a fine coup de grace.
The Harley however as we are well aware continues on, and has now become known
worldwide as a basic but not very cheap bike.
In my humble opinion the wrong company went to the wall, and I for one hope
that the Indian does make a comeback.
Gaz
John Miller
: In article <1993Oct10....@bluemoon.use.com> gr...@bluemoon.use.com (Grant DeLorean) writes:
: >k...@longs.att.com (131P10000-FranklinKL(DR8219)252) writes:
<stuff deleted>
: > The Virago 1100 is definately liquid-cooled, not air cooled (unless
: >you count the air cooling the liquid via the radiator, which means ALL
: >bikes are air cooled...). Liquid cooled makes for a much quieter
: >engine, so they can use the higher performance parts and still be
: >under the EPA crap...
: >
: Uh, Grant, I'd suggest that you hie yourself down to your local Yamaha
: dealer and check 'em out. The Virago is most assuredly NOT liquid cooled.
: In a recent comparison in Rider magazine of the Japanese cruisers that was
: one point brought out - that, although the Virago is a good performer, it
: is outperformed by its liquid cooled competition (ie Honda/Suzuki).
Maybe he has it confused with the Spagthorpe Vigoro (code name), a
"grass-roots" design exercise by the engineering staff which
reportedly turned to shit before it could be assigned a canine name...
--
John Miller, N4VU Linux! Fayetteville
j...@n4vu.Atl.GA.US DoD #1942 (Atlanta)
{emory,gatech}!n4hgf!n4vu AMA #671301 GA, US
Blaine Gardner
>> With a 600 Rotax, it would be a great dual-purpose explorer bike,
> ^^^ ^^^^^^^^
>Exploring forestry raods pehaps......
>Ever wonder why the Army specified the 350 engine?
Maybe because the Brits can't handle anything larger without smacking
themselves into the trees? :-)
A pair of netters on XR600R's survived about 450 miles this weekend with
only minor incidents. I believe the pair of 350's stayed upright the
whole time, and the little 200 just about matched the record of the
600's. Size isn't everything.
Blaine Gardner
>The average stock ZX-11 does about 126 hp. The Harley is easily capable of
>102. Not bad for an antiquated piece of farm equipment, huh?
So put an equal amount of money into modifications on the ZX and try the
comparison again. Or don't you want a fair fight?
Chris BeHanna
>> The point that you completely ignore, however, is that other manufacturers
>> manage to live within those regulations and still produce machines with
>> respectable performance in stock trim. Why, for example, will a stock
>> Virago 1100 beat a stock Harley big-twin?
>
>The only place a stock Virago 1100 will beat a stock Harley big-twin is
>to the scrap heap.
It'll beat it at the dragstrip, too. Sorry to rain on your parade,
there, Seth.
>This is not correct. A modern Harley engine can be inexpensively
>modified to reliably increase horsepower by more than 100 percent
^^^^^^^^
>(102 vs. 49).
This is what you miss: you have to MODIFY the Harley to get more
power. A Virago 1100, bone stock, makes more power than the bone stock
Harley. What we want to know is: why?
>> Most of the motorcyle manufacturers have passed Harley by in terms
>> of engine technology and sophistication. It shows in the performance
>> of the product and will continue to do so until a change is made.
>
>They have not surpassed very far. With all of its sophistication, a water
>cooled, DOHC, multi-valve, ram air, quad carbed, 11:1 compression,
>digital ignition ZX-11D1 produces about 127 hp at the rear wheel while
>an air cooled, pushrod actuated, overhead valve, single carbed, breaker
>point fired, 9:1 compression Harley Super Glide (that "has undergone
>relatively minor changes since the Knucklehead engine of the 30's") with
>a few inexpensive (EPA violating) bolt-on modifications manages to produce
>102 hp.
And the H-D has a 300cc displacement advantage, to boot, yet still
makes less power. The ZX is making 127hp out of 1052cc, bone-stock, out of
the box, for $8799 list. The Super Glide will make the power you mention
for what, $11,000 for the bike, $1000 more for the heads, another $500 for
the carb, $??? for the cam, and $200 for the pipes = $12,700 plus the cam.
And it still won't turn as well. Gee, let me spend almost $4000 more for a
bike that makes LESS power. Oooh, ahhh--sign me up! Not.
Harleys have their own reasons for appealling to their owners. Power
is not one of them. Period.
>The ZX-11D1 has four 40mm carbs (32hp/carb) and the Harley has one
>(102hp/carb). The ZX-11 has four cylinders (32hp/cylinder) and the
>Harley has two (51hp/cylinder). The ZX-11 has 16 valves (8hp/valve)
>and the Harley has four (32hp/valve). The ZX-11 spins at 11,500 rpm
>at max power (.011hp per rpm) and the Harley spins at 6000 rpm
>(.017hp/rpm).
