1. Harley demographic is entrenched, hard to pivot. Most associate with wealthy boomers and 'lowlifes', or working class murica. Not things as popular today. Other, better, performance ebikes exist, and outside this restrictive submarket, but are not thriving. And I will casually remind readers of Southparks opinion. That said, they do have diehard fans that would buy anything they made.
2. Motorcycles are all about freedom. Range issues, or even the idea of them, robs confidence. This will change, but gas is way more energy dense and on a bike it matters even more than cars. Going into the mountains is not when you want to wonder if your range will halve going up hills with gusto, or screwing it on for the corners.
3. Price perception. The electric will be awesome. Torque is so fun on bikes. But to harley riders, I think it will fell like a 'toy'. And for the price point, its gonna be a tough sell.
4. Tinkering. You do not buy a harley as an intelligent person without ever expecting to work on it. Hell, that is part of the classical appeal of them. There are more than a few explorations of life and motorcycle maintance in print. Maybe this is just my bias, but the connection with the machine is part of what makes motorcycling so intimate.
I very much welcome being incorrect. I shopped for an ebike and bought another used sportbike instead.
Harley will probably fail with an EV. If Honda bring out an electric version of the Vision or the PCX, they'll sell boatloads of them.
Electric scooters are near-ubiquitous in South-East Asia, particularly China. 30-50 miles of range is plenty for a little urban runabout. You don't need a lot of power to replace a 50cc or 125cc engine, so the battery is small enough to carry up to your apartment and it can charge reasonably quickly from a normal 13A outlet. Electric scooters are often replacing absolutely filthy two-stroke scooters, so they have a disproportionately positive impact on local air quality.
Electric scooters have the potential to be the new Honda Cub - simple, economical transport for the masses.
I'm hoping they, or someone succeeds, and I think the market will develop.
In addition to carbon emissions reduction, the most immediate benefit is a godly reduction in noise pollution. In SF we have these bastards who love nothing more than to rev up their engines and make noise, on residential streets, at night. I so loathe that aspect of bikers.
From what I understand those loud motorcycles have illegally modified exhaust systems.
I would love it if police would pull people over for their loud motorcycles, check that the system hadn't been tampered with, and if not seize them and revoke the rider's motorcycle license... probably not going to happen though.
Harley owners groups even distribute guides as to which areas are 'unfriendly' towards them (eg, actually care about excessive noise).
As a rider, I can't want until Harley crashes and burns. Ungodly loud and ungodly TERRIBLE sounding machines. I only wish I could afford a Ducati but at least a Duc with Termis sounds GOOD in addition to pissing everyone off. I don't know why anybody would want to ride what sounds like a flatulent cow.
And their riders' need to go wide open throttle at low revs any time they see someone within earshot they think they might be able to 'impress' just murders any desire I have to ever ride one.
I can't say for sure I won't find myself being drawn to a 'cruiser' style motorcycle at some point in life. But I can say for sure that I will never, ever want to associate myself with that particular brand.
From a non-rider's perspective, the difference between a loud Harley and a loud Ducati is the same- both obnoxious. Only riders would be able to tell the difference.
Harley has made racebikes in the past, both flat track as well as track bikes. Although yes, they are known for their cruisers.
Agreed, though, of course many people find any loud vehicle annoying. I've seen the occasional ricer banging their R6 off the rev limiter at the gas station. The difference is, the loud sportbike is gone in the blink of an eye. The loud Harley rider feels the need to 'show off' in every 30mph pedestrian zone they can find.
Harley motors are designed to be loud. They are called "thumpers" because both pistons are at top dead center at the same time, therefore they both fire at the same time. This also causes massive vibration. Very inefficient and lame IMO.
They don't. It's a 45 degree vee with a common crank pin. The front cylinder fires, the crank rotates 315 degrees before the rear cylinder fires, then the crank rotates 405 degrees before the first cylinder fires again.
The 90 degree difference between firing pulses is what makes the engine shake and sound the way it does.
I wish the supes would push some quality of life ordinances, kind of like the ones Mirakami passed for the panhandle to deal with the druggies on Haight, but most supes don't seem to care.
"In SF we have these bastards who love nothing more than to rev up their engines and make noise, on residential streets, at night."
This is pretty much everywhere in the US. Aside from local ordinances, there is nothing you can do about. To call people bastards for a loud bike is one thing, but have you ever heard 'loud pipes save lives'?
On the highway, that's fine, on busy streets, that's fine. I get it. On quiet residential streets, at night, it's being a selfish prick. Normal bikers accelerate and are heard but aren't overly noisy. These other people on the other hand intentionally want to be annoyingly overly loud.
The sequence is, slow for a stop sign or intersection, full throttle, then heavy breaking for the next block, full throttle, mind you, modified, again. It's infuriatingly annoying.
Agreed. The problem I see with similar comments here about noise and the character of these (fair to say overly obnoxious) riders, and how it affects your life, is that the same can be said of All of other loud vehicles. It's like complaining about the character of people with too loud of music blaring. They like it loud. They're different than you. This is America, where it's loud, and youre free to be loud too. This coming from someone who is especially sensitive and irritated by noises Im not making myself.
