| Transmission [message #487982] |
Sat, 15 October 2005 04:13 |
|
I bought my first Harley about three months ago, and I love it. One
thing though, I notice the Harley transmission always sorta klunks into
gear when shifting through the gears. My Jap bikes were always very
smooth, but I believe they had something called constant mesh
transmissions or something like that. At any rate, my dealer tells me
mine is OK. Is he telling me the truth?
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #487984 ] |
Sat, 15 October 2005 05:40 |
|
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:13:01 -0400, mdp2483 [at] webtv.net (Michael Pitts)
wrote:
>I bought my first Harley about three months ago, and I love it. One
>thing though, I notice the Harley transmission always sorta klunks into
>gear when shifting through the gears. My Jap bikes were always very
>smooth, but I believe they had something called constant mesh
>transmissions or something like that. At any rate, my dealer tells me
>mine is OK. Is he telling me the truth?
>
yup
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #487989 ] |
Sat, 15 October 2005 07:17 |
|
"Michael Pitts" <mdp2483 [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22098-435065AD-87 [at] storefull-3217.bay.webtv.net...
> I bought my first Harley about three months ago, and I love it. One
> thing though, I notice the Harley transmission always sorta klunks into
> gear when shifting through the gears. My Jap bikes were always very
> smooth, but I believe they had something called constant mesh
> transmissions or something like that. At any rate, my dealer tells me
> mine is OK. Is he telling me the truth?
no
>
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #487990 ] |
Sat, 15 October 2005 08:05 |
|
"Michael Pitts" <mdp2483 [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22098-435065AD-87 [at] storefull-3217.bay.webtv.net...
>I bought my first Harley about three months ago, and I love it. One
> thing though, I notice the Harley transmission always sorta klunks into
> gear when shifting through the gears. My Jap bikes were always very
> smooth, but I believe they had something called constant mesh
> transmissions or something like that. At any rate, my dealer tells me
> mine is OK. Is he telling me the truth?
>
yes, and no
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #487991 ] |
Sat, 15 October 2005 13:04 |
|
"Michael Pitts" <mdp2483 [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22098-435065AD-87 [at] storefull-3217.bay.webtv.net...
>I bought my first Harley about three months ago, and I love it. One
> thing though, I notice the Harley transmission always sorta klunks into
> gear when shifting through the gears. My Jap bikes were always very
> smooth, but I believe they had something called constant mesh
> transmissions or something like that. At any rate, my dealer tells me
> mine is OK. Is he telling me the truth?
>
maybe.
--
Coasty
Remove the SPOOGE to reply
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #487992 ] |
Sat, 15 October 2005 15:28 |
|
Michael Pitts loosely stated:
> I bought my first Harley about three months ago, and I love it. One
> thing though, I notice the Harley transmission always sorta klunks into
> gear when shifting through the gears. My Jap bikes were always very
> smooth, but I believe they had something called constant mesh
> transmissions or something like that. At any rate, my dealer tells me
> mine is OK. Is he telling me the truth?
>
I had a 81 fxs for 20 years that *clunked* in to gear. it did that for
156,000 miles. my road king does the same thing only a little louder. now
if this one will only *clunk* for that long.
--
Karl
A Lizard can always grow a new tail, A Biker must always watch his tail.
'87 CMX 250 '00 ZX6 '02 FLHRCI
Yank PUD to reply
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #487995 ] |
Sun, 16 October 2005 03:03 |
|
--
disclaimer
"Coasty" <uscg_retSPOOGE [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
news:s4mdnVYIl-jVf83eRVn-oQ [at] comcast.com...
> "Michael Pitts" <mdp2483 [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:22098-435065AD-87 [at] storefull-3217.bay.webtv.net...
>>I bought my first Harley about three months ago, and I love it. One
>> thing though, I notice the Harley transmission always sorta klunks into
>> gear when shifting through the gears. My Jap bikes were always very
>> smooth, but I believe they had something called constant mesh
>> transmissions or something like that. At any rate, my dealer tells me
>> mine is OK. Is he telling me the truth?
Depends on what you mean by the truth
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488001 ] |
Sun, 16 October 2005 19:35 |
|
"
>> "Michael Pitts" <mdp2483 [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:22098-435065AD-87 [at] storefull-3217.bay.webtv.net...