>
>With all that technology, why does the Harley produce more work per
>revolution with fewer parts than the ZX-11D1?
Sheesh...talk about a "made-up statistic." This is like saying "How
many RBIs does so-and-so have during a full moon against a left-handed pitcher
who is missing one nut?"
Could it be the 670cc jugs on the beast versus the 263cc jugs on the
ZX? Naww....
Let's look at it differently: the bone-stock ZX makes 127hp out of
1052cc, for a rating of 121hp/liter. The pumped-up Harley makes 102hp out of
1340cc, for a rating of 76.1hp/liter. The question I ask to you is: why is
it that the Harley gets so much less power out per cube than the ZX-11 does?
Could it be "all that technology?"
>If you want to discuss price, I can bring up the pencil necked liberal geek
>politicians that sold our country to the self-serving labor unions...
Let's discuss price: you're going to tell me that the massive price
increases of recent history are the result of Harley's union agreements?
Pshaw.
Anyway, price/performance, since you brought it up:
$8799/127hp = $69.28/hp
$12,700/102hp = $124.51/hp
It costs almost twice as much to make power with the Harley.
The consumer doesn't give a shit WHY the machine costs so much, only
THAT it costs so much.
You like Harleys for reasons having nothing to do with performance.
Admit it and be honest instead of throwing a bunch of made-up numbers around.
Later,
--
Chris BeHanna DoD# 114 1975 CB360T - Baby Bike
beh...@syl.nj.nec.com 1991 ZX-11 - needs a name
Disclaimer: Now why would NEC <Looking for a race bike for this space.>
agree with any of this anyway? I was raised by a pack of wild corn dogs.
Carl Paukstis
: da...@interceptor.cds.tek.com (Dave Tharp CDS) writes:
: s...@mare.att.com (Seth Zirin) writes:
: >>
: >>This is not correct. A modern Harley engine can be inexpensively
: >>modified to reliably increase horsepower by more than 100 percent
: >>(102 vs. 49). A Knucklehead cannot then or now. The horsepower of a
: > The design of an Evolution engine is very similar to the design of
: >a Knucklehead. The Evolution is built out of modern materials. This
: >does not make it a modern design.
All engine designs are similar, at some level of abstraction.
While it may not be a modern design (in some respects, i.e. pushrods and
hydraulic lifters), it _is_ a modern engine.
: > A 102 HP Evolution engine is a grenade waiting for a place to
: >explode.
Bullshit. A properly-modified 102 HP Evolution engine is no more likely
to explode than is a can of tomatoes. (i.e., the probability is
non-zero, but vanishingly small if both are treated properly.)
: My perspective on performance is simple. When I purchase a motorcycle,
That should read "simplistic", shouldn't it? Your perspective on
performance includes only speed and cornering ability, I guess.
Has anybody mentioned lately that a stock Lowrider Sport will out-brake a
stock ZX-11? (According to Motorcyclists tests; 1989 models I believe.)
And get better gas mileage?
And feel more comfortable on long rides, to a substantial segment of the
population?
And the stock tires will likely last longer.
And the factory-recommended service will cost less (both being performed
by a factory-authorized dealer) (or likely even if done yourself).
And (though you profess to be unimpressed by aftermarket) offer a wider
variety of aftermarket comfort items, such as seating choices, luggage,
grips, handlebars, switches, shocks, etc. all available from the
original manufacturer?
And (OK, pretend you don't care) draw more appreciative comments and
looks and thumbs-up gestures from the population at large.
And likely retain a greater percentage of its original price at resale.
"Performace" is multi-dimensional, and I'm sure I haven't included them
all, nor even all the ones the Harley would win.
: excuse "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand". I understand
: perfectly well, I just don't buy the bullshit!
Which bullshit is that? Is there some Harley marketing literature of
which I'm unaware that says they're faster or corner better than Brand
S/H/Y/K? OK, Harley ads are heavily into "mystique", which annoys me,
too. But you've gone the other direction, ignoring many perfectly valid
empirical aspects of "performance" to concentrate on speed and cornering.
--
Carl Paukstis, RRR&RSG | "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be
Spokane, WA USA DoD#0432 | trusted with the government of himself. Can he,
ca...@frigg.isc-br.com | then, be trusted with the government of others?"
ca...@frigg.spk.olivetti.com| - Thomas Jefferson
Jon Costa
>> [Snip][Snip][Snip][Snip][Snip]
>
>Has anybody mentioned lately that a stock Lowrider Sport will out-brake a
>stock ZX-11? (According to Motorcyclists tests; 1989 models I believe.)
