You build it, I’ll buy it. … Really? It’s that simple? I can’t imagine why motorcycle manufacturers aren’t packing the showrooms just listening to the virtual suggestion box found on hundreds of web sites. Log in, check the comments, send the specs to engineering, start taking orders.
In the virtual world of computers, there’s little need for raw materials, maybe a bit of software, a fair amount of knowledge and skill, perhaps, and often lots of time, but there’s no iron and steel, no truckloads of parts, no assembly line workers and factory buildings, no CNC machines, welders and paint booths, no EPA, NHTSA and DOT regulations and no dealers spread across the country or around the world demanding the next big winner. Although virtual world risk is real, failed products sit on a hard drive, while in the real world, those marketplace losers sit in warehouses or dealer showrooms gathering dust while real money is tied up until they somehow get sold. The real world takes real guts.
With today’s dicey economy, it’s easy to understand why factories go slow, one really bad introduction and you might not recover, but you can’t sit still doing nothing, either, so how do we move forward? For the major motorcycle manufacturers operating under the old model where you design a new line up, crank up production and fill dealer showrooms, that’s a problem, so maybe it’s time to change the model.
For businesses in the real world, demand for a product isn’t how many people say “I want one” or “You build it and I’ll buy it,” the only demand that counts is backed up with cash, it’s someone with both the ability and willingness to pay. No money means no demand, just wishes and dreams and there’s no profit in catering to dreamers.
How can companies filter out the dreamers and big talkers, separating the “I’d buy that” crowd from the “Who do I make the check out to?” crowd. Those groups may overlap, but the second group, the one that counts, is a lot smaller.
In a previous article about the Warboy 883XWL, a Sportster designed to look like an old Harley WLA, I said in the comments, “If HD wasn’t sure they would sell, they could show one, offer them as an exclusive short run model and take orders before production started.” That comment was about Harley, but this applies to ANY motorcycle company. Any company planning on staying in the business is going to have to build something so why not build a prototype, show it around and offer a limited production run to be started after prepaid orders or sizable deposits toward an order have come in? The talkers with no real intention or ability to buy are unlikely to put real money down so you’re filtering them out and what you have left is actual demand. If demand is large and steady, beyond what a limited run will supply, the company can crank up production and then introduce the “Special” as a regular model in the lineup. The old method of concept bikes generating interest and then taking years before going into production, if they ever do, separates the buzz and excitement of the concept from an actual bike in the showroom by so many years, by the time it shows up, very few want one.
Some of the new small cars coming out have gone with something very similar, electric motorcycles, too, I can’t see any reason it wouldn’t work with any type of motorcycle. A company can take risks beyond the usual small changes from year to year and try something really out of the box. If no one is willing to put up the front money for an order, the company isn’t out enormous sums on a loser. In this economy, the company doesn’t have to wonder if the customer can pay because they already did.
I think the pre-order before production plan is a good one. If I knew a prototype had been produced and it worked well, I’d be very amenable to the idea, how about you? Would you put down your hard earned cash for a bike that hasn’t been built yet?
akatuski says
Except that real R&D take serious money. Visual packages (a la Harley’s entire business) can be done that way. But most of the electric crowd are bleeding money and just hoping for acquisition – a lot of them also don’t seem to have concrete business plans either (personally I think Czyzz and Brammo are the only ones out there with serious plans to expand his technology beyond a proof of concept stage.)
kneeslider says
@akatuski: “Except that real R&D take serious money.”
I agree, but you’re going to spend it either way. Reducing the risk with preorders limits your loss to the R&D if the bike doesn’t take off instead of the R&D plus all of the production costs, too.
BobG says
For businesses in the real world, demand for a product isn’t how many people say “I want one” or “You build it and I’ll buy it,” the only demand that counts is backed up with cash, it’s someone with both the ability and willingness to pay. No money means no demand, just wishes and dreams and there’s no profit in catering to dreamers.
