Jamesc2123 wrote: I hope it handles as good as it looks, and lightness is a great start. For me agility and handling are what I love most in bikes; 45 HP is still enough to get to dangerous speeds far faster than most cars. They're stressing maneuverability in urban riding, I'm not sure exactly what that will translate to in the real world, but I'm definitely interested.
Ehh, I'll stick with nearly 4x that power level.
I jut find it funny on the left of the flash animation the rider is obviously of Asian decent.
In reply to Flight Service:
Hawlee Dawid San??? 
As with any HD, I'm once again disapointed with the power output. But I still really like the bike
I dig it. Then again, my daily rider has 22hp. I like the idea of having a Harley that doesn't immediately make me look like a douche, like all but about 9 of the 18,000 HD riders around here. I, too, prefer a smaller displacement motorcycle. I can't wait to try one. Maybe one of these in the spring instead of the Royal Enfield cafe racer. :)
Yeah, I like this one.
OK, total thread jack here but I don't need a bazillion HP to have fun on a bike. I really like puttering around on the scooter behind the shop.
Now I am not trying to go 80 in traffic on the interstate either but I think like everything else the right tool for the job.
My standing rule for a DD bike is it needs to be able to do about 100 mph and be comfortable at street legal speeds (70 mph). Any less and you just seem to be in the way, some more is great, lots more and you get into the grab a hand full of throttle for fun and then a micro second later think.
oh E36 M3!
oh E36 M3!
oh E36 M3!
and you are needing a proctologist to get your underwear.
I'm not saying it needs huge horsepower.
I'm saying that it's disappointing that a modern motorcycle company produces a new v-twin with overhead cam, four valves per cylinder and fuel injection that only makes 43hp.
My 1980 CX500 makes 43 hp (and probably the same amount of torque as the HD) with pushrods, 4 valves per cylinder and carburetors.
A little improvement would be expected, that's all.
Harley is FINALLY making the nimble, light, fun, medium displacement motorcycle that it has needed since forever ago.
Unfortunately, again, it will probably be outrun by the most pedestrian Japanese offering in the same weight/displacement category.
I do like the look of it and I would take one for a spin when they come here.
I probably won't be buying one because I like crusty old motorcycles.
Trans_Maro wrote: I'm not saying it needs huge horsepower. I'm saying that it's disappointing that a modern motorcycle company produces a new v-twin with overhead cam, four valves per cylinder and fuel injection that only makes 43hp. My 1980 CX500 makes 43 hp (and probably the same amount of torque as the HD) with pushrods, 4 valves per cylinder and carburetors. A little improvement would be expected, that's all. Harley is FINALLY making the nimble, light, fun, medium displacement motorcycle that it has needed since forever ago. Unfortunately, again, it will probably be outrun by the most pedestrian Japanese offering in the same weight/displacement category. I do like the look of it and I would take one for a spin when they come here. I probably won't be buying one because I like crusty old motorcycles.
ahh, I just wished Harley and everyone else would stop looking at the Kia Spectre as the pricing bench mark.
The NC line from honda looks like they are trying to understand what it is but IMHO they are still running $1K~$2K too high. I shouldn't be able to buy a 3 year old sport bike for less money than your new version UJM.
Deflation needs to occur.
I think it's funny how people (here and everywhere) E36 M3 all over cars like Civic because it hasn't changed in a few years, and may have plain or dated interior, but new bikes with ridiculously outdated technology or specs get a free pass.
In reply to Zomby Woof:
Not from me.....I won't buy a new liter bike until they have a better power/weight ratio than what I have.......they can keep all their electronic nanny controls as well.
Zomby Woof wrote: I think it's funny how people (here and everywhere) E36 M3 all over cars like Civic because it hasn't changed in a few years, and may have plain or dated interior, but new bikes with ridiculously outdated technology or specs get a free pass.
Hey! I bought my bike deliberately BECAUSE of the ridiculously outdated technology! It was like being able to buy a brand new 1968 MGB! Sure, it is no Miata, but it is a brand new vintage thing that nobody else has dropped or broken or monkeyed with. I get to be the first to drop, break, and monkey with my brand new vintage toy.
This was actually a point I thought about making to reply to Trans_Maro and Flight Service, but was too lazy to type until right now. The whole thing with being able to find a nice used bike for the price of a new slower one... I went looking, actively looking, at Speed Triples, 748s, 1125Rs. The REALLY "NICE" ones were not thaaaaat much less expensive than just buying a new Speed Triple or 848. Those were the genuinely nice ones. They hadn't been dropped or crashed or neglected and had paperwork and shiny shiny paint and clearly had enjoyed their lives.
Every other one that was 3/4 the price of a new one or less had been clearly damaged, had zero paperwork, didn't feel quite right, or had a douche of an owner who really didn't make my exchanging dollars for his old motorcycle an easy thing.
Sometimes it is really, really, powerfully easier to buy a brand new bike for a little extra cash because it's a known quantity. Around here, anyway, bikes are not like cars. I have no problem plonking money down on a ten year old Miata with no paperwork. But a four year old CBR600RR, good luck finding one that hasn't been molested, improperly modified, abused, or seen the ground more than once for more than a grand or two less than just buying a brand new one.
The brand new UJM or the used and abused faster sport bike? I'll take the UJM.
yamaha wrote: In reply to Zomby Woof: Not from me.....I won't buy a new liter bike until they have a better power/weight ratio than what I have.......they can keep all their electronic nanny controls as well.