>
I think you mean break don't you? Sorry, couldn't resist. =:^)
This battle over performance always amazes me. Can someone who has bought
a Harley honestly[sic] say that they bought the Harley because they compared
performance?
It was my understanding that performance wasn't the appeal and I was OK with
that. But all this arguing over spec sheets has me confused because that
CAN'T be the reason to buy a Harley.
Why isn't it OK to say, "A Harley does it for me and I'm happy with that".
I'm happy with my bike and *NEVER* feel a need to compare it to a Harley or
anything else for that matter to justify my riding choice.
-- Jon DoD#1830
Tom Coradeschi
>yy...@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (STEVE GRAHAM) writes:
>> s...@mare.att.com (Seth Zirin) writes...
>> >
>> >My 1991 Softail is a four (4) cylinder model. It has two engine cylinders
>> >and two master cylinders for the brakes...
>>
>> Yea, and the brake cylinders generate more hp.
>
>reaches about 48 hp @ 5000 rpm. If I switch to Branch heads and a
>Mikuni carb, I can squeeze about 102 hp @ 6000 rpm. These are corrected
>rear wheel numbers, not crankshaft numbers.
>
>102. Not bad for an antiquated piece of farm equipment, huh?
>
Unfortunately, Seth, everyone else lives with (and makes horsepower with)
the EPA (actually, DOT, I think) noise regs. It's the prime reason (well,
one of them, anyhow) that BMW created the R259 motor. This concern with
noise is not exclusively American, BTW. Yurrup gots it too.
--
tom coradeschi <+> tc...@pica.army.mil <+> DoD#413
Tod Johnson (617) 275-1800 x2317
|>
|>The black-clad riders undoubtedly have ego problems: they want to look
|>rough & tough, but they're really pussies. What is the net.wisdom on
|
|Mr. Pasker;
|
| I wear all black. Chaps, Jacket, Boots, Helmet (beenie of course).
|I ought to come down there and make you eat those words about who is a pussy
|for dinner tonight. I think I just might do that. Yeah; how does that sound
|Mr. Pasker?? Maybe I should make you think twice about calling someone a
|pussy?? Maybe you need to be taught a lesson.
|
|See You Soon;
|
|Tod J. Johnson
|DoD #883
|"Go Slow, Take Geritol, Eat Those Words"
Bob;
I'm not going to be able to make it down after all. I just got
a nasty paper cut and I also have a knitting session tonight.
Sorry;
Tod J. Johnson
DoD #883
"Go Slow, and Knit"
David Svoboda
Blaine Gardner <blga...@esunix.sim.es.com> wrote:
|s...@mare.att.com (Seth Zirin) writes:
|
|>The average stock ZX-11 does about 126 hp. The Harley is easily capable of
|>102. Not bad for an antiquated piece of farm equipment, huh?
|
|comparison again. Or don't you want a fair fight?
For a "fair fight", you should allow the ZX enough modifications that it
costs the same as the modified Harley. Lessee, $12K Harley plus $2K of
mods equals $8.8K ZX plus 5K of mods (200 bucks for the "mistique" of the
Harley, though a ZX with a turbo has plenty of mistique to me! :-). Now
THAT'S a fair fight!
Oh, and don't forget to upgrade the ZX brakes so that it stops better
that the Lowrider Sport, just to be thorough. :-)
Don't forget to add a time dimension in here, too. If we want our little
contest sometime before 1995, we're going to have to spend rather a bit
more than $12K to get our Harley. We can probably get the ZX for somewhat
below the $8.8K sticker, and we can get it tomorrow.
On the other hand, as long as we're talking about money, let's be a little
more realistic, and buy used bike. Oops, the ZX *really* shines now. Let's
take a two-year old, $5000 ZX and a two year old $11K Harley. Fun!
Let's go even farther. Let's get a 1985 Ninja 1000, and the best 1985 HD
we can find. Boy, we could really *build* that $3000 Ninja for the
difference, couldn't we?.
My only gripe against Harley Davidson motorcycles is the same gripe that
I have against several other motorcycles; they're neat, but they cost WAY
too much. I just don't need a motorcycle to be the center of my financial
world. I classify other bikes in that category as well, like the new Super
Boxers, BMW K1100s, the Goldwing, the GTS1000, the Buell, the Guzzi Daytona,
the Paso, and even the ST1100.
Yes, I know the Sportster is cheap, but not if you want the things that
come with most any other bike, like a back seat and a >100 mile tank.
The thing is, I can get a really nifty "expensive" Japanese or Italian bike
for a very reachable amount, if I get them used. I have three, they're so
cheap. I couldn't even have ONE new Harley for the total bucks I have
invested in my various bikes. Yeah, I could afford an old, leaky,
unreliable AMF Harley, if I didn't want anything else. That does not
appeal to me, to say the least.
