5 ms·

>Secondly (and more specific to Harley), the used motorcycle market is HUGE. Kind of sucks if this is really hurting the company. Companies that design thing

>Secondly (and more specific to Harley), the used motorcycle market is HUGE. Kind of sucks if this is really hurting the company. Companies that design things that last should be somehow rewarded. This is important and needs to be figured out. Otherwise we will drown in garbage that self-destructs after warranty expiration or things that are deliberately un-repairable. Planned obsolescence is not as "smart" as some people make it out to be. It wastes natural resources, contributes to pollution, makes things less reliable and removes incentives to produce real innovation in the future. Edit: There is another post here that points out that Harleys might not be particularly reliable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18450005 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18450005 Definitely worth reading. I wonder how a motorcycle can be unreliable and have a large second-hand market at the same time. Are they highly modular? Can you easily build one working motorcycle out of two broken ones?

michaelbuckbee 8y ago
Not really disagreeing with your larger point, but in this specific instance it's less "designed to last" and more "not actually used". The article points out how owners are getting older, having more health issues, etc. and that the bikes aren't actually used for anything but fun rides on the weekends. Harley Davidson is an incredibly powerful brand, but it's not a brand built off of ultra reliability and the creation of long lasting vehicles.
- mcguire 8y ago
  The brand is for a particular style; all of their attempts to expand out of that niche have failed for various reasons, especially resistance from their core audience.
pwthornton 8y ago
HD is not known for having unusually good reliability and build quality. In fact, most people consider them below average. I suspect the issue is not that their bikes last so long per se, but rather that so many people buy them, don't ride them much and then decide to stop riding motorcycles. There is probably a fairly high amount of purchases that go to middle-aged dudes looking for a new hobby that give it up pretty quickly.
beat 8y ago
Harleys are highly modular. That's why no two really look alike, for the most part. There's also a large custom builder market, often fabricating entire bikes from nothing but an engine and some aftermarket parts like wheels and brakes. That's probably another thing cutting into their market... the people who can afford a $25k luxury bike to express their individuality can often afford a $50k totally custom bike from a boutique builder, that is much cooler.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
I'm all in favour of that, and have reached an age that a cruiser style bike is starting to appeal. Yet Harley have changed so little that they haven't had the benefits of handling and reliability all the other manufacturers have. Riding a new one is like teleporting back to my youth. Mostly for the wrong reasons. I test rode one a few years ago and it quickly told me I'll never have a Harley. To explain, the Triumph Bobber looks beautifully like an old hard tail. Like all the Triumph classics it handles and runs like a decent modern bike. It's got cartridge forks, Brembos, ABS, traction control and the reliable twin engine. There's way more ground clearance than I'm ever likely to run out of. Harleys finally actually go around corners, but still pretty reluctantly. Still way too easy to ground without trying. They'll pair the big engine with a miniscule tank for range around 100m, sometimes down near 50! They're hot, heavy, and slow, you get OK but uninspiring handling with simple suspension, but the single disc up front never felt enough thanks to all that weight. Then they charge more than just about everyone else, but still have a reputation for being unreliable. That leaves just the big V twin sound and looks to buy for. The Bobber is everything Harley could be doing, yet costs lots less than most Harleys. They have more than enough reputation, and they have more than enough decent looking bikes in their history to remake as modern classics.
nradov 8y ago
Harleys aren't very reliable, but they are durable. The basic structure and mechanical parts are fairly robust and when something breaks it's easy to repair. So you see a lot of old ones still on the road.

michaelbuckbee 8y ago

Not really disagreeing with your larger point, but in this specific instance it's less "designed to last" and more "not actually used". The article points out how owners are getting older, having more health issues, etc. and that the bikes aren't actually used for anything but fun rides on the weekends. Harley Davidson is an incredibly powerful brand, but it's not a brand built off of ultra reliability and the creation of long lasting vehicles.

mcguire 8y ago
The brand is for a particular style; all of their attempts to expand out of that niche have failed for various reasons, especially resistance from their core audience.

pwthornton 8y ago

HD is not known for having unusually good reliability and build quality. In fact, most people consider them below average. I suspect the issue is not that their bikes last so long per se, but rather that so many people buy them, don't ride them much and then decide to stop riding motorcycles. There is probably a fairly high amount of purchases that go to middle-aged dudes looking for a new hobby that give it up pretty quickly.

beat 8y ago

Harleys are highly modular. That's why no two really look alike, for the most part. There's also a large custom builder market, often fabricating entire bikes from nothing but an engine and some aftermarket parts like wheels and brakes. That's probably another thing cutting into their market... the people who can afford a $25k luxury bike to express their individuality can often afford a $50k totally custom bike from a boutique builder, that is much cooler.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

I'm all in favour of that, and have reached an age that a cruiser style bike is starting to appeal. Yet Harley have changed so little that they haven't had the benefits of handling and reliability all the other manufacturers have. Riding a new one is like teleporting back to my youth. Mostly for the wrong reasons. I test rode one a few years ago and it quickly told me I'll never have a Harley. To explain, the Triumph Bobber looks beautifully like an old hard tail. Like all the Triumph classics it handles and runs like a decent modern bike. It's got cartridge forks, Brembos, ABS, traction control and the reliable twin engine. There's way more ground clearance than I'm ever likely to run out of. Harleys finally actually go around corners, but still pretty reluctantly. Still way too easy to ground without trying. They'll pair the big engine with a miniscule tank for range around 100m, sometimes down near 50! They're hot, heavy, and slow, you get OK but uninspiring handling with simple suspension, but the single disc up front never felt enough thanks to all that weight. Then they charge more than just about everyone else, but still have a reputation for being unreliable. That leaves just the big V twin sound and looks to buy for. The Bobber is everything Harley could be doing, yet costs lots less than most Harleys. They have more than enough reputation, and they have more than enough decent looking bikes in their history to remake as modern classics.

nradov 8y ago

Harleys aren't very reliable, but they are durable. The basic structure and mechanical parts are fairly robust and when something breaks it's easy to repair. So you see a lot of old ones still on the road.