Posts: 23,467
Threads: 697
Likes Received: 576 in 259 posts
Likes Given: 754
Joined: Apr 2025
(11-17-2014, 02:20 AM)Django_imp Wrote: Well, there is no relationship at all to the historical Indian, which was closed already 1953. This is just a marketing trial, to reuse this famous brand to get a foot into the door of the motorcycle market by Polaris.
I apologize for sounding off against Indian, however, for me this is just a fake.
Django I have said the same thing many times here and on MotorcycleDaily.com, and I always get a tongue lashing for saying so.
but .....
To me to be claiming they are the oldest motorcycle company, to have "Indian since 1901" stamped in to their cases and air cleaners is a slap in the face of motorcycling history. Polaris Indian cases should say "Indian since 2013."
and Bloor's Triumphs (at least they had the courtesy to change the Triumph logo) should say since 1991.
oops, off soap box now..again
Posts: 1,218
Threads: 71
Likes Received: 126 in 35 posts
Likes Given: 20
Joined: Apr 2025
(11-17-2014, 02:31 AM)The ferret_imp Wrote: (11-17-2014, 02:20 AM)Django_imp Wrote: Well, there is no relationship at all to the historical Indian, which was closed already 1953. This is just a marketing trial, to reuse this famous brand to get a foot into the door of the motorcycle market by Polaris.
I apologize for sounding off against Indian, however, for me this is just a fake.
Django I have said the same thing many times here and on MotorcycleDaily.com, and I always get a tongue lashing for saying so.
but .....
To me to be claiming they are the oldest motorcycle company, to have "Indian since 1901" stamped in to their cases and air cleaners is a slap in the face of motorcycling history. Polaris Indian cases should say "Indian since 2013."
and Bloor's Triumphs (at least they had the courtesy to change the Triumph logo) should say since 1991.
oops, off soap box now..again
Funny thing is, I had written something like this already in my other posting, but removed it before posting, as I didn't want to open just another can.
Posts: 102
Threads: 2
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jun 2013
<SNIP>
The Ferret wrote;
To me to be claiming they are the oldest motorcycle company, to have "Indian since 1901" stamped in to their cases and air cleaners is a slap in the face of motorcycling history. Polaris Indian cases should say "Indian since 2013."
<SNIP>
[/quote]
I think it would add to the cool factor if Indian had been in continuous business from 1903 until now. But we can't go back and change history.
Just to draw a parallel, Cadillac was bought out by General Motors in 1909, and Lincoln was purchased by Ford Motor Co. in 1922. Could purists claim that these cars aren't real Cadillacs & Lincolns?
~ The Bee
Posts: 3,872
Threads: 186
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2013
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the name Indian is the oldest US brand. Many brands have been resurrected in the past, Triumph included and others such as Brough and Norton. Who can blame Polaris for using a slogan claiming to be America's oldest bike company. It's simply good marketing.
Beauty is in the beholder's eye we would all agree and I found the Scout a very handsome bike, better than any similar priced cruiser IMO. The motor is very handsome, without the bogus fins that adorn it's liquid cooled competitors. Even the radiator shroud is artfully done being cast in aluminum as an integral part of the frame. The styling is not meant to be retro but an evolution of the style that the original Scout may have taken if the company had not dissolved.
Finally, beauty is as beauty does. This bike breaks out of the typical cruiser mold by exhibiting outstanding handling, engine performance and weight management compared to other liquid cooled cruisers. I just wish it was a standard like our CB's.
Posts: 23,467
Threads: 697
Likes Received: 576 in 259 posts
Likes Given: 754
Joined: Apr 2025
Mike nobody is dismissing what Polaris is doing. It's a great thing. I wish them well too. I hope they are a huge success. Yes, we all benefit.
But as a motorcycle history buff, it is my contention, you can't buy history, you have to earn it. Like I said if they claimed Indian since 2013, hey I'd agree with that. That's when they bought the name.
Harley has been in continuous business since 1903. Same folks, same family (sort of) have been either running it or working there the whole time. That's history.
There isn't a shred of linkage between the old Indian, and the new Indian. Not the building, not the tooling, not the engineers, not the management, not a single worker that was there when the plant closed 60 years prior.
My father rode Indians until 1952, started on an Indian. If he were still with us, he would say these new bikes are not really Indians. They are Polaris's. he may LIKE these new bikes, but he would say there's no Indian blood running in their veins.
I couldn't marry George Washington's great great great great..... granddaughter and then claim it was my family that crossed the Delaware. I had nothing to do with it. Not the same blood running through my veins. Same with Polaris Indian.
Again, you cannot purchase history.
Has nothing to do whether Polaris is a good company, whether they are making great motorcycles, or whether they even call them Indians (they bought the right to do just that). They just can't claim 112 years of heritage that isn't theirs to claim IMO. Polaris/Indian since 2013 is their right.
to answer your question
"Just to draw a parallel, Cadillac was bought out by General Motors in 1909, and Lincoln was purchased by Ford Motor Co. in 1922. Could purists claim that these cars aren't real Cadillacs & Lincolns?"
a better parallel line would be if Cadillac and Lincoln both went out of business in 1909 and 1922. In 2013 Hundai bought the naming rights and started making cars and calling them Cadillac and Lincolns. Would people still consider them so?
