To me it seems ridiculous in the extreme. But, I figure some people would want this bike, either for investment or other reasons.
I will state here that this info won’t be used in the assignment, all our info must be referenced, and I don’t think a messageboard counts!
So, back to the question:
If you could afford it, would you buy this $250,000 motorbike? Would you buy something else with the money?
Please, with your answer give your gender and age range of (14-20) (21-35) (36-45) (46-64) (65+). Also, the reason you would like it.
I am of the opinion this product is very hard to market. Examples of products given to other groups to market include a new type of fridge, a new children’s toy and a new dating service.
Ok, I’ll just clarify something. It’s the motorbike we’re marketing. It’s not a Dodge motorbike. It’s exactly the same bike, but it’s New Company’s Bike.
And then, only because (and you had damn well better use this brilliant insight in your assignment) the Tomahawk’s design is clearly influenced by Tron.
Look at it. If you removed the outer shell from a light cycle and you’d get something that looks a heck of a lot like the Tomahawk.
It’s not easy. The best approach would be to look at the things that would get someone to fork over a similiar amount of money for a Lambourghini Diablo and park it in the garage. Maybe take it out for a hour or so a year.
You have to promote it on the basis of it’s extreme engineering. On the uniqueness of the vehicle. The the rarity of it, and the select few in the world who could possibly afford to own it.
How many people in the US own a Porsche 959? The people who have bought those and can’t drive them anywhere are the people who would also be the target market for this motorcycle (is it still a motorcycle when it has four tires?).
It’s not just the cost or silliness of the cycle, you’re selling the exclusivity of being one of the lucky few that COULD and WOULD own it.
(No I wouldn’t buy it. I’d spend the money on a bigger piece of land on my island. M, 36-45)
Hmmm. Nope. And I really seriously like motorcycles… The thing is lacking in those thing that make a motorcycle worth owning in my eyes: Agility, maneuverability - even beauty. It is hardly even a motorcycle.
Even if I had $250.000 to spend on collectible motorcycles, I wouldn’t go that route. If you look at what that sum would buy you of very attractive and exotic classics - Ducati, Bimota, MV Agusta - hold me, I’m getting weak-kneed here - the Dodge seems like a gold-plated bulldozer. Sort of pretty, certainly unique, but basically speaking rather useless for its intended purpose.
I think you’re right. The Lamborghini Diablo or Porsche mentioned are rare, expensive and impractical, but they’re absolutely outstanding cars when it comes to power and handling. This thing doesn’t really do what motorcycles are supposed to do… Oh, M, 36-45.
You could build one a lot cheaper with a regular engine such as a Chevy 350 V-8, but as far as US laws are concerned, it is not a motorcycle because it has four wheels. It would have to meet all safety regulations of cars, such as safety glass, bumpers, airbags or automatic seatbelts, crash standards, etc. In the US, there are lots of requirements for cars, and very few for motorcycles.
You could, however, sidestep all that by re-designing it with only three wheels. Interesting to note that the Euro kit-cars that have three wheels, some do have very good handling (even compared to 4-wheel cars), and nearly all use two wheels in front and one behind.
~
It has a top speed of 300+ MPH. With that kind of power, I’d set my sites on an international market. Germans businessmen who wish to zip down the autobahn. Sheiks who can make their own rules.
This isn’t about need. No one NEEDS a motorcycle. This is about want. You have to make them want this. For a quarter million, you have to make them drool over this. This is about envy. You want to present this in a way that not only will the purchaser’s friends be jealous, they’ll be wondering how to get one themselves.
But they’re also looking for an investment. Sure, motorcycles aren’t houses, but they want to know that this thing is going to be just as desirable in five years if they want to get rid of it. Show projected depreciation rates…or appreciation rates if you’re feeling creative enough.
Nope, I wouldn’t buy it because my wife would leave me (not because of the money, she just hates bikes, after having worked as a nurse putting people back together after bike accidents).
It does look damn cool though (Tron anyone?), but I don’t want one.
Not a chance. I’ve been riding for more than twenty years, and hope to keep riding until they bury me. I’ve owned lots of bikes. But. . . even if I won the lottery tomorrow, I wouldn’t buy this thing. Because, well, it’s not a motorcycle. It’s completely non-functional. There is no way in hell this thing can turn. Look at it. Aren’t there any engineering students at your school who could explain why this just won’t work?
I’m with Mangetout, the amphibacar is a better deal. Or even one of the ground effect airplanes.
Still, I can tell you from personal knowledge that there are people who would buy this. And park it in their garage, maybe starting it up (but not riding it) once in awhile to show how loud it is.
To further comment on the 959 and Diablo, they are not by any stretch of the imagination, practical cars. Most of the Ferrari would also go in this category. Sure, on open roads, with no luggage and no traffic they are extremely fun. (but so are the more practical TT, NSX, 926, Aston’s, etc).
Try driving one in rush hour (i.e. stop and go) traffic. Would you ever feel comfortable having one parked in a public lot? (I speak with having friends with a Diablo and Z8 and various flavours of Porsche, and (them) having previously owned Ferrari’s).
Male, 46. (The main reason I’m posting is to express a little mild consternation over the age ranges you’ve given us: 46-64? For marketing purposes, I’m in the same range as 64-year-olds? Oh well. Beats being a teenager.)
I love motorcycles, but that one just doesn’t fit the description of what I think a motorcycle should be. If I had $250,000 in spare change, I’d buy a Harley and one of those cool retro-style scooters, and pocket the 230 grand I’d have left over. The only way I would buy the monstrosity in question is if I had the money to first end poverty worldwide, and I and everyone I know were wiping our butts with hundred-dollar bills, on solid platinum toilets. Otherwise, no.
For an ultimate dream bike it is not an expensive machine at all.
To get your hands on a ten year old Cagiva GP bike, which is seriously being marketed you’d need £100k, and it is not road legal either.
If you wanted to get yourself a more modern GP race bike, such as the Honda RCV of the Yamaha M1 you are looking at sustantially more than £1million, same goes for the Ducati Desmoquatro.
So given that you can pay so much more to declare your high income status, and have an object whose design is so unompromised and functional, why would anyone want suc a blockheaded looking object as this Tomahawk?
I believe the 1954 AJS Porcupine which sold for £157k would be far more exclusive and have much more kudos, it is an object of desire in the vintage machine world.
Real millionaires look upon specials like the Tomahawk as toys for the nouveaus, exclusivity comes with age, this bike cannot ever be remade and it carries a provenance of history that adds more to its value.
History can’t be made in a factory, and owing a piece of it would appeal far more than owning that awful Tomahawk lumpen block of motorcycling uselessness.