No truer words………
Moto Addict says
I put my deposit on the new Yamaha Super Tenere in the first week and just saw it at the San Mateo motorcycle show this last weekend. My new ST will gather 14k miles each year, every day, rain or shine, snow or hail. 🙂 Why must I wait so long?
I would have put a deposit on the 883 warboy, but harley didn’t take notice, nor did BMW.
The Indian bomber series is hot, but too expensive as a daily commuter.
Will13 says
Very nice article Paul. In fact, the sports car world use to do business just like what you suggest in your article. One example that comes to mind almost immediately is that of TVR. Though now defunct, the iconic British sports car builder would display a new model at one of the leading shows in the UK and open an order book along side the stand. In 1990, the marque put their new Griffith on display at the British Motor Show and took 350 orders, or roughly 1 order every eight minutes. Needless to say, the Griff had a long production run.
You still will never get around the expense of building a prototype, but with the auction market of today, a manufacturer could always sell a prototype off, either to the public or to a museum or collection. There’s plenty of people out there that would buy a one off item like a prototype that didn’t exactly gather the numbers that were hoped for. This offers the manufacturer some support in recouping a small portion of a bad investment.
I think the industry over time will return to this method of marketing, as the only thing that’s constant currently is global economic instability.
Max Headroom says
I tend to disagree somewhat. There aren’t that many prospective buyers out there that will ante up for a bike they haven’t seen ‘in the flesh’ and had a chance to touch, sit on etc. There will be some but they tend to be the most adventuresome and perhaps the most comfortable and committed to a particular brand. I work in a dealership that handles BMW, Ducati, Triumph and Yamaha. We have takers for a couple of K1600’s, maybe a Diavel or two and there is certainly lots of \interest\ in these models and Triumph’s new Tiger 800 as well. But the vast majority of people will not put down their hard-earned without a real bike to sit on and a test ride to boot. There are a lot of options for people to choose from a lot of different manufacturers vying for an increase in market share.
There are real challenges to manufacturers with the economy being what it is and the gazillion ways to dispose of a customer’s disposable income. This shouldn’t stifle creativity or probibit designers from venturing outside the box but a factory has to see some solid sales potential from market research, focus groups, dealer input, consumer input etc.etc. before they commit to the design, tooling and manufacture of even a prototype.
If you look at the early response to Ducati’s Diavel (certainly this is thinking outside the box for Ducati?) it has been dramatic both for and against and has generated lots of interest. But how many will they sell? The outcome will be very interesting!.
Aerion says
“@akatuski: “Except that real R&D take serious money.â€
I agree, but you’re going to spend it either way. Reducing the risk with preorders limits your loss to the R&D if the bike doesn’t take off instead of the R&D plus all of the production costs, too.”
How much money does it take to research, design, make, certify, and market a new motorcycle, one that meets emissions, reliability, and crash standards? What percentage of that total cost would pre-orders recover? One, two, five, ten percent? What would that percentage need to be before a manufacturer decides the risk is acceptable? What percentage of the cost is represented by road certification when so many markets/nations have entirely separate qualifying procedures and even differing standards? Certainly it would help if all or at least most nations could agree to a common certification process: certify once, sell anywhere. That is not the current situation, as anyone who has tried to import and insure a bike from another continent can attest.
Even if pre-order buyers were to purchase pre-production examples in sufficient quantities, would their interests necessarily reflect those of the mass market? Or, would they with their typically greater income gravitate toward novelty rather than utility? Some forms of novelty can be extremely useful, others can be very frivolous. Or, would they, being typically from an older demographic, gravitate toward nostalgia? Nostalgia can be alright, but it can also lead to extreme conservatism and then motorcycling doesn’t really progress.
JSH says
Why don’t manufacturers turn out low volume “specials” to guage market reaction? They don’t because it costs just as much design, test, and tool a low volume model as it does a high volume production model.
kim says
Every so often a manufacturer listens to what The Great Unwashed says, and puts a special type of bike into production. Guess it works sometimes РH-D usually gets away with it Рbut too many times said special is a commercial failure, even if they are desirable many years later. The H-D Caf̩ Racer and the Triumph X75 Hurricane come to mind.