Dave Svoboda (svo...@ranger.rtsg.mot.com) | Recipient by overwhelming
90 Concours 1000 (Mmmmmmmmmm!) | acclaim of the coveted 1993
84 RZ 350 (Ring Ding) (Woops!) | Fourth Annual Iron Horse
78 CB400T Hawk (Baby Honda) | Joust and Ride *Squid Award*!
AMA 583905 DoD #0330 COG 939 (Chicago) | "I ain't admittin' nuthin'!"
bob pasker
Johnson (617) 275-1800 x2317) wrote:
> I'm not going to be able to make it down after all. I just got
> a nasty paper cut and I also have a knitting session tonight.
no problemo, tod. we promise not to drink all that homebrew before you get
here.
--
-- bob pasker
-- brown u., dept. of history
-- r...@brown.edu
--
Michael J. Sheldon
: Why isn't it OK to say, "A Harley does it for me and I'm happy with that".
: I'm happy with my bike and *NEVER* feel a need to compare it to a Harley or
: anything else for that matter to justify my riding choice.
: -- Jon DoD#1830
Yep, that's about it. I own a '91 FJ1200 (damn fast in a straight
line), and my wife has a Harley 1200 Sportster. I love both bikes. I
ride my FJ more often, but I'm certainly not dissapointed when I ride the
Harley. They both serve the same purpose (transportation), and do it
quite well. Sure, the HD vibrates, but the seating position is more
comfortable, especially since I outfitted it with forward controls and
footboards. Hell, the HD even gets better gas mileage. 'Course, the FJ
has a humongous gas tank.
Point is, someone makes a bike that is just perfect for you, and
once you find it, you won't switch willingly.
Me, I'm waiting until I can afford a Buell. I like sportbikes,
not racebikes. I want a street-oriented performance bike that I can hang
some hard bags on, and ride for a few hundred miles, comfortably.
--
_____________________________________________________________________
Michael J. Sheldon |Be thy intents wicked or charitable, Thou
mshe...@crl.com |com'st in such a shape that I will speak
75030...@compuserve.com |with thee. Hamlet, Act I, scene iv.
Andrew Michael Woodward
>>Ever wonder why the Army specified the 350 engine?
>
>Maybe because the Brits can't handle anything larger without smacking
>themselves into the trees? :-)
The Army sends the (cheap) bikers in first to clear the area so as not to
scratch the (expensive) tanks.... It's all in the plan.
Andrew Michael Woodward
>: >>modified to reliably increase horsepower by more than 100 percent
>: >>(102 vs. 49). A Knucklehead cannot then or now. The horsepower of a
>: >
>: > The design of an Evolution engine is very similar to the design of
>: >a Knucklehead. The Evolution is built out of modern materials. This
>: >does not make it a modern design.
So, the Knucklehead is the _bike_?
I had assumed the Evolution must be......
Andrew Michael Woodward
>a Harley honestly[sic] say that they bought the Harley because they compared
>performance?
>
>It was my understanding that performance wasn't the appeal and I was OK with
>that. But all this arguing over spec sheets has me confused because that
>CAN'T be the reason to buy a Harley.
>
Does anyone on that side of the pond ever buy a bike cos they actually like
it, or cos it does the job they need it to do?
Or is .01s off the 0-60 time absolutely crucial? Could someone explian this to
me - I've never quite got the hang of it.
Gaz
>s...@mare.att.com (Seth Zirin) writes:
>>The average stock ZX-11 does about 126 hp. The Harley is easily capable of
>>102. Not bad for an antiquated piece of farm equipment, huh?
The average Ford or Massey packs much more hp than that, but I wouldn't want
to be seen out cruising on them, even if they are quicker than your average
Harley.
Gaz
Gaz
OKAY, OKAY OKAY.
I admit there are a lot of people who just love Harleys. Why, well who knows
cos I sure don't, but I guess a lot of it has to do with image, their history,
the type of bike, and just the love to be non-convenyional. Whatever the
reason for buying a Harley, and there are surely many, can we just accept that
RACING performance isn't one of them.
So if you want to buy a Harley, just do it, but don't try and bullshit us into
thinking that Harleys are more powerfull, quicker, and better a cornering than
all other bikes, because it aint true. Enjoy what they offer, and don't
pretend they are what they aint.
Perhaps now we can get orf this crappy thread about Harleys and their
performance, as I think we have been there just a few times.
Gaz
p.s. Is it true that statistically Harley riders are the most likely to ride
without a helmet? Is this wise bearing in mind that Harleys are not the most
reliable machines at cornering? I have also heard that Harley riders are more
liable to be found carrying weapons, including guns than other bikers, could
some Harley riders tell me, is this true, or is it just bad press spread
around by others?