I wish soundproofing standards for buildings were much higher.
Apartment listings only ever focus on just one of the major senses, vision. They make sure the photos look good with prop furniture and just the right lighting. But the experience of actually living in a place involves all of the senses.
I would love to see an apartment listing saying "60dBA soundproofing", "99.9% odor isolation", etc. All of the senses matter.
I used to want a balcony until I lived across from a building with balconies. Especially during summer, there's always someone having a loud party until late at night, and it's a different unit every time so harder to enforce noise limits and clean air smoking bans. So the downside of balconies is you have to share noise/airspace with everyone else with a balcony.
> This is America, where it's loud, and youre free to be loud too.
I'm in Japan and have the same problem with kids with modified exhausts being loud in quiet neighborhoods. This is Japan, where people are NOT loud, and it's even forbidden to talk on the phone on a train or bus.
That's not how it works, unfortunately. In a society, you have the right to be loud. You don't have the right to infringe on someone else's right of quiet enjoyment. It’s also common courtesy. Noise pollution is a real problem and it is pollution
tl;dr version is that basic physics says most of that noise goes backwards, so while a driver may be more likely to notice a louder bike the majority of the increased noise is going in exactly the wrong direction to be useful.
It's a bogus claim made by people trying to justify their annoying exhaust choices.
You'll note that the people who tend to be most vocal about "loud pipes save lives" also tend to be the ones wearing little to no gear and/or riding like jerks. We're not talking about the most safety conscious people out there.
As someone who drives an ATV on gravel backroads, with drunk assholes in automobiles, I completely disagree. After a few obviously intoxicated (on alcohol, and/or pills, and/or unknown, because they told me...) people commenting that they heard me coming around a blind curve because I would floor it for a split second to announce myself, I will contine to appropriately be loud. This not only applies to backroads but especially 1-track offroad trails where people on horses will hear me and be able to prepare ~45 seconds before I arrive at my slow, but dangerously deaf, speed (because of my helmet).
Though, I am a very considerate and conservative rider, whose default is to putter along and disturb as little as possible, especially around humans but I try to respect nature as well. Harleys... yeah, I mostly agree with you.
To further point 1, Harley made the V-Rod in 2001.[1]
Departure from their typically... lacking bikes(liquid cooling, engine designed in joint with Porsche). With drastically different styling. They had a niche but never really caught on.
Harley also briefly had a Performance Bike company, Buell that they shuttered.[2]
I'll disagree with your point 4. Even though they're still behind, modern Harleys aren't the stereotypical leaking/broken down rattling apart of the past.
I'm a Buell fan and owned two Buells. Erik Buell really had to fight tooth and nail to do anything with Harley, and was saddled with using Sportster engines which are quite archaic. This led to bikes with a lot of character but no mass market appeal.
Buell did release the 1125r near the end, which was finally a bike that could truly compete with other sport bikes, and used an engine made by Rotax. Sadly it was too little, too late, and the 1125r had reliability problems to boot.
In short, Buell never stood a chance of being anything beyond a very small, niche brand.
You are correct with reguards to #4, the evo engines and later were all decent I hear. My point partly stands as nobody seems to leave their bike stock, and mods will be limited.
American sportbikes have always had problems, even without harleys heavy hand. The Buell story really is a sad and facinating one for anyone interested in business.
nobody seems to leave their bike stock, and mods will be limited.
Look at the electric bicycle crowd. Mods, mods, mods. Yes, you can get an electric bicycle to go above 50MPH, but you don't have the tires and brakes to stop the thing.
To sort of piggy back off of your point, I think Harley is headed for the rocks and it all comes down to number 1. Harley has such a concrete demographic and it's been exhausted. The problem is, by catering so hard to that demographic they are not able to get new riders.
To make matters worse, things like electric motorcycles, discontinuing the Dyna / FXR line, and changing from an air cooled engine to a liquid cooled engine is also annoying their diehard demographic.
The only demographic which seems to be growing (though, I'm extremely biased on this) is younger kids who are getting into customizing motorcycles. Not "Orange County Chopper" bikes, but buying old Harleys (or Triumphs or BSAs or Hondas for that matter) and making them into cool choppers or cafe racers or whatever. The problem is, this demographic doesn't give Harley any money. They don't want the Harley branded everything. They want old bikes that they can get cheap aftermarket or NOS parts for and they want to ride those.
This is the reality for a lot of companies, they have built themselves around the baby boomers who are getting to old and dying off. They've all but ignored the younger generations and now must face the reality that soon no one will care about their brand and they'll wither and die just like their core demographic.
Even if millennials suddenly thought Harley was cool, they wouldn't have the money to afford one.
If price gets to a point that it is at parity with the typical bike, I'd probably jump. I don't own one and the only thing that really draws is less fuel consumption. Something that I just charge for trips to and from work? That'd be icing.
