Total Motorcycle Community Forums

CORSCO wrote:

t_bonee wrote:It is. So is the V-max. Catering to a market that isn't really there.

Every shop I have worked at, every time we get a V-MAX, it sells immediately.

Weird, when I asked the d00dz at the Yamaha dealer I visit occasionally about the hottest selling bikes it's alwasy the V-stars. They said they've only ever sold a couple of the V-max's. They don't even stock them at this particular dealership. Just get one in if it is needed.

Maybe its the region or something.

I don't care what you say, this is a bad a$$ bike! The more they move it away from curiser the better. Likewise on the MT-0S - WOW -



See, this makes me think V-twin.

That MT-OS is scary, in a bad a$$ sense. I think it fits more into the Buell class than the Harley cruiser class. Same for the V-Max.

Here in northern MN, I see a few on the roads. Nothing compared to the traditional Harley cruisers, but they do move a few at the dealerships. I think they attract the retiring sportbike riders that no longer want to go balls out on every ride. The sport/power cruiser definitely perks my ears.

I'm also curious how the retiring baby boomers will affect the demands here in the U.S. They gotta find something to do with all that time and I think motorcycling is a pretty luring hobby. As is, tons of classic cruisers are being gobbled up by these retiring citizens. I wonder how long that will continue...

CentralOzzy wrote:So why does it have to be V-Max V Harley?

Because Harley is the standard to which all other bikes are measured, apparently. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm dying to see Aprillia's response to Harley's new Street Glide.

The V-Rod isn't selling well?

Oh gawd, that shows you how dumb the cruiser market base is... when you could have something with twice as much power and smoothness and PERFORMANCE, and yet still the back-leaning riding position and even better looks, yet you go for a clunky old relic from the 60s, it shows you are more interested in pretending you're in Easy Rider than being a real motorcyclist.

Gummiente wrote:

CentralOzzy wrote:So why does it have to be V-Max V Harley?

Because Harley is the standard to which all other bikes are measured, apparently. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm dying to see Aprillia's response to Harley's new Street Glide.

Actually, you have to admit that the V-Rod has some subliminal V-Max in the styling. Although it's twin vs. four, the styling and the name have more than a passing resemblence. It doesn't seem like that much of a stretch of a question to me.....

< I Fly > wrote: Oh gawd, that shows you how dumb the cruiser market base is...

Quit trolling, you've been warned.

when you could have something with twice as much power and smoothness and PERFORMANCE, and yet still the back-leaning riding position and even better looks, yet you go for a clunky old relic from the 60s, it shows you are more interested in pretending you're in Easy Rider than being a real motorcyclist.

And we've also been through this "real motorcyclist" crap before, haven't we? No mass-manufactured cruiser currently on the market is a "Relic from the 60's." They are thoroughly modern machines. Educate yourself.

Another little bit I'd like to add - Harley-Davidson had developed and was testing a v-four water-cooled motorcycle conceptualized in 1976 - almost 10 years before the V-max came to market.

Read about it Here - http://www.riderreport.com/output.cfm?id=144217

Please just educate yourself.

I'm glad you have your opinion... but I'm sorry you can't see past your ego.

Tourers tour better ... who the hell says?

Nakeds do the daily thing better ... Not everyone uses their bike on a daily basis.

Supersports are faster... Wow. a fact! And guess what! Not everyone is out there to go fast!

Now ... here's another shocker for you. The fully faired race bike as we know it is a product of post-war to mid-century advances. The Styles may change but the concept doesn't. A semi-aerodynamic fairing wrapped around a race engine. An Advance would be a fairing that makes both rider and bike aerodynamic. But you won' see it. Why not!? Because it wouldn't sell. The Japanese manufacturers make what sells! Just like Harley!

Modern Cruiser design also stems from the same era. A simple machine with an easy to work on engine, a laid-back riding position, and a minimum of parts. You should seriously be looking at a simple cruiser like an old Harley-Davidson. Your Post about your stalling out problem shows that you have no idea about modern motorcycle engines and how they function.

By "MODERN" of course, I mean a motor that was designed in the mid 80's, telescopic forks that were perfected by the 40's, fairing design that was perfected in the 50's, CV carburettors that were developed in the 60's

PS, your EX engine was being developed the same time Harley's EVO engine was in development.

Finally, you say that H-D uses "Poor engine architecture." What makes it poor? And, more to the point, where's your degree in engineering?

Now, you can go on and on all you want about your OPINION, but when it comes to FACTS, you simply aren't educated. Didn't I already say that?

< I Fly > wrote: Oh gawd, that shows you how dumb the cruiser market base is... when you could have something with twice as much power and smoothness and PERFORMANCE, and yet still the back-leaning riding position and even better looks, yet you go for a clunky old relic from the 60s, it shows you are more interested in pretending you're in Easy Rider than being a real motorcyclist.

Don't live in denial of the fact that the styling and much of the design of cruisers is firmly in yesteryear.

< I Fly > wrote:http://www.motorcycledaily.com/27april06_scrambler.htm

The Triumph Scrambler 900.

It's not high-tech, super fast, or particularly capable off road... it's just plain cool.
It's retro but not in the dopey Harley "Heck's Angel" way - doesn't appeal to the same crowd (not that there aren't SOME perfectly reasonable HD riders).

I want one.