Kawasaki Vulcan Forum banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
wocka, wocka, wocka
Joined
·
5,618 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
YIKES!:eek: just saw the new Scout at www.Indianmotorcycles.com and it is the fugliest thing I'd ever seen. How could injun make such a horrendous confabulation of squared off alum n tin? Puke!
It looks like victory had sex with:confused: ? and this is the result bastard child:skeleton:
 

Attachments

·
wocka, wocka, wocka
Joined
·
5,618 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I see what you mean. Kind of rough but it is 11 grand. The new Roadmaster looks like a serious long rang cruiser.
tinks,, so 11 large is suppose to make up for that it resembles a pile of dog pooh?
am not sure what Indian is thinking here? the scout was the tech edge of the old line,, so are they forgoing traditional style for edgey tech?.. if so, I think they need a clean sheet of paper and a new krew to pencil in the details, this thing sux!

and the RoadMaster is 4 grand more than the cheiftain, what do you get for your extra 4 large? a big tour box is nice. butt those uglee leg gators are stupid. 27k msrp, bet this goes out the door closer to 30. makes my 14 chieftain look like a bargain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
953 Posts
YIKES!:eek: just saw the new Scout at www.Indianmotorcycles.com and it is the fugliest thing I'd ever seen. How could injun make such a horrendous confabulation of squared off alum n tin? Puke!
It looks like victory had sex with:confused: ? and this is the result bastard child:skeleton:
Ponch, I have to disagree with you on this one. I kind of like it.;)
 
J

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I rode a Scout last Saturday morning at Sturgis, here's my less-than-expert opinion of it written after the ride.

Ok, here's the poop from this morning's Scout test ride at Sturgis. In a nutshell, the bike is very nice, and generally impressive to ride. I don't really like it's styling, but Indian doesn't care, I don't represent the market for this bike anyway.

It's visually much smaller from the saddle than it's spec numbers would indicate, you very much sit on the bike, rather than 'in it. The 'factory guys' there were explaining in the pre-ride meeting how it's amendable to a wide range of rider heights, offering differing foot control sets, handlebars, and seat options to accommodate riders from 5',0" to well over 6 ft. As is, the seat height is almost stupid low at a bit over 25 inches. This ergonomic flexibility feature is brilliant from a marketing standpoint.

During the pre-ride 'safety' meeting, someone in the rider group asked how much fuel it's tank held, and the factory guy said 3.3 gallons, to which I quipped 'Ironically, the same as the Sportster", and I added that that would make it a '100 mile bike', not really meaning it as a complement, and the factory guy said that "yes, it's a 100 mile bike", as if that was a good thing. I then asked why Indian made the tank so small, and that 4.5 gallons would be more useful. He said that they wanted to keep the weight low for entry-level riders for easy handling and all that crap, which is fine, and I stopped my questioning there, but common sense would tell you that if you are uncomfortable with the weight of 4.5 gallons, there's no law against only putting 3.3 gallons in the thing, keeping that weight just as low as the 3.3 gallon tank would, and then you'd have the option of filling it to capacity for longer rides. But I suppose that makes too much sense. I noted that some of the taller male rider's knees were actually above the top of the fuel tank.

The engine is very quiet, at least it seemed to be in the noisy-as-hell Sturgis 'environment', and it's a slick booger of a mill, smooth throughout the rev range, and the bike is quite powerful, though it's sort of a multiple personality motor that is very mild and tractable at low speeds and rpms, but comes nicely alive when revved up. The transmission is great. For a cruiser with forward controls, the shift-lever throw is short and positive with no clunking or gnashing. It's a six speed with what I assume is an overdrive for the top cog, it handled the 75 mph interstate segment of the test route very nicely, and when romping the bike a bit on I-90's entrance ramp it takes off and runs, with a definite spike in power in the upper rpm ranges. It likes to rev.
The front brake is a single disc, and adequate, but nothing to write home about. The clutch is very light, and engages over a relatively long span of lever travel, making for easy take-offs from stop signs, etc. The throttle is also very light in effort, but it's no 1/4 turn throttle and requires a lot of rotational movement to get things cooking, I imagine that this is deliberate so as to not intimidate novice riders, something that 'the factory guys' kept hammering on during the pre-ride orientation meeting.

It's more than obvious to me that Indian is going all out to attract entry-level, shorter riders, and especially women riders with this model, and they may have scored a direct hit in that regard. There's just no way that anyone would opt for a Sportster over the Scout if given an educated choice and they haven't been hoplessly addicted to the Harley Kool-Aid. The Scout I rode makes the Sportsters seem like stone axes by comparison, (and remember, I own a 1200 Sportster) and I don't doubt for a second that Indian's intention with the Scout is to take a huge chunk of that market, and in the case of the Scout, deservedly so. The only reason to buy a Sportster over a Scout is if you simply want a true classic, iconic, American Motorcycle and nothing else will do, but the Scout is by leaps and bounds a better motorcycle than any Sportster ever dreamed of being....it's just too bad it's so damned ugly.

Enough blather, here's some photos of this morning's Scout adventure at Sturgis...








