What do changes in displacement have to do with this conversation? Your ramblings are consistently off-topic. This thread is about the Motor Company discontinuing products.

Peace yourself.

You do not get points or one ups for/from commenting on a blog nor should one care and excerpts of the what’s/why’s are from AMCA files as well as others as it is history documented. Hope you did not work yourself up into too much of a sweat searching for facts. LOL

People have always knocked the Sportster and its size being a so-called small twin, the “Sportster”, of today the 1200cc/74ci version that is, is as big cc wise as the so called HD big twins of the past that were no larger than 61 ci up to 74 ci until about around the 1980 80 ci Shovelhead, “big twin” came out, outside of the 1936 80ci VLH flatty and the 80 ci UL versions of HD models to drop a name ot two. Fact be noted HD’s as a whole are among the smallest big twins on the market.

Happen to have/own a 36 VLH and some reminents of an XA still among quite a few others as I am not only a history excerpting key puncher but have a bit of history lived/owned of my own.

I often do excerpts so as to not cloud an issue or challenge my memory.

Buell was never a HD model line just that a Buell Motorcycle using a HD drivetrain by Erik Buell’s company that was purchased by HD no more than an OEM of another an S&S brand motorcycle because it has an S&S motor in it..

Also it is Grayhawk not Greyhawk as excerpted from the post heading above.

Changes/models come and go from all OEM’s not always considered failures but model runs some longer and more profitable than others for sure. I would say that Sportster line has mad the motor company a profit or two overtime.

No need to feel the need to go back and forth on this as I won’t and most do not care as its just that ones comment.

Peace

http://www.bikerenews.com/AntiqueBikes/CodeNameNova.htm

And the XA text is copied (and paraphrased) from here:

http://jeffdean2.home.att.net/h-d.htm

Yeah, you’re quite the historian, Greyhawk.

Anyway, all you did was change the subject and cloud the issue. I wasn’t questioning the origins of the XA or the Nova, I was explaining why they didn’t go into production.

Harley most certainly COULD have manufactured the XA in the late Forties and the Nova in the Eighties but they didn’t, and it had nothing to do with Jeep or AMF.

After the war was over, Jeep didn’t even figure in the equasion. Then 35 years later when AMF was out of the picture and Harley started making serious money, they could have produced any bike they wanted. They didn’t because Big Twins were (and are) their bread & butter.

But every couple of decades someone in the MoCo decides it would be a good idea to stray from the formula and every time they do it’s met with failure. Buell is just one more example.

You could not have explained the true/correct history any better.
A mystery to me why it contiNues to fall on deaf ears

ALMOST LIKE SOMEONE TELLING SOMEONE THAT THEIR GRANDMOTHER WAS A HOOKER AND YOU DIDN’T FIND OUT UNTIL YOU WERE EIGHTY YEARS OLD ” NO WAY, CAN’T BE.

I WAS TOLD THAT SHE PLAYED THE ORGAN IN CHURCH. ORGAN YES, CHURCH ?
IT’S ALL INTERPRETATION AND WHO TOLD THE REAL STORY.

Yes, I’m sure.

If the Nova was such a good idea, why did it not go into production when finance was no longer an issue? Because Harley management realized it would never sell. Not then, not now, not ever.

In 1942 the tooling for the XA was 100% complete and Harley could have gone into full-scale civilian production any time after the war. But they learned their lesson with the Sport and knew it simply wouldn’t sell because it wasn’t a Big Twin.

Today the British and the Japanese make large-displacement “cruisers” designed solely to compete with Harley. If they were responsible for poor sales of small Harleys in the ’70s, why aren’t they causing poor sales of Big Twins today? Because Big Twins are Harley’s thing, not cheap little commuter bikes.

Concerning the Sportster, I never said it didn’t have a long production run, I said “if it was a single or vertical twin it would have been dropped from the lineup in the late Fifties due to pathetic sales.”

The bottom line is, when people think Harley they think Big Twin. If they want something else they turn to a different manufacturer. That’s why Buell and MV Agusta were bad ideas and that’s why they’re being excluded from Harley’s product line.

You need to look up who I am before you say I don’t make the events. In your response concerning the sport bikes all I can say is: When one attends the Honda Hoot etc you will likely see many more sport bikes than at the Sturgis and Daytonas. As for Sturgis, Daytona etc ….. I attend them all and have for many years …. and as I said I don’t see Buells …. I never said anything about the ricers ….

Over & Out,

Jeff

Nova:
The Motor Company began moving in a new direction, one that included the Nova project. In the years of 1978 through 1980, the motorcycle division was perhaps AMF’s largest profit center, according to Bleustein.
Then Gott retired, Tom York took over AMF, and the outlook suddenly changed. Previously AMF’s business was roughly half industrial and half leisure, Harley being part of the latter group. In a major shift in strategy, York ordered the expansion of the industrial side, and financed it with profits from the leisure side. Under this plan Harley-Davidson, AMF’s largest profit generator, would become the cash cow, milked of capital to feed other business interests. The Nova project, ultimately considered expensive and risky, fell victim to the bottom line, and was terminated.

In a way, however, the Nova’s demise sparked Harley-Davidson’s resurgence. Cutting Nova funds was one of the reasons Beals led the so-called “gang of 13″ to propose buying the company back from AMF. AMF agreed, and by mid-1981 Harley-Davidson became a privately held company. Highly leveraged with an enormous bank debt, Harley’s future options boiled down to just two-either continue development of the Evolution V-twin, or build the Nova. The Nova was the long-range hope, the 10-year promise. But air-cooled twins promised the most immediate cash flow. And so the Nova died yet another death.

