[pdad13]

My sentiments exactly. The frame is a product of the USA. I'm also assuming the bodywork is, too. Gemini also did the top end work on the motor (sqeezing another eight or nine hp from it.) Not sure where the wheels and controls will be from.



I'd be much more inclined to think that the MRX would be better accepted with a higher output engine that, at least, was not designed and built in Asia, even if it upped the price another grand or so.



Although, a supercharged version would be an entirely different animal in the market. If it could make around 100 hp, it might get a second look.



The other problem is that Hyosung is releasing the Comet 650 here this year (very similar to the SV650) for about $6000.00--and apparently a very nice bike, to boot. And they also have plans to follow that up with a liter sport bike soon after. How is any potential Fischer buyer going to feel about the fact that his/her $10K bike is powered by the same engine as a bike that costs 40% less?

 

[pdad13]

If you look at the onewheeldrive.net piece, there's a computer rendering of the motor. You'll see the carbs there. Plus, I know for a fact that the Hyosung Comet 650--the bike this engine was designed for--has good, ole' fashioned carbs.



By the way, I've heard the same thing about Britten. Apparently, anyone who had anything to do with the actual motorcycles has departed--at least some very angry.



I don't thing they could make the Britten name stick with that motor, and I think it's obvious Fischer doesn't have the resources to develop one from the ground up--even with the Britten people on board. Plus, they'd have to abandon the American-made positioning, although in reality, they kind of done that de facto anyway.

 

[pdad13]

I'm not disagreeing. It's just that they've already shown their hand with the "American-made" stuff. That's probably the whole essence of their business model, although I agree that they've botched it with that motor. That's probably how they're wooing any potential investors: "Hey, there's a big demand for a real American sport bike; it's the only way to compete with the Japanese in the U.S."



Unfortunately, by most people's standards, this is neither a "real" sport bike or a "real American" sport bike.



The Britten angle is a whole different plan of attack. And being that Britten is so closely tied to his own country--the romance associated with Britten is due in large part to the fact that he and his team hail from pip-squeak New Zealand--I'm not sure you can just superimpose the Britten name on an "American" bike. Maybe if he employed a good part of Britten's team, Fischer could sell an American-New Zealander alliance to take on the Japanese.



Of course, the problem with all of this is money. Fischer would have to fork over large sums of cash to pry the Britten name from the boneheads who own it. Plus he'd most likely have to transplant the former-Britten personnel.



The Britten-Fischer MRXV-1000? Maybe it could work. But it would cost him.

 

[pdad13]

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. What I meant by "most people's standards" are the perceptions of the sport bike buyers at large.



The original "sports cars" of the 50's and 60's were small and agile, but not very powerful, even by that era's standards. So I agree that the Fischer is a sport bike (assuming it works), but I'm not sure enough of the target audience will view a $10K "underpowered" bike that way. After all, a Ninja 250s, GS500s, EX500s, etc., don't cost anywhere near what the Fischer will.

 

[pdad13]

Re: Somebody! Anybody! PLease!

I wonder what it would cost. Hell, if Fischer can't do it, maybe we could take up a collection? Buzz has got some extra greenbacks floating around, I'm sure. We might have to dig up a few more Kpaul's relatives, though.

 

[pdad13]

I'm panting as we speak

Of course. After a little thought, I think the Amerzealander alliance could be a bankable one. They could take on the Japanese and take on the world, even if the bike wasn't quite up to today's engine performance. Being not quite as reptillian as you may think, I wouldn't feel right trying to sell the Fischer as a Britten. Plus, as a marketing strategy, it would ring totally hollow. But I think you could sell the idea of a Britten-Fischer collaboration if the Britten people were in place and they could get the the rights to the name.

And yes, you're absolutely right about the Britten name's shelf life. It's been over ten years now since the company has actually produced anything useful. However, if the rights-holders are as greedy as they seem, it might be difficult to show them the light in that regard.

 

[pdad13]

Take a look at the SV650

Hyosung used to build engines for Suzuki. Turns out they hired a bunch of engineers away from the big four when they decided to break ties with Suzuki. From what I understand, the guy who designed the SV650 mill is the same guy who headed up design on the Comet 650 engine (the one in question). They look very much alike.

 

[pdad13]

Re: Globalisation is good, and makes this debate moot

You can certainly look at it that way. As far as I'm concerned, if the bike up to snuff, and I know the proceeds are going to an American company, I would consider buying an MRX.

The problem is Fischer is positioning the bike in a "proud to be an American" style. And if you're banking on American pride to drive sales, you've kind of screwed the pooch by taking one of the two main components on the bike and outsourcing it to an Asian company in a country known for low-cost production. If it were any other component besides engine and chassis, they could get away with outsourcing to a foriegn company. All bike manufacturers do it.