>>>I bought my first Harley about three months ago, and I love it. One
>>> thing though, I notice the Harley transmission always sorta klunks into
>>> gear when shifting through the gears. My Jap bikes were always very
>>> smooth, but I believe they had something called constant mesh
>>> transmissions or something like that. At any rate, my dealer tells me
>>> mine is OK. Is he telling me the truth?
>
> Yes
>
> no
>
> Maybe
>
> Depends on what you mean by the truth
>
You guys are killing me! I recently got a chance to ride a new Triumph
3-cylinder. The shifting was so smooth I had trouble feeling it through my
riding boots. It's wasn't my style of ride but it sure seemed tight
mechanically. I can inkstand Mr. Pitts confusion. The Harley 5-speed
transmission shifts like the British bikes of 30 years ago.
--
BigPiper
BS# [pending] <--- pestering DP
'05 FLHRCI
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488002 ] |
Sun, 16 October 2005 20:13 |
|
BigPiper wrote:
snip
The
> Harley 5-speed transmission shifts like the British bikes of 30 years
> ago.
Why does your tagline say you own an '05 FLHRCI instead of the Triumph?
As I remember the Triumphs were always breaking down, had electrical
gremlins out the yazoo and required British Standard tools to work on. So
you're saying the British bikes have evolved but Harley hasn't? BS is my
opinion and you've earned your number that's pending.
My '95 Superglide 5spd seems to shift just as good as any of the metric
bikes I've owned, better since I changed to synthetic.
davidj92
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488003 ] |
Sun, 16 October 2005 21:24 |
|
"BigPiper" <jbrock10 [at] comcast.net> wrote in
news:hc2dnXVQg5IVEs_eRVn-uw [at] comcast.com:
<snip>
> You guys are killing me! I recently got a chance to ride a new
> Triumph 3-cylinder. The shifting was so smooth I had trouble feeling
> it through my riding boots. It's wasn't my style of ride but it sure
> seemed tight mechanically. I can inkstand Mr. Pitts confusion. The
> Harley 5-speed transmission shifts like the British bikes of 30 years
> ago.
You haven't seen much different bikes have you.
--
TK®
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488004 ] |
Mon, 17 October 2005 00:48 |
|
"TK®" <randomerror [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F1D9D33122Et37k [at] 216.196.109.145...
> "BigPiper" <jbrock10 [at] comcast.net> wrote in
> news:hc2dnXVQg5IVEs_eRVn-uw [at] comcast.com:
>
> <snip>
>> You guys are killing me! I recently got a chance to ride a new
>> Triumph 3-cylinder. The shifting was so smooth I had trouble feeling
>> it through my riding boots. It's wasn't my style of ride but it sure
>> seemed tight mechanically. I can inkstand Mr. Pitts confusion. The
>> Harley 5-speed transmission shifts like the British bikes of 30 years
>> ago.
>
> You haven't seen much different bikes have you.
>
> --
> TK®
>
>
Doesn't get out much doe he?
--
Coasty
Remove the SPOOGE to reply
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488009 ] |
Mon, 17 October 2005 03:38 |
|
"davidj92" <davidj92REMOVE [at] sigecom.net> wrote in message
news:SuCdnV1v0JDBBc_enZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d [at] sigecom.net...
> BigPiper wrote:
>
> snip
>
> The
>> Harley 5-speed transmission shifts like the British bikes
>> of 30 years
>> ago.
>
> Why does your tagline say you own an '05 FLHRCI instead of
> the Triumph?
> As I remember the Triumphs were always breaking down, had
> electrical gremlins out the yazoo and required British
> Standard tools to work on. So you're saying the British
> bikes have evolved but Harley hasn't? BS is my opinion and
> you've earned your number that's pending.
> My '95 Superglide 5spd seems to shift just as good as any
> of the metric bikes I've owned, better since I changed to
> synthetic.
> davidj92
same here.
"synthetic" did make a difference...
my2˘
--
"Key"
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488015 ] |
Mon, 17 October 2005 05:25 |
|
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:35:51 -0400, BigPiper wrote:
> The Harley 5-speed
> transmission shifts like the British bikes of 30 years ago.