Though for the points you listed and others, I expect the run of the mill that they're none for to continue for a while as well. But they have the possibility of owning two markets, so why not?
But I don't think it's the existing demographic they are trying to sell this bike to. The whole point is that market is shrinking. Rather, they want to have something available to sell to the "next generation" of riders. For example, people who want an electric bike made by an American manufacturer.
I've never really been attracted to motorcycles, and while I've seen Harleys and thought "that looks good", it's never made me want one. This one interests me.
Unfortunately as I'd need a car anyway, I'm guessing this is going to be well outside my price range. Is there any info on pricing yet? I couldn't see it in TFA.
Longtime Harley rider here, what I love on my Harley, the vibration, the sound, the smell, this Harley as nothing of it, I would never buy it and probably the average Harley rider shares my opinion.
My dad owned a Harley so I totally get the appeal, especially the sound. But it's also the sound that annoys the crap out of the rest of us. Then again, I suppose annoying the crap out of the rest of us with the sound may be part of the appeal of it to certain Harley owners. (Entire comment tongue in cheek... mostly.) :-)
One thing to understand, my Harley riding brethren, Harley cannot be targetting you. They are clearly targetting new riders. The combustion engine is a hobby as much as anything for 1/2 the riders I know; for them, it's the fun of owning a bike. Unless you have a lot of money, the only way to fix an oft-broken motorcycle is by doing yourself. I've owned a similar (not Harley) bike for a number of years. Parts are always vibrating off off the damn thing. It is loud; I do believe it helps make you visible. Yes, that is anecdotal, but I have ridden bikes with all types of pipes and I find it 100% true. I am much safer (heard) with my La Chopper's Curvedd pipes than the very quiet stock pipes; meaning, many fewer close calls.
So, they are looking for riders that don't care that their machines will (ostensibly) be more reliable (less vibration), saves money on fuel, and is quiet and efficient. I care about none of those things, BUT I want Harley to stay in business, and if they can do that while attracting new riders, I fully support them.
A side note, gas sport-bikes accelerate insanely fast now ... imagine how fast they will with an electric engine ... scary!
The main issue I have with Harley and all the loud bikes is that riders are remarkably rude and inconsiderate. Yeah, I'm passing a very general comment around, but I don't think it's wrong.
Any time you ride that thing past someones home you wake everyone up if they're sleeping and completely ruin any sense of quiet that may have existed.
If your neighbor fired up a chainsaw (or six) 20 feet from your house at all hours of the day, I imagine you'd consider that neighbor similarly.
So if they loud bikes go away, I'm all in favor. I think you're all acting like jerks for riding them.
Second that. I have lived on Overtoom in Amsterdam, one of the main avenues in and out of the city center. On any given night there would be 1000s of vehicles using that road. But for some reason the hey look at me motorcycle crowd would love to open up their throttles at 3am, you never heard anybody else except for the occasional ambulance.
I doubt the "loud pipes save lives" concept holds water. The normal rumble of a Harley doesn't bother me. When one of those riders goes out of their way to gun it through residential neighborhoods just to be obnoxious they should be fined
It absolutely does. Maybe not in a residential neighborhood, but when it's rush hour, and I'm stuck on the highway in my truck with bikes splitting lanes, its really nice to get an audio warning that one of them is coming by at a close distance.
I'd find that argument more compelling if not for the fact that most of the noise is focused behind the motorcycle instead of in front of it. How about we get rid of the intentionally loud exhaust system and replace it with a forward facing speaker playing ice cream truck music. In the name of safety of course. Doubt many Harley riders would go for that even though it is congruent with the claims of a desire to use noise to make a cyclist's presence known to other drivers.
So loud pipes just distracted me from the other 30 vehicles on the road.. Thanks
And thankfully soundproofing of cars makes those loud pipes irrelevant. They are kind of like car alarms, if I happen to even hear them, obnoxious, I ignore it
I was under the impression that motorcycles were made to be artificially loud, as just like the existence of the engine, the bike being loud is a major selling point. Is this true?
The problem is that they are so fast. So if you call in a seriously scary and illegal noise at night the culprit could be a state over before anyone arrives. So it's obviously a non starter and nobody calls the police. But then there is a cultural of it being normal and so the problem never goes away and only gets worse.
Motorcycles are your right to ride if you have a license. Scaring the living daylights out of people every day is not.
Not at all true, unless you add an illegal straight through or race pipe. Or remove the baffles.
Motorcycles are comparatively loud, especially big V twins, because a) a surprising percentage is intake noise - there's a huge intake pulse from a 1200cc V b) the engine is open rather than behind a closed bonnet with noise absorption c) they tend to rev much higher than equivalent car engines (not Harleys)
Passing the legislated noise tests (specified engine revs etc), bikes are often quieter than a car. With some bikes now too quiet for comfort around pedestrians in town. Harleys somehow are always obnoxiously loud - My guess is probably mostly from intake pulses given current EU noise regs.
>I was under the impression that motorcycles were made to be artificially loud, as just like the existence of the engine, the bike being loud is a major selling point. Is this true?