By the way, I have nothing against Hyosung. I do think they're going to be a player in the MC industry soon. Besides the power issue, the 650 is just an awkward fit in an "American" sport bike. And they are coming out with a 1000cc V-twin, probably this year. I bet the MRX has been designed to accept that engine, too.

 

[pdad13]

Re: Somebody! Anybody! PLease!

Kpaul was throwing around his usual unfounded allegations about Buzz fleecing the dumb, ignorant and elderly for a living. So, naturally a few of the guys surmised that Buzz must derive a considerable amount of his income from Kpaul's relatives. It's been a running joke for quite awhile.

 

[pdad13]

Actually, according to the preliminary numbers, the SV does make a bit more power than the Hyosung right out of the box. Gemini Technologies did some work on the top end to extract some more power. But these are premilimary numbers, mind you.



Anyway, the engines should be close in performance because the same engineer was responsible for both the Suzuki and the Hyosung. They are very similar motors.

 

[pdad13]

Let me just add...

...something I forgot to mention. Hyosung's development facility is actually in Japan and is staffed by Japanese engineers. Not that should really make any difference. I give them credit for being aggressive.

Also, a little checking about the relative power of the engines of the SV650 and Comet 650 revealed higher claimed hp numbers than I originally saw for the Hyosung. Based on overseas articles, the Comet motor is claimed to make 79 hp (the preproduction model tested by one of the U.S. mags was claimed to make 69 or so). This would lead me to believe that the numbers for the MRX (77 hp and 51 foot-pounds of torque) could possibly be rear wheel numbers. But that's just a guess.

According to the reviews I saw, the Comet is very comparable to the SV. The only real weak points being less than spectacular front brakes and a wonky rear shock. The Comet is also a bit heavier due to the use of a steel frame. Oh, and very high praise for the engine.

 

[pdad13]

Re: Take a look at the SV650

In the U.S., Hyosungs are branded as Alphasports, or Alpha for short.

How do you think people felt about the name "Kawasaki" when it first appeared here? Or "Yamaha," or "Suzuki?"

I think that their best bet for this country is to go with the shortend "Alpha." Although, in the rest of the world, they go by Hyosung (pronounced h-YO-sung).

 

[pdad13]

Not lame at all

At least I don't think so. Take that for what it's worth.

Notice I didn't include Honda on my list of "Hey, we're the guys who bombed Pearl Harbor, remember?!" list of motorcycle brand names.

"Honda" isn't immediately recognizable as a Japanese name, and, at least on a sub-conscious level, was probably more acceptable in the U.S. during the time of introduction. Now, if Kawasaki was here first, I'm pretty sure they would have had a tougher sled than Honda. Suzuki is almost as bad. And Yamaha is probably the least potentially troubling, but I'm sure it sounded pretty weird to western ears at first.

P.S. I loved to watch "Hogan's Heroes" reruns. Part of its charm is how they shamelessly lampooned the Germans. I always wondered how people took that when the show originally aired.

 

[pdad13]

Re: Not lame at all on both counts.

Depends on your definition of competent. They were certainly competent to a point--they could have won the war. However, it was a number of stunningly bad decisions and misinterpretations that helped greatly to do them in. Plus, you could argue that their entire theory of world domination and the Thousand Year Reich was completely and hopelessly flawed.

Then let us remember that it wasn't only Hitler who bungled the war. Their military commanders were guilty of some awful strategic and tactical moves. In fact, although the Germans had a reputation as a formidable military power, they hadn't really won much. You've got to go back to the days of Prussia to find any real accomplishments, most of them defensive. Turns out that the mighty German war machine had an inherent flaw in its command structure. So while they had many talented military minds, the organization, many times, made them ineffectual.

That spells a certain kind of incompetence to me.

 

[pdad13]

Re: Not lame at all on both counts.

Well, let's see. The Nazi's had been building up their military at an alarming clip for most of the 30s while the England was making collection-agency calls for the WWI reparations, Chamberlin was playing patsy cake with Hitler, and the French were drinking wine behind the "impenetrable" Magenot Line. I think the Germans had the jump on the Allies, don't you? Hell, the U.S. was still using horse calvary up to the time we entered the war.

In fact, the Wehrmact was not the more competent army. They were effective to a degree. Strategically and tactically they were outsmarted at almost every turn. The rigid German command structure was too slow and politicized to be effective in the big picture. The Allies, particulary the Americans, allowed their officers, non-coms and even enlisted men to innovate and make decisions on the fly based on infomation they had in real time and to correct errors more quickly than the Germans in most situations.

