Page 1 of 2
Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:45 pm
by Κracus
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/harle ... 5?mod=bnbh
Looks like Harley is going to fix it's sagging sales by making their bikes even less attractive. Hopefully Harley owners are going to smarten up and vote for someone that's not completely incompetent next round or maybe just buy a bike designed for the modern age.
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:56 pm
by Eraser
Wow, what are you trying to say Kracus, because it feels like you're taking a stab at the wrong people with the wrong arguments.
Harley Davidson is just one of the many victims of this bullshit tradewar going on between the US and the rest of the world.
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:09 pm
by Κracus
Yeah that's why I said I hope people vote. They are absolutely a victim in this bit at the same time their bikes are also overpriced. The company could have taken the hit instead of raising prices.
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:31 pm
by Scourge
I must be reading wrong, looks to me like the article said Harley will bear the brunt of the tariffs short term and move EU production over seas long term. Also says they will not be raising the prices on bikes.
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:35 pm
by Scourge
The company said it will bear the brunt of the costs, which it estimates could be $30 million to $45 million for the rest of 2018, and $90 million to $100 million on a full-year basis.
“Harley-Davidson believes the tremendous cost increase, if passed onto its dealers and retail customers, would have an immediate and lasting detrimental impact to its business in the region, reducing customer access to Harley-Davidson products and negatively impacting the sustainability of its dealers’ businesses,” the company said in an 8-K filing with the SEC. “Therefore, Harley-Davidson will not raise its manufacturer’s suggested retail prices or wholesale prices to its dealers to cover the costs of the retaliatory tariffs.”
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:02 am
by Captain
Kracass didn't even read the article he threw up here in an obvious attempt to troll gwamps. Pathetic
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:41 am
by Scourge
Looks like he got to the part where it says manufacturing costs would go up by $2200 and made assumptions from there.
Just compared Harley's top touring bike and Yamaha's. $2000 difference. Honda is right at Harley's price range for the top touring bike. Kawasaki and Suzuki were a good bit less however.
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:58 am
by YourGrandpa
What a dope.
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:03 pm
by Κracus
Scourge wrote:Looks like he got to the part where it says manufacturing costs would go up by $2200 and made assumptions from there.
Just compared Harley's top touring bike and Yamaha's. $2000 difference. Honda is right at Harley's price range for the top touring bike. Kawasaki and Suzuki were a good bit less however.
Ah yes I missed that, my bad. I'm happy they are bearing the costs though. That's exactly what I thought they should do given how they kinda charge a lot and ummm no I'm not going to agree with you on the costs of the bikes being the same. Harley's are overpriced. I realize there's a demand for them but at the same time I've always felt that paying more for just a name and not some semblance of higher quality is a bit of a stupid move from both the customers and the retailer.
That said, I can't wait to see what other businesses get affected by the trade wars.
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 1:42 pm
by Κracus
Ok... so there's this to add to the story. ffs trump...
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... production
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:45 pm
by MKJ
looks like those tariffs are backfiring. Who knew.
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:22 pm
by Scourge
Κracus wrote:
Ah yes I missed that, my bad. I'm happy they are bearing the costs though. That's exactly what I thought they should do given how they kinda charge a lot and ummm no I'm not going to agree with you on the costs of the bikes being the same. Harley's are overpriced. I realize there's a demand for them but at the same time I've always felt that paying more for just a name and not some semblance of higher quality is a bit of a stupid move from both the customers and the retailer.
That said, I can't wait to see what other businesses get affected by the trade wars.
I got my info directly from each manufacturers site. I'm not going to sit here and argue about quality or whatever, but how many of the other brands have as high a resale value? My bike is 5 years old, I could sell it for not really much less than what I paid for it. Or could trade it in and get a brand new bike for less than half the sticker price. There's a lot more to it than just the out the door price. I also realize Harley had a bad run in the 70s when AMF owned them. The bikes would break down all the time and that's where the stigma came from. People have stuck to that like a pit bull on a pork chop. It's just not the case anymore.