Over the years Honda has built a number of very special bikes like the CX650 Turbo, the NR750 (oval pistons) an the outlandish Rune cruiser. None of those made money for the company, but then Honda probably didn’t expect that either, and built them merely to show off. I doubt even the six-legged CBX1000 was profitable.
Dallara says
As has been mentioned – Isn’t that exactly what Yamaha has done in the past with their “PDP”, or “Preferred Delivery Program” that was used here in the United States for the FJR1300, and now the Super Tenere 1200? I purchased a 2006 FJR1300 via PDP, and I currently have one of the 2012 Super Tenere 1200’s on order via the same PDP system.
I think it works great, and we are offered motorcycles we might not get here otherwise. It worked well enough with the FJR1300 that it is now a mainstream model in Yamaha’s USA line-up, with no need for a PDP-style program.
And haven’t other manufacturers done exactly as suggested? The Honda Rune immediately comes to mind. Then there are the special Ducati models, like the Bostrom, Bayliss, Hayden issues. MV Agusta often has separate specialty models based on their regular production pieces, and now Moto Guzzi is bringing a retro-special based on the public reaction to concept bike based on the V7 Classic.
And every year H-D offers CVO models that are special order only.
These are just some examples. Seems to me the idea is nothing new, and that it has been implemented often…
tim says
Interesting. The new Norton seems to have been sold using this model or one like it. They kind of had to given the issues with re-birth after re-birth. Not as bad as Indian, say, or Excelsior Henderson even, but bad enough. So they had to convince people they were and are a real company with a real product. Kenny Dreer’s actual running prototypes were a big start, but what they did after that seems to have been got firm orders (for the top spec one only, with BST wheels, Ohlins, Marchesini, Brembo and all the fruit) and sold those. Oversubscribed apparently. Now they’ve taken orders for more, and are building those. Plus their sales manager is Chris Walker a very talented racer. He’s doing the press thing (Cycle World and Performance Bikes have both done stories on it (flattering, both) in the last few months.
I, for one, hope they succeed this time. I’d love one, but they would be very very expensive indeed here.
kneeslider says
Dallara, I’ll have to look more closely at the Yamaha program, I don’t know much about it, you’re the second one to mention it, though it seems it may be allocating orders, not really determining production which is what I was referring to.
The Ducati models you mention, Bostrom and such, are basically graphics packages and some odds and ends, not really new models, they were making them anyway, it just allocated the limited production run to people through the order program. On the other hand, I remember the MH900e, which really was a new model based on a concept bike, was shipped to dealers based on worldwide orders placed online, which everyone had a shot at simultaneously. I was among those trying to place an order for a dealer when those came out, we were online at midnight, as I recall, but production didn’t depend on the orders, it had already been decided. There, too, orders were for allocation purposes.
It may very well be that this is taking place and I’m unaware, in which case, I think it’s great. If the idea spreads to more companies and models, even better.
f0ul says
Great article which displays a total disregard for the drivers of the manufacturing industry!
Lets say you wanted to introduce a new bike tomorrow, you need to design and built at least one. That bike could be built with a 3D Printer system to built the shapes that you would other wise need to build moulds and casts to make, but it still costs a hell of a lot more than one person would spend on a bike. You then have all the legislation and the warranty issues that you must comply with to sell in different market places – and this adds to the cost – yet you still haven’t sold one.
The cost of producing bikes at the sort of price we, as consumers are willing to pay is still based on a supply and demand level. The industry solves the problem by attacking the parts bin and just spending the money on adapting a frame and developing some body work. The end result is the not too risky bikes like the Suzuki GSX1250FA and the very clever Triumph range where everything is a parts bin special!
Do they get the heart pumping? Not to everyone, but at least the accountant isn’t having a heart attack – which is exactly what would happen if they went down your route!
