Comment by bartread | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bartread | Hacker News Reader

I like the cruiser riding style, and the aesthetic of at least some of the bikes. It can be very comfortable for long distances (I rode 1200 miles in NZ on a HD Road King), but I expect that style to be married to some substance. I'd like a bike that:

- Doesn't weigh more than the moon

- Can do 0-60 in 2.5 seconds or so

- Has a top speed >150mph

- Has fuel economy >40mpg (imperial)

- Has decent wind protection

- Hard, capacious luggage (both panniers and topbox)

- New OTR cost of £15-20k, ideally at the lower end of that range

The fundamental problem with Harley Davidson is they're all show and no go. All that sound and thunder sadly amounts to very little.

Triumph and Moto Guzzi do better, and the latter have embraced a more modern/futuristic aesthetic (as with the Suzuki M109R BOSS), but for almost all cruisers (Rocket 3 aside) power disappointingly tops out at around 100 +/- 20 bhp.

Yes, that's right: I'm saying I want it all, and I'm making no apology whatsoever for that. I want the riding style and looks of a cruiser (or futuristic cruiser), married to the light weight and performance of a sports or hyperbike (ZZR1400 weighs in at a "mere" 270kg or so).

Motorcycle companies: I know you can do this so please stop faffing around and get on with it.

I don't see how this is realistic. Here's Wikipedia's list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_mot...

There's only 3 production motorcycles here which can do 0-60 in 2.5 sec. You're asking for a cruiser which accelerates faster than, say, the (200hp supercharged liter bike) Ninja H2, with "capacious luggage", while getting double its fuel economy, and costing less.

I think if any motorcycle company could drastically increase performance and efficiency while dropping prices, they would. Harley's brand is married to vintage styling but others are not. Bragging rights for "fastest bike" have been hotly contested over the years.

I'd argue that the difference in riding position between a cruiser and a performance motorcycle make this a largely impossible proposition.

I think mostly the problem you've got there is that people looking for most of those things would go out and buy a BMW 1200GS. Ok, it's not a cruiser but it's just about as comfortable to sit on. All the luggage options and wind protection you could ask for and well ridden can keep up with most sports bikes in the real world.

There are some bikes which get close to your brief; you mentioned the Rocket III but if you're willing to compromise on what a cruiser would look like you've also get the Ducati Diavel. I'm not sure how much more room there is in this segment.

I think in some ways that's probably part of the problem Harley Davidson. New genres of motorcycles have come an gone without them making any attempt at competing with them.

Was going to say GS (RIP my G 650 GS) but you beat me to it. If I get another bike it'll be a bigger GS, V-Strom, etc. They're fantastic machines.

>Motorcycle companies: I know you can do this so please stop faffing around and get on with it.

Maybe they really can't do it. Cars are doing some pretty impressive things with their engines these days with regard to fuel economy and performance, but they also sell orders of magnitude more units, and can afford to dedicate enormous engineering resources to engine development to achieve that performance. Motorcycle engines, like lawn mower engines, seem to be permanently stuck technologically in the 1970s.

The Honda NC700 is about as close as you'll come. Its basically half of the Honda fits engine in a motorcycle. The problem is that motorcycles are rearly sold on practicalities alone.

Also, there is a bit of a diminishing returns element. My motorcycle (SV650) had an engine originally designed in the 90s, slightly modernised with some electronics and it gets 60+mpg comuting to West London. If it got another 10mpg it'd save maybe £2 a week in fuel, which means the return on investment time is basically infinite.

60+mpg (assuming US gallons here) isn't that impressive; that's just slightly better than a Prius.

But most motorcycles seem to do much worse, more like 40mpg (US). My car gets about that, while being many times heavier. Motorcycles generally have terrible fuel economy considering their size and power.

> - Has a top speed >150mph

Sorry, what...?

If you want solid acceleration from 60 to 90 you need a top speed in excess of 150. Not sure if that's what GP is referring to though.

I too want a futuristic Tesla motorbike, but in addition to your requirements I'd add in FaceID.

Face ID would not be a good idea because helmets obscure faces.

Slap a QR code on the helmet.

"Motorcycle companies: I know you can do this.."

That seems doubtful...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com