Thanks
kevinh
In article <CELAy...@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, s...@mare.att.com (Seth Zirin) writes:
|> In article <CEL5E...@bigtop.dr.att.com>, k...@longs.att.com (131P10000-FranklinKL(DR8219)252) writes:
|> > The point that you completely ignore, however, is that other manufacturers
|> > manage to live within those regulations and still produce machines with
|> > respectable performance in stock trim. Why, for example, will a stock
|> > Virago 1100 beat a stock Harley big-twin?
|>
|> The only place a stock Virago 1100 will beat a stock Harley big-twin is
|> to the scrap heap.
From BIKE magazine
Bike engine size Power torque Top Speed 1/4 mile
=============================================================
XV1100 Virago 981 62 62 118 13.4
Fat Boy 1340 69 62 110 14.0
Seems like the Virago is a little faster to me, why is the Virago listed
as having a 981cc motor when the name is 1100?
Kevin.
Dan Sorenson
>I admit there are a lot of people who just love Harleys. Why, well who knows
>cos I sure don't, but I guess a lot of it has to do with image, their
>history, the type of bike, and just the love to be non-convenyional.
>Whatever the reason for buying a Harley, and there are surely many, can
>we just accept that RACING performance isn't one of them.
Not until a ZX-11 wins a dirt track event. The Harley
motor is quite useful in specific applications, just as the ZX-11
mill, the Offenhauser, the Meyer-Drake, the John Deere, ad nauseum.
What most annoys Harley riders (if I may be so bold as to speak for
them) is the incessant whining about "Oh, *that's* not performance,
*this* is." It's really quite simple, but the Harley mill has a
certain power output, a style if you will, that makes it well-suited
to certain performance criteria. Other motors offer different
styles. It is up to the rider to determine if this is what they want.
Frankly, any time a ZX-11 rider (or any other make, for that
matter) feels a need to justify their purchase by saying why the
Harley won't work for them, I just figure the Harley is the standard
by which others are judged. Not much of a logical leap, given the
context, but rather humorous considering $8K of bike later they're
*still* comparing it to a Harley.
Dan Sorenson
>p.s. Is it true that statistically Harley riders are the most likely to ride
>without a helmet?
Possible, particularly in helmet-law states.
> Is this wise bearing in mind that Harleys are not the most
>reliable machines at cornering?
Wise? That's a judgement call.
> I have also heard that Harley riders are more
>liable to be found carrying weapons, including guns than other bikers, could
>some Harley riders tell me, is this true, or is it just bad press spread
>around by others?
Likely bad press, though the 1%-ers tend to ride Harleys.
Is this relevant to motorcycling in general? Not at all, any more
than pickup owners tend to have weapons in the cab technically
withn arms reach more often than Volvo drivers.
Andrew Michael Woodward
>I have against several other motorcycles; they're neat, but they cost WAY
>too much. I just don't need a motorcycle to be the center of my financial
>world. I classify other bikes in that category as well, like the new Super
>Boxers, BMW K1100s, the Goldwing, the GTS1000, the Buell, the Guzzi Daytona,
>the Paso, and even the ST1100.
>
>Yes, I know the Sportster is cheap, but not if you want the things that
>come with most any other bike, like a back seat and a >100 mile tank.
Here, here! Sadly Harley have found they can put huge markups cos their yuppie,
hells-angel-wannalookalike target market sees money as no object. Since Harleys still
use 40s technilogy with its robust, easy-to-work-on simplicity (which is why
I would have one if they were a reasonable price), there is little development
cost, so their prices should be about the lowest on the market.
Ah the joys of an unrestrained market economy pandering to a few fatbastards.....
Jon Costa
orenson) writes:
>In <gjs.51....@aber.ac.uk> g...@aber.ac.uk (Gaz) writes:
>
>>I admit there are a lot of people who just love Harleys. Why, well who knows
>>cos I sure don't, but I guess a lot of it has to do with image, their
>>history, the type of bike, and just the love to be non-convenyional.
>>Whatever the reason for buying a Harley, and there are surely many, can
>>we just accept that RACING performance isn't one of them.
>
> Not until a ZX-11 wins a dirt track event. The Harley
Don't mention this to Kenny Roberts who won two Grand national championships
on a Yamaha inline twin. Or to Ricky Graham (Honda), or to Dick Mann (BSA),
or to Gene Remero (Triumph).
>motor is quite useful in specific applications, just as the ZX-11
>mill, the Offenhauser, the Meyer-Drake, the John Deere, ad nauseum.
