[Sealobo]

Exports from the US of A here in Hong Kong include but not limited to the followings:

Various Investment Banks (Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan etc)
Fast food joints (Micky D, KFC etc)
Medical drugs
Harley Davidson

I don't know... these are pretty bad stuff. =P

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by driven 

- Automobiles

Yeah ... not looking great.

-t

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Sealobo 

Harley Davidson

I don't know... these are pretty bad stuff. =P

Which is strange to me - why would people waste money on an overpriced, underpowered logo when Japan gets some of the best bikes in the world?

[driven]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Which is strange to me - why would people waste money on an overpriced, underpowered logo when Japan gets some of the best bikes in the world?

For some ... there are no other type of motorcycles. As a Mac user ... you should be able to relate.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Which is strange to me - why would people waste money on an overpriced, underpowered logo when Japan gets some of the best bikes in the world?

Because it's a ****ing Harley?

WTH kind of a question is that?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Because it's a ****ing Harley?

WTH kind of a question is that?

It's an excellent question. Japan has an incredible selection of standards that aren't available in the US, but instead they spend thousands extra for a logo and an image. What's inherently better about a Harley? Are they more reliable? More comfortable? More user-friendly? Doubtful.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

It's an excellent question. Japan has an incredible selection of standards that aren't available in the US, but instead they spend thousands extra for a logo and an image. What's inherently better about a Harley? Are they more reliable? More comfortable? More user-friendly? Doubtful.

Why is a purse $4000? Women buy it for the label. Same thing with motorcycles, computers, and cars. You guys ever see how much Top Gear rips on Ferrari? Same thing. People buy things for the label and look. Sometimes it has to do with having a good experience with a product, so they always use that product despite there being better or cheaper options.

[angelmb]

It is about living a brand against buying it. Loving against liking. It is about excellence and be proud of owning one. Instead of selling a given commodity, they fulfill dreams, so the experience is not over once you turn off your Mac, your iPod, the Harley or once the Coca-Cola Contour bottle is empty… That's what makes all them so special.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

It's an excellent question. Japan has an incredible selection of standards that aren't available in the US, but instead they spend thousands extra for a logo and an image. What's inherently better about a Harley? Are they more reliable? More comfortable? More user-friendly? Doubtful.

You're serious!

Character, style. Balls. The feeling of having a living, breathing machine as opposed to a generic, bland, off-the-shelf product.

It's partly about brand image, and partly about the fact that enjoying your life isn't about UTILITY. It's about surrounding yourself with people and things you love.

"If you gotta ask, you ain't never gonna know."

[Sealobo]

Harley is a pretty big american icon. no doubt about it. Intentionally it's bigger than the Vette. However, mechanically they suck balls. You can brag about style and heritage all day, but these bikes need to be updated. Italian or British bikes have been around even longer and they continue to improve without becoming off-the-shelf products.

i went to a HD showroom to check out the V-Rod just last week... the salesperson told me that the jap bikes are made of plastic and flimsy... i was like O REALY. so i figure HD is a cult.

[Spheric Harlot]

Of course it's a cult.

But some things just have to fart and breathe and be tinkered with on a constant basis.

It's like you don't buy an old timer for the mileage.

[MallyMal]

Chrysler 200c looks to be a step in the right direction.


http://www.leftlanenews.com/chrysler-200c-ev.html

[OreoCookie]

That looks like an Opel Insignia … 


It's the first Opel in a long time whose design I like.

[RhymesWithOrange]

My baby...

[driven]

Originally Posted by MallyMal 

Chrysler 200c looks to be a step in the right direction.


http://www.leftlanenews.com/chrysler-200c-ev.html

Looks a lot like the Hyundai Genesis:

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

You're serious!

Character, style. Balls. The feeling of having a living, breathing machine as opposed to a generic, bland, off-the-shelf product.

It's partly about brand image, and partly about the fact that enjoying your life isn't about UTILITY. It's about surrounding yourself with people and things you love.

"If you gotta ask, you ain't never gonna know."

So what you're saying is that it's the Bose of motorcycles - not actually better, and oftentimes worse, but the brand is recognizable and marketed well.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

So what you're saying is that it's the Bose of motorcycles - not actually better, and oftentimes worse, but the brand is recognizable and marketed well.

The Bose comparison is complete trash, but basically, you're not getting it.

The brand isn't just recognizable and marketed well; the PRODUCTS are unique and - **** it, dude.

Let's just say that these guys would NEVER be caught dead on a ricer:



I also suspect that if you were to suggest to these people that they've fallen for an inferior product because of a marketing ploy, you probably wouldn't remember much of the following week.

