ruffriders
Well-known member
There’s a lot of profit along the way, the dealer probably takes 50% of that $40, then HD Canada gets a cut then HD USA will get some
Corporate 101, split your retained earnings between different corporations.
|
|
|
H-D has a new boss
- Thread starter TK4
- Start date
Corporate 101, split your retained earnings between different corporations.
BigEvilDoer
Well-known member
Sigh... why do HD enthusiasts never believe that the best motor they ever had was originally headed for Buell?
From Wikipedia, "The liquid-cooled Harley V-Rod motor, developed by Harley-Davidson then made street legal according to the EPA by Porsche,[citation needed] was originally an Erik Buell project, designed for a fully faired AMA Superbike Buell by 1998.[10] Harley decided the engine should also be used in a sport-cruiser, then took over development, making it "too big, too heavy, too expensive and too late" for Buell.[10]"
BigEvilDoer
Well-known member
Simply 'cause it was quick and easy to find. If you want to dig into it, be my guest!
nope, i'll wait for the naysayers.
Sounds like something from OAN. Those who watched the John Oliver bit on OAN a few weeks ago will get the joke.
Unless you just skip all those middlemen and order your stuff direct from China, copyrights and all that other stuff be damned. Seems to work for a lot of places around the world selling Harley T-Shirts in places that don't even have a HD dealer. Anyone who's ever been to the Caribbean for one example and saw the HD faithful buying $50 Tshirts emblazoned with city and island names (that don't even have a dealership) know what I mean.
pfbmgd
Well-known member
What Harley enthusiasts ? Harley dealers never pushed the vrod. One reason was most HD mechanics couldn't work on them . Usually one one mechanics per dealer was trained to work on them .
Using Wikipedia for information is like asking Trudeau to balance the budget .
Wikipedia:General disclaimer - Wikipedia
Wikipedia has a chance of being correct.Using Wikipedia for information is like asking Trudeau to balance the budget .
Wikipedia:General disclaimer - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I don't get the hatred for Wikipedia.
Yes, it can be edited by anyone and as a result is subject to wrong info...but that seldom happens for anything length of time because there's a large percentage of users who are quick to revert problem edits. I've seen it happen in as a little as minutes.
On the flipside, a website full of blatantly wrong info is never subject to correction.
Secondly, any claims made in a Wikipedia article that doesn't contain citations to back it up end up with those claims clearly labeled as missing such allowing the reader to use some critical thinking (assuming they have such) to realize that what they're reading isn't substantiated.
Theres a lot of HD stuff and logos that no longer copyrighted, the HD shield is famous, but no longer protected. Many brands do this. You can print all the HD stuff you like in two or three fonts and logos, copyright was dropped years ago.
pfbmgd
Well-known member
I have no hate for the site . But they tell you themselves not to use it as fact . It is a fantasy land where anyone can post anything as truth .
pfbmgd
Well-known member
Just like me winning the lottery .
And the internet in general is different how, exactly?
Honestly, at least Wikipedia is subject to the masses, and thankfully, the smart still outweigh the stupid there. Take a good factually complete article and add in bogus edits and it'll be reverted in short order to delete the garbage you injected. Continue to do so and you'll get banned. Come back and try again and the article will get temporarily locked to prevent the issue until the edit trolls get bored and move on.
Meanwhile every mommy blog and chemtrail flat earther has their own website for which they are effectively "God" speaking to the world and they are untouchable.
pfbmgd
Well-known member
Sure you believe that if you want . No self respecting person quotes the Wiki . It is the easiest to get fake facts from .
They tell you themselves not to trust them . yet you are defending them .
Wikipedia:General disclaimer - Wikipedia
My public statement on GTAM:
Harley Davidson is going bankrupt in the next 7 days and the brand is being bought by the Chinese, my brothers uncle third cousin who works at a HD Dealer told me.
See the irony here?
Now, the Wikipedia version of that statement gives the 999 out of 1000 members here who know that's a pile of steaming BS the power to edit my post to either correct my blatantly wrong info, or stick one of these under it to notify the rest of the population that it's a BS statement.
You didn't answer my question. The internet in general is different, how?
If I made a website called www.harleydavidsonisbankrupt.com and posted a page there with my statement on it nobody can do anything to debate, question, or correct what I post there. I'm God. What I say I thereby declare as fact.
On Wikipedia, not so much.
"Honestly, at least Wikipedia is subject to the masses, and thankfully, the smart still outweigh the stupid there."
You're kidding right?
In a university setting a student isn't allowed to use Wikipedia as a source, at least they weren't when I did my post graduate ending in 2015.
One of the biggest reasons for that is because it's lazy - students fail to actually do any work sourcing the data...IE, every students data is sourced from the same x number of websites linked from a Wikipedia article on the topic at hand instead of actually researching the topic and getting their own data from the variety of sources out there versus the ones the Wikipedia rabbit hole leads you to.
You seem to assume that the majority of Wikipedia articles on the site are rife with misinformation. That's simply not the case. Are there exceptions to that rule? Absolutely. Does it mean the site as a whole is to be discounted as "junk" accordingly? Absolutely not. It's up to the reader to validate ANYTHING they read online no matter it's source, but with few exceptions I've found Wikipedia articles to be quite factual, and yes, I do vet things...which is actually super easy on Wikipedia since authors need to post links to their sources.
I could go find 100 Wikipedia articles on different models of motorcycles I'd trust that the info one would find there would be valid because there's no reason anyone would flub any of it, and it's also fact checked by millions of other enthusiasts complete with citations should someone choose to knowingly post invalid info, or vandalize an entry for some strange reason.
To the contrary I don't have that much faith in a lot of websites out there to give me that same level of factual info. I once ordered a front tire for my last bike based on a cursory and too quick Google search. Found out a few months later when I went to go get it installed it was the wrong size. I've posted about how great Fortnine was returning that tire for me a few times here even though it was effectively my own mistake because I just blindly believed what I found online at that moment in time.
ruffriders
Well-known member
I thought this was a thread about apple products ?
Oddly enough for being an HD thread it's been all over the map on actual topics, hasn't it? lol
|
|
|
|
|