Demise of a brand

[Steve W]

Buells justification of it's hamjmerhead shark styling is function first??? Yeah, those ugly gill like growths have to be there that's for sure.

Anyways, hope you got a good deal on yours, cause it'll be worthless in weeks.

 

Steve

Steve, is it only the pods that you find so objectionable? Yeah, they take some getting used to, but they are indeed functional. There's a pair of side-mounted radiators to direct the air flow through. Anyway, since you've proven you're not above riding ugly bikes, I don't understand why you find this so objectionable.

 

And as for the worthlessness - as much fun as it is to ride, I guarantee it will never be worthless.

 

Read this...

 

http://www.asphaltandrubber.com/oped/econo...comment-page-1/

 

I'd say in the end, the collectability & value of it will exceed any of our beloved V11's. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it. Between being the last model introduced from the only viable, relevant American sportbike company in addition to being a limited production, well reviewed, well regarded model and a lot of fun to ride - I think it'll do ok.

[Skeeve]

And as for the worthlessness - as much fun as it is to ride, I guarantee it will never be worthless.

...

I'd say in the end, the collectability & value of it will exceed any of our beloved V11's. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it. Between being the last model introduced from the only viable, relevant American sportbike company in addition to being a limited production, well reviewed, well regarded model and a lot of fun to ride - I think it'll do ok.

 

Something to bear in mind: the Harley XLCR ('77-'79) is highly collectable, despite being little more than a tarted-up Iron Head Sposta, w/ all that entails: cr@p brakes, vibration to loosen your fillings, cr@p handling, clunky 4-spd, etc.

 

I think the end-of-run Buells will be collectable, as long as they're ridden little and kept warm indoors. 10 or 15 years from now when all we're allowed are electric mopeds and the 2nd American Revolution has been lost & the UN has taken all our guns away, the Buells will be a hot property in the classic bike shows as a tangible reminder of what we've lost...

[GuzziMoto]

Sales figures of the GS series would seem to indicate that I know what I'm talking about, wheras sales figure of Buell over the years would seem to indicate that anyone who buys a Buell,,,,,,,well,,,,, no comment, the company's friggin' GONE!!

Steve

Sales figures indicate that they were selling way more Buells then they sell Guzzi's. And in this country I think they weren't that far off of what BMW's numbers were, if not better then, although with the massive profit margin on the BMW's they certainly made more money selling BMW's.

The fact that Buell is gone as a maker of street bikes is not cause for celebration but concern. Guzzi makes far less bikes (and money) then Buell. It is not that hard to see Guzzi going the same way.

And the Buells were much more of a "function dictates form" motorcycle then BMW, everything on a Buell was designed with function in mind first. Form clearly came second, whether it was the underslung exhaust (that has now been copied by many) or the sideways mounted radiators with those ugly scoops to push air through them.

And if you bought a BMW GS and are not blind then I'm pretty sure by law you are not allowed to call any other motorcycles "ugly".

[Dan M]

Sales figures indicate that they were selling way more Buells then they sell Guzzi's. And in this country I think they weren't that far off of what BMW's numbers were, if not better then, although with the massive profit margin on the BMW's they certainly made more money selling BMW's.

 

That's interesting, What are the sales numbers of those makes? Seems likely Guzzi numbers are dismal, as least here.

[GuzziMoto]

That's interesting, What are the sales numbers of those makes? Seems likely Guzzi numbers are dismal, as least here.

 

I do not have current numbers but based on numbers from a few years ago Guzzi was selling 6,000 bikes a year globally (less then 1,000 sold in the US) and Buell was up to 13,000 a year globally range (about 1/2 of those were sold in the US) in 2008. I believe Buell sold 136,923 bikes total since inception, with the vast majority of those in the last ten years. BMW sold about 13,000 bikes in the US in 2006. All these numbers are scrounged up off the internet and none should be considered absolute fact.

[Steve G.]

Sales figures indicate that they were selling way more Buells then they sell Guzzi's. And in this country I think they weren't that far off of what BMW's numbers were, if not better then, although with the massive profit margin on the BMW's they certainly made more money selling BMW's.

