[SamBlob]

First of all, I wonder why you didn't put in a link to your "museum" article on restoring a '48 Chief ( http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mcmuseum/dt-chief.html )

A few quotes grabbed my attention:

"Much to our surprise, the Chief sounded a lot closer to a 650 cc Yamaha V Star we recently tested than any Harley."

"Small compared to today's cruisers, the 550 pound Indian maneuvered with surprising ease and perfect balance."

Doesn't this suggest that the current "nostalgia" cruisers are somewhat off the mark? For the W650 and the new Bonneville to be heavier than the '60s British twins they emulate is one thing, for cruisers to be bigger and heavier than the "big bikes" of yore is a bit ridiculous IMO.

 

[SamBlob]

Re: Good example of a bad bike

Hm...the Cadillac OHV V-8 came out in '49, Ford didn't go OHV 'til the mid-50s, H-D was still making WL bikes and didn't make a small OHV until the '57 Sportster...side valves may not have been state-of-the-art in 1947, but they were rather more the rule than the exception...

H-D's first rear suspension appeared on the K-series in '52, and the big bikes didn't have them until the Duo Glide of the late '50s or early '60s. The "state of the art" at the time was probably Triumph's "sprung hub", which was next to worthless.

OTOH, Indian had a bike with rear suspension in 1913 and one with rear suspension and electric start in 1914, but the ideas exceeded the technology (and maybe the market) at the time.

The manual ignition advance might have tradition holding Indian back somewhat. Indian had twist-grip advance from the Teens or before.

Indian was about sport and glamour, H-D was about transport and utility. I would much rather an old Chief than a new one, which isn't much of anything, really.

 

[SamBlob]

If you think the new Chief is bad, take a look at the Scout! What a POS! The original Scouts were smaller, nimbler bikes than the Chiefs and were sporting machines in their day. To call a stripped-down Chief a Scout is a disgrace!