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:26 pm
by Scourge
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:52 am
by YourGrandpa
Scourge wrote:
I got my info directly from each manufacturers site. I'm not going to sit here and argue about quality or whatever, but how many of the other brands have as high a resale value? My bike is 5 years old, I could sell it for not really much less than what I paid for it. Or could trade it in and get a brand new bike for less than half the sticker price. There's a lot more to it than just the out the door price. I also realize Harley had a bad run in the 70s when AMF owned them. The bikes would break down all the time and that's where the stigma came from. People have stuck to that like a pit bull on a pork chop. It's just not the case anymore.
This started as a lame Krampnass troll. Now he's trying to justify the stupidity. In reality, he doesn't even believe what he's saying.
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:32 am
by Κracus
Scourge wrote:Κracus wrote:
Ah yes I missed that, my bad. I'm happy they are bearing the costs though. That's exactly what I thought they should do given how they kinda charge a lot and ummm no I'm not going to agree with you on the costs of the bikes being the same. Harley's are overpriced. I realize there's a demand for them but at the same time I've always felt that paying more for just a name and not some semblance of higher quality is a bit of a stupid move from both the customers and the retailer.
That said, I can't wait to see what other businesses get affected by the trade wars.
I got my info directly from each manufacturers site. I'm not going to sit here and argue about quality or whatever, but how many of the other brands have as high a resale value? My bike is 5 years old, I could sell it for not really much less than what I paid for it. Or could trade it in and get a brand new bike for less than half the sticker price. There's a lot more to it than just the out the door price. I also realize Harley had a bad run in the 70s when AMF owned them. The bikes would break down all the time and that's where the stigma came from. People have stuck to that like a pit bull on a pork chop. It's just not the case anymore.
I understand what you're saying and it's true. However, I also feel like the only reason that value is so high is simply because of the name combined with the same 70's reputation foreign bikes also had back then which wasn't good. That isn't the case today however and here's where I feel, as a consumer, that Harley irks me as a company. Where competitors stepped up their game and kept things affordable Harley keeps producing bikes with essentially old technology while raising prices because of that previous reputation. It's like artificially inflating prices is their business model and that annoys me. It isn't because they're rare or better quality or more technologically advanced, it's simply because they've slapped the name Harley Davidson on the side of it.
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:45 pm
by Eraser
It's such a lame complaint though, Kracus.
If you're buying shoes from Nike, you're paying a premium price as well. Not purely because it's better quality or the shoes has features other "B" brands don't have, part of that goes into the name Nike and the marketing that goes with that. You'll find the same thing happening in lots of product markets (cough, Apple, cough) Not just with luxury goods, but with things like food as well.
People who buy a Harley Davidson buy one because they want a Harley Davidson. I think a good number of Harley buyers wouldn't consider something like a Kawasaki Vulcan or Triumph Thunderbird simply because they aren't Harley's. Shortsighted and stupid? Maybe. But people like to spend their money on something that makes them feel good, not on whatever a list of bullet points and price comparisons suggest.
You can choose to call someone that buys a Harley a wanker, or you can congratulate them with buying something they truly enjoy. No one is forcing you to buy a Harley, so when you choose to buy a z900 instead, then that's totally cool.
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:14 pm
by Κracus
Perhaps. I might be wrong but your Nike analogy doesn't stand up. The reason Nike costs so much is because of the R&D they put into their shoes. They really are a technologically superior product to the majority of other, cheaper shoes, that fit in similar segments. In that case, you get what you pay for and that is my gripe here. You're not getting a superior product when you buy HD. You're getting something that's more or less equivalent to other cruisers. That is my entire issue with those bikes. They aren't rare, they aren't better, they aren't more technologically advanced etc... They just cost more because potatoes.
edit: Also, I don't buy apple for the same reasons I wouldn't buy HD. Both those companies irk me in the same way. Charge more because of the name and nothing more. Same deal with Dr Dre Beats.
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:22 pm
by Κracus
I also want to clarify here that I don't hate harley's. I think they're nice bikes, I just dislike their pricing practices.