The fact that Buell is gone as a maker of street bikes is not cause for celebration but concern. Guzzi makes far less bikes (and money) then Buell. It is not that hard to see Guzzi going the same way.

And the Buells were much more of a "function dictates form" motorcycle then BMW, everything on a Buell was designed with function in mind first. Form clearly came second, whether it was the underslung exhaust (that has now been copied by many) or the sideways mounted radiators with those ugly scoops to push air through them.

And if you bought a BMW GS and are not blind then I'm pretty sure by law you are not allowed to call any other motorcycles "ugly".

 

 

Not really sure what that last comment really means, but I'll take that as your version of a positive thumbs up.

I've always found it puzzling, sad really, when people define themselves as a one brand person. I only drive Chevy's, I only ride Moto Guzzi. I've got a very good buddy who was sworn to English twins only. Hated any other bike of any origin other than England, even though as a Kiwi, he had a genetic pre-disposition to look upon anyone from the old country with negative thoughts. I'd tell him that he was missing out on the vastness of great bikes out there from 'other' places, as well as England. Then one day he decided to ride a bike from a place other than England. His eyes opened up, and now his collection houses 3 MV Agustas, Ducati's, Laverda, Spandau saggy tit bike, and many others.

My riding life has given me the opportunity to ride many machines, owned many, given the keys to many, tested most all. Ridden every Buell made. Several times, over weekends. There are the odd Buell I liked the looks of, the XB9/XB12, nice looking machines. Silly engine for a sport bike, but there you are. The latest Helicon 'Rotax' powered machines, I really like the engine.

I know there are strong feelings on this forum against the bikes of Berlin [spandau] for different reasons. Heck, you can't even spell out those 3 letters on this forum without it being changed to 'bike with saggy tits'! That's ok, it's a good laugh, puzzling though. I've never actually heard these reasons, but they are no doubt good ones. Anyways, I've got good eyes, not blind at all. And I've got a very good eye for what makes a great looking bike, and what's an ugly duckling. I'll be first to admit the saggy tit GS is really ugly, strange looking. Looks even uglier when you strap on those big square boxes on the back, she's got major junk in the trunk. Because I have such a great eye for what constitutes a positive or negative styling wise, I'll brake that law you talk about and say that the Helicon powered Buells are by far the most rediculous looking machines Buell has ever made, so ugly in fact, that I've never seen one on the road,,,,anywhere,,,,and,,,,,are the main reason Buell sales never materialized to the point that Harley Davidson shut the thing down, even after they won the "custom made for this bike "AMA series. So ugly in fact, that it blew apart the wide held belief and trend that if you win on Sunday, you'll sell on Monday. Never happened. Not.

Look, if you like the Buell, now's your chance, they're 1/2 price in many places, go out and enjoy it. Just don't wax poetic about how great it looks, you're thinking with your wrong head, and I will laugh at you.

 

Steve

[Steve W]

Look, if you like the Buell, now's your chance, they're 1/2 price in many places, go out and enjoy it. Just don't wax poetic about how great it looks, you're thinking with your wrong head, and I will laugh at you.

 

Steve

Well, I never said my 1125CR looks great. Just A LOT better than a GS. My only gripe is your apparent hyprocracy for damning a world-class bike, which I'm guessing you've never ridden, purely on an aesthetic basis, when you defend a bike that by anyone's observation is considerably more aesthetically challenged. For what it's worth, I currently own the Buell, 3 Guzzi's, 5 old Triumphs ('56 6t, '61 T110, '70 T120R, '75 T150V '71T25T), '75 Honda Gl1000, 2 BMW's ('77 R100S, '85 K100RT), an '85 Yamaha XVZ1200 Venture, '92 Bultaco Alpina, '75 HD Sportster, and a couple more I can't recall right off. And that's half the pile I had a couple years ago - I'm trying to whittle it down. Point being, I have NO brand bias at all. I just like interesting motorcycles.

 

The point is, the loss of a relevant motorcycle manufacturer, particularly one whose management could be directly attributed to a single individual and his passion and purpose, is an absolute tragedy to our sport and passion. If you don't see it as such, I do not see how you can consider yourself to be a true enthusiast.