And like the Harleys of 50 years ago. It's because it's not a constant mesh
transmission like the foreign (most of them at least) bikes use. On a Harley
Big Twin when you shift, you're moving and meshing the gears themselves.
Lots more mass to move, so it makes a heavier clunk. Part of what makes
Harleys Harleys.
Yamahosakizukis click. So do Beemers. Harleys clunk. So did the Guzzi that
I test rode. *shrug* It's what they do.
--
Spunky the Tuna
don't make me get all therapeutic on your ass!
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488017 ] |
Mon, 17 October 2005 11:13 |
|
"Coasty" <uscg_retSPOOGE [at] comcast.net> wrote in
news:NsGdnVtnDNYjRc_enZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d [at] comcast.com:
>> <snip>
>>> You guys are killing me! I recently got a chance to ride a new
>>> Triumph 3-cylinder. The shifting was so smooth I had trouble
>>> feeling it through my riding boots. It's wasn't my style of ride
>>> but it sure seemed tight mechanically. I can inkstand Mr. Pitts
>>> confusion. The Harley 5-speed transmission shifts like the British
>>> bikes of 30 years ago.
>>
>> You haven't seen much different bikes have you.
>>
>> --
>> TK©
>>
>>
>
> Doesn't get out much doe he?
What does this have to do with doe?
--
TK®
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488019 ] |
Mon, 17 October 2005 16:50 |
|
Spunky the Tuna wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:35:51 -0400, BigPiper wrote:
>
>
>>The Harley 5-speed
>>transmission shifts like the British bikes of 30 years ago.
>
>
> And like the Harleys of 50 years ago. It's because it's not a constant mesh
> transmission like the foreign (most of them at least) bikes use.
I give it a 0, Dick. It's got no beat and you can't dance to it.
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488020 ] |
Mon, 17 October 2005 17:19 |
|
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:50:15 -0400, James Clark wrote:
> Spunky the Tuna wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:35:51 -0400, BigPiper wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The Harley 5-speed
>>> transmission shifts like the British bikes of 30 years ago.
>>
>>
>> And like the Harleys of 50 years ago. It's because it's not a constant
>> mesh
>> transmission like the foreign (most of them at least) bikes use.
>
>
> I give it a 0, Dick. It's got no beat and you can't dance to it.
Little too technical for you, eh? If you're not able to understand the
explanation, you should probably just go ahead and tap out some stereotypical
pseudo-putdown response to cover up your ignorance.
Oh, wait, you did.
Never mind.
--
Spunky the Tuna
don't make me get all therapeutic on your ass!
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488021 ] |
Mon, 17 October 2005 17:45 |
|
Spunky the Tuna wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:50:15 -0400, James Clark wrote:
>
>
>>Spunky the Tuna wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:35:51 -0400, BigPiper wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Harley 5-speed
>>>>transmission shifts like the British bikes of 30 years ago.
>>>
>>>
>>>And like the Harleys of 50 years ago. It's because it's not a constant
>>>mesh
>>>transmission like the foreign (most of them at least) bikes use.
>>
>>
>>I give it a 0, Dick. It's got no beat and you can't dance to it.
>
>
> Little too technical for you, eh? If you're not able to understand the
> explanation, you should probably just go ahead and tap out some stereotypical
> pseudo-putdown response to cover up your ignorance.
>
> Oh, wait, you did.
>
> Never mind.
>
The Harley 5-speed *is* a constant-mesh transmission.
And half the gears do slide on the shafts - just like most foreign constant-mesh transmissions, but
they never lose mesh with their mates.
If I understand correctly, the Harley BT 4-speeds - I've never seen the internals - were
constant-mesh with shift rings, just like BMW 4-speeds and Harley-designed 6-speeds.
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488023 ] |
Mon, 17 October 2005 22:45 |
|
"TK®" <randomerrorathotmail> wrote in message
news:Xns96F27252B8122t37k [at] 216.196.109.145...
