|
Anyone taking bets on their only prototype being immediately crashed at the first demo location?
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
I'd bet they have more than one, especially if they are going to let "journalists" ride it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
epalm posted:Anyone taking bets on their only prototype being immediately crashed at the first demo location? It was developing some unusual voltage transients so I had to lay'er down
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
I would absolutely buy one, if I could afford it. The bike actually looks great. I think the mirrors/signals are a little out of place, but they could be cleaned up. I'm really loving the shitstorm from Trun Patriots in all the normal channels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
I don't understand why wouldn't they make a cruiser as their first electric bike.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
The V-Rod was their first water-cooled, and I wouldn't really call it a cruiser. This bike is basically to test the waters and see what people think of the electric bike, and then maybe they'll build a cruiser around it. That and you can't really do much "cruising" in the range of the battery.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
I like everything but the blinker mirrors and the sound they made it make.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:I like everything but the blinker mirrors and the sound they made it make. I am not sure they "made it" make that sound. That is just what a high output electric motor sounds like, and it might be more exciting to me than all the potato in the world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
ReverendCode posted:I am not sure they "made it" make that sound. That is just what a high output electric motor sounds like, and it might be more exciting to me than all the potato in the world. There is some kind of noise maker in there. The Zero is drat near silent, this thing sounds like a silly tiny jet engine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:There is some kind of noise maker in there. The Zero is drat near silent, this thing sounds like a silly tiny jet engine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoQ7NS209xM That's not silent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
Just some local boys out for a ride. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgjg0_Js-bQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
SeamusMcPhisticuffs posted:Just some local boys out for a ride. Come to Philadelphia, it's basically that but with poor kids from the ghetto and stolen, unregistered dirtbikes all goddamn summer long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dXZbbdV5Xw
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgjg0_Js-bQ&t=43s that's some pretty sick poo poo right there.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
anyone who shatters their taillight doing a wheelie is alright in my book
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
SeamusMcPhisticuffs posted:Just some local boys out for a ride. had to lay'er... up 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Is this the thread where I confess that I rode my friends Sportster 48 this weekend and kinda liked it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
BlackLaser posted:Is this the thread where I confess that I rode my friends Sportster 48 this weekend and kinda liked it? Yessss...Welcome to the dark side.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
BlackLaser posted:Is this the thread where I confess that I rode my friends Sportster 48 this weekend and kinda liked it? If there's one thing CA hates, it's people having fun on motorcycles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
SeamusMcPhisticuffs posted:If there's one thing CA hates, it's people having fun on motorcycles. It's a pretty awful handling motorcycle with barely any lean angle before the pegs hit. The tank has a range of about 80 miles. I still enjoyed it for what it is and would totally own one if the price was right. Unfortunately the price not right. Holy poo poo these hold their value.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Yeah don't look at XR1200 prices, it might give you a heart attack.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
BlackLaser posted:It's a pretty awful handling motorcycle with barely any lean angle before the pegs hit. The tank has a range of about 80 miles. I still enjoyed it for what it is and would totally own one if the price was right. Unfortunately the price not right. Holy poo poo these hold their value. Depending on how old of a bike you're willing to look at you can pick up a pretty good deal on one, I pretty regularly see Sportsters in the $4500 range, usually '01 - '05 or so. Although unless you're a wrenchhead and have a strong streak of masochism I'd stay away from anything pre-evo (before 1984).
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Outside Dawg posted:Depending on how old of a bike you're willing to look at you can pick up a pretty good deal on one, I pretty regularly see Sportsters in the $4500 range, usually '01 - '05 or so. Although unless you're a wrenchhead and have a strong streak of masochism I'd stay away from anything pre-evo (before 1984). Ironheads are really pretty reliable. They just leak a little (a lot). I have an '83 that I ride daily.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
angryhampster posted:Ironheads are really pretty reliable. They just leak a little (a lot). Our previous Harley, '77 Sportster.  A fun little ride, but a serious attention whore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Outside Dawg posted:Depending on how old of a bike you're willing to look at you can pick up a pretty good deal on one, I pretty regularly see Sportsters in the $4500 range, usually '01 - '05 or so. Although unless you're a wrenchhead and have a strong streak of masochism I'd stay away from anything pre-evo (before 1984). The problem with this logic is if you either a) see what a non-Harley cruiser of similar age and condition goes for, or b) see how much non-Harley bike you can get in said $4500 range. There are reasons to buy a Harley but unless you're buying to flip, "a pretty good deal" is essentially never one. I personally wouldn't go further down the depreciation curve than '04, considering that those bikes are 10+ years old at this point, and an argument could be made that you're better off sticking with '07+ to get the FI. If you can't afford those bounds you're better off going metric than going older.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:you're better off going metric than going older. What do you mean by this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
epalm posted:What do you mean by this? he thinks this is the rest of ca
