Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/)
-   MO Reader Feedback (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/mo-reader-feedback/)
-   -   2001 Power Cruisers Reader Feedback (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/mo-reader-feedback/920-2001-power-cruisers-reader-feedback.html)

starvingstudent 11-03-2001 10:43 AM

Re: 2001 Power Cruisers Reader Feedback
 
I _love_ ice cream, but I have no desire to tattoo "Ben and Jerry's" on my bicep. Why not? If you have to ask, you'll never understand...

CarsSuck 11-03-2001 11:55 AM

What do you think "modern cruisers" are?
 
Mullet machines! No, I don't remember the band Warrant. How bout you tell me about them. Remember kids--drag racing=cool, cruising=what 16 year olds who can't get girls do in their mommys' cars on Friday nights.

CarsSuck 11-03-2001 12:01 PM

Too bad
 
the Kaw has the same seam on the tank you just complained about. And the wheels look cool from a distance because they look like PMs, but when you get close and realize the "spokes" are solid and one piece you realize they're cheap superficial imitations. The shocks are cool though. The motor is weak and looks like a poorly detailed Harley toy.

CarsSuck 11-03-2001 12:11 PM

I included bikes made by Harley
 
among the cruisers I feel are fake harleys. So where do you get the brand bias? Obviously there are a lot of really stupid attitudes around harleys, everyone knows that. But there are equally stupid attitudes towards the harleys from Japanese motorcycle riders. I don't give a damn who hurt who's feelings first, I'm talking about the machines, not anyone's social circles. When harley first used a v twin, motorcycles were more tools than fashion statements. They were designed to be tools. I don't like motorcycles that are designed to be fashion statements instead of tools, which includes Shadows, Vulcans, and Harley-Davidsion Softail models. So obviously this isn't a brand bias, and if I'm guilty of being biased it'd be against HD if anything (I don't ride cruisers). But I've never seen HD win a shootout, and now that they have a bike that beats everyone else's (except for the price--well, duh), I'm calling BS on everyone who's talking smack.

starvingstudent 11-03-2001 12:28 PM

Harleys HAVE won MO shootouts--
 
Just check out their 1998 open twin cruisers shootout. The Dyna Wide Glide came out on top over the Honda Shadow Aero, the Vulcan 1500 Classic, the Intruder 1500LC, and the BMW R1200C.



http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mccompare/cruiser98.html



Furthermore, the Road King defeated the Royal Star in the 1996 "Battle Royal"



http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mccompa...g-vs-star.html



Also the Buell White Lightning won the Bikini Bike shootout of 1997-1998. And the Sportster 883 has done very well in (though not won outright) both budget-bike tests and the "cruise light" shootout.

starvingstudent 11-03-2001 12:31 PM

and here's one more...
 

CarsSuck 11-03-2001 12:41 PM

and I forgot to mention
 
Harley didn't enter a new market segment by copying someone else. Their vr motor is based on what they needed to race, and it's no more copying anyone else than Aprilia is copying them with a 60 degree counterbalanced twin (no I'm not saying Aprilia copied them--that's the point). They did do something very different building a kind of pro-street thing with a superbike twin for a motor. If the Japanese manufacturers do that it would be great, if they used their own legitimate motors that were just designed to work, like a TL1000. I'm not sure if it's exactly what I'd buy (the HD or a Suzuki like it), but a long low drag influenced bike with a TL1000 would be cool. That would be very different than a clean sheet design intended to look like someone else's product, with fake-air-cleaner-cover horns, and fake cooling fins. They're abominations. Is anyone going to try to tell me that the 1500 Vulcan or the Road Star weren't made to look exactly like Harley Davidsons? They look just like them because they were designed to--the very core of these motors' existences is pretense and impersonation. This whole idea that it's just some generic american vtwin style doesn't hold water. None of the other American manufacturers that once competed with HD made bikes that look anywhere near as much like a Harley as a Vulcan or a Road Star does. They both specifically look like Evos, even. Hell, it's SUPPOSED to be obvious. Shadow motors are too ugly to actually look like anything but a shadow motor, but they look more like HDs than anything else, specifically everything but the motor. So I'll agree the motor isn't a complete HD ripoff, everything else on the bike is--which is enough to qualify an HD softail as a cheesey cruiser so why not a Honda? What the shadow motor IS though, is a very cheesey fake vtwin with fake cooling fins. It looks like what I'd expect a fake plastic motor for a little kid's bicycle to look like. I don't give a damn about any of this crap, the ripoff cruisers or the harleys they rip off, I'm just riding around on my real bike (which happens to be a legitimate Japanese heavyweight that owes nothing of it's design to Harley) and calling what I see.

CarsSuck 11-03-2001 12:46 PM

I meant everyone--
 
not just MO. Read everything previous to HD's new motor, and it's just disgusting. Even if you hate HD you start to feel sorry for them and wonder if they're really that bad. But then you ride one, and it's nowhere near that bad. But now you're just freaking me out with that other stuff--Road Star beat the Royal Star??? THAT'S disgusting. So is a softail beating the beemer. The beemer should be up against a Dyna, which is a good bike. Then I'd accept it, but I really gotta wonder about a softail beating the beemer (but not quite enough to read it--sorry, too boring).

CarsSuck 11-03-2001 12:52 PM

Oh whoops--
 
that was HD's Road KING, not Yamaha's Road STAR--ok that makes sense then I guess.

aminalmutha 11-03-2001 04:53 PM

Re: But, Erik Buell has said he
 
I really don't think air-cooled is the way to go, at least not with current technology. There is a reason why water cooled engines are used in high-performance (pretty much universally) applications. I believe that the engine can actually be lighter than an air-cooled motor of equivalent output. The block tends to be much stiffer than an air-cooled motor. A rigid block translates in to greater overall mechanical efficiency. Water also has a much higher heat capacity than air, so more heat can be transferred away from the engine. Of course that heat is eventually transferred to the air, but, obviously, it is done with a heat exchanger. Oil has a higher heat capacity than air also (I can't recall what it's heat capacity is, but I believe it is lower than water; water's heat capacity is quite high), but I'd rather not have the fluid that's lubricating my engine cool it also. Oil tends to loose it's lubrication properties when exposed to high temperatures for long periods of time. Water's heat capacity doesn't change much (as long as its stays in a liquid phase). Consistant power and reliablity are achieved with relatively constant operating temperatures. With current technology, water cooling is definitely the way to go for high output engines. If further advances in metalurgy and lubrication are made, where engines can operate at much higher temperatures, watercooling may go by the wayside. However, there still must be a way to keep combustion chamber temperatures low to make power. I guess we'll see what happens.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:50 AM.