> "Coasty" <uscg_retSPOOGE [at] comcast.net> wrote in
> news:NsGdnVtnDNYjRc_enZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d [at] comcast.com:
>
>>> <snip>
>>>> You guys are killing me! I recently got a chance to ride a new
>>>> Triumph 3-cylinder. The shifting was so smooth I had trouble
>>>> feeling it through my riding boots. It's wasn't my style of ride
>>>> but it sure seemed tight mechanically. I can inkstand Mr. Pitts
>>>> confusion. The Harley 5-speed transmission shifts like the British
>>>> bikes of 30 years ago.
>>>
>>> You haven't seen much different bikes have you.
>>>
>>> --
>>> TK©
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't get out much doe he?
>
> What does this have to do with doe?
>
> --
> TK®
>
The same thing as rae and me just lose nut behind the key board instead on
the bike.
--
Coasty
Remove the SPOOGE to reply
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488027 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 04:43 |
|
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:13:01 -0400, mdp2483 [at] webtv.net (Michael Pitts)
wrote:
>I bought my first Harley about three months ago, and I love it. One
>thing though, I notice the Harley transmission always sorta klunks into
>gear when shifting through the gears. My Jap bikes were always very
>smooth, but I believe they had something called constant mesh
>transmissions or something like that. At any rate, my dealer tells me
>mine is OK. Is he telling me the truth?
mines been clunking for 110k miles, I am gonna fix it one of these
days
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488035 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 12:46 |
|
"'Key" <Key [at] Ya.Net> wrote in message
news:cgD4f.43482$0c.10648 [at] tornado.texas.rr.com...
> "davidj92" <davidj92REMOVE [at] sigecom.net> wrote in message
> news:SuCdnV1v0JDBBc_enZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d [at] sigecom.net...
>> BigPiper wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> The
>>> Harley 5-speed transmission shifts like the British bikes of 30 years
>>> ago
> same here.
> "synthetic" did make a difference...
>
> my2˘
> --
> "Key"
I just went to synthetic at the 1000 mile service. Synthetic all the way
around and didn't really notice that much of a difference....
In any event, it's smother and quieter whent he oild is cold - just starting
out....
john
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488040 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 19:45 |
|
"asadi" <j-s-baker [at] invalid.sbcglobal.invalid.net> wrote in
message news:no45f.344$Lv.274 [at] newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "'Key" <Key [at] Ya.Net> wrote in message
> news:cgD4f.43482$0c.10648 [at] tornado.texas.rr.com...
>> "davidj92" <davidj92REMOVE [at] sigecom.net> wrote in message
>> news:SuCdnV1v0JDBBc_enZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d [at] sigecom.net...
>>> BigPiper wrote:
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>> The
>>>> Harley 5-speed transmission shifts like the British
>>>> bikes of 30 years
>>>> ago
>> same here.
>> "synthetic" did make a difference...
>>
>> my2˘
>> --
>> "Key"
>
> I just went to synthetic at the 1000 mile service.
> Synthetic all the way around and didn't really notice that
> much of a difference....
>
> In any event, it's smother and quieter whent he oild is
> cold - just starting out....
>
> john
strange,
sure helped mine out and also everyone else that I have ever
talked to regarding synthetic.
"1000 mile service" ?
hell, you haven't even come close to breaking in your bike..
--
"Key"
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488060 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 19:46 |
|
Michael Pitts wrote:
> I bought my first Harley about three months ago, and I love it. One
> thing though, I notice the Harley transmission always sorta klunks into
> gear when shifting through the gears. My Jap bikes were always very
> smooth, but I believe they had something called constant mesh
> transmissions or something like that. At any rate, my dealer tells me
> mine is OK. Is he telling me the truth?
The Expert Hunter says: Put in a Hayden M6 adjustable tensor and do
away with the clunk!
//Hunter
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488066 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 21:31 |
|
"Cobra" <cobra [at] inversecoatings.com> wrote in message
news:4cednZeFY49TO8zeRVn-jg [at] comcast.com...
| disclaimer
| "Coasty" <uscg_retSPOOGE [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
| news:s4mdnVYIl-jVf83eRVn-oQ [at] comcast.com...
| > "Michael Pitts" <mdp2483 [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
| > news:22098-435065AD-87 [at] storefull-3217.bay.webtv.net...
| >>I bought my first Harley about three months ago, and I
love it. One
| >> thing though, I notice the Harley transmission always
sorta klunks into
| >> gear when shifting through the gears. My Jap bikes were
always very
| >> smooth, but I believe they had something called
constant mesh
| >> transmissions or something like that. At any rate, my
dealer tells me
| >> mine is OK. Is he telling me the truth?