[Steve W]

The point is, the loss of a relevant motorcycle manufacturer, particularly one whose management could be directly attributed to a single individual and his passion and purpose, is an absolute tragedy to our sport and passion. If you don't see it as such, I do not see how you can consider yourself to be a true enthusiast.

Good article...

 

http://www.thunderpress.net/MONTH_ARTICLE-...lltothecu.shtml

[GuzziMoto]

Not really sure what that last comment really means, but I'll take that as your version of a positive thumbs up....

 

Steve

It means the BMW GS series is the ugly bike standard, the yard stick by which all other bikes are measured.... "bike "X" is 70% as ugly as a GS". There is no bike that reaches 100% on the scale. Even other SUV bikes are in the 80-90% range.

Yes, I am a fan of Buells, as well as Guzzi's and most other motorcycles that are outside the box so to speak. I even like some BMWs. I have owned Buells before and likely will again. In fact, part of me wishes I kept my tube frame X-1 that I sold to buy my Griso. That bike was good looking and an absolute blast to ride. I wish Guzzi would make something that much fun to ride. The Sportster based engine was not the horsepower king, but it had more torque then any other streetbike I've owned. And it delivered it in a raw unpolished way that gave you an old school thrill and inspired you to do things the law says you shouldn't.

[Steve G.]

Well, I never said my 1125CR looks great. Just A LOT better than a GS. My only gripe is your apparent hyprocracy for damning a world-class bike, which I'm guessing you've never ridden, purely on an aesthetic basis, when you defend a bike that by anyone's observation is considerably more aesthetically challenged. For what it's worth, I currently own the Buell, 3 Guzzi's, 5 old Triumphs ('56 6t, '61 T110, '70 T120R, '75 T150V '71T25T), '75 Honda Gl1000, 2 BMW's ('77 R100S, '85 K100RT), an '85 Yamaha XVZ1200 Venture, '92 Bultaco Alpina, '75 HD Sportster, and a couple more I can't recall right off. And that's half the pile I had a couple years ago - I'm trying to whittle it down. Point being, I have NO brand bias at all. I just like interesting motorcycles.

 

The point is, the loss of a relevant motorcycle manufacturer, particularly one whose management could be directly attributed to a single individual and his passion and purpose, is an absolute tragedy to our sport and passion. If you don't see it as such, I do not see how you can consider yourself to be a true enthusiast.

Oh I see how it works, I pan a bike that you happen to like, so you pan me in return, for the second time actually. I'm ok with that, quite entertaining actually. Please continue.

 

Steve

[Steve W]

Oh I see how it works, I pan a bike that you happen to like, so you pan me in return, for the second time actually. I'm ok with that, quite entertaining actually. Please continue.

 

Steve

Steve, I'm sorry - I really wasn't trying to make it a personal issue. That's not my style nor intent.

 

However, I don't think the closure of Buell had anything to do with them being ugly. As you highlight, ugly bikes can sell. OK, they might have been easier to sell if they looked more conventional - but that entirely misses the point of their existence - they weren't conventional. For those who can deal with them looking/being different, there are rewards. The bigger issue is how they were (weren't) marketed. Placed into dealerships where they generally weren't wanted or a good fit was not a recipe for sales success. Mostly HD dealers knew nothing about these aberrant bikes that were occupying their floor space, nor did they want to. They would often steer potential buyers away from them an toward familiar ground (oh, those Buell's are weird, let's look at this nice XL1200). Few of them cared about Buell being shut down. The HD dealers that did embrace them managed to do ok - as noted previously, 135K sales in 26 years is not insignificant for a non-mainstream manufacturer.

 

There's a lot of rumors going on about the true story behind the shutdown, most of which don't have much to do with business...

 

Anyway, I'm just angry about a true innovator in an industry I care greatly about being shut down. None of us who care about motorcycles are better off for it. And, Harley just accelerates it's own demise.

[Steve G.]

Steve, I'm sorry - I really wasn't trying to make it a personal issue. That's not my style nor intent.