>What most annoys Harley riders (if I may be so bold as to speak for
>them) is the incessant whining about "Oh, *that's* not performance,
>*this* is." It's really quite simple, but the Harley mill has a
This is the most useful bit of info from the Harley crowd yet. Just how do
you define performance. Is it horsepower, is it cost/benefit, is it resale
or maybe is it something less tangible?
Sometimes I think this is a little like a pickup owner saying to the sports
car owner, my truck is better than your sports car. Better at what?
>certain power output, a style if you will, that makes it well-suited
>to certain performance criteria. Other motors offer different
>styles. It is up to the rider to determine if this is what they want.
>
> Frankly, any time a ZX-11 rider (or any other make, for that
>matter) feels a need to justify their purchase by saying why the
>Harley won't work for them, I just figure the Harley is the standard
>by which others are judged. Not much of a logical leap, given the
>context, but rather humorous considering $8K of bike later they're
>*still* comparing it to a Harley.
Bzzzzzt wrong! I don't think anyone in the market for a ZX-11 would be
concerned with how their bike stacks up against a Harley.
-- Jon DoD#1830
Seth Zirin
> Has anybody mentioned lately that a stock Lowrider Sport will out-brake a
> stock ZX-11? (According to Motorcyclists tests; 1989 models I believe.)
Possibly in a laboratory. I've ridden a Dyna-Daytona with dual four piston
PM brakes up front and a single four piston PM brake in the back immediately
after riding a ZX-11D1 with stock brakes. The difference in braking
effort was so startling that I almost when into Flintstone mode on the
Daytona. The Hydraulic clutch was nice too...
Seth Zirin
Seth Zirin
> For a "fair fight", you should allow the ZX enough modifications that it
> costs the same as the modified Harley. Lessee, $12K Harley plus $2K of
> mods equals $8.8K ZX plus 5K of mods (200 bucks for the "mistique" of the
> Harley, though a ZX with a turbo has plenty of mistique to me! :-). Now
> THAT'S a fair fight!
For a fair fight you must also consider the number of hours it took to
build each bike from raw materials. The Harley is assembled in the US
with more than 95% domestically fabricated parts. I don't know where
the ZX-11 is assembled but will bet that most of the parts came here by
boat.
Equalize the labor costs and the ZX-11 will cost more than double what the
Harley costs. Comparing a bike that was made with $0.03/week labor to
one with $60/hour isn't fair or meaningful. Harley could slash their
prices if they built their bikes with slave labor also...
Seth Zirin
bcl...@galaxy.gov.bc.ca
g...@aber.ac.uk (Gaz) writes:
{ "I don't like H-D" snip snip snip}
>p.s. Is it true that statistically Harley riders are the most likely to ride
>without a helmet? Is this wise bearing in mind that Harleys are not the most
>reliable machines at cornering? I have also heard that Harley riders are more
>liable to be found carrying weapons, including guns than other bikers, could
>some Harley riders tell me, is this true, or is it just bad press spread
>around by others?
>
;-)
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bruce Clarke e-mail: bcl...@galaxy.gov.bc.ca |
| OR bcl...@fisheries.env.gov.bc.ca |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Chris BeHanna
> The design of an Evolution engine is very similar to the design of
>a Knucklehead. The Evolution is built out of modern materials. This
>does not make it a modern design.
Dave, where do you get your information? If you were correct, then a
lot of parts should be interchangeable between Knucks and Evos. They aren't.
The Evo parts represent completely different castings. The engine layout is
basically the same, but the webbing on the cases will be different, the bolt
patterns will be different, and the stress patterns will be different. Plus,
as you admitted, the Evo engine is made of modern materials, which are much,
much stronger than they were in 1936 (at least, generally). So the Evo engine
is a much stronger piece than the Knuck engine.
> A 102 HP Evolution engine is a grenade waiting for a place to
>explode.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Neither you nor I have the data to prove or
disprove this statement. With the stock stroke, the motor can probably take
it, especially if it was carefully balanced. Does anyone have any data on
hopped-up Harley failures, broken down by:
Engine type (Flat, Knuck, Pan, Shovel, Evo, etc.)
Modification (stroked, bored, top-end breathing, etc.)
Balanced (yes or no, and the balance factor).
What was the nature of the failure (spun bearing, scattered cases,
etc.)?
That's the kind of data we need to settle this argument. Anything else
is just blowing smoke.
131AA0000-RogersC(DR8926)273
I had a different experience. I demo-rode the FXRS-Sp up at Americade
the last couple of years, and I found the stopping power of the brakes
on that bike impressive. I particularly liked the way I could get
both tires screeching continuously without any loss of stability or
control, and with very little lever effort. Also, the design of the
brake lever itself is magical. I wish the FJ levers fit my hand that
well.