Gee that's strange that none of you Japanese bikes
made a "clunk" when they went into gear. All of my Hondas
including all four Gold Wings had a bit of a clunk when they
went into gear. My question is... so what? -- steve
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488076 ] |
Thu, 20 October 2005 01:20 |
|
Hunter sed:
>Put in a Hayden M6 adjustable tensor and do
> away with the clunk!
You already dug that hole... butt, you knew that, which is why you're back
trolling again.
If I put one on my newreader will it get rid of Hunter the clunk.
--
ASSHOLE #104 Len
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488123 ] |
Sat, 22 October 2005 22:41 |
|
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:13:50 -0500, "davidj92"
<davidj92REMOVE [at] sigecom.net> wrote:
>BigPiper wrote:
>
>snip
>
>The
>> Harley 5-speed transmission shifts like the British bikes of 30 years
>> ago.
>
>Why does your tagline say you own an '05 FLHRCI instead of the Triumph?
>As I remember the Triumphs were always breaking down, had electrical
>gremlins out the yazoo and required British Standard tools to work on. So
>you're saying the British bikes have evolved but Harley hasn't? BS is my
>opinion and you've earned your number that's pending.
>My '95 Superglide 5spd seems to shift just as good as any of the metric
>bikes I've owned, better since I changed to synthetic.
>davidj92
>
You obviously didn't understand the post and I quote...
BigPiper (as in bagpipes btw) wrote:
You guys are killing me! I recently got a chance to ride a new
Triumph
3-cylinder. The shifting was so smooth I had trouble feeling it
through my
riding boots. It's wasn't my style of ride but it sure seemed tight
mechanically.
unquote... he said he "rode one" not that he "owned one"
To conclude: it's not that BigPiper was knocking *his* tranny, just
commenting it was different. FWIW, I used to own an '80 XS1100
Yamahahaha Special. Tranny was much slicker shifting than my 2000
XLH1200, even with synthetic.
And as for the BS... yup, he earned the one that he's got pending.
I'd not go disparaging something on someone's SIG without having
knowledge of the subject. It's *your loss* that you don't understand
it.
As I leave a slight green glow here....
Steve in San Diego
XLH1200 SENS BS135 DOF#1951
FAQ's at http://rmhfaq.com
rmh is IRL©
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488127 ] |
Sun, 23 October 2005 00:46 |
|
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:20:12 GMT, "AH#104" <ah104 [at] yourhatatt.net>
wrote:
>Hunter sed:
>>Put in a Hayden M6 adjustable tensor and do
>> away with the clunk!
>
>You already dug that hole... butt, you knew that, which is why you're back
>trolling again.
>
>If I put one on my newreader will it get rid of Hunter the clunk.
Mine clunks, life is good!
RB
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488133 ] |
Sun, 23 October 2005 04:27 |
|
"davidj92" <davidj92REMOVE [at] sigecom.net> wrote:
> As I remember the Triumphs were always breaking down, had electrical
> gremlins out the yazoo
Chalk it up to Lucas, the "Prince of Darkness".
> and required British Standard tools to work on.
British Whitworth tools, IIRC.
> So
> you're saying the British bikes have evolved but Harley hasn't?
I know this ain't my dog's fight, but I have to somewhat disagree. I say,
*somewhat*.
Take a peek at a '58 or so Triumph and a brand new Triumph... then look at a
'58 or so H-D and a brand new H-D.
Ain't a whole lot that's changed on the H-D, but the Triumph ain't nothin'
like it's older brother.
Just this man's opinion,
Preacher - AH #89
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488142 ] |
Mon, 24 October 2005 00:36 |
|
Steve Reyer wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:13:50 -0500, "davidj92"
> <davidj92REMOVE [at] sigecom.net> wrote:
>
>> BigPiper wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> The
>>> Harley 5-speed transmission shifts like the British bikes of 30
>>> years ago.