They don't come from the factory that way (regulation), but people add aftermarket parts to make them that way. It costs a good amount too; $2500 installed depending on what you get.
They don't come from the factory that way (regulation)
They effectively did for a very long time. Harley has a performance parts division, complete with a thick catalog of custom exhausts, cams, intakes, and most importantly an EFI "tuner" box. Harley dealers were more than happy to install whatever you wanted, and even kept a stock of already modified bikes ready for sale.
They were fined $12 million for this awhile back. 2012, I think.
Exactly. One could argue that bikers are disproportionately responsible for this problem, but they're far from having a monopoly. There's no shortage of people with a "tuned" Civic/Impreza/Neon or cheapskate businesses operating shitty old trucks, at least in my area.
Motorcycles are unsafe by design. You want high acceleration, great gas mileage, and awesome maneuverability? Well then, you don't get the same protection that a car gets. It's basic physics.
The fact is, the vast majority of people choose to drive 2+ ton metal enclosures (with much larger total cost of ownership, mind you) and you choose to drive something that actively puts you in danger. That choice is entirely on you as are all of the consequences because, let's face it: no one but a few psychopaths want to be responsible for someone's death. Your argument that drivers don't give a shit rings absolutely hollow.
As for entitlement, if a horse buggy or low speed moped gets on the freeway and gets obliterated because they can't function like the cars that the roads were designed for, do you blame the cars or the person who decided to get on the freeway in an entirely inadequate vehicle?
I'm all for motorcycles on the road and I'm all for designing safety systems (that don't make life worse for everyone else) into them and other cars on the road to reduce accidents and fatalities. You, a minuscule minority, however, do NOT get to noise pollute our environments far beyond what is reasonable in a dense urban/suburban society just for your own enjoyment. The vast majority of drivers have long ago voted with their wallets and ballot boxes that the quiet, safety, and size of cars is what we want.
I agree somewhat, but it's not all driver's fault.
As a car driver, I don't feel entitled to the whole road, but I also don't shed too many tears for the idiots who lane split and ride like maniacs - ironically, maniacs who appear to feel entitled to the whole road.
I'm a cyclist most days, so I'm acutely aware of how oblivious and dangerous car drivers can be... so it seems crazy to me that most motorcyclists would choose to buzz between them unpredictably at high speed, instead of riding in a safer fashion.
Part of the big appeal is the loudness of the bikes. I don't think I would want a harley if it was quiet....also if you don't like it because it's loud, chances are that you will not enjoy it and will hold negative connotations with it.
Granted there are assholes that like to knock out your side mirrors but loud bikes definitely make themselves aware of other drivers when their cross section visibility is much less than a car.
I would think that the more scorn you show for these bikers, you are just upping their own sense of glee.
The bikes aren't the problem. Stock bikes are surprisingly quiet. As someone who likes riding (Suzuki Bandit 600, Yamaha XT660X) and is perfectly happy with stock pipes, I don't appreciate being lumped in with the idiots, and I would absolutely fight against a ban.
No on is proposing a ban on 2 wheeled vehicles, or at least they shouldn't. But I'm all in favor of banning ANY vehicle that can't pass a very strict quiet test.
From my understanding of Harley fans is that they really really like their air-cooled engines. V-Rod, Street 750 have all gotten flak for not being 'true' harleys....because they improved on lot of the outdated tech. They can't sell even the newer bikes (revenue has fallen and closing down factories) because the demographic is steadfast in their vision of classic harley.
Porsche enthusiasts also show similar preference for air cooled 70~80s models which appreciates in value....but they kept almost all parts of the formula (the car look, clock, engine in the rear) the same because when they went with a bold new look (like the tear drop of early 2000s) they were facing an uphill battle.
It's sort of like the HN comment I see calling for petrol cars to be banned because electric vehicles are going to render the old ones extinct.
There is a true lack of understanding the market and the buyers in a space that most HN'ers are not the target demographic.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. If everyone expected electric vehicles to just naturally replace all petrol powered vehicles and make them extinct, there would be no need for talk of a ban. Of course petrol heads will always want petrol powered vehicles. The whole point of bans is to stop people doing things they would otherwise do.
Note I'm not advocating a ban as such. I think it would be a shame if all petrol powered vehicles were banned, if only for historical appreciation. They might be banned from or face restrictions on their use on public highways though. However it does seem likely there will be a push back from petrol heads on that.
the 996 era 911 is certainly the least loved porsche 911 and it was initially due to being the first water cooled engine, but now it's because the horrible egg headlights and the fact it isn't old enough to be classic yet. The 991.1 and 991.2 have sold incredibly well and the 918 showed porsche enthusiasts hybrid would actually make their cars faster. When the 992 includes electrification there is going to be a huge demand.
The air cooled leap in value didn't happen until more than a decade after porsche switched to water cooling when people realized vintage 911s had been undervalued for decades (they are excellent cars, especially with modern tires). There is likely now a bubble, especially with 912s, but there are tons of porsche guys buying both old and new stuff.
