Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jerry/MD]

The story you are about to read is true...the names have been changed to protect the innocent...  

Reading over all of the problems with the new 2014 Harleys I thought I would share some of my own work experiences. I think you will find it applies.

First off, a bit of history. Since the late 80`s I've worked in engineering. I've built and tested some neat hardware for the US Navy. (I can't tell you what it is, otherwise I would have the Black Suburbans rolling up to my curb) My duties include building prototype systems, putting them through a full series of tests, then helping in transitioning them to production. During the whole protoype phase you have engineers and engineering technicians building the hardware. They tend to pay a great deal of attention to detail. Now I'm not saying the normal production employee doesn't, but those are my observations. Lets face it, engineers can be downright anal. Ok, let me continue. You have these anal retentive folks building stuff, hopefully documenting any changes they make along the way to drawings, hardware and electronics. Then you go and perform your tests. As always, there will be design flaws exposed in these tests. Once again, you make MORE CHANGES and re-test. When you get to the end, you have a PROTOTYPE that has passed all of the necessary abuse and you transition to production. Now, here is where it gets intersting. You compile all of those changes that were made along the way...generate the required production documentation...and you start mass producing your hardware. Do all of those changes made along the way get captured? I think you know the answer. Nope, there is always something that falls through the cracks. Sooooo, you attack it, makes the changes and move on. Now, at some point these new widgets get handed over to the customer, or in my case, the US Navy. Now, let me be the first to say I have all of the respect and admiration for the men and women who serve in the armed forces. But they can abuse and expose flaws in stuff as fast as anyone...except maybe kids. So, once again, you have to research what happened, make changes and verify the problems are fixed. By the way, it`s a never ending process. They continue finding new ways to break stuff. Not that they are careless, it`s the nature of the beast.

Now, lets discuss Project Rushmore. For a better lack of terms, this was H-D`s 2014 Prototype. I suspect these bikes were not built on the York assembly line. (If somebody has some better info, please share) Now, I envision they have a building like `The Skunkworks` at Area 51 where this stuff was built. Once again, probably by engineers and some skilled bike technicians. They did the same stuff I explained above and moved into full scale production. Now, I know many have said "They did all that testing, how can they have these problems?" Once again, the consumer, just like the US Military can expose design flaws as good as anyone. So from my perspective, are the issues H-D having normal? You bet. I've seen it happen more times then I can count. I'm not trying to appologize for H-D. Heck, I've been effected too. I was essentially shut down from riding until my 2014 Trike got picked-up and serviced recently. All I can say is that regardless of the best intentions, %&$@ happens. Oh, and if you think waiting until the 2015`s get released is the answer, think again. I suspect as time goes on more and more issues will float to the surface.

Just my story, and thanks for listening. Ride safe.

Jerry

[dlaws01]

Jerry, As having been raised in the machine shop environment and having extensive QA experience in the aerospace industry, I would agree with most of what you have said. However, the consumer's interface with the water cooling system on the H-D amounts to nothing new than operating the motorcycle normally.  There aren't any special sequence of switches or valves that have to be operated just right for the system to perform as designed. Because of this, your point about the consumer exposing design flaws is mute. In this scenario it is apparent that the MoCo has substituted their role in failure mode effects analysis with allowing the consumer to bare the burden of responsibility of product testing and providing H-D with this feedback via warranty claims.  Really, do you  believe if your engineers operated in this method that you would qualify to bid no future government or military contracts? 

[Skipper]

Jerry, As having been raised in the machine shop environment and having extensive QA experience in the aerospace industry, I would agree with most of what you have said. However, the consumer's interface with the water cooling system on the H-D amounts to nothing new than  operating the motorcycle normally.  There aren't any special sequence of switches or valves that have to be operated just right for the system to perform as designed. Because of this, your point about the consumer exposing design flaws is mute. In this scenario it is apparent that the MoCo has substituted their role in failure mode effects analysis with allowing the consumer to bare the burden of responsibility of product testing and providing H-D with this feedback via warranty claims.  Really, do you  believe if your engineers operated in this method that you would qualify to bid no future government or military contracts? 

Well said. And Jerry, how can you explain 7 years old 110" engine? O yeah, maybe it's to short period for such sophisticated engine.   

[dayne66]

With the MOCO, the consumer drives the prototype.