 

However, I don't think the closure of Buell had anything to do with them being ugly. As you highlight, ugly bikes can sell. OK, they might have been easier to sell if they looked more conventional - but that entirely misses the point of their existence - they weren't conventional. For those who can deal with them looking/being different, there are rewards. The bigger issue is how they were (weren't) marketed. Placed into dealerships where they generally weren't wanted or a good fit was not a recipe for sales success. Mostly HD dealers knew nothing about these aberrant bikes that were occupying their floor space, nor did they want to. They would often steer potential buyers away from them an toward familiar ground (oh, those Buell's are weird, let's look at this nice XL1200). Few of them cared about Buell being shut down. The HD dealers that did embrace them managed to do ok - as noted previously, 135K sales in 26 years is not insignificant for a non-mainstream manufacturer.

 

There's a lot of rumors going on about the true story behind the shutdown, most of which don't have much to do with business...

 

Anyway, I'm just angry about a true innovator in an industry I care greatly about being shut down. None of us who care about motorcycles are better off for it. And, Harley just accelerates it's own demise.

 

I'll agree with you that Eric Buell is a man of great passion about bikes. Perhaps more an enthusiast than businessman. And also, as someone who has met and talked to him, I found him to be a genuinely nice fellow.

Clearly, Buell was not making financial sense for Harley Davidson, whether that meant actually making money or not, who knows. It is clear that MV Agusta is a money vaccum, why they bought it in the first place who knows. Lovely machines to look at, excepting that Brutale thingie. And very cool to ride.

There are many knowledgable people in the motorcycle industry that say without a healthy Harley Davidson, the entire industry would be a fraction of what it has grown to be since Harley Davidson started it's regrowth in 1983 when Vaughn Beals and Willie G. Davidson bought HD from AMF. I tend to agree. I may not be into the type of bikes they make, and have serious issues with the kind of citizens that the Harley Davidson product attracts. But the amount of money that is spent on their product has a spin off that is helping the entire industry. Maybe we should see the "circling of the wagons" by H.D. as a good thing, even if it means we lose Buell, and maybe MV Agusta as well.

 

Steve

[Steve W]

... Maybe we should see the "circling of the wagons" by H.D. as a good thing, even if it means we lose Buell, and maybe MV Agusta as well.

 

Steve

Well, I really didn't have too much to add to this thread, but ran across this article and found it relevant - topic being how much trouble Harley is in since they're making no effort to appeal to younger riders...

 

http://wmoon.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/harl...-after-boomers/

 

A particularly relevant couple of paragraphs...

 

"Whether it was fear of losing the base or being unimaginative, Harley-Davidson has failed the challenge for the past decade by delivering basically the same bikes year after year while ignoring what was exciting and attracting After Boomers. It did not reinvent the brand—and unless it finds a way to do so, it has doomed itself to an increasingly shrinking market until someone in Milwaukee figures out how to do so—or years down the road, consumers find a way to reinvent this particular style of motorcycle.

 

Otoh, it did have Buell—while it had the negative of being “half a Harley” with its engine, it had innovative and cutting edge technology and styling. It is a sport bike and it had the right kind of styling—and as reported before—it was growing even as Harley shipments were shrinking. So Harley’s best chance of capturing After Boomers has been “discontinued” in one of the most blundering, short-sighted and idiotic management decisions in USA corporation history."

 

I agree - a motorcycle marketplace without Harley is not a good thing, but I contend that killing Buell was 180 degrees opposed to what they should have done to help their (and our) cause...

 

Steve

[gstallons]

It's the American way of running a company. "The greatest profit margin per quarter". Does it mater what happens 5 yrs. from now? Hell no! We have stockholders to please.

[Skeeve]

It's the American way of running a company. "The greatest profit margin per quarter". Does it mater what happens 5 yrs. from now? Hell no! We have stockholders to please.

 

Do you think the stockholders are pleased at this? It's more a function of "decreasing the flow of red ink, so that the top brass can claim they'd done something to justify their overly generous compensation packages..."

 

Just so you know, I am a stockholder, & no, I'm not pleased...