This guy just doesn't get it. (Check out the link below)
"I can't think of any scenario where a rider needs the power output of the Rocket III's 2.3 liter engine. That engine would be just fine in a small car, and is complete excess in a motorcycle."
I don't know about the rest of you, but gas mileage was not my thought when I got the Rocket. If you want gas mileage get a unicycle if you want fun get a Rocket.
"Bikes like the Concours 14 and Triumph Rocket III show that buyers want bike engines in their bikes. Those big engines do come with big power, and that's fine. There is no problem with having a high performance vehicle. The problem with cars is that those cars are used for purposes where that power simply is not needed. On a much smaller scale, the same is true of bikes - I can't think of any scenario where a rider needs the power output of the Rocket III's 2.3 liter engine."
Makes perfect sense to him anyway. "Bikes like...show that buyers want bike engines in their bikes". Did I miss something? From where does he draw that conclusion?
"Their is no problem with having a high performance vehicle...I can't think (apparently not) of any scenario where a rider needs the power...of the Rocket III..." Say that again slowly.
"The problem with cars is that ...used for purposes where that power is simply not needed" In other words, if you have 140hp or 147feet pounds of torque - ride it like it was stolen
What a dirt bag! He'd no doubt he be happy if we all adopted his primary mode of transportation: a Whizzer