High Value Guzzi Oil Filter

[Greg Field]

No loans or garantees that I could find record of. It is a matter of record, though, that they did it. They were accused, denied it, and later admitted it when it no longer mattered. The US government took no action against H-D for doing this, except to drop the tariff when H-D asked that it be dropped. (Or it could be that behind closed doors the govt. said words to the effect of , "You used us illegally; we're gonna drop the tariff but we can make it look like it was your idea to save face. Get on board with this or we will drop the tariff anyway and embarass you publicly." I am not saying this is what happened. I'm just saying that it wouldn't surprise me if this was what happened.)

[Guest Gary Cheek]

All in all there is no way to argue their sales were not better thanks at least in part to a temporary price advantage. Momentum in business never hurts.

[Greg Field]

You all will believe as you like. For my part, I know that then, even more so than today, most folks who were in the market for a Harley were in the market only for a Harley, and if you were in the market for a Harley, you never even considered Japanese bikes. Thus, the tariff was of no consequence to these folks 'cause it did not make the Harleys cheaper. But $3995 Sportsters, on the other hand . . .

[Dan M]

You all will believe as you like. For my part, I know that then, even more so than today, most folks who were in the market for a Harley were in the market only for a Harley, and if you were in the market for a Harley, you never even considered Japanese bikes. Thus, the tariff was of no consequence to these folks 'cause it did not make the Harleys cheaper. But $3995 Sportsters, on the other hand . . .

 

Yes, I think you are right, a Harley guy is a Harley guy. He wasn't looking at a Honda. However, that's just when the Japanese were coming out with their first and IMO rather ugly cruisers. I'm sure more than one buyer looking at a Japanese cruiser may have thought with the increased price they might as well go for the Harley. By then Harley may not have needed it, but they certainly profited from it.

[Guest Gary Cheek]

Positively right Dan,not so much a matter of beleiving what I want . The fact old time Harley riders are only buying a Harley is a given.

I am basing my opinion on actual familiarity with many folks who bought their "first Harley" when the Japanese alternatives became quite a bit more costly.

There was no need to win over the Harley rider, driving a wedge into the Honda contingency did in fact bolster the Harley riding segment of the buying public. Many ,MANY of the current Harley riders were riding Asians pre embargo. Many of them were secretly lusting for a Harley until the Harleys became a relatively "good deal" and a viable alternative. There is no doubt many of todays Harley fanatics were riding Hondas, Yamahas Kaws and Suzukis pre-embargo.

 

The pre-embargo Harley riders can be left out of the equation. No one is proposing the embargo increased sales with them. They were not enough on their own to sustain a turn around. Harley needed s little something to nudge the riders of Asian brands to their camp. The embargo helped do just that.

 

That is indeed a fact, not a chosen beleif. Real knowledge.

[Greg Field]

Pardon me for espousing a belief not pre-approved by Gary Cheek. As he proves every day, he is the sole arbiter of truth on this earth. All else is opinion.

[Guest Gary Cheek]

Oh no , you have mistaken me for Greg Fields.

 

 

He is the one pontificating the facts based on what he has been told

No need to get personal....again

Just comparing the facts here Greg, no need to get your panties in a twist because someone dares add observations of fact and substance. A different analysis is permitted is it not?

I haven't complained about your reports. I beleive you are honestly reporting what you have been told. Still, the fact many people became FIRST TIME Harley owners during the embargo. Many of them did so because the price difference had become smaller. Seems profits from an expanding market share, the economy of scale improvements from increased production and demand are a huge help in a turn around. No one is saying the embargo was the ONLY element in the turn around. Some of us beleive it indeed contributed. Your analysis is otherwise.

No need for yet another indignant, disengenuous apology. Why not just respond to the subject instead? I feel no need to apologize for disagreeing with your conclusion. Nor to withold it in fear of offending you.

 

Get over it OK?

[Greg Field]

Actually, I'm laughing too hard to get my panties in a bunch.

 

And crying, too.

 

See, I spent weeks of time and hundreds of hours in the Library of Congress, in Milwaukee, and on the phone tracking down guys like Vaughn Beals and the legal eagles and industry people involved on all sides to get the story. Dummy me! I could've just called Gary Cheek to get the real scoop on what happened. Next time I'll know better.

[Guest Gary Cheek]

So HOW DARE anyone challenge your convoluted dismissal of Harley receiving any benefit whatsoever from the embargo.?? Don't they know they risk the wrath of the master of synthetic experience and here-say?

 

Wow Greg, Not like I challenged your research. Still no reason for you to feel all that research in any way lends credibiltiy to your assertion that the embargo in no way helped Harley Davidson. You are totally discounting the gain in market share that was a direct result of the diminished price advantage the Asians once enjoyed. No need to do all that research. Most of us who were riding and buying bike at the time recall first hand what our friends were buying and the rationale for that choice. Knowing that we also are on pretty firm footing beleiving those sales helped Harley Davidson. Once again Greg, we aren't saying they were the ONLY thing that saved them. If you weren't in such a rush to assert your credentials and you right to be the last word you might see we are not saying your reporting is in error. Yes I disagree with your conclusion that Harley benefited in no way from the boycott. Yes I have the tamarity to challenge that assertion. I do respect the what you have reported regarding the events of the times.

 

And once again you prefer a personal attack to discussing the subject. Perhaps the first to go personal loses the debate?

[helicopterjim R.I.P.]

I was going to say something but changed my mind!

[Guest Gary Cheek]

Good idea

[Greg Field]

Challenge all you like. But to call what you wrote fact while asserting what I wrote is belief is so absurd that only you could do it with a straight face.

 

A look at the facts, should you ever chose to look beyond your anecdotes, would convince most folks that what I said was true: The tariff was an inconsequential sideshow.

[Guest Gary Cheek]

Challenge all you like. But to call what you wrote fact while asserting what I wrote is belief is so absurd that only you could do it with a straight face.

 

A look at the facts, should you ever chose to look beyond your anecdotes, would convince most folks that what I said was true: The tariff was an inconsequential sideshow.

 

 

Greg F Quote:

"The tariff had precisely zero to do with saving the company. "

 

That is your asserted theory,

 

 

 

Facts:

 

Harley Davidson made MONEY on bikes they sold during the embargo.

 

Many of those bikes were sold to riders who passed on Asian cycles because of the higher prices.

 

Many of those riders are still riding Harleys today, along with their wives and offspring.

 

My theory is; Any gain in market share CONTRIBUTES to a turn around. Getting long time Asian riders onto your machine is a major element in that turn around . The crossover didn't just happen here, it happened across the country.

 

If you weere to drop your un-earned elitist attitude maybe YOU could benefit from looking beyond your here-say anecdotes. And find yourself a bit less eager to prononce every Greg Field theory as an insant fact. Much worse the Greg Field compulsion to attack people for daring to question your "fact" and relegate it to just another theory status. An exec taking credit for a turn around is nothing new, nor is an author doing substantial research and arriving at an erroneous conclusion. Then again affirmation of common belief doen't sell like a contrary conclusion does it?

 

We may never know how much the tarrifs heklped. I beleive the effect was more than ZERO.

 

 

 

Yes indeed Greg I still disagree,as do many others. So be Greg,sustain the attack until all beleive.

[Greg Field]

The original assertion was that the tariff SAVED H-D.

 

It did not.

 

It was and remains what Vaughn Beals intended it to be: A way to distract everyone while he pulled the real trick. It still works, what, 23 years later? I salute you on being as predictable and easily fooled as he knew most of you would be.

 

If that makes me an elitist, so be it.

[Admin Jaap]

Funny... right at this moment three moderators are reading this thread!