I don't see current Harley guys taking to electric very well, but this is about getting a whole new generation of buyers, not about keeping their aging boomers happy.
At the same time that the 996 was a controversial success for Porsche, the 928 was an eventual, controversial failure. Even though I own a 928 I don't know nearly enough about the 928's history to talk about why it failed, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with its rapid departure from the 911's style and layout. My big question is will an electric Harley be just enough, too little, or too much of a change from its heritage to succeed?
the lesson from the Porsche example is to go ahead and do it! The market for their modern product built on top of the rich brand legacy is far far larger than the old market for the legacy product. They traditionalists will whine, but you can hardly hear them what with the stacks of money all around.
Trouble with motorcycles is, at least in the EU, too many years of governments putting the fix for bad car drivers onto the motorcycle license. The capacity limits and multi-part test etc are quite off-putting for new riders. Unsurprisingly, it's still car drivers causing most rider deaths. On the plus side you develop a definite 6th sense for those that will pull out - whilst looking straight through you. You also end up a much better car driver.
Lifestyle ranges are part of the problem of decline. The manufacturers, Harley included - perhaps especially, have catered more and more for the born again bikers spending a lot of $$$ in their 40s+. The cost has got rather silly and many models, even Jap middleweights, have reached the cost to buy of a cheaper car. When I started only the Goldwing and rarer Italian managed that.
So whilst I'd love for an EV bike to revitalise things, I suspect they'll be more of the same for the 40+ born again biker.
Source: Almost 35 years of motorcycling and trying to encourage the kids to take up biking.
Edit: This has been gaining plenty of up and downvotes. I'm intrigued - what's controversial here?
>Trouble with motorcycles is, at least in the EU, is too many years of governments putting the fix for bad car drivers onto the motorcycle license.
Yes, but as you know, even if the motorcycle is in the right, physics doesn't care. I quit riding recently after 8 years of serious riding, 18 of casual, because our sales guy, who has years of riding experience got T-Boned on a legal left turn with his wife on the back. They were "ok," meaning not dead and no brain damage, but they were pretty beat up. The moral of the story for me was, no matter how good and experienced a rider you are, you can still get clobbered.
>The cost has got rather silly and many models, even Jap middleweights, have reached the cost to buy of a cheaper car.
Between you and me and all the blind drivers, I'd rather buy a used sport convertible with a manual transmission. Just about the same experience for the same money, minus most of the risk of death.
As for the sports car, I totally understand the choice. Unfortunately, for under a couple of million dollars a car will never have the same potential for acceleration as even a relatively modest motorcycle. And you... loose something visceral when you can't lean into turns.
If a person is OK with that, however, a used sport car is definitely a reasonable investment for some wheeled fun.
60% of all the skilled riders I know have at least one if not multiple orthopedic appliances screwed into their bones. I’m not citing this as a fact for everyone to go by; but it is enough to keep me off a bike.
>Trouble with motorcycles is, at least in the EU, too many years of governments putting the fix for bad car drivers onto the motorcycle license. The capacity limits and multi-part test etc are quite off-putting for new riders. Unsurprisingly, it's still car drivers causing most rider deaths.
There is a clear relation between engine size and fatalities. There is also a clear relation between stringent license tests and safety.
What you have to accept is that you might ride safely, but for every person like you there are a couple of young squids out there who are going to buy the largest capacity motorcycle they can, ride it dangerously and without any gear and any caution thrown to the wind. I am a rider too, and often encounter these idiots. At least in the Netherlands gear is very ubiquitous (except for the nostalgia grandpas on their 1940s antique) but I still see dangerous riding all the time.
And in terms of economic incentives, at least in the Netherlands it is insanely attractive. The license is the only obstacle, but you save a lot on fuel and road tax.
To me that does not give enough to contradict, they don't break down the figures any further to reveal properly.
"Approximately 40% of all serious and fatal motorcycle crashes in the Netherlands are single vehicle crashes (a crash in which no other road user is involved). In the other motorcycle crashes the crash opponent is mainly a passenger car"
Now I'm sure some of the other 60% are caused by the biker, but the vast majority of two vehicle accidents involving a bike come down to driver pulling out of side road, overtaking into blind spot etc. Your guess is as good as mine how they broke down further.
The only UK figures, with enough breakdown, I can find are 2004[0], which gave rider at fault 42%, other driver 44% with 33% single vehicle. They removed single vehicle to get 22% rider, 57% driver as cause when more than one vehicle.
But yes the idiots taking racing line at 100mph in weekend traffic are an accident waiting to happen and have a good chance of ending buried in a wall. I'm happy to let them pass me.
As with most things driving, the US is a typically a lot more relaxed than that about handing out licenses.
I know in my home state (NJ) I took a 2.5 day class over a weekend and got my motorcycle endorsement from passing a basic skills test at the end of that. No capacity limits or anything else, I could have gone out and picked up a liter bike with my couple hours of riding experience (and probably gotten myself killed quickly) if I wanted.
