Indian Chief Reader Feedback

[hubec]

I imagine most readers are like me inthat they have news.motorcycle.com bookmarked instead of www.motorcycle.com. Do you realize that we have no way of reading your article without manually typing in the main site's homepage? Why don't you have a link to www.motorcycle.com directly from news? Better yet have a list of ALL recent features at the top of the news site.



PS: You have to come up with a better SQL parsing system, it's messing up the single and double quotes.

[blip]

There should've been a link to the story in the news item, an oversight...





There _is_ a list of all the MO Features in news.mo, it's an RSS syndicated channel that appears as a right-side box and updates every 20 minutes. You can get that channel yourself if you're so equipted, http://www.motorcycle.com/rdf.features, or you can

get the RSS for news.mo, http://news.motorcycle.com/rdf





Most people, 91% in fact, go to www.motorcycle.com, not news.motorcycle.com. I, however use news.mo as my homepage...



Here's a double quote: "


Here's a single quote: '

[seruzawa]

Nice article. I have one small nitpick. The term "suicide clutch" refers only to a spring loaded foot clutch. It does not refer to an unloaded clutch, which will stay disengaged with your foot off. A suicide clutch is called suicide because you cannot put both feet on the ground with the bike in gear while stopped. My age is showing, isn't it?

[Modsmasher]

I will just start saying you are a complete idiot. Indian was hanging on to obsolete technology for the Chief, but this was during a time they were developing an answer to the British invasion, the Torque models. To say they were using H-D's now patented "hang on to the past" marketing scheme is ridiculous. The company lost its shirt on Army contracts during the war (damn near impossible, but it happened). Then, spent what they had left to try to develop a bike the masses would want. Unfortunately, after developing the Torque models, they were open to a corporate takeover, which occured, and the company ceased to exsist. Just because you have some penis envy for H-D, don't take it out on a good example of an Indian. Show me a bike that was "modern" in 1946, and I will show you a Harley that will beat your Yamhonkawzuki.



Go stick your head in the sand!

[john]

It's ok you don't appreciate this motorcycle. I mean, sure, perhaps if it didn't exist in its time, the motorcycles of today might not be as good as they are, but who cares? Ignorant people don't, that's for damn sure. It a piece of history. With your attitude you might as well say that a early thirties Bugatti is a piece of **** because it is not up to today standards. If it wasn't for that vehicle, however, we wouldn't be where we are today. Why don't you go kill your grandparents while your at it.

[backroadbandit]

Yes, it is. I'm 49, and currently ride modern stuff (R1100RS, Bandit 1200, KLR) but over the years have met several long-time Indian riders, not all on Chiefs, some on Scouts, who have had the same bike for like 40 years! Sure, they've rebuilt the clutch and top end so many times they can't remember how many times. There is something to be said for familiarity with your motorcycle, especially if you're planning to keep it for a while, a long while. Also pass time sometimes with H-D riders who have had the same Panhead since 65 or whenever. I admire that in a person.

[lanesplitter]

Yeah, I agree that old Indian is antiquated junk.

But lets talk movies, Citizen Kane...What a piece of ****,hell no one watches black and white films anymore.

And what about that P51, what a death trap any modern fighter plane would kick its tired old ass in a dog fight.

Hell dont even get me started on that Shakespear guy....

[SamBlob]

First of all, I wonder why you didn't put in a link to your "museum" article on restoring a '48 Chief ( http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mcmuseum/dt-chief.html )



A few quotes grabbed my attention:



"Much to our surprise, the Chief sounded a lot closer to a 650 cc Yamaha V Star we recently tested than any Harley."



"Small compared to today's cruisers, the 550 pound Indian maneuvered with surprising ease and perfect balance."



Doesn't this suggest that the current "nostalgia" cruisers are somewhat off the mark? For the W650 and the new Bonneville to be heavier than the '60s British twins they emulate is one thing, for cruisers to be bigger and heavier than the "big bikes" of yore is a bit ridiculous IMO.

[SamBlob]

Hm...the Cadillac OHV V-8 came out in '49, Ford didn't go OHV 'til the mid-50s, H-D was still making WL bikes and didn't make a small OHV until the '57 Sportster...side valves may not have been state-of-the-art in 1947, but they were rather more the rule than the exception...



H-D's first rear suspension appeared on the K-series in '52, and the big bikes didn't have them until the Duo Glide of the late '50s or early '60s. The "state of the art" at the time was probably Triumph's "sprung hub", which was next to worthless.



OTOH, Indian had a bike with rear suspension in 1913 and one with rear suspension and electric start in 1914, but the ideas exceeded the technology (and maybe the market) at the time.



The manual ignition advance might have tradition holding Indian back somewhat. Indian had twist-grip advance from the Teens or before.



Indian was about sport and glamour, H-D was about transport and utility. I would much rather an old Chief than a new one, which isn't much of anything, really.

[SamBlob]

If you think the new Chief is bad, take a look at the Scout! What a POS! The original Scouts were smaller, nimbler bikes than the Chiefs and were sporting machines in their day. To call a stripped-down Chief a Scout is a disgrace!