 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,349 Posts
Well, different strokes I guess. I like the looks of it, but I like to carry stuff, so I want to see what some saddlebags look like on it. I like the looks of the seat.
 
J

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
The original Indian company dabbled in more than V-twins, they had a vertical, parallel twin for a brief time too. As long as they were starting off with a clean sheet of paper with the development of a modern rendition of the Scout, they could just as easily have developed something very, very cool along the lines of the Super Scout model 249 like this 1949 example. These old Super Scouts were only 440cc's, but something a bit more Triumph-like than Harley-like might have had me listing a few of my current motorcycles to fund buying a 2015 Super Scout 900 from Indian.



I would guess that going the V-twin route was determined to be 'safer' as far as acceptance by the Harley/Chief quadrant was concerned, and those are the guys currently spending the kid's inheritance on their bucket-list toys.





JB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,068 Posts
This skoot's got the Vic forums riled like a kicked anthill. EVERYONE in Camp Polaris thought this was gonna be a Victory, right from the get-go with the concept drawings and the patent Polaris filed for the 1200cc water-cooled motor. When it dropped and turned out to be the new Scout, confusion abounded, then paranoia as Victory also has dropped 6 models from the 2015 lineup. A lot of guys are thinking Polaris is gonna do Vic like they done the watercraft division some years back.

Just as many guys are thinking Polaris will rebadge the motor and drop it into an entry-level Victory a la the way Detroit likes to handle things.

I don't particularly subscribe to either of these theories. Based on the results of the last few years' unveilings, I imagine some of the absent models in the Vic selection will intermittently reappear. And Victory advertising has really spooled up. I suppose only time will tell. But to relegate Victory to the status of Chrysler or Pontiac would be pretty silly, I think. they can still continue to offer what they offer, Indian and Victory both, without stepping on each others' toes.

As for the Scout itself, well, it ain't my flavor. Looks a bit on the dinky side. The motor is about as visually appealing as (and remarkably reminiscent of) the VN750 motor. I feel that if you're not gonna make the motor on a cruiser the jewel of the bike, you oughtta just tuck it behind some carefully molded plastic or something. Could be worse, I suppose. Fat front tire means I won't have to vette one out, cuz the wife likes her chopper look. Not sure about the outboard suspension, don't care for the look myself, but as long as it delivers, that's what matters. It seems (based on my rather superficial research) to be a very serious competitor for the 1200 Sporty with superior power and engineering.

But it seems to be a reasonably well-put-together bike. The motor makes great numbers. Polaris engineering has proven itself for being solid thus far, i suspect this entry shall be no different. the price is quite attractive, being only a couple Gs more than a VN900 or a Star Bolt and a couple Gs less than a Honda VTX series. And it's already getting a storm of good press.

Indian's certainly picking up a lot of steam, that's for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Not sure why people think it looks ugly, I think it looks great. The 900 custom I own looks goofy from some angles. But I like the take on this bike.

I like the engine on this. Finally a cruiser without a stupidly low amount of power from a large engine. Not sure why companies don't put engines with good power in their cruisers. Hell, why can't a 900 twin make 100hp? Not the barely 50 in my bike?

The only things I wish this bike had were the following:

Inverted forks with the ability to adjust them (sport bike stuff).
Suspension in the rear with ability to adjust
Twin discs up front with good calipers (akin to the Star Warrior 1700)

I am seriously looking forward to seeing if they use this engine/frame in other models. In another year or so, I am looking to upgrading. My normal rides are about 100 or less miles. So a small tank doesn't bother me. The roads I live around are twisty.

Maybe I will say screw it and get a Ducati Diavel...
 
J

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Not sure why people think it looks ugly, I think it looks great.
I don't think it's ugly, but right off the bat I can say that for my tastes it has too much matte black on it, which when combined with the subdued paint colors just makes for a generally drab appearance. I don't like super-low seating that requires forward foot controls, stupidly small fuel capacity tanks, or the sensation of sitting way up on top of a bike rather than 'in' it.

The low-mounted headlight, fuel tank shape, and pull-back handlebars remind me of the Yamaha Warrior, another bike I don't care much for the looks of.

Otherwise, it's great! ;)
 

·
wocka, wocka, wocka
Joined
·
5,618 Posts
Discussion Starter #14 (Edited)
choices.. we have plenty.

Not sure why people think it looks ugly, I think it looks great. The 900 custom I own looks goofy from some angles. But I like the take on this bike.

I like the engine on this. Finally a cruiser without a stupidly low amount of power from a large engine. Not sure why companies don't put engines with good power in their cruisers. Hell, why can't a 900 twin make 100hp? Not the barely 50 in my bike?

The only things I wish this bike had were the following:

Inverted forks with the ability to adjust them (sport bike stuff). Suspension in the rear with ability to adjust
Twin discs up front with good calipers (akin to the Star Warrior 1700)

I am seriously looking forward to seeing if they use this engine/frame in other models. In another year or so, I am looking to upgrading. My normal rides are about 100 or less miles. So a small tank doesn't bother me. The roads I live around are twisty.