Sorry for blowing your bubble, but the modern bike industry isn’t like it was in 1920’s when what you describe is exactly how things were done! 🙂
Schneegz says
I’d be much more inclined to participate if I got to customize my own bike to my own needs/wants. I want manufacturers to offer a range of suspensions, brakes, seats and other components from which I could choose. The most substantial and most expensive components – the engine and frame – would remain the same. That would entice me to put money down on a pre-order.
FredS says
I’m with the prototype offer and take orders. Of course I sat for two years with #33 of the new Kenny Drear Nortons with my name on it. At least I got my deposit back when the ship went under. With an established company ala Yamaha’s PDP its a great idea. New company like Norton, burned once, I’ll wait till I see actual production.
Chris R says
As a small manufacturer that has made the effort to make aftermarket parts for motorcycles, I can understand any bike builder to be hesitiant to produce a product on speculation from people “saying” they would purchase a product. I have made that mistake on a small scale, but even the smallest component has engineering and virtual fit and function costs, and then stepping up to making a working prototype still takes cash and time. This time used up, just for an idea. Then if it is viable, there is trademark and patent costs. So before anyone thinks just produce it and they will buy it, I have a number of paperweights I can ship you.
Paul Y says
Yamaha’s PDP came about because of many world market bikes that the press got ahold of, tested and pronounced wonderful. A dozen folks wrote to those magazines and said I would buy it if it were available here. And over the years Yamaha offered the XV920, the 650 and 900 Secas, and the GTS1000, all world market bikes, and they all bombed here in the states. Honda should do it with some of their home/world market bikes that we can’t have here.
As far as an entirely new bike or concept, build a dummy bike with the rapid prototyping machines that are out there and shop it around at shows and rallies, get feedback and make a decision to go ahead or not. Maybe it can be a parts bin special, if so it could be on the market in a years time while it is still a fresh idea.
B*A*M*F says
One of the best kept secrets of rapid prototyping is that what comes off the machine is rarely a finished good. Whether that is a CNC mill/router, stereolithography machine, 3D printer, etc. most require some secondary operations for functionality or finish. In the case of stereolithography, the parts are usually quite fragile. In the case of the CNC router I am lucky enough to use, getting a part ready for paint (even if only to make a mold from it) requires a bit of back and forth with high build primer, skim coats of body filler, and a lot of hand sanding.
I know I would be reluctant to put money up for a bike that doesn’t exist, particularly in the wake of the Tesla Roadster, which was delayed and then repriced.
Perhaps the biggest reason manufacturers don’t do this is that while customers want one thing in October, they may be onto something completely different by the time spring rolls around. Choppers are out and cafe racers are in. So it’s hard to rely on the trend swept public to remain faithful to an idea for too terribly long.
Rich says
As others have said, “real” R&D means millions in investment. To design an engine, get it built and then get it certified is not insurmountable – but (you knew it was coming), even Kenny Dreer reportedly spent millions developing the “new” Nortons only to see the venture fall through and get sold to the Brits. If a builder used an existing engine and all the ancillary bits the job gets easier but is still a tough row……
The new Nortons and Bimotas are the closest I can think of to what you’re describing. And given Bimota’s spotty financial survival, it doesn’t look to be a promising business model for success.
todd says
Whatever they did right with the SV650 or the Ninja 250 they should figure out how to do that again. I don’t know if it’s sheer luck or timing or they’re unbeatable bang-for-the-buck but there’s a formula there to follow.
It’s interesting to think of some markets where customers will buy the product because it’s an improvement over last year’s product. In that case do like the data storage companies do, dumb it down at first and “improve” as you go. It may be too late but they should build the first Ninja to weigh 600 pounds with 50 HP. Year two “improve” it by removing 10 pounds (of lead from the frame tubes) and add 10 HP (by allowing the throttle to open a little more). Do this progressively each year and development costs are free each subsequent year.