Is a piece of technology that you buy BECAUSE you have to tinker with it inferior to an off-the-shelf Jap bike?

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I also suspect that if you were to suggest to these people that they've fallen for an inferior product because of a marketing ploy, you probably wouldn't remember much of the following week.

What exactly does this prove?

[Doofy]

I believe that the word you people are looking for is "soul". Harleys have it. Yamahas don't.

No point in trying to explain "soul" to a bunch of computer geeks, Spheric. That'd be like trying to explain why your B3 is better than the organ in GarageBand. Or like trying to explain to Bill Gates why seeing the Mona Lisa in person is better than seeing it at his digital library. Or like trying to explain why an original Aquarama is more awesome than some carbon fibre jobbie.

[analogika]

dp.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I believe that the word you people are looking for is "soul". Harleys have it. Yamahas don't.

That, and balls.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No point in trying to explain "soul" to a bunch of computer geeks, Spheric. That'd be like trying to explain why your B3 is better than the organ in GarageBand.

I had exactly that comparison in mind the entire time, but realized *that* would be a futile exercise.
Have you ever taken the back cover off a B3 that's been running for a while? That heavenly smell of 50-year-old electronics, wood, oil, and valves.

*sigh*

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Have you ever taken the back cover off a B3 that's been running for a while?

Not specifically, but I imagine it's somewhat similar to poking your nose in the back of an old handwired Marshall head that you've been cooking on for a while. Yum.

[OreoCookie]

@Spheric
I think the original point was different: Chrysler automobiles are arguably a mass market product, Harleys are a niche market product. Niche market products do not underly the same restrictions as mass market products. It's for people that want to ride a bike that is technically on the level of the 1960s or so. But they are not different from a Lotus Elise or an Ariel Atom.

To ascribe to them all sorts of `male' attributes is laughable. I think you need a lot more balls to master a Japanese sports bike than a Harley. The former is for style, the latter needs skill.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Spheric
I think the original point was different: Chrysler automobiles are arguably a mass market product, Harleys are a niche market product. Niche market products do not underly the same restrictions as mass market products.

Good point.

[Doofy]

Interestingly, the amount of Jeep fans who whined when Chrysler started putting IFS on their models was unreal. Chrysler thinks they're doing a good thing with their proposed target market (mall rats) while pissing off their actual hardcore market (the wheelers).

Same here in the UK with the engine choices. Those in the market for a Grand Cherokee want a petrol engine, V8 preferably. Yet Chrysler ceased selling petrol models a couple years back.

So, it all boils down to companies chasing ever larger prospective markets in an attempt to gain more share, all the while pissing off their regular customers because they're coming out with new product which is watered down to the lowest common denominator. Any number of companies can be accused of this, from Apple to BMW (what's the point in the X3) to Jaguar to Porsche to... ...well, just about everyone.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by analogika 

That, and balls.

It's hard to claim that a 1700cc V4 with 200hp doesn't have "balls." And the Bose comparison was dead-on - you pay more money for technologically inferior equipment so that you can acquire some sort of image that the company does a great job of marketing to people.

[Railroader]

No, the Bose comparison doesn't fit. Bose people don't like to tinker. HD people LOVE to tinker, accessorize, build their whole lives around a brand.

Bose is more like a Prius Hybrid. Bought because everyone else is, bland, safe, "superior".

HD really has no comparisons. The people who buy HD and the People who buy Honda/Yamaha would never cross shop. Now a HD guy might consider a Buell...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

It's hard to claim that a 1700cc V4 with 200hp doesn't have "balls."

1700 cc over 4 cylinders equals 425 cc per cylinder.
1584 cc over 2 cylinders equals 792 cc per cylinder.

Therefore, the aforementioned cycle has 53.66% of the "balls" that the Harley does.

[Sealobo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

1700 cc over 4 cylinders equals 425 cc per cylinder.
1584 cc over 2 cylinders equals 792 cc per cylinder.

Therefore, the aforementioned cycle has 53.66% of the "balls" that the Harley does.

it works that way?

this 2,000cc Kawasaki has a lot of balls then:

[Spheric Harlot]

It may, but it has absolutely NO style.

It's the Gucci-and-hairgel copy of a rock-n-roll machine. Everything about it screams "Wish-I-were".

Also, having lived in Hamburg St. Pauli for a number of years and having thus been in the middle of the first four annual Harley Days festivals (with over 10,000 Harley Davidsons swarming all over the quarter and down by the harbor), I can tell you that NOTHING sounds like a Harley.

