Comment by jdhn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jdhn | Hacker News Reader

Two points that I wish that they would've touched on more in the article is the general downturn in motorcycle sales in the US, as well as the huge used market.

To the first point, motorcycle sales in the US never really recovered from the recession, and it doesn't seem like they're coming back anytime soon. Is this because new motorcycles (regardless of brand) cost more than they used to, a lack of disposable income among the target audience, or failure of motorcycle manufactures to branch out to new audiences? I don't have the answers to these questions, but I think that they all play a role into the sales decline.

Secondly (and more specific to Harley), the used motorcycle market is HUGE. Go on Craigslist and look at the motorcycles that are on sale. Near me, it seems that every 3rd or 4th bike is a Harley. When the used market is so large and the models don't change that much from year to year, why would you buy new when you could pick up a slightly used bike and save 10% to 20% off of the sticker price?

>Secondly (and more specific to Harley), the used motorcycle market is HUGE.

Kind of sucks if this is really hurting the company.

Companies that design things that last should be somehow rewarded. This is important and needs to be figured out. Otherwise we will drown in garbage that self-destructs after warranty expiration or things that are deliberately un-repairable.

Planned obsolescence is not as "smart" as some people make it out to be. It wastes natural resources, contributes to pollution, makes things less reliable and removes incentives to produce real innovation in the future.

Edit:

There is another post here that points out that Harleys might not be particularly reliable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18450005

Definitely worth reading. I wonder how a motorcycle can be unreliable and have a large second-hand market at the same time. Are they highly modular? Can you easily build one working motorcycle out of two broken ones?

Not really disagreeing with your larger point, but in this specific instance it's less "designed to last" and more "not actually used".

The article points out how owners are getting older, having more health issues, etc. and that the bikes aren't actually used for anything but fun rides on the weekends.

Harley Davidson is an incredibly powerful brand, but it's not a brand built off of ultra reliability and the creation of long lasting vehicles.

The brand is for a particular style; all of their attempts to expand out of that niche have failed for various reasons, especially resistance from their core audience.

HD is not known for having unusually good reliability and build quality. In fact, most people consider them below average.

I suspect the issue is not that their bikes last so long per se, but rather that so many people buy them, don't ride them much and then decide to stop riding motorcycles. There is probably a fairly high amount of purchases that go to middle-aged dudes looking for a new hobby that give it up pretty quickly.

Harleys are highly modular. That's why no two really look alike, for the most part. There's also a large custom builder market, often fabricating entire bikes from nothing but an engine and some aftermarket parts like wheels and brakes. That's probably another thing cutting into their market... the people who can afford a $25k luxury bike to express their individuality can often afford a $50k totally custom bike from a boutique builder, that is much cooler.

I'm all in favour of that, and have reached an age that a cruiser style bike is starting to appeal.

Yet Harley have changed so little that they haven't had the benefits of handling and reliability all the other manufacturers have. Riding a new one is like teleporting back to my youth. Mostly for the wrong reasons.

I test rode one a few years ago and it quickly told me I'll never have a Harley.

To explain, the Triumph Bobber looks beautifully like an old hard tail. Like all the Triumph classics it handles and runs like a decent modern bike. It's got cartridge forks, Brembos, ABS, traction control and the reliable twin engine. There's way more ground clearance than I'm ever likely to run out of.

Harleys finally actually go around corners, but still pretty reluctantly. Still way too easy to ground without trying. They'll pair the big engine with a miniscule tank for range around 100m, sometimes down near 50! They're hot, heavy, and slow, you get OK but uninspiring handling with simple suspension, but the single disc up front never felt enough thanks to all that weight. Then they charge more than just about everyone else, but still have a reputation for being unreliable. That leaves just the big V twin sound and looks to buy for.

The Bobber is everything Harley could be doing, yet costs lots less than most Harleys. They have more than enough reputation, and they have more than enough decent looking bikes in their history to remake as modern classics.

Harleys aren't very reliable, but they are durable. The basic structure and mechanical parts are fairly robust and when something breaks it's easy to repair. So you see a lot of old ones still on the road.

I bought my first bike around 1996 for $500. Today with inflation that =~$740

It was a 1984 Honda NightHawk 650. It cost me $5 to fill the fuel tank ($0.50/L)

That same bike now costs $1000-$1500. Depending on amount of work needed. (and would cost $20 to fill the fuel tank)

So it's a multi-part problem.

(a) disposable income

(b) actual cost

Used bikes are too damn expensive for what you are getting. If I can buy a used car (from a newer model year) for LESS then the cost of an older motorcycle then the 'value' proposition will never make sense.

I'd love to ride again. Until these 'hobby items' get priced accordingly they won't catch on again.

I'd also suggest that the 'kids' today grew up with helicopter parents and had to wear 'bike helmets' and other 'safety' gear. Being left alone to get a broken arm or other chances to 'get hurt' is a good thing. I wonder if we haven't scared that out of too many kids.

That second point is very important. I know a dozen motorcycle riders (only 1 harley owner), but all the bikes are used. With fewer parts, fewer features, and no phone/stereo/ac/heated seats/navigation/adaptive cruse control, there's not a lot of innovation in the actual ride of a motorcycle to buy.

Motorcycles have also not kept up with the times on engine technology. They only began switching away from carburetors around 2005. Drag your feet on technological advancement, and your year-to-year product consequently changes less.

Suspension design has also remained really simple to my eyes compared to cars. Maybe it can't be improved, but the last major innovation/change in suspension was in the mid 70's with single shock design.

How many Harleys are still sold with hardtail rear ends? It's part of the aesthetic. It's not supposed to be comfortable. Or "safe".

they just look like hardtails but have hidden shocks.

Lame.

"They" is somewhat misleading. My 1995 BMW R1100GS has fuel injection, terrifying ABS, and fancy suspension-wishbone front and paralever rear (to deal with the shaft drive behavior).

Fair point, BMW has been ahead of the curve. Thank you. You could, in a way, look at them and say to the others, "This is where you should be!"

You say that like moving away from carburetors to complicated, error-prone computerized injection systems is a positive thing...

Modern fuel injection is miles ahead in reliability, but of course you can make shitty error prone versions of it - but so can you with a carburetors.

When you compare the rear suspension of modern mountain bikes to Harleys, it gets even worse. You get the overall impression that it is all about what is mechanically easy, not comfortable or performant.

For sure. I ride a 2000 CBR929RR. 150 horsepower, only weights ~ 435 lbs, and it's fuel injected. Sure, a brand new CBR1000RR has ~40 more HP and is 2 lbs lighter, but 150 is still ridiculous for a street bike. I can't get to the top of first gear at a legal speed anywhere in the state (Road America aside), and wouldn't anyway because you can't keep the front wheel on the ground at WOT passed 8-9k RPM. The only thing I'm really missing out on are the fancy electronics like traction and wheelie control, but who wants those anyway?

Very valid points, and also people are making better decisions by deciding not to be organ donors. With cell phones, more drivers on the road are very distracted, this is a very dangerous time to be riding, perhaps when most of the cars on the road become self driving then that will become a safer time. It seems 1 out of every 10 drivers on the road is on their phone, it's already scary driving in a big car.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com