Chuck Rogers
car...@torreys.att.com
131AA0000-RogersC(DR8926)273
>In article <41...@tekgen.bv.tek.com> da...@interceptor.cds.tek.com (Dave Tharp CDS) writes:
>
>> A 102 HP Evolution engine is a grenade waiting for a place to
>>explode.
>
> Perhaps. Perhaps not. Neither you nor I have the data to prove or
>disprove this statement.
Joe Minton and Jerry Branch have (and sell) this data. I have both the
1200cc Sportster and 1340cc pamphlets, and they claim their hopped-up
engines are as tractable and reliable as the stock motors.
Chuck Rogers
car...@torreys.att.com
131P10000-FranklinKL(DR8219)252
>In article <29est3$4...@esunix.sim.es.com>,
>Blaine Gardner <blga...@esunix.sim.es.com> wrote:
>|s...@mare.att.com (Seth Zirin) writes:
>|
>|>The average stock ZX-11 does about 126 hp. The Harley is easily capable of
>|>102. Not bad for an antiquated piece of farm equipment, huh?
Lots of stuff deleted.
>
>My only gripe against Harley Davidson motorcycles is the same gripe that
>I have against several other motorcycles; they're neat, but they cost WAY
>too much. I just don't need a motorcycle to be the center of my financial
>world. I classify other bikes in that category as well, like the new Super
>Boxers, BMW K1100s, the Goldwing, the GTS1000, the Buell, the Guzzi Daytona,
>the Paso, and even the ST1100.
>
>Yes, I know the Sportster is cheap, but not if you want the things that
>come with most any other bike, like a back seat and a >100 mile tank.
>
>
>Dave Svoboda (svo...@ranger.rtsg.mot.com) | Recipient by overwhelming
I think, in considering the price of a bike, you also need to consider what
you get, and what you need.
For example, if you look at MSRP, the top line full dress Harley Electra
Glide or Tour Glide Ultras, are in the price ballpark of a Gold Wing
Special Edition. If you are into loaded tourers, that seems to be about
the ball-park (especially considering that there are VERY few manufacturers
making loaded full dress tourers). Note that there are two other models of
Wings available, one of which is under $10,000.
The problem that I have with Harleys, is that the gap between the big,
fully loaded Ultras, and the rest of the Big-Twin line is so small.
The cheapest Big-Twin is over $12,000. Given the amount of stuff that
hangs off an Ultra, compared to, say a Low Rider, it begins to be clear that
the lower end of the Big-Twin line is subsidizing both the higher end
bikes, as well as helping to keep the price of the Sportster down so that
Harley can claim they have an "entry level bike".
131AA0000-RogersC(DR8926)273
>
>build each bike from raw materials. The Harley is assembled in the US
>with more than 95% domestically fabricated parts. I don't know where
>the ZX-11 is assembled but will bet that most of the parts came here by
>boat.
Lincoln, Nebraska. More of the bike is manufactured offshore than
with the Harley, but that's changing. Past Kawasaki management tried to
go to more local suppliers, but the American companies were consistently
unable to match the Japanese component quality. The company was faced
with using Japanese parts that required *no* incoming inspection because
there just weren't any defects, or using American-made parts that had
such high defect rates that time-consuming and costly incoming inspection
was required to screen out all the bad parts before they got into the
bikes. If they'd had the luxury of the markup and demand levels that
Harley currently enjoys, they might have been able to spend a lot more
time straightening out their American suppliers' quality problems, but
they didn't have that luxury, so they had to do the sensible thing and
stick with the proven suppliers. The details of the troubles there are
well-documented in the book, "Japanese Manufacturing Techniques," by
Richard J. Schonberger.
>Equalize the labor costs and the ZX-11 will cost more than double what the
>Harley costs. Comparing a bike that was made with $0.03/week labor to
>one with $60/hour isn't fair or meaningful.
Nope. Those labor rates might have applied 20 years ago, but the
world has changed. Two weeks ago, Toyota and Mercedes both announced
they were going to start building their cars *here* because the the
labor costs in their home countries were higher than US domestic labor
rates. One of the TV network news shows did a special segment week before
last on how American business people (even the bankers!) can no longer
afford to live in Japan, because their salaries are out of step with
the cost of living there.
>Harley could slash their prices if they built their bikes with slave
>labor also...
No they couldn't. They'd be stupid and irresponsible (business-wise)
to do anything but increase their prices, given their current demand
situation. Why do so many riders think that Harley should *want* to
operate on cost-based pricing? That's not free-market capitalism!
Chuck Rogers
car...@torreys.att.com
Chris BeHanna
>Give up Seth, A Million and one DICKHEADS can't be wrong.
