Agreed. They made stupid decisions with the bike that surrounded that motor.
They could have made a modern XR750 out of it and created a racing series around it, both dirt, pavement and maybe the rebirth of TT.
They could have put it into a good frame, with primo suspension and decent style and made a modern interpretation of a cafe racer.
They could have engaged an experienced designer/company and made an adventure bike with good suspension, long range and comfy ergonomics.
They could have put the engine in a standard style frame with comfy ergos, reasonable range, sensible controls and geometry and retro paint and style and appealed to new and returning riders.
All of these could have had extensive accessory catalogs to personalize them, maximize profitability and forge long-term customer loyalty.
Then they could have taken what they'd learned about MODERN motorcycle design, function, AND modern motorcycle consumers and come out with a range of new bikes based on the engine out of the Pan American for the customers/riders they cultivated and drew from other makes and thereby secured a new generation of customers, though different than the ones who more or (mostly) less "lust" after the +/- $40K mobility scooter.
But of course, they didn't do any of that. Why? Because that would have been hard work, and would have taken innovative thinking, delegation of responsibility, authority and accountability, collaboration across departments and with outside expertise, commitment and long range planning. In short - real, traditional LEADERSHIP, the kind of that looks beyond short-term shareholder value and quarter by quarter profitability targets. All characteristics and approaches that have been abandoned by 21st century corporate North America.
Instead they made $40k mobility scooters.
www.cbsnews.com
lol