Downvotes are probably because people hate motorcycle noise. I'm sure most of us are indifferent to it while driving next to motorcycles, but when we're not driving and are trying to enjoy life at home or work or a restaurant, we don't want to hear that noise (which just adds up when lots of motorcycles pass by). I'm all for outlawing motorcycles if noise is necessary for safety.
For people to downvote you because they don't like noise is violating HN's downvote guidelines, and contributes to making HN an echo chamber.
Can't speak to US noise regs, but here most standard bikes really aren't that loud any more - years of noise regs have put paid to that. I'm just as anti excessive noise as many non motorcyclists. Not least because of
> "I'm all for outlawing motorcycles if noise is necessary for safety."
Being a noisy arse encourages sensible thinking people to start calling for outright bans. The lead footed in hot hatch or Subaru with Cherry Bomb are just as annoying as the noisy arse on a bike. Especially if late or around town.
On the flip side, noise regs have got so tight that some factory standard bikes are barely audible around town - presuming sensible revs, almost dangerously so. I think it was Toyota was trialling playing engine noises on EVs because of this. I don't want obnoxious straight pipes - just "enough" legal noise to be comparably audible as cars round town (as factory standard).
I grew up with people like my dad (born in the 30s) saying they'd "never buy a Jap car". He never did but we did have Honda and Suzuki dirt bikes because of the quality and price.
Wasn't attempting to be offensive and I apologise if anyone found it so. Gave it no more significance than referring to myself as a Brit. Most of my bikes have been Japanese.
We just published a study on the environmental performance of current and future battery and fuel cell motorcycles (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191... ; also available via scihub). The supporting information is open Jupyter notebooks, though some of the background data is closed.
The environmental performance of electric motorcycles is different than cars:
- Cars need ancillary services like heating, increasing battery size
- Motorcycles have no real chance at regenerative braking
- Motorcycles are driven fewer kilometers than cars, making the impact of the vehicle more important (as opposed to the fuel).
Currently, we estimate that battery motorcycles are preferable across a variety of environmental indicators, though results differ for small and large motorcycles, which have very different usage patterns.
Motorcycles have no real chance at regenerative braking
They do, but it has to come from the front wheel. An electric generator would be heavy and add significant unsprung weight.
KTM experimented with a 2wd dirt bike. It used hydraulic lines to transfer energy to the front wheel. A similar system could be used for regenerative braking.
Loud pipes just piss people off. And ruin your hearing. And most likely the person in the car is yacking on the phone anyone and not listening to your $500 chrome moly straight pipes.
Harley is dying and needs to do something to attract younger buyers into the fold. Hopefully this will do that.
Also, in my experience most loud pipes are so bass-heavy that even when you do pay attention to them, the sound doesn't do much to help you actually locate the bike unless it's directly to the left or right.
They are definitely bad for your hearing. In a previous job, my boss and his biker buddies were all deaf to varying degrees after years of biking. I got a 125cc bike and ended up wearing earplugs for anything but the shortest rides, and that was a relatively quiet bike. Even then, I'd have ringing ears for hours afterwards. I got rid of it before I'd had it a year for other reasons, but if I was in the market for another bike, being loud would not be on my list of desirable features. A quiet electric bike sounds great to me.
As someone not really in the biker scene, I find the whole image people try to project with loud bikes etc. a bit ridiculous. It's not about the bike and enjoying riding it or just using it to get to places, it's all about what others think of you while you're doing it. It's a fashion/lifestyle statement, and it's not something I personally care about so much.
Their audience is though- the average age of a Harley owner has been trending upwards for decades. I believe it is somewhere around 67 right now, seriously. There may be some younger people buying Harleys still, but for a very long time the trend has been in the other direction. When the Boomers are gone, the company is going to have an existential crisis unless they figure out some way to expand their appeal to new demographics.
As a rider "loud pipes save lives" is just justification of people who want to make noise but won't own the responsibility of admitting it. My motorcycle has a horn that faces forward for a reason. I use it respectfully all the time for my own safety.
Riding a motorcycle without a horn is as irresponsible and dangerous as riding one with bald tires or poorly maintained brakes.
Take responsibility for your own safety. Ride defensively. Don't be a jerk.
My bike is exceptionally quiet, and I get constant flak from "fellow riders"[1] at work. When they call my bike a scooter because it's so quiet, that tells me a lot about why they bought their bike. When they then also claim that they only care about noise because of safety....
I like walking, and honestly, it makes me feel very happy to know that there are bikers who don't ride noisy bikes. There's nothing more depressing than being in what feels like a perfect wilderness, except the sound of motorbikes roaring through the valleys.
Not sure if you are talking about dirt bikes or just road bikes in a more rural setting. I can however imagine there are things more depressing than engine noise so your claim is hyperbolic.
I do not ride a quiet motorcycle on the street. My pipes are louder than stock (no baffles) but I still have mufflers. This bike is louder than stock because I like how it sounds. I admit that makes me a bit of a jerk. I don't hide behind dubious claims of safety.