Ah, David, nice to see that your posting standards haven't improved
any. I was beginning to worry that you might become human, with all of the
faculties thereto appertained.
>Davey D
>
>Harleys best Fuck the rest
Sigh. Took you all day to think that one up, eh?
Later,
--
Chris BeHanna DoD# 114 KotSTA 1975 CB360T - Baby Bike
Seth Zirin
> Bzzzzzt wrong! I don't think anyone in the market for a ZX-11 would be
> concerned with how their bike stacks up against a Harley.
Unless, of course, the prospective ZX-11 buyer already had a Harley...
Seth Zirin
Chris BeHanna
I have the 1340cc pamphlet. It does not give *any* field data on
engine failures of their hopped-up bikes.
S&S, however, provides at least anecdotes: a wildly stroked Sportster
was ridden to Bonneville, raced along the flying mile, and ridden back with
no mechanical problems whatsoever. Total trip was like 3K miles. Sounds like
a reasonable test to me.
Of course, all bets are off if you overrev the machine.
I would still like to see field data about hopped-up engine failures
in Harleys. Anecdotes suggest that strokers scatter their cases not
infrequently, but then, the anecdotes never mention whether or not the
engines were balanced, and they also don't mention how high the operator
tached it up before all hell broke loose.
Later,
--
Chris BeHanna DoD# 114 KotSTA 1975 CB360T - Baby Bike
chris dehahn
--
beh...@syl.nj.nec.com (Chris BeHanna) writes:
>Does anyone have any data on hopped-up Harley failures, broken down by:
>
> Engine type (Flat, Knuck, Pan, Shovel, Evo, etc.)
> Modification (stroked, bored, top-end breathing, etc.)
> Balanced (yes or no, and the balance factor).
>
> What was the nature of the failure (spun bearing, scattered cases,
> etc.)?
I see a lot of modified Harleys come in and out of a friend's shop. Here's my
list of what I've seen lately:
Type Mods Balanced Failure
---- ---- -------- -------
BT Evo bored and stroked to 103ci yes, stock S&S ripped engine studs out
of the cases, had Ram
Jett stud kit
BT Evo bored and stroked to 98ci yes, Lindskog cracked left side case
BT Evo big cam, carb, headwork, 80ci stock HD cracked right side case
BT Evo big cam, carb, pistons, 80ci stock HD cracked right side case
BT Evo warm cam, carb, stroked to 88ci stock HD dropped valve
XL1000 big cam, carb, pistons, 80ci stock HD spun case bearing
None of these bikes have been ridden by an old lady. For every modified BT Evo
I've seen, I've seen at least a half dozen modified Shovels, and I can't
remember a catastrophic failure in any of them.
One thing you forgot when comparing the Knuck to the Evo, and that's the amount
of material used in the older castings and machined parts .vs. the new bikes.
Evo cases are failing on completely stock bikes, much less highly modified
ones. If you compare a BT Evo case to a Shovelhead case, or Knuck case, for the
sake of argument, they're like night and day. While the Evo castings may be made
of superior materials, Harley-Davidson has cut some serious corners that the
average RUBster won't ever see until there's a failure. The BT Evo cases are
thinner, the shafts smaller, etc. etc. than their older counterparts. Building
a 102hp BT Evo on stock cases ***IS*** a timebomb waiting to explode. The bolt
on horsepower claims that Evo owners love to crow about work up to a point.
After that point, reliability is a crapshoot.
CdH
<<<<<<<<<<<< Ninety eight....don't be late >>>>>>>>>>>>
Chris deHahn....CdH....Digital Equipment Shrewsbury MA USA
deh...@shr.dec.com
Seth Zirin
> >Equalize the labor costs and the ZX-11 will cost more than double what the
> >Harley costs. Comparing a bike that was made with $0.03/week labor to
> >one with $60/hour isn't fair or meaningful.
>
> Nope. Those labor rates might have applied 20 years ago, but the
> world has changed. Two weeks ago, Toyota and Mercedes both announced
> they were going to start building their cars *here* because the the
> labor costs in their home countries were higher than US domestic labor
> rates.
I said that labor costs associated with the Kawasaki are lower because
parts arrive by boat and did not state or imply that parts are manufactured
in Japan. Much of the parts content might come from places like
Korea, Singapore, Mexico, etc. Where does Kawasaki buy their steel?
Australia? Harley buys their steel from the unionized rust belt in the US.
> >Harley could slash their prices if they built their bikes with slave
> >labor also...
>
> No they couldn't. They'd be stupid and irresponsible (business-wise)
> to do anything but increase their prices, given their current demand
> situation.
Duh. I didn't say they should or would; I said could.
Seth Zirin