[Jerry/MD]

Jerry, As having been raised in the machine shop environment and having extensive QA experience in the aerospace industry, I would agree with most of what you have said. However, the consumer's interface with the water cooling system on the H-D amounts to nothing new than operating the motorcycle normally.  There aren't any special sequence of switches or valves that have to be operated just right for the system to perform as designed. Because of this, your point about the consumer exposing design flaws is mute. In this scenario it is apparent that the MoCo has substituted their role in failure mode effects analysis with allowing the consumer to bare the burden of responsibility of product testing and providing H-D with this feedback via warranty claims.  Really, do you  believe if your engineers operated in this method that you would qualify to bid no future government or military contracts?  

It's a NEW DESIGN...I don't care how simple or complex...so expecting it to be perfect is unrealistic. I know many of you believe H-D uses the public as `Beta Testers`...and maybe they do. In this case, I don't think so. The whole point of my thread was to show that even when all of the right things are done...the train usually goes off the track in some way. If you think this disqualifies companies from bidding on future contracts, think again...because it happens to EVERYBODY... big company or small.

[brwk]

The issues so far have been fairly easy to correct therefore HD cant have a very well trained quality control dept.  And I don't think they really care.  HD knows they have people like us and we will keep on buying.

[Jerry/MD]

Well said. And Jerry, how can you explain 7 years old 110" engine? O yeah, maybe it's to short period for such sophisticated engine.   

I've had two CVOs with 110" motors and experienced ZERO problems. Your point is?

Jerry

[dlaws01]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the difference in engineering effort, research and prototype testing/refinement and subsequent revision to the product between this half-hearted "band-aid" of a fix to over heating on the 110ci engine, compared to the efforts put into the vrod engine, is like comparing a bottle rocket to the Apollo program.  I know first year engineering college students that could have provided a better solution to this issue.  You can try defending the MoCo's reasoning for this poor attempt to resolve the heat issue but those of us that do understand how design, research and development, prototyping and manufacturing processes are suppose to be developed know better.

[JONNIEROCK]

It's a NEW DESIGN...I don't care how simple or complex...so expecting it to be perfect is unrealistic. I know many of you believe H-D uses the public as `Beta Testers`...and maybe they do. In this case, I don't think so. The whole point of my thread was to show that even when all of the right things are done...the train usually goes off the track in some way. If you think this disqualifies companies from bidding on future contracts, think again...because it happens to EVERYBODY... big company or small.

        Jerry, what I don't understand is starting in 1975 I had 2 Harley's and not being satisfied I bought a string of Honda's. 2 Goldwings, A VFR1000 and a CB900. Not once did I have even the slightest problem, those machines were in the works for at least 5 years before the public received them. Now I've had 11 new Harley's in the last 15 years, and I have had warranty problems with all of them. You probably wonder why so many ?  I had to trade a couple of them in because I really didn't think I could ride them anywhere without having a problem. My question is why can't Harley build a good reliable product, other than the fact that they think people will still buy them no matter what. If this kind of manufacturing was going on with one of the big three auto makers, they would be out of business in a year. 
                  Jonnierock

[Jerry/MD]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the difference in engineering effort, research and prototype testing/refinement and subsequent revision to the product between this half-hearted "band-aid" of a fix to over heating on the 110ci engine, compared to the efforts put into the vrod engine, is like comparing a bottle rocket to the Apollo program.  I know first year engineering college students that could have provided a better solution to this issue.  You can try defending the MoCo's reasoning for this poor attempt to resolve the heat issue but those of us that do understand how design, research and development, prototyping and manufacturing processes are suppose to be developed know better.

I am not defending anyone. Jeez, you folks have completely missed the point. Apparently you have worked or still work in an environment where design, research, development and prototyping has gone flawlessly...no issues...everything worked as designed. Wow, gotta say I'm impressed. Guess the folks I have worked for and still work for are totally incompetent...and so am I.

I understand H-D on many things has done a poor job. And for the record, read my initial post, did I say anything about the 110" engine? No, I was refering to the present issues with the 2014s. I am not apologizing for anyone. Just thought it would be nice to share my experiences over the years so some can understand why things happen when developing new products. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think what I've seen and experienced is unusual.

[FLHTCUSE7]

Jerry, I think the issue with "some" is that they don't have any experience with R&D or manufacturing but are experts anyway. The internet and the world are full of them.   
I think you are right on with your comments, but I am no expert.

