The A-Z of Cars

I think there are probably around a dozen stock Harley paint colors, with numerous paint schemes depending on the model. Of the bikes I've had, I would guess that more than half were just black. I loved black and chrome.

The "58 Duo-Glide seems like a decent choice for "quintessential Harley." Didn't want all of the saddlebags, fairings and sidecar of a full-dress, just wanted something that someone could glance at and say, "Yup that's a Harley."

That model is special because it is the first Harley with a swing arm. That is the rear suspension. Prior to that model, all big Harleys had rigid frames: "Hard Tails".

Like this 1956 Hydra-Glide:

Just for grins...I stumbled on this pic, which looks almost identical to my last bike.
There are differences, like a different engine and matte paint instead of glossy, but overall it looks very much the same. Even the same air cleaner.

Essential riding gear.

Also essential: "Nose Pickers" (sold in sets of two)

_Howard wrote:

, which looks almost identical to my last bike.]

I thought those great high handlebars were frowned upon, after "Easy Rider."

_Howard wrote:

That model is special because it is the first Harley with a swing arm. That is the rear suspension. Prior to that model, all big Harleys had rigid frames: "Hard Tails".

So, is the addition of a shock absorber on the rear wheel really that big a deal, ride-wise?

NoCoPilot wrote:

I thought those great high handlebars were frowned upon, after "Easy Rider."

You're thinking of "Ape Hangers", which are much higher than the bars pictured.  "Easy Rider" had nothing to do with the various states which outlawed ape hangers.

NoCoPilot wrote:

So, is the addition of a shock absorber on the rear wheel really that big a deal, ride-wise?

It's not just a shock absorber that was added, but also a spring. Imagine if your car had the axles bolted directly to the frame with no springs or shocks. Yes, it makes a significant improvement in handling and comfort. It just doesn't look as good as a hard tail.

Some bikes just look bad.

That is one ugly fucking bike.

So the panhead, flathead, knucklehead etc is the engine type.

The hard tail versus, what, soft tail? is the frame style.

Isn't Duo Glide, Electra Glide, (what other choices are there?) the transmission type?

Didn't Harley almost go broke back in the seventies or eighties? Didn't the employees buy the company and revitalize it?

NoCoPilot wrote:

So the panhead, flathead, knucklehead etc is the engine type.

The hard tail versus, what, soft tail? is the frame style.

Isn't Duo Glide, Electra Glide, (what other choices are there?) the transmission type?

Hard Tail refers to no rear suspension. Swing Arm means standard rear suspension. Harley makes a bike with rear suspension which was redesigned to look more like a hard tail; they call  these Soft Tail.

Harley first used hydraulic dampeners for the front forks around 1949/50. The bike was called the Hydra-Glide. The Duo-Glide name was used when the hydraulic dampened rear suspension was added. When they introduced the electric starter, the name Electra-Glide was used. They have, and still do, use other versions of the Glide name, but these three are the only meaningful ones.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Didn't Harley almost go broke back in the seventies or eighties?  Didn't the employees buy the company and revitalize it?

Yeah, they had some money problems and AMC bought the company. They got the financial problems taken care of, but the bikes were - and still are - despised by Harley folks. The bikes had serious problems. The company was bought by the employees and directed by Willie G. Davidson, grandson of one of the founders.

My Jeep finally arrived today, a couple of days after it was scheduled.  It's nice.  Heavier than expected -- more metal than plastic -- with springs under each wheel.  There are non-functional (plastic) leaf springs too.  There's a plastic framework for a ragtop.  There are separate, but apparently non-removable, shovel and axe.  The engine compartment and transmission and exhaust and driveshaft all appear to be accurate (but what do I know?). It looks a lot like this.


Yay.  It's a swell addition.

How many of these things were built during the war??

Twenty years after that war ended, many of the jeeps were still in use on military bases overseas.

Many were scrapped:

HistoryNet wrote:

Meanwhile, in the years following World War II, the army deemed surplus, and thus disposable, thousands of combat-weary jeeps. These surplus jeeps were sold to the public at prices between $400 and $600. At the head of the line of buyers were returning GIs who wanted to own the indomitable vehicle that had helped them win the war.

To tie it all together - a Jeep with four Harley engines...
:


...and Harleys at war.

_Howard wrote:

To tie it all together - a Jeep with four Harley engines...

How in the world does one synchronize four Harley engines????

My dad owned a boat, at one point, with two V-8s in it and he had a HECK of a time getting them to work together instead of fighting -- and that was in WATER....

How about a dragster with four V-8s?

Cor, wot a thing o' beauty she is.

That is quite remarkably ugly. The color scheme is atrocious, of course, but I don't think better colors would help all that much.

I guess we could do a whole thread on 'what makes a car ugly' -- even in miniature the Edsel looks pretty hideous.  Grill from an Alfa Romeo, headlights from a Rolls, rear fenders from a Golden Hawk, rear fins from an Impala, paint from Hell.

Too bad I don't need any Cs.