Greetings from the desk of "Stupid Questions" and "The Answers" for the 16th of September, 2007...
As I have now deposited a sum of money for a 2008 SE Road King, I pondered a simple question: Why does Harley Davidson design and market motorcycles without rubber mounted engines?
For that matter, why does a top notch CVO Model come without the stress relieving rubber mountings? And how about stepping up to the real world with gold cups factory installed in the front forks and suspension to die for?
I am sure there's a market share who PREFER these frame mounts and the rougher ride; aside from that, who wouldn't want the best ride available?
I do, I am going for the best ride I can get....but you would have to get a huge blender, stick the SE Road King and the SE FatBoy in, hit puree' and watch the fun begin. I just want my MTV.....those were the days, huh?
More questions and answers from the "Stupid Questions & Answers" desk, coming to a computer near you, soon...
Kona,
Why build solid mount bikes, you ask? Actually, there are valid reasons to go with solid mounts, but I doubt any of those influenced the MoCo. You know, things like better handling when the drivetrain isn't free to move all over the place.
In the "good 'ol days", all bikes were solid mount. Anyone who rode a bike got used to their feet, hands, and butt being numb most of the time. And if you rode a Harley, even your eyeballs would buzz for about half an hour after getting off the bike. I remember my first "relatively" smooth bike, a 500 Yamaha twin, had internal balance shafts to help quell much of the shaking. Much better, but still had some good buzzing at certain rpms. That was back in the mid '70's if I remember correctly. After that, I went through a progression of bikes with more cylinders, like a three cylinder Yamaha, then a four cylinder Yamaha (XS Eleven, nice bike!), and then the ultimate smooth machine (at that time), a V-4 Honda. All solid mounts with decent handling, but a certain amount of "buzz" still got through. My first rubber mount was a Dyna, and I was amazed at how well the rubber mount system isolated me from the obvious shaking going on (I still remember the salesman firing up the bike and letting it sit idling, and as I watched the engine jumping all over the place I thought to myself that I had just made a big mistake). While the Dyna didn't handle as well as my metric bikes, it wasn't half bad. And the type of vibration that did get through the mounts was of a type that is much less tiring than what you got with a four cylinder solid mount (high amplitude low frequency, versus the metric's low amplitude high frequency "buzz").
Anyway, to get back to the question, a rubber mount system is going to be more expensive for the manufacturer, especially if done properly so that the vibration is isolated without also allowing the rear suspension to move relative to the frame and front suspension. Harley rubber mounted the touring bikes for the obvious reason, these were the bikes people rode for long distances, making comfort a prime consideration. Unfortunately, they did a halfway job that adversely affects handling, but they obviously thought that was good enough since the current design on the Touring frames dates back to 1979. Eventually, they even rubber mounted the Sportster to help it appeal to new riders who weren't into the macho stuff. Now, the only regular model without rubber mounts is the Softail. They would have to tell you why they chose to spend the money on balance shafts in the engine rather than rubber mounting it, I haven't figured that one out yet.
As for your other questions about suspension bits, IMHO the same reasons apply to most questions about why H-D does things. First and foremost, "style" dictates most everything the MoCo does. If and when the "profilers" are replaced by the "knee draggers" as the number one customer group, maybe the MoCo will decide to spend more than $20 on the suspensions. And maybe the engineering organization will actually have more say than the styling group. And maybe pigs really will fly.
Jerry
Author
Topic: The Questions of My Childhood.....Part 1 (Read 1313 times)