What Retro Bike Would You Like to See Built?

[petri]

This is another interesting question with many possible approaches. Exactly what do we mean by such terms as replica and modern engineering techniques? What is it exactly that we are trying to accomplish? It all seems to revolve around the concepts of original and authentic. So what's missing that we want? Well there are surely not enough restored or unrestored antiques to go around and they surely are not very affordable. So perhaps a retro bike should be all the old parts made anew to construct a true replica as it was in the past. With CNC machines everywhere this is hardly an impossibility anymore.

But wait, there is more to it than original design and parts. Modern metallurgy has improved the metals we use and a retro bike would necessarily have to use the metals available today. Not a bad thing but now is this bike truly a replica? I think this is why Herbert qualified his question with "modern engineering practices and your specs". Now we are redesigning an old motorcycle to be much like the original only better. Also not a bad thing considering all of the original problems that they came with.

The airplane people build replicas and they come in several different flavors. True replicas built to original drawings with original engines. Look alike replicas with modern engines and other more fanciful reproductions. They are all most welcome. If it were not for some of the racing plane reproductions from the 30's now extant, most of us would never have seen these planes. Just go to Oshkosh and look.

So personally I think an original parts reproduction would suit me just fine. I think I would enjjoy the "original" experience more than an improved original experience. Now I realize that might get old fast and it would soon be time to fix the problems. In fact, people have been fixing the problems already for years on the "original" bikes anyway.

Crocker, Knucklehead one of the Fours including the KJ and Super X immediately come to mind. They are all beautiful, hard to find, expensive to buy and desirable. Hmmmmm, I guess I'm being rather wishy washy on the matter of which bike am I not? I bet I'll take the first desirable, affordable one that comes along.

Howard

[swall]

Here's the retro bike I'd like to see built--NONE.
Retro bikes make no sense. If you want an old bike, buy one. If you want a bike with modern features, buy one of the endless varieties available.

[exeric]

Originally posted by MTroy


I agree about the 4's. I would love to see a new inline 4, water cooled. I just don't want Harley to make it! (sorry!)

A few years back, when Eller was trying to produce Indians, they came out with a sketch of a new inline 4. It was very sweet indeed but never made it past the drawing board.

The reason I would like to see Harley Davidson get involved with a 4 cylinder model is for historical closure. I believe Harley Davidson was historically destined to build a 4. It is reported that they built a prototype V-4 using J model cylinders in the late 20's, according to Harry Sucher in "Milwaukee Mavel". Also, H-D was in preliminary negotiations to buy out the troubled Cleveland motorcycle company, which would have been the prefered direction as far as I'm concerned. The Cleveland was a good looking motorcycle. The depression and the Eclipse lawsuit nixed that deal.

Of the big three, Harley Davidson did not have a 4 and like the old saying goes; "It's not the things you did that you regret, it's the things you didn't do." H-D should have built a 4.

Harley Davidson has always done things right. Their engineering is not cutting edge but it is always sound and reliable and I think they are the logical choice for a long term commitment to a big 4 cylinder cruiser.

[HarleyCreation]

Originally posted by petri
This is another interesting question with many possible approaches. Exactly what do we mean by such terms as replica and modern engineering techniques? What is it exactly that we are trying to accomplish? It all seems to revolve around the concepts of original and authentic. So what's missing that we want? Well there are surely not enough restored or unrestored antiques to go around and they surely are not very affordable. So perhaps a retro bike should be all the old parts made anew to construct a true replica as it was in the past. With CNC machines everywhere this is hardly an impossibility anymore.

But wait, there is more to it than original design and parts. Modern metallurgy has improved the metals we use and a retro bike would necessarily have to use the metals available today. Not a bad thing but now is this bike truly a replica? I think this is why Herbert qualified his question with "modern engineering practices and your specs". Now we are redesigning an old motorcycle to be much like the original only better. Also not a bad thing considering all of the original problems that they came with.

The airplane people build replicas and they come in several different flavors. True replicas built to original drawings with original engines. Look alike replicas with modern engines and other more fanciful reproductions. They are all most welcome. If it were not for some of the racing plane reproductions from the 30's now extant, most of us would never have seen these planes. Just go to Oshkosh and look.

So personally I think an original parts reproduction would suit me just fine. I think I would enjjoy the "original" experience more than an improved original experience. Now I realize that might get old fast and it would soon be time to fix the problems. In fact, people have been fixing the problems already for years on the "original" bikes anyway.

Crocker, Knucklehead one of the Fours including the KJ and Super X immediately come to mind. They are all beautiful, hard to find, expensive to buy and desirable. Hmmmmm, I guess I'm being rather wishy washy on the matter of which bike am I not? I bet I'll take the first desirable, affordable one that comes along.

Howard

I was thinking along the lines of "the best of both worlds." What we really like in old bikes but with modern methods, materials, and updates. Something that could really burn up the highway with without burning up the motor.

However, when I got to carb vs. fuel injection on my fantasy bike I was stumped. Frankly, I'd want to put a Linkert on it, but that sort of blows the whole idea of "modern updates" doesn't it?

[HarleyCreation]

Originally posted by swall
Here's the retro bike I'd like to see built--NONE.
Retro bikes make no sense. If you want an old bike, buy one. If you want a bike with modern features, buy one of the endless varieties available.

Yes, but modern bikes are mostly really ugly or weigh a freaking TON.

I rather admire your hard-core position....

[HarleyCreation]

Originally posted by exeric


The reason I would like to see Harley Davidson get involved with a 4 cylinder model is for historical closure. I believe Harley Davidson was historically destined to build a 4. It is reported that they built a prototype V-4 using J model cylinders in the late 20's, according to Harry Sucher in "Milwaukee Mavel". Also, H-D was in preliminary negotiations to buy out the troubled Cleveland motorcycle company, which would have been the prefered direction as far as I'm concerned. The Cleveland was a good looking motorcycle. The depression and the Eclipse lawsuit nixed that deal.

Of the big three, Harley Davidson did not have a 4 and like the old saying goes; "It's not the things you did that you regret, it's the things you didn't do." H-D should have built a 4.

Harley Davidson has always done things right. Their engineering is not cutting edge but it is always sound and reliable and I think they are the logical choice for a long term commitment to a big 4 cylinder cruiser.

Sound points and your crystal ball seems very clear.

Harley-Davidson came close again in the 1980s with the 4-cylinder Trihawk. Anyone remember that job? A forecar (a modern "teens" cycle-car really) that I believe had a Citroen 4-banger engine. Not Harley's design, but then the V-rod motor ain't either.