Maybe I will say screw it and get a Ducati Diavel...
bl,, sometimes writing down our thoughts allows them to crystalize. what you want/need is a SPORT bike not a cruiser.. The Ducks are X'lent for this kinda work. Get the Rite tool for the rite job!

I just picked me up another project bike.. will spend some time on her to see what personality she has so I can bring out the best in her. Meet Gertrude aka Gert the Goose. at 400lbs, am envisioning some back roads, maybe dirt n gravel mix? solo, I imagine. nobody wants to ride in a cloud of dust,, poncho
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
As a VN750 rider since '93, I like it's engine. In fact I like the whole bike. A lot. That is why I have put 180,000 miles on 2 brand new ones. Now I have nothing against Harley, in fact I like them. But if I had wanted a Harley when I bought the Vulcan 750, I would have got one. I love the VN750s powerband, and the fact that it does not look like a Harley, as most newer Japanese bikes seem to.

Yamaha introduced the Bolt to compete with the 883 Sportster, but it looks to much like a Sportster to me, and cost the same. Might as well get the real thing. Not sure how I feel about this new Scout yet, but one thing is for sure. It DOES NOT look like a Harley.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
bl,, sometimes writing down our thoughts allows them to crystalize. what you want/need is a SPORT bike not a cruiser.. The Ducks are X'lent for this kinda work. Get the Rite tool for the rite job!

I just picked me up another project bike.. will spend some time on her to see what personality she has so I can bring out the best in her. Meet Gertrude aka Gert the Goose. at 400lbs, am envisioning some back roads, maybe dirt n gravel mix? solo, I imagine. nobody wants to ride in a cloud of dust,, poncho
I am not a fan of sport bikes. Then when you look at modern technology and then look at cruisers, they are lacking. Very few offer anything that is modern. Why not adjustability in the suspension? Why not modern engines? Why not lighter weight?

The only bike that I like that is considered sport bike is the ducati diavel... But that is a 18k bike. And adding bags to it for a trip is difficult.

The scout is in the right direction, similar to the guzzi. Hopefully more modern crusiers will start popping up.
 
J

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I am not a fan of sport bikes. Then when you look at modern technology and then look at cruisers, they are lacking. Very few offer anything that is modern. Why not adjustability in the suspension? Why not modern engines? Why not lighter weight?
Here's my semi-sarcastic take on why cruisers are what they generally are.

It's generational, and to many riders, 'cruiser' means anti-modern, 'retro' motorcycles configured in the classic Harley 'template'. As for suspension, all anyone really wants is a soft ride and an engine that thumps a lot, and sounds powerful without really being powerful (relatively). Weight, for the most part, doesn't matter if the seating is low enough and the rider can plant their feet flat on the ground.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
I don't think it looks like an indian but I don't think it's ugly. I think it's a great looking redesign to try and appeal to a newer and younger crowd. Chrome and bling are no longer appealing to the newest generation. The matte paint and blacked out stealth fighter look are the NEW chrome. It honestly looks comfortable and smooth to me. I'd be proud to own one. Some scallops or sickle shaped fender side stripes would really set this one off. I can't imagine what saddlebags could be offered though. Leather wouldn't get it and hard bags would maybe have to have sharp lines on the top and sides similar to the fuel tank and be slim in design. The exhaust screams to be a 2 into 1 pipe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
I ride a Vulcan 750, designed in the early '80s, and consider it to be a modern cruiser. In some ways too modern. It's engine looks automotive, and performs more like an inline four. It lacks the sound and feel I think a cruiser should have. I use mine for a touring bike, and it works fine for that, in fact it works great. I have 92,000 miles on it, almost all highway.

For a real retro riding experience, I bought a 2013 Royal Enfield B5 a few months ago, and love it. It looks, sounds, and feels the way I think a motorcycle should. But I don't know how comfortable (or reliable) it would be on a long trip. Many years ago, I had a '97 Harley Road King. To me it was exactly what a cruiser should be. But a big part of what I liked about it (the sound and vibration) also made it less than ideal for a touring bike.

As for modern technology, I have a strong dislike of anything computerized on a motorcycle. New cars are computer everything, and motorcycles are my escape from that. I especially dislike EFI, and wouldn't even ride a bike with ABS, as it takes away control of the bike from me and gives it to a computer. My Royal Enfield will have it's EFI replaced by a carb in the not too distant future. I've had a few minor issues with the Vulcan 750's carbs, but at least I can work on them.

I would like to see cruisers have shaft drive, centerstands, and tubeless tires again. I won't ride a bike out of town if I can't fix a flat tire. I learned that the hard way. At least the Scout has tubeless tires, unlike the Chief. Better suspension would be good as well. The Scout seems to have a cheapness to it, which I guess is to be expected at it's price, but it looks 10 times better than Harley's new Street series.

Oh yeah, I hate sport bikes big time. At 55 with severe arthritis I can't even get on one. And they get ridden like crazy around here. They have a very bad reputation. Their riders complain that cops harass them, but I rarely ever see one that is not at least seriously speeding, most of them could get busted for reckless driving.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top