Off topic, But you know as far as hyper bikes go we are in the age of diminishing returns as there is only so much traction to be had.... hence the "nannies" to try and put more power down. Its so much more than power to weight. Dont want to derail the thread
Jamesc2123 wrote: I hope it handles as good as it looks, and lightness is a great start. For me agility and handling are what I love most in bikes; 45 HP is still enough to get to dangerous speeds far faster than most cars. They're stressing maneuverability in urban riding, I'm not sure exactly what that will translate to in the real world, but I'm definitely interested.
Only question/niggle I have about that, is that they say they have intentionally made the suspension softer to deal with potholes and crap around the city. That makes sense for that purpose, although I suspect that means it is tuned for low speed, in-town threadability, rather than sharp corner carving. Not sure if that is good or bad. Does look like it has tons more rear travel than a sportster, which I've read as a major complaint of those bikes.
As for low power, peak HP is a very small part of the equation. I'm guessing this has a healthy torque curve but with a low redline. If that is the case, perfectly reasonable for motoring around town. I looked up the Honda CTX700 as reference (since I see that as the main competitor). Peak horsepower on that 700 is 48. only 43 for a 500? I call that spitting distance. Now, does it do that with MPG comparable to the 64 the CTX gets?
In reply to Blitzed306:
That point is indeed coming, sure the current crop makes 190-205hp, but they all weigh over 440lbs.(mine should be 175 at the crank and 390lbs wet) 
I might just stick to riding the widowmaker.
Beer Baron wrote:Jamesc2123 wrote: I hope it handles as good as it looks, and lightness is a great start. For me agility and handling are what I love most in bikes; 45 HP is still enough to get to dangerous speeds far faster than most cars. They're stressing maneuverability in urban riding, I'm not sure exactly what that will translate to in the real world, but I'm definitely interested.Only question/niggle I have about that, is that they say they have intentionally made the suspension softer to deal with potholes and crap around the city. That makes sense for that purpose, although I suspect that means it is tuned for low speed, in-town threadability, rather than sharp corner carving. Not sure if that is good or bad. Does look like it has tons more rear travel than a sportster, which I've read as a major complaint of those bikes. As for low power, peak HP is a very small part of the equation. I'm guessing this has a healthy torque curve but with a low redline. If that is the case, perfectly reasonable for motoring around town. I looked up the Honda CTX700 as reference (since I see that as the main competitor). Peak horsepower on that 700 is 48. only 43 for a 500? I call that spitting distance. Now, does it do that with MPG comparable to the 64 the CTX gets?
Good comparison and the Honda has some extra heft to go with it too.
Maybe Harley truly has made a Honda. After all Honda has been trying to make a Harley for years.
Has anyone actually ever ridden this bike or seen it in person? Who needs horsepower when you have torque? Everyone loves to beat the E36 M3 out of harley but motoguzzi also builds bikes based on old technology. Unless you've ridden this or actually seen this bike it isn't fair to judge it.
Honestly speed is in the hand of the rider not in the bike. Poorly skilled riders make up for their lack of competency by buying a bike that will compensate. "Sure I'm slow in the corners but when I roll on the throttle in the straights . . . ."
In reply to Flight Service:
I never have figured out how honda always builds a heavy bike.....its like their frames are made out of depleated uranium or something.
Benz, I think thats more of a right equipment for the job thing, this will probably be as good in a city as say a honda, but not a hooligan motard. What you're referencing is my biggest gripe thus far......you think you're going faster through the corners. In my short time riding, I've heard your exact line twice......my reply both times, "You were slowing me down and I had to wait for a legal passing zone" Both times my reply was met with blank stares. 
benzbaronDaryn wrote: Everyone loves to beat the E36 M3 out of harley but motoguzzi also builds bikes based on old technology.
While an air cooled, pushrod v-twin is old timey, Guzzi tends to be more modern with suspension design than HD, and they have some very modern styling on some of their offerings. That said, people bash on Harley more because of their success and the type of ridership they have than anything about the bikes in particular.
And today I got to experience the true dipE36 M3tery that is Harley Davidson owners.
I rode a Harley for the first time yesterday, I serviced a customer's 2004 Heritage Softail with the Screamin Eagle pipes, big bore kit and a Dynojet chip.
I took it for a test ride when I was done.
I can see the appeal, HUGE torque, gobs of power in a straight line but it handles like garbage and feels like it wants to fall over as soon as you turn in.
I mentioned that I had finally ridden a Harley on the local motorcycle club forum that I frequent and one of the very few Harley owners on there remarked "It's newer than '85, it's not a REAL Harley".
berkeley me, I've been doing it wrong!
A Sportster isn't a "real" Harley.
A Buell isn't a "real" Harley.
A V-Rod isn't a "real" Harley.
Post '85 isn't a "real" Harley.
The 500 and 700 sure as hell won't be a "real" Harley.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I think I'll save my Harley dollars and buy a nice CBX so I don't have to put up with as much stupidity.
In reply to Trans_Maro:
That pre-85 harley rider must enjoy being stranded in inner detroit at 230am on a holiday.
yamaha wrote: In reply to Trans_Maro: That pre-85 harley rider must enjoy being stranded in inner detroit at 230am on a holiday.
haha hit that nail on the head
Trans_Maro wrote: I think I'll save my Harley dollars and buy a nice CBX so I don't have to put up with as much stupidity.
yummy inline 6 on 2 wheels
Lugnut wrote: Yeah, I like this one.
Kinda diggin' it. I would change a few things but nice bike.
wtf is up with harley davidson branded michelin tires? 
You'll need to log in to post.
