OK..I'll bite, What's the flawed concept in a Harley?
A 60* V twin has crap balance (both primary and secondary), and the forked con rod is an engineering atrocity.
Both of these 'features' limit engine revs, hence why big capacity is so sought after when chasing performance from one.
The stubborn persistance in using 2 valve heads also limits power.
Now, I fully understand why HD has persisted with these - they're part of the HD trademark/history, and
do I respect that.
But they're all done contary to remotely modern thinking and the relative performance is modest, so I find it very difficult to be enthused by them on a technical front - and even more difficult to ignore comments about their rich racing history.
I can't speak in detail about the recent factory offerings, but having seen inside a 90s Electraglide motor, I can honestly say that a Hyundai of the same age is far better built - even most of the nasty Chinese pit bike rubbish is better than the HD stuff.
Similarly, a mate is helping to build a chopper for a mate of his. While it is all superficially very pretty and most of it very well made, none of the motor stuff has impressed me at all - from a performance point of view its very much as a case of "If I wanted to go there, I sure wouldn't start from here". The best the aftermarket can hope for is a shiny turd.
So, from my point of view, the bikes aren't something I have any interest in riding, nor do they deserve any respect from a technical point of view.
The Buells do interest me, but everytime I look at one, I keep thinking "Imagine what he could have built if he hadn't handicapped himself by sticking with such a flawed base"... Again, its like a Porsche 911 - putting the engine in a stupid spot but still making the product work well is very impressive - but it doesn't mean that the engine isn't in a stupid spot!
I understand that other people have different priorities in what they want from a bike, and I understand that a Harley does suit a lot of people. But please don't try to list technical brilliance as one of their attributes, because it isn't.
And I also appreciate HD living outside the japanese main-stay of longitutinal, 16V I4 motors - I'm definitely not an advocate of generic bikes.
A 240 Volvo, on the other hand, is an extremely well built, durable family car, and doesn't pretend to be anything more or less. They missed most of the market by not being built cheaply enough, but that's because they're the last of the non-disposable cars for the non-mega-wealthy* and they actually work far, far better than most people give them credit for.
And when you work on one, everything makes sense - even the things that irritate are clearly done for a reason. While they might not bristle with engineering 'features' they were designed very well and built right, and that pushes
my buttons. Technically and dynamically speaking, they are entirely defensible.
*Yes, a 1980 240 was more expensive and slower than a 1980 Commodore from new. But - given equal treatment from new - by 1990 there's zero doubt that the 1980 Volvo was a better car than the VC Commdore, and the gap has only widened since then. While fashion and the desire for something new means that many families would update regardless, over a 20 year life span, the Volvo would have cost the typical owner much less.