" I think it would add to the cool factor if Indian had been in continuous business from 1903 until now. But we can't go back and change history."
I think you mean 1901, but I agree .... or buy it IMO
Posts: 16,282
Threads: 346
Likes Received: 831 in 458 posts
Likes Given: 970
Joined: Apr 2025
(11-17-2014, 04:53 AM)The ferret_imp Wrote: Mike nobody is dismissing what Polaris is doing. It's a great thing. I wish them well too. I hope they are a huge success. Yes, we all benefit.
But as a motorcycle history buff, it is my contention, you can't buy history, you have to earn it. Like I said if they claimed Indian since 2013, hey I'd agree with that. That's when they bought the name.
Harley has been in continuous business since 1903. Same folks, same family (sort of) have been either running it or working there the whole time. That's history.
There isn't a shred of linkage between the old Indian, and the new Indian. Not the building, not the tooling, not the engineers, not the management, not a single worker that was there when the plant closed 60 years prior.
My father rode Indians until 1952, started on an Indian. If he were still with us, he would say these new bikes are not really Indians. They are Polaris's. he may LIKE these new bikes, but he would say there's no Indian blood running in their veins.
I couldn't marry George Washington's great great great great..... granddaughter and then claim it was my family that crossed the Delaware. I had nothing to do with it. Not the same blood running through my veins. Same with Polaris Indian.
Again, you cannot purchase history.
Has nothing to do whether Polaris is a good company, whether they are making great motorcycles, or whether they even call them Indians (they bought the right to do just that). They just can't claim 112 years of heritage that isn't theirs to claim IMO. Polaris/Indian since 2013 is their right.
to answer your question
"Just to draw a parallel, Cadillac was bought out by General Motors in 1909, and Lincoln was purchased by Ford Motor Co. in 1922. Could purists claim that these cars aren't real Cadillacs & Lincolns?"
a better parallel line would be if Cadillac and Lincoln both went out of business in 1909 and 1922. In 2013 Hundai bought the naming rights and started making cars and calling them Cadillac and Lincolns. Would people still consider them so?
" I think it would add to the cool factor if Indian had been in continuous business from 1903 until now. But we can't go back and change history."
I think you mean 1901, but I agree .... or buy it IMO
I know this may be pedantic, but that analogy doesn't quite work, does it? If Hyundai bought Cadillac and Lincoln naming rights, it might make some unhappy, but it would not be quite the same as if they then claimed to have been churning them out since 1900 (or whenever).
It seems to me that's what Polaris is trying to get people to believe: that a they've just taken over a brand that's been churning out bikes since 1901. It's simply not true.
Posts: 23,467
Threads: 697
Likes Received: 576 in 259 posts
Likes Given: 754
Joined: Apr 2025
Yes Cormanus , not pedantic at all. I just thought that was implied in this instance, and was my point exactly.
Posts: 1,020
Threads: 51
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2013
Triumph has a slightly better case for their 'since 1902' claim. John Bloor bought the remnants of the company months after bankruptcy in '83, and turned the manufacturing rights to the Bonnie over to Les Harris. Harris produced a limited number of Bonnies every year through '89 while Bloor was building the new factory and designing the new bikes, which were displayed at Cologne in 1990. So, with only one full year when a Triumph was not being produced, there is certainly more continuity than Indian.
Posts: 5,040
Threads: 137
Likes Received: 167 in 66 posts
Likes Given: 82
Joined: May 2013
I don't know, Polaris bought the brand and are, from what I can tell, trying to resurrect a brand once known for quality and performance with bikes that harken back to that era, but which are unique in their own right. They seem to have accomplished this resurrection when previous attempts have failed. I don't really think they are trying to fool anyone by using 1902 (or whatever it is). I think they are just trying demonstrate that the new Indians will be built with that heritage in mind. As far as I can tell, they've built two really good motorcycles. I hope they can build on those accomplishments.
Posts: 3,093
Threads: 64
Likes Received: 6 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 7
Joined: May 2013
The Indian name stands for something in peoples minds. If Polaris can honor that image by producing a bike that the Old Indian company "might" be producing today if it could have stuck around and have people buy into that dream; well then, it's an Indian (unlike the over priced S&S engine boat anchors built under the Indian name that came before).
I don't see Polaris claiming anything that is not true (after all, they are not saying it was in production since 1901 or that they owned the company back then), are producing a darn good machine - OK, the Scout is not really dear to me - but I have not ridden one yet.
I'd like to see Crocker and Henderson come back too. Crocker was known as a performance bike so if Polaris bought the Crocker name for a hot rod V-twin line, instead of rebadging a Victory or Indian I think the spirit of the bike would be there; if not the linage.
Since I'm dreaming here; I'd love to see a modern (but not too modern) take on the Sunbeam S7. A Gentemans' Touring Bike. 
|