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The problem with this logic is if you either a) see what a non-Harley cruiser of similar age and condition goes for, or b) see how much non-Harley bike you can get in said $4500 range. There are reasons to buy a Harley but unless you're buying to flip, "a pretty good deal" is essentially never one. Frankly, if you're talking about holding value Harley's regularly hold their value better than the metrics. Where Sporty's tend to flatten out depreciation wise is at that 4000-4500 point, unless you're talking basket-cases. When they get beyond 10 years old, most metrics have hit the problem point of parts availability, not to mention the metric is at a point where you need to ask yourself if it's worth the headache financially or frustration wise. Harleys don't suffer from a lack of aftermarket.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:he thinks this is the rest of ca Basically The '03 and older are just not as nice as the newer, and you're looking at at least an 11 year old bike at that point, possibly older. Sportsters in particular are unlikely to have been maintained by their nth owner by that age. Metrics hit the bottom of the depreciation curve lower and sooner, and represent much better value if you have to have a cruiser. If you really dig the bone-thin look of some of the older peanuttier Sportsters, you save so much on a metric that you can customize them to look the same, but better, have a no-poo poo custom based on a much newer base and still probably have more money in your pocket. And if you really think a 15 year old H-D is easier to get parts for anymore than an 8 year old Honda, you clearly haven't tried to get parts for one or both lately. If you're thinking "well, I can get out of it most of what I put in" you're better off a) saving your money and not buying a bike, or b) buying a few-years-old DRZ or something that's holding value a lot better than old-rear end Sportsters and will require far less effort to get/keep running. Basically the only reason to look at a <03 Sportster is if you're infected with Hafta Have A Hawg syndrome, and frankly all the motivations of H3S (don't want your HOG buddies to mock you, want to look like a guy in a movie on a hawg etc etc) are better served for the money by going for an even older Dyna platform bike. Leave the old-rear end Sportsters to the hipsters that are now destroying them because Honda CB prices have just gotten unpalatable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Eh, an Evo sporty is pretty much an Evo sporty. I don't think the EFI on these lends much practical value, seeing as the single carburetor arrangement is bulletproof and easy to maintain (drain your bowl!). The EFI is there pretty much because the EPA says it has to be. I don't even buy - having ridden a few of both - that the solid mount models are appreciably harsher than the rubbermounts. An older sporty is a fine buy assuming you use the same sort of discretion as you would any other used bike. I think miles or age vs reliability is pretty much a crapshoot anyway as long as it's kept running. I have 3x the miles on my Uly as I had on my Vstar (which I bought new and maintained obsessively) when the gearbox fell apart, and the Uly has been more dependable and cheaper to run. The problem with Dynas is that they hold their value even better than sportys. People hold onto their Evo big twins.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
well uh *snerk* uh as you can uh clearly see from the data, researth indicath that the methric systhem ith clearly the uh *pushes glasses up* the thuperior opthion when purthathing a motorithed cycle
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
So I've been looking at the new Street bikes that they're rolling out and they actually seem like pretty solid bikes. That 750cc Revo on a street bike design looks appealing especially. 44 foot lbs of torque on a ~500 lb motorcycle sounds exactly like my kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
ArbitraryTA posted:So I've been looking at the new Street bikes that they're rolling out and they actually seem like pretty solid bikes. That 750cc Revo on a street bike design looks appealing especially. 44 foot lbs of torque on a ~500 lb motorcycle sounds exactly like my kind of thing. The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Cycle Asylum > Harley Thread: 44 Ft-lbs Of Torque On a 500lb Motorcycle Sounds Like My Kind Of Thing
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Sorry for being a dick posting this in the Harley thread when I have nothing useful ever to contribute to the Harley thread, but when was the last time HD made a bike as light as 500lb? Wouldn't that have been like the 50s/60s 750s?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
I bet the Topper was p. light.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Rev. Dr. Moses P. Lester posted:Sorry for being a dick posting this in the Harley thread when I have nothing useful ever to contribute to the Harley thread, but when was the last time HD made a bike as light as 500lb? Wouldn't that have been like the 50s/60s 750s? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MT350E
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Rev. Dr. Moses P. Lester posted:Sorry for being a dick posting this in the Harley thread when I have nothing useful ever to contribute to the Harley thread, but when was the last time HD made a bike as light as 500lb? Wouldn't that have been like the 50s/60s 750s? 2001:  http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/h-d/harley_davidson_vr_1000.htm unless you mean something people could buy, in which case I bet a lot of Sportsters until the '80s at least tip the scales at under a quarter-ton. But barely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
The solid mount sportsters (1986-2003,) weigh 518 pounds, fyi. With a 1250 kit, cams and head work you can get a reliable and easy 90hp/85tq. A lot more if you want it not too have quite the street manners. They aren't all extremely heavy and slow...
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
Rev. Dr. Moses P. Lester posted:Sorry for being a dick posting this in the Harley thread when I have nothing useful ever to contribute to the Harley thread, but when was the last time HD made a bike as light as 500lb? Wouldn't that have been like the 50s/60s 750s? My '83 XLS weighs 520 dry and that's with the big tank and twin discs up front. I'd imagine the peanut-tank bikes of the era were under 500.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
The '77 XLCH we had was 485 lbs dry (peanut tank). (e): Hell, a 2014 Custom 1200 is just a shade over 550 lbs dry. Outside Dawg fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
I've recently noticed a little more valvetrain noise than normal in my '83 XLS. Heads are stock, and it had a valve job around 5000 miles ago. I pulled the pushrod covers off today and none of the pushrods had excess play. I haven't noticed any new oil leaks from the valve cover gaskets. What else could I check? I first noticed it after I converted the bike to an alternator, instead of the factory generator. The alternator is considerably quieter. Could it be that the valves have always sounded this way? The bike runs just as good as it always has.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 22:20
|
|