>>
>> Why does your tagline say you own an '05 FLHRCI instead of the
>> Triumph? As I remember the Triumphs were always breaking down, had
>> electrical gremlins out the yazoo and required British Standard
>> tools to work on. So you're saying the British bikes have evolved
>> but Harley hasn't? BS is my opinion and you've earned your number
>> that's pending.
>> My '95 Superglide 5spd seems to shift just as good as any of the
>> metric bikes I've owned, better since I changed to synthetic.
>> davidj92
>>
>
> You obviously didn't understand the post and I quote...
>
> BigPiper (as in bagpipes btw) wrote:
>
> You guys are killing me! I recently got a chance to ride a new
> Triumph
> 3-cylinder. The shifting was so smooth I had trouble feeling it
> through my
> riding boots. It's wasn't my style of ride but it sure seemed tight
> mechanically.
>
> unquote... he said he "rode one" not that he "owned one"
>
> To conclude: it's not that BigPiper was knocking *his* tranny, just
> commenting it was different. FWIW, I used to own an '80 XS1100
> Yamahahaha Special. Tranny was much slicker shifting than my 2000
> XLH1200, even with synthetic.
>
> And as for the BS... yup, he earned the one that he's got pending.
> I'd not go disparaging something on someone's SIG without having
> knowledge of the subject. It's *your loss* that you don't understand
> it.
>
> As I leave a slight green glow here....
>
>
> Steve in San Diego
> XLH1200 SENS BS135 DOF#1951
> FAQ's at http://rmhfaq.com
> rmh is IRL©
Slime ! Oh My God , run for your lives ! It's the Dreaded Slime !
Wazzup , Steve ? Sure wish I still had my Sporty ... tooooooooo.
--
Snag aka OSG #1
'76 FLH "Bag Lady"
BS132 SENS NEWT
"A hand shift is a manly shift ."
<shamelessly stolen>
none to one to reply
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488145 ] |
Mon, 24 October 2005 02:37 |
|
"'Key" <.
> "1000 mile service" ?
> hell, you haven't even come close to breaking in your bike..
>
> --
> "Key"
I think you may be right. I'm so used to bread pans underneath and carrying
tools and just generally feed-up with multi 'pre-owned' shovels....
I just can't believe these new ones. We're talking quantum leaps in
technology, warranty service, ease of use and working on..
I'm just tickled pink!
john
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488147 ] |
Mon, 24 October 2005 02:47 |
|
"asadi" <j-s-baker [at] invalid.sbcglobal.invalid.net> wrote in
message
news:k1W6f.1619$jV2.1315 [at] newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "'Key" <.
>> "1000 mile service" ?
>> hell, you haven't even come close to breaking in your
>> bike..
>>
>> --
>> "Key"
>
> I think you may be right. I'm so used to bread pans
> underneath and carrying tools and just generally feed-up
> with multi 'pre-owned' shovels....
>
> I just can't believe these new ones. We're talking
> quantum leaps in technology, warranty service, ease of use
> and working on..
>
> I'm just tickled pink!
>
> john
well,
that's what counts..
---snip the pink---
--
"Key"
|
|
|
| Re: Transmission [message #488153 ] |
Mon, 24 October 2005 05:23 |
|
Preacher wrote:
> "davidj92" <davidj92REMOVE [at] sigecom.net> wrote:
>
>> As I remember the Triumphs were always breaking down, had electrical
>> gremlins out the yazoo
>
> Chalk it up to Lucas, the "Prince of Darkness".
>
>
>> and required British Standard tools to work on.
>
> British Whitworth tools, IIRC.
>
>
>> So
>> you're saying the British bikes have evolved but Harley hasn't?
>
> I know this ain't my dog's fight, but I have to somewhat disagree. I
> say, *somewhat*.
>
> Take a peek at a '58 or so Triumph and a brand new Triumph... then
> look at a '58 or so H-D and a brand new H-D.
>
> Ain't a whole lot that's changed on the H-D, but the Triumph ain't
> nothin' like it's older brother.
>
>
> Just this man's opinion,
> Preacher - AH #89
I understand what you're saying, the difference in an older HD compared to a
newer one of the same model is not as drastic as the difference in the
Triumph. But to do a fair comparison, I think it should be Triumph from then
to now compared to any older HD to a new V-Rod. It's a totally new bike,
which is what Triumph did to revive itself.
|
|
|