I am not defending anyone. Jeez, you folks have completely missed the point. Apparently you have worked or still work in an environment where design, research, development and prototyping has gone flawlessly...no issues...everything worked as designed. Wow, gotta say I'm impressed. Guess the folks I have worked for and still work for are totally incompetent...and so am I.

I understand H-D on many things has done a poor job. And for the record, read my initial post, did I say anything about the 110" engine? No, I was refering to the present issues with the 2014s. I am not apologizing for anyone. Just thought it would be nice to share my experiences over the years so some can understand why things happen when developing new products. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think what I've seen and experienced is unusual.

[Jerry/MD]

        Jerry, what I don't understand is starting in 1975 I had 2 Harley's and not being satisfied I bought a string of Honda's. 2 Goldwings, A VFR1000 and a CB900. Not once did I have even the slightest problem, those machines were in the works for at least 5 years before the public received them. Now I've had 11 new Harley's in the last 15 years, and I have had warranty problems with all of them. You probably wonder why so many ?  I had to trade a couple of them in because I really didn't think I could ride them anywhere without having a problem. My question is why can't Harley build a good reliable product, other than the fact that they think people will still buy them no matter what. If this kind of manufacturing was going on with one of the big three auto makers, they would be out of business in a year. 
                  Jonnierock

Ya know what Jonnie, I must be the exception and not the norm. I've owned 5 Harleys since 2008 when I returned to motorcycling. Two of those were CVO Ultras with 110" engines. Those bikes were traded because I wanted something different, not because of problems. I`ve only had a few warranty issues...one was the front tire on my 2009 (recall) and CD player, seat on the 2011. Other than that, absolutely zero issues. Once again, I am not apologizing or defending H-D. Heck there are things in their design approach that drive me nuts. But overall, I have been pleased. And BTW, if I told you all of the issues I've had with my wife`s low mileage Chevy Impala you would understand why I own a Honda Civic and Toyota Tundra. I have ZERO use for GM.

[the jacobite]

Jerry I totally agree with what you said, and the vrod engine proves what the design and engineering departments can do when given a clean sheet to work with. It would also be interesting to see what effect the bean counters had on the quality and ,specifications on the parts used on the final build.

[phato1]

Jerry I totally agree with what you said, and the vrod engine proves what the design and engineering departments can do when given a clean sheet to work with. It would also be interesting to see what effect the bean counters had on the quality and ,specifications on the parts used on the final build.

Perhaps the low cost bidder shouldn't be chosen every time 

[iski]

From drawing board to model to scale model to prototype - of course changes are made & is possible not all are incorporated when the production model begins.  That is not the issue with Harley & first year bike change woes at least based on my 2007 experiences.  In my humble opinion, the problem has more to do with how, how long, how thoroughly, and what methodologies are incorporated prior to morphing from the prototype phase - several carefully crafted models - to the production phase.

In my business, R & D develops some new thing.  It can be the greatest thing ever - while in the R & D phase or the controlled lab type environment.  We test it, we like it, our clients like it.  The prototype is a wonderful thing!  Do we go straight to production after first & second & third phase lab tests?  Nope.  We create a small inventory and test this new thing in the real world. Tested mutiple times, over a period of time.  Why?  Otherwise it is still an unproven prototype.

Does this eliminate all production issues when it moves to regular product status? Sometimes, but not always.  Usually issues are identified during tests & changes are made. This minimizes issues & decreases customer hassles. Normally most defects are identified & addressed during our 'real world' tests.  These can be expensive, but in the long run, they save us money & save our customers time as well as money.

Harley makes machines, not such exotic machines, frankly.   Machines can be broken by people or by poor design or by improper application or a host of other problems.    The only successful way to identify these problems is to test - real world, real riders - over a period of time.  If Harley had effective test methodologies, production run bike issues would be identified by test riders for the most part, not by the first phase purchasers.  A decision has been made in HD QA to produce new models based on a set of criteria that is not adequate to identify defects.  Is it possible to identify all defects?  No, some only occur over a long period of time & are subjective as well as situational.  But if HD had chosen a different testing methodology, their customers would not have - for example - a very cool touch radio/GPS infotainment screen that for many has been a real headache.

I am not advocating or expecting perfection.  Charles Deeming spoke long ago to adherence to quality standardizations much better than I have here.  But if the quality standards are "We have great prototypes & preliminary testings are great so crank 'em out, fellers" then that is what you get.