Road bikes, actually. It just takes one road, and unfortunately the kind of places that are good to walk in are also fun to bike in.
I think as it goes, the 'jerk'-ness of riding a loud motorbike is a small subset of the greater jerkness of petrol-based vehicles in general. As a value proposition, widespread car ownership is about the most horrible idea for public transportation imaginable, in most places.
I'm really looking forward to the end of it, to be honest. Public transport has lots of nice side-effects - like increasing general health (through reducing polution, for instance), or making the elderly more able to get around. Cars just have negatives - and most of the time, they're just a really uncomfortable way to sit still in traffic.
That actually makes some sense - but I'd still rather everybody used public transport. If you've ever seen a video of what streets used to look like before cars, you can really see what driving has done to public spaces, and perhaps, to our society. It's made us a good bit more atomized, zipping from private space to private space, stuck in these really expensive monads.
This could be quite cool, and something I'd certainly be up for test-riding.
It would also be quite ironic, in an enjoyable sort of way, to see Harley-Davidson at the top of the pack in terms of innovation. Just hope it's got as much go as it does show, unlike most of their other offerings: Rod series aside[1], their bikes are absolutely worse than other major manufacturers' by almost any measure you care to name (performance, handling, reliability, fuel efficiency, weight, features, price, and TCO). I think the only attributes they've been winning on recently are swagger and decibels which, in fairness, are probably the two main reasons to buy a Harley... so I suppose they at least know their market.
[1] And lots of people complained about the Nightrod because it wasn't a "real" Harley: it had a Porsche designed engine that incorporated modern features such as water-cooling (I'm being totally serious).
Like just about any marketing campaign, HD sells emotion rather than an actual product.
One of the reasons people are drawn to HD is they are highly customizable, with a huge aftermarket of parts that are mostly "bolt on," meaning a knucklehead like me can do it.
> And lots of people complained about the Nightrod because it wasn't a "real" Harley: it had a Porsche designed engine that incorporated modern features such as water-cooling (I'm being totally serious).
Serious? As if such attitude was unknown to the hacker community...
I got excited in the article, especially the mention of the Zero SR bike with 135 mile range for $10k. Well the Zero SR starts at $16k. The Zero S with less range and power is around $10k.
I hear people do not like loud bikes, but as a big bike rider I loved the straight pipes on my Harley. It meant cars around me were aware of my presence, which felt critical to my survival. As a biker my biggest risk is cars being oblivious to my existence.
A silent motorcycle while cool would be a huge risk for people changing lanes on top of it, pulling out in front of it.
Most new bikes, and plenty of older imports, are nearly silent. They don't hear you till you pass. My old race bike got just as may blind merges as my quiet tourer. The difference seems to be riding style, staying out of blind spots and being 'unpredictable' so drivers actually notice you.
That said, it is well known that the power-sound connection is a very satisfying one to the rider.
I can only speak from experience. I rode a very quiet shaft driven bike for 3 years, and then I switched to a loud Harley. On city streets people were aware that I was there when driving the louder bike. On the quiet bike they would not notice me until I came right up alongside them. But that is the experience of one person.
I find the drastic drop in motorcycle sales interesting. I used to ride and really love it (and miss it). But I haven’t owned a bike in 4 years. For me the increase in traffic and more importantly the dramatic increase in distracted drivers due to cell phones makes riding more dangerous than I’m comfortable with. I wonder if others feel the same.
I still ride and but stopped riding street because it wasn’t fun being in traffic due to the reasons you mentioned. I still like the occasional back road ride but don’t own a street bike anymore. I ride exclusively off-road now. While I might risk an injury, I’m probably not going to be killed. Off-road riding and particularly motocross has vastly improved my skill level when I do ride on the road. I credit my dirt skills with saving my life on the freeway when someone pulled into my suddenly lane and I locked up the rear wheel (mistake!) on an oily patch of road. Since I was familiar with the rear wheel sliding and being locked up, my reflexes took over and I didn’t panic, at least not until after. I’m not saying that I didn’t have to change my underwear afterwards but I didn’t end up getting run over by the car behind me.
The drop in sales you point out is the recession and crash of the housing market in 2008.
Not that weight was ever a concern for Harley... But the thing that makes bikes fun is power to weight ratio. It's impossible not to grin when straddling upwards of a hundred horsepower on a frame that weighs less than a thousand pounds.
My R6 weighed 359lbs and had a 123hp. It was hilariously fun to ride.
Not really. A) It’s missing the “feel” of a Harley (e.g. the feeling of the engine between your legs), and B) Riding it in big cities where the sound of the Harley gas engine is an advantage (car drivers can hear you and not hit you when you’re in the blind spot) means the quiet electric engine could actually get you killed.
Please don't ride noisy stupid bags of metal and plastic anywhere. Nobody has to listen to that deafening annoying noise. Don't get me wrong I prefer a bike over a car anytime and if I needed to own a vehicle I'd get a moped, but I'd rather not add to the sound pollution and annoy the heck out of people.