XA:

The XA was a ,military only project because the WLA’s were dying in the desert from heat on the rear cylinder, as horizontially opposed BMW copied design lended to air cooling better and the shaft drive would eliminate the problem of WLA’s eating chains in the sand. But the end reason was;

Blame the Jeep.

That’s why this bike never made it into full production—and why, incidentally, military motorcycles of any kind fell out of favor during World War II.

Back in the early 1940s, the U.S. Army asked Harley-Davidson to design a next-generation military motorcycle. The company was already producing the WLA, based on its traditional 45-degree V-twin. But the army wanted a bike with one feature the WLA didn’t have: shaft drive.

Sportster:

The Sportser is the longest running model with only the 45 flatty/servi motor to compare, 1932 to 1973, Sportster 1957 till ”

Little Bikes;

As far as the little bikes the British and then the Japanese had far more to do with the demise of HD’s youth products as they captured the youth and younger sets purse strings and hearts with their lines.

Buell always seemed out of place as part of the MoCo, and to be honest, it never sat well with me when Harley bought MV Agusta, too.

Yes, I can appreciate both Buell and MV Agusta’s products, but they’re so far removed from my idea of what a motorcycle should be that I see it as a plus that Harley’s decided to go it alone and concentrate on doing what they do best.

Look back at Harley history. Every single time they introduced “little” bikes or “trendy” bikes, they failed to do well. The XLCR was a great machine but it didn’t follow Harley tradition, so it didn’t sell.

All the little Aermacchis were a failure. The horizontally opposed 584cc Sport lasted five years and they couldn’t give ‘em away. The XA and the Nova never even made it to production. All because they weren’t Big Twins.

Look at the millions Harley invested in the V-Rod and we all know sales of them have been consistently stagnant since they introduced them in 2001.

Hell, the Sportster is barely tolerated by most Harley owners as it is, and that’s only because it’s basically a smaller version of the Big Twin. If it was a single or vertical twin it would have been dropped from the lineup in the late Fifties due to pathetic sales.

Frankly it wouldn’t bother me in the least if the MoCo announced tomorrow that it was discontinuing the Sportster. What do I care?

Like it or not, the MoCo got where it is by making Big Twins. There are plenty of companies making sport bikes, but Harley’s Big Twin will always be the king of American highways.

Let the Japanese make disposable plastic wheelie toys, if the Motor Company dies with our generation, then future riders can buy foreign junk and electric treehugger bikes and wallow in their own crapulence. It’ll serve ‘em right for having such bad taste.

12 year old Dewars always works for me ………

You guys have any snow yet?

Over & Out,

Jeff

Sorta flows off the tongue doesn’t it?

Yes but it left a bad taste in my mouth. LOL I think I need a drink, maybe scotch would kill that taste. Going home to try and kill the pain now.

Actually from what I am told sales of the HD Trike is exceeding the pace that HD had projected …. what those numbers are I have no idea ….. I will say this however: I have seen a bunch of the new trikes on the roads at events and I have yet to see my second Buell at those same events. One would hope that if the trike’s sales start to resemble the Buell they would discontinue the trike. One more thing: The Trike demographics are geared toward the 50-60 something’s who can afford the $33K per bike whereas the Buell is directed at the 20 something’s who do not have two nickels to rub together. Think about that for a minute and get back to me.

Just My Opinion,

……”Jeff; As much as it pains me I must agree with your comments here.” …….

Sorta flows off the tongue doesn’t it?

Over & Out,

Jeff

Answer if you have perfect or near perfect credit you can finance a new bike at 10% but if the customer has any blemishes at all they will pay between 20 and 25%

i think you or this guy have your % rate wrong……….dude i know the us market & economy are in rough shape but, its not 1980 is it??

Look at the positive, look at those hi powered buel engined cutoms we can except in the future…….Vince and the boys at redneck should come up with a new frame for these late model buel engine to fit into………….mmmmmmmm 140hp on a 350 lbs custom, sounds awesome to me.

Jeff i forget which model i rode a 2002 something with bags ect, nice sport touring bike that if it broke down in, Upperbumfuck , AK i could get fixed.

Iam curious what the dealers are saying about this. The dealer i spoke with said he was ready to blow off his 4 09′s at 50% off if he had too!! He was just waiting to see how much HD was offereing in dealer incentives.

Have you given any thought to the fact that if Buells were selling HD would have never dumped them? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. HD is in a much more critical financial situation that requires immediate action to survive. The company must first get the leaks in the ship stopped before they worry about anything 10-20-30 years down the road. They can always build another Buell style bike ….. if the company survives, if not the Buell plant scrapping is a moot point!

Over & Out,

Jeff

Over & Out,

Jeff

Excerpt From the Milwaukee Business Journal in regards to the Buell brand investments by HD:

Wandell said that the company intends to reinvest capital that would have gone into the Buell brand into the Harley-Davidson brand. The corporation made a $6.6 million capital investment in Buell last year and a $4 million investment so far this year. In return, the brand lost $18 million in 2008 and $27 million so far in 2009, including the $14.2 million impairment charge, he said.

Those dollars will be better spent on the key Harley-Davidson brand, Wandell said, despite the fact that he still believes Buell is a “great product” with “passionate employees.”

Wandell said the Buell brand wasn’t put on the selling block, like MV Agusta, because it was too integrated with Harley-Davidson’s operations. MV Agusta, on the other hand, was still quite independent from Harley-Davidson.

“It was very easy to package and sell that business (MV Agusta) as a stand-alone business,” Wandell said.

Also an interesting timeline line of the past year in regards to HD, below.

http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2009/10/12/daily64.html