The Germans should have smashed the British and French at Dunkirk. They let them get away. Then the Luftwaffe was shot to hell in the Battle of Britain, despite overwhelming numbers. D-Day was an unmitigated disaster. The Germans fell hook line and sinker for every ruse the Allies threw at them, wouldn't listen to Rommel (the only one who believed that the invasion was coming through Normandy) and then held two tank divisions in reserve instead of sending them towards the Allies. Best part, Rommel, "the genius" wasn't even there! He was in Germany at his wife's birthday party! He figured the Allies would never attack at low tide, so he thought he could take a few days off.

By the way, your assertion that the Germans were 1-10 underdogs in Italy is not really true. Defending forces only need a fraction of the forces of that of an attacking force. I would imagine that a defender's advantage would even increase in the event of a seaborn invasion.

As an attacking force will usually have more casuaties than a defending force (unless the attackers have an absolutely overwheming advantage), your 2:1 kill ratio doesn't mean much. And the massive German counter attack during the Battle of the Bulge resulted in a huge number of Allied dead and wounded, but was ultimately a last-gasp gambit.

I could go on and on, but I'll make one last point: Don't you think it was unwise to try and conquer an entire continent, and expect to occupy it forever, with the amount of men and material Germany could reasonably produce? They were doomed from the begining.

 

[pdad13]

Re: Not lame at all on both counts.

Sorry, can't agree. Given the conditions, geograhical features, and the highly defensible fortified positions of the flawed-but-still formidable Atlantic Wall, the Normandy invasion was no sure thing. Storming unprotected over an open beach with gun implacements reigning fire from high on the bluffs was a dangerous proposition no matter what.

The Germans had no one to blame but themselves for their lack of air power. They sqandered their air crews and equipment. The fact that they resorted to conscripting conquered Russians, Poles and Frenchmen (you forgot the French) because much of their better forces were mired in the disaster that was the Eastern Front, to me, seems to underscore a certain type of incompetence.

As much as you deride the "popular belief of Gringos and Limeys," there is also a certain mythology that has grown around the German military of WWII. For example, Rommel, was, in large part, a product of propaganda. His superiors viewed him as an excellent tactician, but impulsive and terrible with logisitics. This often undermined his "brilliance." In fact, he was soundly defeated in N. Africa, despite having far superior equipment and defensive advantages. Many members of the General Staff were sycophants or politicians. The command structure throughout much of the war was a mess. Field commanders were also not immune to mistakes, some of which contributed to the failures in Russia. (Contrary to popular belief, Hitler did not make all of those decisions.) And the Germans' military intelligence services were almost laughable.

Let's also give some credit to the Allies for the Herculean task of the D-Day invasion (amongst many other things.) The Mulberry harbors alone were a nearly incomprehensible feat, much less the planning and counter-intelligence that preceded June 6th.

And speculating about what could of happened teaches us nothing really about what did happen. England would have never agreed to peace. And even if the Germans had won the war, I doubt they would have been able to secure the whole of Europe and Russia by force for too long.

Forgive me, I'm not saying that the German military was ineffective, just that a clear asertation that they were a superior military force is not supportable. They didn't lose the war because they were better.

 

[pdad13]

Re: Not lame at all on both counts.

I'm assuming by "GW" you mean Churchill.

Oh, please. Whether Churchill was the lone voice or not makes not one bit of difference. But the fact is that Churchill was summoned to power by elements from all political parties, and supported by the public, as a REACTION to the failed Nazi-appeasement policies of Chamberlain. As long as he was running the show, the British were not going to surrender. They were holding out until the U.S. entered the war, despite what one cabinet member may have said.

And why do you keep insisting that the Germans were superior based on their early success? None of the allied nations were prepared for war. Britain was the least prepared. The Germans militarized when everyone else had gutted their millitaries, and then essentially sucker-punched Europe. With all of those advantages, they still managed to lose.

 

[pdad13]

Re: Not lame at all on both counts.

You know, I think we're looking at this from two different points of view. You are taking a very tactical view on things. Yes, the Germans were largely an excellent force in the field, but very short-term in their outlook. But I feel you are essentially counting body bags, which as us Americans learned so painfully in Vietnam, is not really how to win a war. However, from a stragegic point of view, which I prefer, the Germans had a number of fatal flaws. You also prefer to engage in supposition, like what if Churchill wasn't leading Britain? Well, to me, that is completely immaterial. You can't remove the strengths or weaknesses of one side or the other and then come to a definitive conclusion based on what didn't happen. And while it is interesting, and valid, to wonder what would or could of transpired, drawing conclusions from that alone is essentially revising history.

So, to end this debate on a consiliatory note, I would say that we are both correct to a degree, which was the point of my original post. If you'd like to get a taste of my view, read "Why the Germans Lose at War" by Kenneth Macksey. It's a very plodding read, ponderous at many points, but it's very comprehensive and worth reading if you're interested.