It's a myth. They will prevent some accidents with pedestrians or bicycles in town because they haven't looked properly. That accident won't kill you anyway.
A loud pipe will make bugger all difference when you're doing 50+ down a major road and that idiot in the 4x4 on the side road junction looks right at you, then pulls out anyway. He probably has music on so gets little input, and no direction, from your nice open pipe.
What saves lives there is the biker actively moving across driver field of vision - eg weave in lane or more dramatic if you think he's going anyway. More motorcycle awareness on the car test might help, but that's not politically popular.
It's especially noticeable on the highway. A loud bike or car can be heard when it's in front of you, but if it's behind you it is practically silent, and that's the time when it would be useful to notice it.
Loud pipes create visibility (audibility?) when you are side by side with a driver, or in their blind spot. It reduces the chance of them from mindlessly swerving into your lane.
People usually get clobbered by cars pulling out in front of them, or getting swerved into from the side.
You contradict yourself, I believe. Rider vs pedestrian can cause fatal injuries to both actually. Most likely to a pedestrian, of course, but it's still a human life, isn't it?
I understand, at least according to numerous speed campaigns by govt here, that accidents at speeds of 30mph or less are unlikely to kill. As speed limits in town are 30 with some areas 20mph, risk of death to either is low.
I've heard that Harley is trying to expand their motorcycle line because that image doesn't resonate with younger riders (riders who didn't grow up with Easy Rider). I think the Street 500/750 was supposed to attract a younger rider; the styling is very different from most HD.
I'd say Porsches have far superior quality, in terms of materials, manufacturing, and engineering. And the newer 911 series models are beautiful, minimalist designs (although that's obviously a question of taste).
HD's quality issues stem mostly from bikes made during the 70s until 84. They are pretty solid today. I don't know a lot about Porche, but Harleys are pretty solid.
Loud pipes save lives is something I f-ing hate as I live at the bottom of a steep hill up which motor bikes love to show off their obnoxiously load farting sounds.
Bring on the understated. The quiet and classy. The silent but deadly farting sounds.
Part of the fun of riding a motorbike is hearing the majestic roar from the engine as you accelerate from 1-60 mph in a handful of seconds. This is not for everyone, no, but electric motorbikes makes me personally laugh.
What makes me laugh is the silent burst from 0 to 60 of my Zero while your still waiting for the first roar.
Snarky aside are you in it for the acceleration? If you are the electric is something you might want to try.
This is a great application for police motorcycles. Instantaneous acceleration, and long periods of completely idle. Couple it with being US made, and the police forces will eat them up.
Hm, where exactly? "Outside US" is a lot of space. I saw electric bicycles, and electric scooters in some European countries, but they are still far from being called common. And so far I never saw anything looking like a real motorcycle with electric engine.
Sounds like a bunch of grumpy grandpas in here today.
"Those hogs are too loud!"
"My delicate hearing!"
I can agree though that the "loud pipes save lives" argument is silly.
The truth behind the loud Harley mystique though, is much simpler and obvious to those who have ever ridden one: crack that throttle and a smile is inevitable. It just feels good to ride a big, rumbling, thundering internal combustion engine. Yes, you might channel your inner knuckle dragging primate, but it doesn't mean you are one, or need to be one to understand it.
That noise is an externality. It’s pollution. I can’t count how many times I’ve been woken up in the middle of the night by someone riding down my street on a Harley. Those things should be taxed into extinction.
You are factually incorrect. It is an externality and it is pollution. And you own the hatred that falls upon ALL of your fellow riders. So thanks, for that.
Everyone who doesn't own a Harley thinks it sounds terrible and hates it. The only reason you don't hear more about it is because people are too polite to speak up. You are the yappy-dog-in-a-grocery-store-dressed-up-as-a-service-dog of the vehicular world. 100% self centered entitlement, relying on the courtesy of others to tolerate your atrocious behavior.
This will fail.
1. Harley demographic is entrenched, hard to pivot. Most associate with wealthy boomers and 'lowlifes', or working class murica. Not things as popular today. Other, better, performance ebikes exist, and outside this restrictive submarket, but are not thriving. And I will casually remind readers of Southparks opinion. That said, they do have diehard fans that would buy anything they made.
2. Motorcycles are all about freedom. Range issues, or even the idea of them, robs confidence. This will change, but gas is way more energy dense and on a bike it matters even more than cars. Going into the mountains is not when you want to wonder if your range will halve going up hills with gusto, or screwing it on for the corners.
3. Price perception. The electric will be awesome. Torque is so fun on bikes. But to harley riders, I think it will fell like a 'toy'. And for the price point, its gonna be a tough sell.
4. Tinkering. You do not buy a harley as an intelligent person without ever expecting to work on it. Hell, that is part of the classical appeal of them. There are more than a few explorations of life and motorcycle maintance in print. Maybe this is just my bias, but the connection with the machine is part of what makes motorcycling so intimate.
I very much welcome being incorrect. I shopped for an ebike and bought another used sportbike instead.