I’m not sure pre-orders are the way to go. I think a large portion of people buy on impulse. We’d like to think that all (potential) riders are on forums or reading the reviews but I’d wager that’s not the case. With a pre-order program many people will never see the product in the showroom – they may never know it existed even if it was the perfect bike for them. I remember that I knew nothing of the GB500 when it was new. Each dealership was given one to sell and it was usually sold or transferred to another dealer immediately. I never saw any advertising and the dealer never mentioned it to me even thought they knew I was into “British” bikes. It wasn’t until a couple years later (’92) that I saw one for the first time and by then, it was too late for me to go to the dealer and buy one. Same for the W650 and other low-selling models. I happened to know about the W650 early on from reading web sites this time but my dad told me he would have bought one if he knew they existed.
Now, it wouldn’t matter what comes out. I have no money and no desire to buy even if I did. There are so many clean, used examples of perfectly extraordinary motorcycles for sale cheap. It also doesn’t help that all the bikes I own are built so well I don’t need to replace them.
-todd
Mark says
Paul, this idea sounds good on the surface, but doesn’t really work in reality. The demand of a product is very much tied to it’s price, and it’s price is tied to the volume of units produced. A manufacturer can offer up a prototype for pre-orders, but how is the manufacturer going to establish the retail price when it doesn’t know how many it plans on making yet if it’s waiting to see how many orders it receives based on a price that hasn’t been established yet. Production volume needs to be established beforehand, and that establishes the price. Once the price is established, demand can then be accurately gauged, however, it would be too late by then to do anything to adjust the price higher if demand is less than expected. This is the risk that all manufacturers take, unfortunately there is no other way around that.
Vinnie Dee says
There are very few investors willing to compete with established manufacturers. Just a working prototype will be costly that few independents can afford. If you do happen to have pre-orders you still need more money to fill those orders, sort out distribution and have a comparable service and warranty program.
Maybe Paul can start an investor section that allows readers to rate and invest in potential designs that riders find interesting.
I believe new designs will come from those who have a passion for riding and owning motorcycles.
Cameron Nicol says
@Mark- the price is set for a certain number of units. If that number is not pre sold that unit is not put into production and the deposits are refunded or transferred. The system does work. You can even do multiple runs if the unit is successful. I do have to agree there is a lot of validity to a test ride. That’s why I own a crf230 instead of the cb125 I wanted to buy..
Tom says
Paul, what you’re describing for bikes is exactly what is done for household items at http://www.quirky.com Check it out.
Sportster Mike says
Jack Lilley the Triumph dealer in England comes up with specials every now and then, sometimes just a paint job, but occasionally a tuned engine etc
But whether they build them first then sell them I’m not sure
I would have liked my UK Harley dealer to mix and match the parts on my Sportster 883R ie I would have liked alloy engine cases, 1200cc, the larger custom tank, choice of pipes etc all put together by the dealer and all warrantied (ie not buy the bike first and then add stuff to it)
The car dealers here do their own ‘specials’ which sometimes if the manufacturer sees it and it sells well gets turned into a ‘production’ special – although not happened lately due the recession (did someone say ‘lets shoot the bankers’ – I said ‘bankers’ (its an old joke…)
joe says
Yamaha tried this idea with the MT-01 and it was an absolute financial disaster.They showed a prototype at the big motorcycle shows and thousands of people flocked around and drooled, saying they would definately buy the bike if it went into production.Some of the dealers only just off loaded thier 2005 models in early 2010 for half the original price.If Yamaha had taken a big deposit up front they would have realised that most people who talk the talk don’t always walk the walk.Hope all manufacturers learnt something from Yamaha’s massive mistake.
Core says
Well I’d lay down a deposit for Honda’s smaller displacement transalp if they’d bring it to the states. I like it, looks slick. They don’t even have to make something new.
Hector says
Two wheels, an engine and a frame. How difficult can it be?
Nowadays factories are too worried to build the next “winner” and they forget simplicity. Most vehicles are build for the Play Station/Transformers generation.
Good handling, good horsepower and good brakes do not need to cost an arm and a leg. Not everybody needs a CBXRXX1000RRRR with a gazillion HP.
There are many bikes, not that many beautiful ones.
Do you want my money? Keep it simple, make it beautiful.