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:35 pm
by Eraser
If you don't think Nike is more expensive than, say, Fila or comparable brands because of branding, then you're being naive.
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:58 pm
by Κracus
I'd be interested in seeing what other companies pay for R&D and the specifics of what's in a nike shoe vs another brand honestly. Shoes are one of those things that you get what you pay for in my experience. Higher priced shoes tend to last me longer, feel more comfortable, have better grip, feel lighter etc... I'm not saying you're not right here but at the same time my experience has been that a higher priced shoe generally has better quality over its lower priced competitors.
EDIT: So I did a bit of research and Fila in 2015 spent a little under 800,000$ in R&D and Nike spent 500 Million. There you have it.
Fila research
http://store.todayir.com/todayirattachm ... 461_en.PDF
Nike research, 2.5 billion over 5 years = 500mil a year.
http://www.businessinsider.com/morgan-s ... ike-2017-6
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:32 pm
by Captain
Is their research done by child slaves too?
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:42 pm
by Κracus
Fila is a chinese company so somehow I doubt that's a factor...
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:23 pm
by Scourge
Eraser wrote:
People who buy a Harley Davidson buy one because they want a Harley Davidson. I think a good number of Harley buyers wouldn't consider something like a Kawasaki Vulcan or Triumph Thunderbird simply because they aren't Harley's. Shortsighted and stupid? Maybe. But people like to spend their money on something that makes them feel good, not on whatever a list of bullet points and price comparisons suggest.
You can choose to call someone that buys a Harley a wanker, or you can congratulate them with buying something they truly enjoy. No one is forcing you to buy a Harley, so when you choose to buy a z900 instead, then that's totally cool.
That is true for the most part. I've had Hondas, Kawasakis, and even a Yamaha. From my personal experience, they just didn't feel the same. I have nothing against them whatsoever or anyone who buys one. And a Harley like anything else, if you maintain it right and take care of it, it will last a lifetime. I've seen some with hundreds of thousands of miles. On the flipside of things, I would never pay that much for shoes, ever. Not even close. With you, it's just another bike. With me, it's just another fucking shoe. That's just the way it works. Things are only worth what someone is willing to pay in any industry. And people are willing to pay $300+ for shoes and $20,000+ for bikes. By the way, my bike wasn't that much.
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:51 pm
by YourGrandpa
My last bike was a Honda and I liked it fine. But I ultimately wanted a Harley. A good friend of mine (the one that got me to get a motorcycle) rides a Suzuki M-90. I have nothing against any other brand/style of motorcycle. As long as you're in the breeze it's fine by me.
Re: Like Harley's weren't already over priced. #MAGA
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:08 am
by Eraser
Κracus wrote:I'd be interested in seeing what other companies pay for R&D and the specifics of what's in a nike shoe vs another brand honestly. Shoes are one of those things that you get what you pay for in my experience. Higher priced shoes tend to last me longer, feel more comfortable, have better grip, feel lighter etc... I'm not saying you're not right here but at the same time my experience has been that a higher priced shoe generally has better quality over its lower priced competitors.
EDIT: So I did a bit of research and Fila in 2015 spent a little under 800,000$ in R&D and Nike spent 500 Million. There you have it.
Fila research
http://store.todayir.com/todayirattachm ... 461_en.PDF
Nike research, 2.5 billion over 5 years = 500mil a year.
http://www.businessinsider.com/morgan-s ... ike-2017-6
Gotta set that against revenue numbers as well though.
I don't doubt Nike spends more on R&D (even as a percentage of their revenue), but I think you're still paying for the brand as well.
I have another example. I own an Ibanez JEM guitar. I could buy pretty much the same guitar as an Ibamez RG model for significantly less money, but the JEM is Steve Vai's signature model and the subtle differences between the RG and JEM are what I think makes the JEM cool, so I got a JEM (granted, second hand because new is too expensive for me. I could probably get a new RG for the price I paid for the JEM).
If I'd follow my head, I'd have bought an RG, but my heart told me JEM. It might be a stupid decision, but I never regretted it once.