If you're going to argue technical stats, reliability, and mileage, then just stick to your stuff and don't bother trying, because you're never ever going to see real beauty in machinery.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

1700 cc over 4 cylinders equals 425 cc per cylinder.
1584 cc over 2 cylinders equals 792 cc per cylinder.

Therefore, the aforementioned cycle has 53.66% of the "balls" that the Harley does.

Or you could say that 1700 cc@200 hp has 50 hp per ball. A Harley motor with 1584 cc@70 hp has 35 hp per ball. Which means that Harleys have 40 % less balls. (But at least they sound bigger )

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Or you could say that 1700 cc@200 hp has 50 hp per ball. A Harley motor with 1584 cc@70 hp has 35 hp per ball. Which means that Harleys have 40 % less balls. (But at least they sound bigger )

Horsepower doesn't enter into it. HP is a meaningless "top trumps" number compared to its brother, torques.

Let's compare horsepower to torques...

Here's a bunch of horsepower:


And here's a bunch of torques:


See the difference? But wait. It's not just any old torques we have in Harleys. It's fat, lazy torques.
Like this:

[OreoCookie]

Beer-based power hips!

[Spheric Harlot]

I knew I could count on Doofy to explain complicated things in an, er, in-your-face way.

[ctt1wbw]

That dude just got off a Segway.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Horsepower doesn't enter into it. HP is a meaningless "top trumps" number compared to its brother, torques.

Don't worry, the V-max has significantly more torque than even the V-Rod.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Don't worry, the V-max has significantly more torque than even the V-Rod.

@ 6,500 rpm.
Which is why I mentioned those fat, lazy torques.

[OreoCookie]

One thing I noticed, though, was that the arms of Harley riders seem to become tired after riding on the High Way all day. I wonder how that fits in with the `lazy torque attitude' … 

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Is a piece of technology that you buy BECAUSE you have to tinker with it inferior to an off-the-shelf Jap bike?

This is a fact. It's a labor of love.

People buy Harleys for the style, image, and flaws. Flaws? Yeah, the imperfections. Many people buy such a product because it's a work of art. Paintings are seldom perfect, otherwise they'd be called photographs.

Also, it doesn't take a great deal of skill to tear down a Sportster and tinker with it. That's a nice thing to do on a warm spring day with a six (or twelve) of cold brew.

[OldManMac]

Back to the topic of the thread; another sign of the soon to be demise of Chrysler (and I have several friends who have Harleys, and the quality has improved dramatically in the last decade).

http://www.leftlanenews.com/toyota-o...uck-sales.html

[Art Vandelay]

Troubled Chrysler in talks to unload assets.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Back to the topic of the thread; another sign of the soon to be demise of Chrysler (and I have several friends who have Harleys, and the quality has improved dramatically in the last decade).

http://www.leftlanenews.com/toyota-o...uck-sales.html

Not down here in Mississippi they haven't. I have been down here for almost two weeks, been to Loosiana once and down to Gulfport once. Toyotas and Nissans are a rare breed down here.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Not down here in Mississippi they haven't. I have been down here for almost two weeks, been to Loosiana once and down to Gulfport once. Toyotas and Nissans are a rare breed down here.

So, your point is what? Doesn't change the facts that Toyota is moving up in the truck market, and that Chrysler's biggest money maker, trucks, is going down. There is only one brand within Chrysler that is worth anything, Jeep, and that will be sold soon, which will mark the end of once thriving auto maker. Put a fork in 'em, turn 'em over, they're done.

[ctt1wbw]

You guys take great pleasure in that, right? So if Japanese trucks are so great, how come no farmers use them? I have never seen a Toyota with a fifth wheel. But they're so great. I've never seen construction crews pulling gear with a Honda Ridgeline either. Does Toyota have something with more horsepower and torque than a Ram 3500 or a Ford F-350? Nope.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

You guys take great pleasure in that, right? So if Japanese trucks are so great, how come no farmers use them? I have never seen a Toyota with a fifth wheel. But they're so great. I've never seen construction crews pulling gear with a Honda Ridgeline either. Does Toyota have something with more horsepower and torque than a Ram 3500 or a Ford F-350? Nope.

No, I don't take great pleasure in that, but it doesn't change the facts that Toyota is moving up in truck sales, at the expense of Dodge, which was my point. As to your ramblings about what you've never seen, that's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Anecdotes don't replace facts, and that's what this thread was about. Chrysler is finished, and those who need construction grade trucks will have to look elsewhere. You also might want to look at Toyota's web site, they do make a truck capable of pulling some weight, despite the fact that you've never seen one.