FREEMAN says
Money talks. I’m sure any manufacturer would jump on the next cash-cow if only consumers put their money where their mouth is. Regardless of how they sell it, the manufacturers are still only one side of the coin.
Tanshanomi says
Why don’t manufacturers listen to enthusiasts? The Yamaha Seca 650 is one reason.
Back in 1981, Europe got the Seca and America got the cruiser-styled Maxim, because that is what was selling. For a whole year, Yamaha read in the bike magazines and heard from showroom traffic that what they really wanted was that cool, Euro-only Seca, not this uncomfortable, less-capable Maxim. So for 1982, American Yamaha brought the Seca 650 stateside while wondering how their marketing experts could have misread the market so badly. It turns out, they didn’t. The “hot” Seca 650 was suddenly stone cold when it hit showroom floors. I first went to work for a Yamaha dealer in 1985, and there were still ’82 650 Seca crates stacked three and four high in the warehouse then.
On the other hand, nobody wanted a 50cc step-through or a 90cc, balloon-tired three-wheeler until Honda convinced America to give the Super Cub and the ATC90 a try. The DN-01 is currently moldering in showrooms the same way as the Seca did a quarter-century earlier. At least it was a bold attempt. But just because you don’t hit a home run doesn’t mean you don’t keep stepping up to the plate. Get a hit one time out of four and you’re a major league’er.
Paul’s right: the only accurate measure of the riding public is what they actually spend their money on. And while I agree with Paul that small-production “toe-wetters” are a smart move (even if they more often than not result in a negative ROI), I’ll go one step further: everything looking forward is just a crapshoot. Nothing guarantees they’ll buy next year as the same thing they bought yesterday, or what the marketing maven’s say they might, or what customers claim to want. In the end, manufacturers have to hedge their bets with a combination “give them more of what’s working,” “give them what they say they want,” “offer what WE think they want,” and “give them something so groundbreaking that they don’t know to ask for it yet.”
Vibeguy says
It seems to me that manufacturers could take a different approach, at least in the short term. Do like the car guys, follow the current trends but use an existing platform. For instance take the spartan but popular Suzuki V-strom 650, (a great bike but with some short comings). The current trend seems to be adventure bikes, so tweek it to lean more toward the GS-ish styling, utilizing the same basic components (engine, frame…etc), change the graphics, some of the cosmetics, fit it with better suspension, wheel combinations. The basic Hot Rodder philosophy. with financial considerations being a major concern for all corporations, it might satisfy the public in the short term and maybe give the companies more profits to put back in to R &D for long term changes.
akumabito says
A different perspective entirely, but one could also wonder in this day and age if gargantuan R&D budgets are really necessary…
For instance, is it really necessary for every single model in a make’s lineup to have a different engine? And does every consecutive model of the same bike need a new-and-improved engine? How relevant is a 200Hp sportsbike for road use, really? Does squeezing out a few more Hp or Lbs-Ft fundamentally improve a bike? Is a 2010-built bike engine really more reliable, lower-maintenance and easier to live with than a bike engine made in 2000 or even the 1990’s?
We have decades of relevant research available on performance, different materials, aerodynamics, ergonomics, etc., etc. Is it really necessary to reinvent the wheel over and over again – only to come up with marginal improvements, then scream at the top of your lungs about how NEW and EXCITING the product is?
I bet a small manufacturer could potentially base a whole range of bikes around the Yamaha VMax engine for instance (check the Kneeslider article on motorcycle crate engines). They could build a cruiser, chopper, sportsbike, naked all around the same engine – no new R&D necessary on engine development. Two or three basic frame types could cover for all these models, etc. Why push the envelope when it would be relevant for only a tiny portion of riders? I bet many more people would be interested in a bike that performed and looked 90% as good for 60% of the price..
Aerion says
There seem to be 3 different threads of proposals developing in this discussion:
1. Multiple bike models based on a common engine and frame but with differing ergonomics and aesthetics.
2. Multiple bike models based on a common engine but with different frames, ergonomics, and cowls suited to their particular roles.
