Harley-Davidson announces its first electric motorcycle
chicagotribune.com> sounds like a jet engine turbine
Well, so much for the hope it might quiet down the disruption from at least some Harley riders.
Where I live, the noise from them is simply awful. I wish the noise ordinances would be enforced against them. Very selfish people, who inflict that upon the neighborhoods they ride through.
Plenty of other bikes perform just fine while keeping noise to tolerable levels.
As an owner of a fairly quiet motorcycle, I've actually considered swapping out the mufflers for something noisier just so drivers notice me. I've only been riding a few years, but I already can't count the number of times I've been cut-off or nearly hit by people in cars that simply didn't see me on the motorcycle. The benefit of loud Harley-style pipes is that other drivers will at least hear you when they don't see you.
Don't buy into the bullshit. People often don't appear to hear fire trucks, let alone the fruity tone of an uncorked Harley exhaust that is pointing away from the car. If you're getting cut off and frequently have near collisions, ask yourself if there's something you could be doing differently. Take an MSF course, you'll be surprised how lane position and other techniques can make a difference without pissing off your entire neighborhood.
The best advice youll ever get on the topic is to "drive like you're invisible." Don't depend on loud pipes or loud colors. You will have close calls even in a school bus, but you on a bike have more to lose in that situation.
Loud pipes save lives! I upgraded my pipes for performance reasons, but I'm not disappointed with the new sound.
Do you contact whoever is responsible for enforcing noise stuff?
It's useful to keep a diary for a month. Include photos and videos. If you can dedicate a camera for a month and keep that in a fixed place it helps.
You then make notes of all the details in the photos - licence plates, desceiptions, times, dates, etc.
Dump all of that neatly collated information in the hands of whoever does the enforcement and see what happens. Do it for a few months if nothing changes, and escalate after a few months.
noise ordinances are often about sustained noise for longer than a few seconds, constantly above a certain decibel limit. you're likely to find that construction, large vehicles, and other things nearby are as much of a nuisance from a measured standpoint.
If that were true, towns would not have "No compression brakes" signs at the town limits. No one wants a loud ass Harley ridden by wannabe outlaw bikers waking their baby up at 2:00 a. m. That's one reason noise tickets are written (though not nearly often enough) for those with open pipes.
Loud pipes save lives!
If it's so inherently dangerous to ride a Harley that their loudness is required in order to achieve an acceptable level of safety, then no one should be riding them, period.
If non-Harley motorcycles with reasonable noise levels are insufficiently safe because they're so quiet, then no one should be riding motorcycles at all.
I don't agree with either of these perspectives, but whenever anyone makes the "loud pipes save lives" argument, this is what they are saying. It might look good on a bumper sticker but it doesn't make sense. It's no different than suggesting that all pedestrians walk around screaming gibberish as loudly as possible at all times, to reduce their chances of getting hit by bicycles.
If I really believed that I needed to ride a Harley in order to ride safely, I would stop riding altogether. It's not worth annoying hundreds of people every single day just to indulge myself in this one thing. I would find a different hobby.
If people actually installed custom loud pipes as a safety precaution, they would point the pipes forwards, towards the vehicles that are actually liable to hurt them out of negligence.
Nobody points their pipes forwards. They install loud pipes because they are assholes, and want everybody behind them to know.
Their reasoning seems to be gimmickry. I've read several excerpts that state that they are considering this because the "young crowd is demanding eco-friendly vehicles". This is a terrible reason to just build an electric vehicle.
I think they need to take a cue from Tesla and make it all about the neat features that Electric vehicles can provide, such as quicker acceleration, no transmission, etc. Just my 2 cents anyways.
I agree, the one main nifty feature I can think of is consolidation of weight and ability to play around with center of gravity on the bike. For instance, on a sport bike you would want to shift the center of mass to the front, to keep the front wheel down and also to help steering. Shifting the center of mass down would also help with flicking the bike in and out of corners.
