Is Harley D going???

According to the posted article, HD wants to get financial backing for it's credit branch. That, in my mind, is so that they are covered in the likely event that their customers opt for paying the mortgage instead of the bike payment. i think it is smart for them to cover their asses by doing this. The money's out there. Guvmint is handing it out, so why not stick their palm out. The fact is that most of their customers didn't pay cash and chose financing for that V-Rod or Ultra Fat Super Electra Wide Sport Dark Glide. With the Kung Fu grip......
I'm with Bubba on this argument (and most of his for that matter) They really ought to diversify in order to survive in this modern market. Who can argue the fact that if you make something and put Harley fucking Davidson on it, it will sell. It is the name that people buy and it is the name that people think makes them a bad ass by owning. Go to any state fair and look around. Look all around and in the booths and you will see the names Miller, Budweiser and Harley Davidson. I've seen Harley kids clothes.
And as true as that is and given that they still have name recognition, now would be the time for them to start making some choice offerings. Dirt bikes for one. Even BMW is making headway with theirs. Imagine a small 400cc v-twin that had that (although emasculated) Harley thud and that low idle. All they have to do is make it capable of spinning faster than 5000 RPM and there you have it. Success. It wouldn't be too hard to avoid the aermacchi disaster. Just put a few good engineers on the job and make it happen. I also see that an inline 4 would do a great deal of service to the company.
The motorcycle engineering business changed for good in 1969 with the advent of the CB750 inline four. Harley nearly went down because of that engine but a bowling ball company needed a tax write-off and now they are what they are. It was an act of passion by the current owners that kept them around this long and they had a resurgence in the last 10-15 years. I believe that they could rule the bike market if they only used their heads and came up with bikes that anyone would want. A Harley Davidson scooter? Shit yeah, man. Tell me how many Metro-sexuals wouldn't buy one to scoot around Manhattan. An HD enduro sounds like the perfect thing to sell to the Israeli army. The bottom line is that the 50% of the market that Harley doesn't control are people who want what they want. They don't give a fuck what the Jones' are buying.* They just want what they want. I don't own an Interceptor because I'm a member of this website, I own one because it is a great bike.
Harley is a bit of nostalgia and history and some decent bikes (for some people other than me) all wrapped up in one. They could play that game and offer a re-make of the oil-tank VL or WL flat heads or any of those older machines. Whose to say that no would buy an old machine that was made brand new. You can't touch one of the "old" ones for under 30k and that's what those slow cruisers really want; they want what their grand-daddys rode.
This year, after living a life having a father who forbade me to ride a motorcycle, I finally found out that he used to own a four-cylinder Indian. (and I quote "that bastard use to go up Bonnie Brae Hill in third gear. Man it was fast!") Now, I have to get one. I guess that I'll have to mortgage my house to get one but it is worth it. I'll get to re-trace my father's footsteps and fly up Bonnie-Brae Hill. Maybe I'll get an old leather football helmet, too.



*(But then there are the squids who buy GSXRs. They are a young, dumb, modern day Jones. Undeniably, they are good bikes, what folks want, and they sell because of that fact and the Jones factor.)

 

Seidts sees the marketing possiblities!

BZ

 

HOLY BALLS!

I don't think I'm cut out for that position.

Thanks for the vote though:smile:

BZ

 

HAH!
Horse hockey..... middle of road. I seem to recall some pix taken of you trying to stay middle of the road but instead you tried to re design the shoulder. But yes. What it takes is for people to become complacent and both the management team and or the Union, could get out of hand. It seems to me that you believe we should do the job that we are paid to do. What a concept.

 

Actually the transition to digital television was started many years ago and the full-on implementation has been delayed several times by several years. One of the many reasons for the transition in the first place is the exponential growth of cell phones and wireless internet and the government wants to use the analog band of the frequency to accommodate that growth. Also, the coupons to by digital to analog converter boxes was available (until the program ran out of cash a month ago) had been available for well over a year and people largely ignored it so I struggle to find pity for people that say that they are going to be screwed by the transition to digital tv, especially when i have read stats saying only 12% of homes nationwide depend solely on over-the-air broadcast, 88% of Americans have cable, or a satellite system and will be largely unaffected. Also, the converter boxes have nothing to do with high definition. If you own a tv capable of displaying programming in HD, it most likely is already digital and you don't need a converter box in the first place, the boxes are simply to convert the digital signal your antenna picks up into an analog signal your older TV can display. The transition was originally supposed to be done by Dec 31, 2006. People have had time to make arrangements and have been predictably lazy or apathetic and now want to cry their tv may go dark in a week. Waah.

Also, HD can suck it. I'm not an HD guy, and I don't blame them for trying to get into the free-money line like all these other corporations. I think the government needs to accept some of these businesses will fail, and when it is a company that produces primarily expensive toys that nobody can afford to buy right now if they have to struggle or fail too effin' bad.

 

I'm with you on this one..

 

Whoa, ALL of the Big Three have plans all over southwestern Ontario, so it makes sense to support them. HOWEVER, i feel that the Canadian-made Japanese cars and trucks should also be subsidized - if the goal is to save jobs, why should it matter which company gets supported? Do you even know who owns the shares in these companies these days? In any case, the free money has the potential to reward shareholders, and who the heck knows where they are or what ethnicity they are, etc. Shouldn't matter.
As for "Buy American" I smell failure. I can't believe Barack has set himself up for such a flop, but I guess he must have missed that history lesson on "Buy American" policies - they never work. If he's planning on starting a Buy American campaign, I say "good luck", and it will fail bad.
If he plans on putting tariffs on imports, it will make the goods you want to buy more expensive. They make your purchasing decision lopsided, with the threat of additional taxes if you don't choose American.
Personally, I think American cars are getting a worse rap for this than they deserve. I've heard guys say that they get way more wear out of their Japanese cars than American ones, but I suspect that dollar for dollar, you could maintain an American car as long as a Japanese car. I just bought a 1997 Jeep Cherokee Ltd from my sister as a spare vehicle, and it runs like a dream - no problems at all.