[Spheric Harlot]

Why should OldManMac take great pleasure in the fact that billions of dollars of tax money - YOUR MONEY (and his) - has just been burned, THROWN AWAY, by being invested in a corporation that is obviously a completely lost cause?

This isn't about you, or about gloating, or about hurting American-brand-inflated egos.

Chrysler is dead, and your government just blew a ****LOAD of cash that could have been invested in another cause, where it might actually have made a difference.

[ctt1wbw]

I've said it once and I'll say it again:

IT WAS A LOAN. LOANS HAVE TO BE REPAID. IT WAS NOT A GRANT. GRANTS DO NOT HAVE TO BE REPAID. TAXPAYER MONEY WAS NOT THROWN AWAY.

If it was such a bad idea, why is The Supreme Being Obama trying to get the rest of it?

And you want to talk about the economy if one or more automakers went under? Please. The ripple effect would go on for months and months.

And all cars manufacturers are seeing declining sales. All of them. And it has nothing to do with quality at all. Try getting a car loan nowadays. Impossible if your credit score is under 700. So all these people on these boards who blindly hate and despise American brand cars don't really understand what is going on in the global credit markets. They see declining sales as a result of supposed poor quality, which is not the case. But they don't mention the entire global auto industry is seeing declining sales, and it is a result of the banks not lending money to anyone. Same thing with the housing market.

And no, Toyota doesn't have an equivalent to the trucks I mentioned above. And the location I'm in now matters a lot. There's **** tons of farms and other heavy industries down here. Hunters, too. Come down to Mississippi and I'll show you. I doubt I'll be here for another week or so anyway. This place isn't working out due to the fucsking banks.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Why should OldManMac take great pleasure in the fact that billions of dollars of tax money - YOUR MONEY (and his) - has just been burned, THROWN AWAY, by being invested in a corporation that is obviously a completely lost cause?

This isn't about you, or about gloating, or about hurting American-brand-inflated egos.

Chrysler is dead, and your government just blew a ****LOAD of cash that could have been invested in another cause, where it might actually have made a difference.

And speaking of blowing cash, you know the New World God Obama is planning on spending 1.5 TRILLION US Dollars on his economic recovery plan? I think that is more than the TARP funds. And where is the 1.5 Trillion going to come from?

[OreoCookie]

A loan is only repaid if the recipient can pay it back. People such as OldManMac and others say that it's burnt money, because they expect that Chrysler goes tits up soon. Plain and simple.

I also wouldn't be so naïve and think that `Japanese' or other foreign companies `cannot build trucks suitable to farmers and construction businesses,' they already have. Be it Mercedes, VW, Toyota or other Japanese manufacturers, all that needs to be done is put it to market (if it hasn't already, see Dodge's Sprinter, for example). Not too long ago, some people on this board have claimed that Japanese companies cannot make trucks as popular as `true American trucks.' The statistics have proven them wrong.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

I've said it once and I'll say it again:

IT WAS A LOAN. LOANS HAVE TO BE REPAID. IT WAS NOT A GRANT. GRANTS DO NOT HAVE TO BE REPAID. TAXPAYER MONEY WAS NOT THROWN AWAY.

If it was such a bad idea, why is The Supreme Being Obama trying to get the rest of it?

And you want to talk about the economy if one or more automakers went under? Please. The ripple effect would go on for months and months.

And all cars manufacturers are seeing declining sales. All of them. And it has nothing to do with quality at all. Try getting a car loan nowadays. Impossible if your credit score is under 700. So all these people on these boards who blindly hate and despise American brand cars don't really understand what is going on in the global credit markets. They see declining sales as a result of supposed poor quality, which is not the case. But they don't mention the entire global auto industry is seeing declining sales, and it is a result of the banks not lending money to anyone. Same thing with the housing market.

And no, Toyota doesn't have an equivalent to the trucks I mentioned above. And the location I'm in now matters a lot. There's **** tons of farms and other heavy industries down here. Hunters, too. Come down to Mississippi and I'll show you. I doubt I'll be here for another week or so anyway. This place isn't working out due to the fucsking banks.

And you can keep saying it over and over, until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the facts. It was money thrown away; there's not going to be a Chrysler to pay it back. It also doesn't matter that Toyota doesn't have the trucks for super heavy duty work, as it isn't about that. There are still Ford and Chevy/GMC, although Toyota will eventually catch up to them as well, as the likelihood that they're going to be around much longer is slim.

If you're going to discuss something, please stick to the subject at hand, and stop rambling on about the "Supreme Being Obama," and other issues not related to this thread; it doesn't make you look very intelligent, and probably shows how old you are.