3. Multiple bike models with different engines and frames and just about everything else, except common routinely serviced parts.
Most people would argue that most manufacturers are already doing all three, although not to the extent that most would like. As far as Kneeslider’s proposal is concerned:
3. Doesn’t work, research, design, and development costs are too high to ever recover with a limited pre-production run, as many above have stated.
2. Best probability of working, but again my opinion is the economics of designing & tooling frames & cowls versus time to return on investment are against it.
1. Little incentive, especially when there is an entire after-market industry built around this and owners and builders can modify bikes on their own with relatively little effort.
Just another 2¢, after my first 2¢.
Derek Larsen says
I was reading somewhere in the Electric issue of Motorcyclist that the EPA allows you to build one “kit bike,” no questions asked provided you don’t sell it for 5 years. And to be honest, unless you’re pushing some sort of envelope, all the brain work has been done for you. Albeit, finding someone to mentor and teach me has been my biggest challenge.
Even then, I feel overwhelmed by the choices already offered by manufacturers. I know people complain about Harley’s lack of innovation and initiative, that’s how other brands swooped in. What exactly is so special about your dream bike that–aside from one or two features that could be changed or compromised on–doesn’t already exist in another brand’s catalog?
Cleveland CycleWerks says
As the owner of a small motorcycle company, I am willing to try this, however I saw a friend try this with one of his products, and shortly after taking money…..watch as he received death threats from people who plunked down cash.
Below is the issue……
We live in a “gimme now” culture. Development time from concept, to production is at best 12 months, then give it another 3 months for federalization, 1-2 months to ship product and you are now on a 17-18 month wait from money being deposited to production.
People who may have one been geeked about the product begin to loose interest as 1 summer passes, and a 2nd summer quickly fades…….. This is very real issue.
Cleveland CycleWerks says
Anyhow, I will seriously consider this kneeslider’s article for an “experiment” for one of the future models my company is developing:
I personally think it is a great idea, it is the criticism that could come as a result of the time it takes from concept to production that worries me…..
NIck5628 says
Large motorcycle companies can not make money this way, and this is already what many small companies do.
tim says
@ Cleveland Cycle Works: That “Misfit” bike of yours is hell cool. Just saying.
Mule says
I’m gonna take a guess here, but I would say that the thing that makes makes a new model development and or protype so expensive is not design, fab and /or certifications as has been suggested here, but internal bureaucracy. Just look at all the for and against on this forum on the new Ducati Drivel. Now imagine 8-10 Italians in a room, all passionate about Ducati attempting to be sold or not by two other guys on building this new model.
Now, I know zero about the internal workings of Harley, but my guess would be that when you have an American Icon poised to to come crashing down off it’s pedestal, being run by guys that could give a crap about Joe Average (he’s not their customer base) or really even motorcycles for that matter, I would bet that their major concern is getting out of there with their pensions intact.
The Big four are well known for taking a concept into a sellable product and getting to market faster than anyone, but they were caught out by this economy like everyone else. The difference being that they’ll do what’s necessary to survive intact as a company.
Can’t say much about the European markets or manufacturers, but generally they have more passion than market sense. They sell their passion, which is a good product if you axe me. But hard to keep up with payin’ the bills when the buyer’s passions get out of sync with your own.
Unfortunately, I think the “Industry” is hunkered down into survival mode. as they should be. We’re not gonna see much new for a couple years, with the exception of small companies who are agile and have stuff in work already or the electric guys that have to be adventurous to even be here in another year or so. Kinda like the WWII era. “Sorry, no new cars for 4 years! Come back and see us after 1945!” After that and into the 50’s, creativity took off full speed. There was customer money to work with.
Maybe the factories need to look outside the design departments of their own factories to get cool new stuff at a fraction the cost. Then bring them in house for final product refinement.
All the new trends seem to be along the lines of “Retro” and a pre-used, distressed look. Design departments and manufacturers may want the money from this emerging market, but haven’t figured out how to get the old junk look to come through and out of a factory making new products. The small independants have this covered pretty well.