You can also design 2 wheel drive bikes! I honestly have no clue if it would be a good idea, but with electric power you can do that. It might be a death trap for all I know, but I think it would be really cool to have an all wheel drive bike.
The final advantage of electric bike is silence. That actually cuts both ways. You want to have a loud (reasonably) bike, so people notice you, and don't run you over. But riding full speed in near silence through a country road is quite surreal as well. Try getting your bike to 80+MPH on a backroad someplace, and kill the engine for a few seconds. It's quite an interesting experience.
Two-wheel drive bikes are actually a good idea. Some combustion-engine models actually exist. Mostly dirt bikes. US-based Christini make Honda CRF derivatives with a pretty cool front-wheel drive system. The difference might be hard to tell for people who haven't ridden dirt bikes, I'm not sure, but here's a video that shows a little bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si-bI84SZKA
Yamaha also made a two-wheel-drive racebike prototype. Don't remember the name.
It's pretty interesting to read the ride reports on two-wheel-drive bikes. The handling seems to make a lot of sense ...
That's so cool! I want to ride one now! That's a really good use of electric bikes, I think. A super quiet, AWD, off road bike. Would be nifty for riding in the forest.
Careful that turning the key doesn't engage the wheel lock. Ouch.
The "safe" way is to pull in the clutch, shift to neutral, and hit the kill switch on the right handlebar. It's actually pretty dangerous to do this. If you slip and let go of the clutch while the engine is off and you're in gear (Not uncommon. Finding neutral is hard on some shifters.), you'll probably lock up the rear tire. When it regains grip, you risk a high-side.
I usually pull the clutch in and shift to 6th instead. Kill the engine with the kill switch and than flick it to start position right away. I restart the engine by feathering the clutch. In top gear there is little chance of rear lockup, unless you have a super high compression motor. In any case, it's not something you should do all the time, but having done it a few times, it makes me really want a high power, perfectly silent, electric bike. I think it would be really fun. For the freeway riding I would have to get a muffler simulator or something that makes some noise, because, if people do not here you, they usually do not see you.
Silent electric bikes would also be really awesome for riding in the woods. That way you can have some fun without annoying everyone within an ear range and scaring all the animals away.
I agree about the gimmickry. Unfortunately, I don't see many advantages for electric bikes with current technology. Motorcycles get pretty good mileage; gas isn't a big expense. Not having to shift isn't a big differentiator. There are bikes with CVTs available today. More importantly, riding requires learning many other skills: counter-steering, how to brake while turning, low-speed maneuvering, avoiding target fixation, etc. And when it comes to acceleration, motorcycles are already stupendously fast. A modern sportbike can go from 0-60mph in 2.8 seconds. The limiting factor is not power, but the fact that the bike will wheelie if pushed harder.
The biggest advantage of an electric bike is probably less maintenance. If the drivetrain was sealed, you'd only have to deal with tires and brakes.
That said, electric bikes have some pretty big disadvantages. Battery weight forces them to sacrifice range or increase weight (or both). At least in the near future, electric bikes are going to be worse at handling, braking, and accelerating.
It's a shame, because I'd love to have an electric bike with the same range, power, and handling as my Ninja 250.
Scooters and some motorcycles have automatic transmission. Most motorcycles have ample acceleration.
Apart from styling and green aspects I think they would want to focus on low maintenance benefit. Most electric will lack in power, weight and range compared to ICE.
I think the Cycle World interview/article was better. http://www.cycleworld.com/2014/06/19/harley-davidson-livewir...
IMHO - the styling is really where this wins. They seem to be shooting for a different sound than a traditional electric bike, but I'm not hearing it - perhaps it sounds better "in person". Quicker acceleration is not as large an issue as you might think as motorcycles already accelerate quite quickly (even 600-class bikes require careful throttle modulation to prevent wheelspin).
