Comments on: Custom Motorcycles – Long Term Collectibles?

By: Frank

Frank — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 06:07:41 +0000

I don’t think these bikes will be collectible for one reason….money. Brand new, the bikes already cost a small fortune. In twenty years I don’t think anyone is going to spend more than the original price for one of these bikes.

However, on the other hand because they’re not really that ridable they’re popularity could one day fall. When that happens and there are only a few builders building choppers, than perhaps whatever is left may be collectible.

But again, if they are in fact collectible, I don’t think they will fetch more than the original price unlike cars going for way more than their original cost.

By: Curt Winter

Curt Winter — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 07:47:02 +0000

Case, I couldn’t agree more. I think if the aftermarket would build a compact primary/tranny assembly for the masses you would probably start to see more sport oriented bikes with big twins. You and I both know the value of a big tourqe motor. Demand for such a tranny will be driven by popularity, everything Iv’e built is based around the fxr stuff, it’s not as easy to build a super tight pacage but the trade off is a bike that is built around existing parts and parts that your typical Harley guy is accustomed to, also keeping the price at a more real world level. Iv’e tried that whole stacking of the tranny shafts, it was a real conversation piece but it wasn’t worth the effort, keep in mind though I was working with exsisting parts and not starting from a chunk of billit. Probably would have made a difference, anyway thanks for the recognition in engeneering merit, I don’t know why he used the softail stuff either.

By: Case

Case — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:26:41 +0000

Okay, I didn’t realize you were just refering to Big Twins. And I see that’s what you do. Makes sense. A Big Twin in a sport bike chassis is quite different than a Buell.

I’m sure Sands’ bike will hold value merely for his name in the industry. But it’s certainly no wonder of engineering or design. Maybe he doesn’t even care so much about that, but I do. Form should follow function, but flashy and garish are usually more popular. I happen to think what you’re doing, Curt, deserves more engineering merit than “No Regrets”. Though, putting a Big Twin with a stock softail trans and primary just seems completely ridiculous to me. The primary is like a whole 5 inches longer than it needs to be.

The Big Twin is limited by it’s massive transmission and primary. All someone needs to do is stack the Harley gears vertically and slam them closer to the crank in a unit transmission. This gives you an incredibly ‘short’ primary and brings your swing arm pivot much much closer.

Hmmm…

By: Curt Winter

Curt Winter — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:18:36 +0000

Case, my mistake, I meant using a big twin. I guess I should have stated what American V twin power I was talking about. I just assumed that you would know the main difference between Roland Sands bike and a Buell. One uses a big twin and the other uses a Sportster.

By: Gus

Gus — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:44:45 +0000

since we are comparing custom cars, ever notice that the highly sought after cars are putting in updated hot rod engines AND also updated suspension? These are the cars that will continue to be collectible.

Here’s hoping that bikes from Curt Winter, Mike Cook, Spondon, Steelheart Engineering, & Roland Sands will get the same respect & collectibility they deserve.

You’ll be able to look at these bikes 25 years from now and think they look good and can handle corners.

p.s. I’ve read that Curt Winter built a custom sportbike chassis for a big twin 10 years ago.

http://bigtwinracers.com/main.php
http://www.americancaferacers.com/
http://www.rolandsands.com/