There aren't a lot of competitors in this space (Zero, Brammo), so it's a good time for H-D to throw their hat into the ring.
Yep. The whole "no transmission" thing really is a huge lure on a motorcycle. There's a huge segment of the population that doesn't even know how to use a manual transmission in a car, let alone on a motorcycle.
However in the USA there have been ongoing attempts to sell automatic transmission motorcycles (Honda being the strongest proponent, but others too including Aprilia) All of these attempts have seem very limited success. If I had to guess I would say it is because the MC market in the US is an enthusiast market. There are very limited numbers of people that buy a motorcycle to commute. Enthusiasts are like linux users. They not only don't care that it is more complicated, they prefer the complication and the flexibility it provides. So IMO, for automatic (or in the electric case, no transmission) to become a selling point, you have to start selling to a different group of people, or you have to show some material benefit over the status quo (like for instance on a race bike no shifts means no momentary loss of power during shifts. However that isn't Harley's field.)
Would you really want someone who could not be bothered to learn how to shift on a normal bike to be zooming around at 120mph+ on an electric super-bike? Besides, they already have sport scouters for that.
Why would a person have to zoom around at 120+ mph on an electric bike just because they couldn't be bothered to learn how to shift on a normal bike?
There's no actual logical connection between the two things.
I've always wanted to learn how to ride a motorcycle. I would enjoy not having to shift. Accordingly I may choose an electric motorcycle over a traditional one. And none of that has anything to do with whether I'll be a safe driver or not.
Logically it's absolutely no different than a driver preferring an automatic car vs a manual transmission car. It doesn't mean the person is going to drive faster.
No, it does not. However, if you wanted a motorcycle that shifts for you, they have those, they are called scooters. In fact, Ducati even makes an auto dual sport bike. However, if the only thing that's stopping you from learning how to ride a motorcycle is the fact that you do not want to learn how to ride with a sequential shifter, I really do not want you to be on the road on a fast bike. Basically, learning how to shift a bike is far less complicated than learning how to properly take a corner or pull out of one, or shift lanes.
So, basically, if you are afraid of bikes because they have shifters, but otherwise willing to learn, give it a try. I guarantee you that you'll feel comfortable shifting the gears on a bike and starting with the clutch on the first day. However, if you just don't want to learn because it looks like too much work, please, stay away from bikes, electric or otherwise.
That's a fair question but the industry's answer, in the form of products like the Can Am Spyder is "Yeah, we want people who can't even balance on two wheels."
I also think the whole transportation industry is going to have to get over crashworthyness and move on to autonomous automatic crash avoidance. High speed trains are not crashworthy compared to traditional passenger trains. Efficient personal vehicles should not need to be crashworthy.
Great point and my answer would be "no, keep them off motorcycles period."
I don't know, I think I would rather have these people on motorcycles than be behind the wheel of a 2 ton SUV. As someone who regularly walks and rides bicycles (and I have a motorcycle license but am reluctant to use it for safety reasons), I would much prefer that we keep the idiots of the world out of the big cars and trucks and put them onto smaller, less dangerous (to others) vehicles.
According to the video review linked here, this motorcycle does not provide "quicker acceleration." They say "under 4 seconds" 0-60 but almost every sport motorcycle has a sub-4second or even sub-3-second 0-60 time. The one I ride has a 3.0s time. They also say 460lb weight, which is nothing to shout about, and 53 mile range with a 3-hour charge time, which is terrible.
An electric motorcycle is the complete opposite of what Harley sells and how it succeeds.
Interesting that a company that's succeeded by selling... old technology is attempting to innovate again.
The V-Rod(attempt at innovation) was met meekly.
Buell, where they actually innovated, shut down a few years ago.
Harley Riders don't want innovation and change. They want noise and an image.
The 'young crowd' wants cheap bikes made to look tough and vintage. Hence the redesigning and marketing of the Sportster(entry model).
The rockstar lawyers want big heavy cruisers that can carry their leather shells loudly across the country.
Erik Buell (who did the innovating at Buell) continues his work at EBR: http://www.erikbuellracing.com
An electric motorcycle is the complete opposite of what Harley sells
I was quite surprised at the styling of the electric Harley. Admittedly, I am not remotely in the motorcycling world, but to me a Harley is a bike with a big fat end to go with its big fat sound. Something meaty. I would never have thought Harley if I saw this bike.
I read several times that the situation for Harley Davidson is quite bleak, so this might be the try to extend to new markets and save the company in the long run?
They killed Buell 5 years ago and sold MV Agusta 4 years ago to focus on the HD brand. Is this the end of that plan or do they think the brand will stretch to encompass this new technology?
Good luck to them. They'll have some pretty tough competition from Mission Motorcycles, Brammo, Yamaha, KTM and countless others.
Electric motorcycles are undoubtedly the future, but bikes are totally different vehicles than cars. They have very different use cases (recreation vs. utility), and riding on public roads comes with outrageous risks. I've been riding since my teens, and finally sold my road bike in order to preserve my life. I only do track days and regional racing now to get my riding fix.
Electric bikes will have an advantage in areas that gas bikes are weak, such as noise and emissions. For the road, battery technology needs to get much cheaper to compete with gas. In terms of performance, nothing beats an electric drivetrain. The only issue is with the massive weight of the current gen battery packs.
KTM electric dirt bike:
This is made in collaboration with Mission.
Although I would love to own such a e-motorcycle for daily commuting, as an avid cand daily cyclist I getting more and more afraid of all electric vehicles.
Until now I could usually rely on the fact that motorised vehicles are loud enough so that I can hear even when I can not see them. But with all these new e-vehicles it might happen that they are almost completely silent at low speeds so I as a biker would loose half of my senses. I rely so much on vehicle sounds while riding bike that I feel almost feel blind when I wear headphones and listen to music while riding bike.
So I hope that all those new vehicle will make at least some sound when they drive on the same road as I do.
My experience:
Unless the internal combustion engine powered vehicle is accelerating or travelling at highway speeds I don't hear the engine. I actually hear the sound of the tires on the road and displaced air. Modern engine/exhaust systems are so quiet that for all practical purposes they are silent.
The only thing I miss with an electric/hybrid vehicle as a pedestrian/cyclist is the reving sound from the engine when a vehicle starts moving without any other warning (not that you can actually hear that in many urban environments). My current opinion is that all larger vehicles should make a noise when they start moving. That might have the nice side effect of making it possible to do away with those stupid backup alarms...
They'll probably need to make it louder. Without noise, a motorcycle isn't very intimidating.
The booming sound let's everyone know it's coming. It could probably be called a safety feature.
The "loud pipes save lives" excuse is a load of horse hockey, and everybody knows it.
Loud pipes save lives! Despite what you think in your ignorance. The AMA and thousands of motorcycle riders believe they do.
Did you even read the article in that link? The AMA believes no such thing, quite the opposite.
Saying that "thousands believe" does not make for a strong argument regardless. Thousands of people believe all kinds of things we collectively know aren't true (flat earth, didn't land on the moon, take your pick). I just lump loud pipers right in there with the flat earthers and anti-vaxers: people that believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts. You want to make a bunch of noise with your toy? Have at it, but don't try to pass it off as a safety feature.
The link you gave is just a personal opinion of some dude, he even admits that. No statistics, even lying, is provided.
I can easily throw an opposite opinion: besides riding motorcycle every single day, I drive car, and usually I notice motorcycles roar too late. Also, I had two occasions when drivers didn't notice sound of my motorbike (it's not quiet at all) and changed lanes right into me. So I prefer to assume every driver is deaf and ride that way.
The linked article in no way supports the idea that loud pipes save lives.
Thank you.
How's it going to make noise? pot-atoe-pot