[neil.jericho]

Originally Posted by BullettuPaandi

RE not offering engine guard as standard is news to me. I thought people replaced a factory guard with an after-market unit, which by the way, sounds like a stupid thing to presume, but it happened with the XPulse. It came with a decent guard, but people still bought such after-market units. I just mistakenly assumed that the same is going on here.

In case this thread comes to RE's attention, kindly ask yourselves whether it was worth not including the 'Rally Protection' as standard. Other than my personal opinion that engine guard & skid plates are essential for this kind of bikes, here are a few reasons as to why I don't think so :

BullettuPaandi, I am not sure that I fully follow your line of thinking. The stock motorcycle comes with a bash plate. Additionally, Royal Enfield gives owners the option of adding either a
- Large engine guard (Rs 4,750) or
- Rally Protection (Rs 9,950)

Depending on their individual preferences and use cases, buyers can select the level of protection that they need. Someone who is buying a Himalayan 450 for his weekly commute doesnt need Rally Protection, right?

If, on the other hand, Royal Enfield had force fitted the Rally Protection kit on all the bikes, then 99 other potential buyers would have been complaining on social media that Royal Enfield is forcibly bumping up the price (and the weight) with expensive accessories that add no value to them.

The way I see it, Royal Enfield has gone about this in the right way.

Originally Posted by Sebring

Agree to your points. RE has become this behemoth with eyes solely on profits. This leaves a gap for everyone to enter the fray. Another instance; I had to buy better seats from RE paying close to 10K, as they are not comfortable over long distances, and the old seats are just lying around. They're not thinking about the end consumer.

Sebring, motorcycle companies offering comfort seats is a well known industry wide practice. Here are some links to similar products from other motorcycle companies
1. Aprilia
2. BMW
3. Ducati
4. Kawasaki
5. Yamaha

There are tons of other examples as well, these are the first 5 that popped up when I did a simple search.

[BullettuPaandi]

Originally Posted by neil.jericho

BullettuPaandi, I am not sure that I fully follow your line of thinking. The stock motorcycle comes with a bash plate. Additionally, Royal Enfield gives owners the option of adding either a
- Large engine guard (Rs 4,750) or
- Rally Protection (Rs 9,950)

Depending on their individual preferences and use cases, buyers can select the level of protection that they need. Someone who is buying a Himalayan 450 for his weekly commute doesnt need Rally Protection, right?

If, on the other hand, Royal Enfield had force fitted the Rally Protection kit on all the bikes, then 99 other potential buyers would have been complaining on social media that Royal Enfield is forcibly bumping up the price (and the weight) with expensive accessories that add no value to them.

The way I see it, Royal Enfield has gone about this in the right way.

My line of thinking is simple: If they knew the risk their customers would be running with an after-market engine guard, they should've provided it as standard, avoiding risking their reputation. They're confidently blaming the after-market engine guard for the chassis issue & theirs hasn't caused any issue yet. So, while designing their engine guard, they must've gotten to know what not to do and the risk of 'what could go wrong'.

Maybe I belong to that 1 in a 100 potential buyers list, but I'd argue that an engine guard is a 'necessary' protection. It can protect the engine by taking the hit from the road, in case of minor accidents. In fact, on-road is where the engine guard has the best chance of protecting the engine; off-road uneven terrain could still hit the engine, although highly unlikely. So, there it's just better than nothing. Also, I'm not entirely sold on the stock bash plate; looks like only the exhaust got one & underneath the engine it looks like is plastic (judging from pics, so correct me if I'm wrong).

I had a pre-owned BS3 Classic 350 once and I went with a rather heavy engine/leg guard. It was quite helpful when I wanted to stretch my legs while riding. I couldn't notice any difference in the ride due to weight, as it was already on a heavy motorcycle. But, I could be convinced either way on this. I didn't think about weight while typing my previous post, but still I'd go with more weight than less protection.

I wouldn't be complaining about having to pay 10k more when I'm spending 3L for a bike. Honestly we wouldn't have even known; just the launch price would've been 10k more than what we currently know. If it was for their other accessories like panniers, aux. lights, etc. I can understand what you're saying. But I think engine guard & bash plate are essential; so, would've bought them myself anyway.

We can agree or agree to disagree on the above points, but what I think is undeniable is that it would've been better for RE had they provided Rally Protection as standard. Risking reputation for profit margins or whatever be the reason, sounds unreasonable to me, even in the current market where RE is practically immune to competition.

[gkrishn]

The after market crash guards are "big", visually. I am of opinion, that most go for this, for their road presence!

No matter what OE accessories or defaults comes with bike, many would have gone for these huge contraptions.

We wont even know if the after market crash guard caused these breakages. Until a 450 with OEM only accessories breaks. Only time will answer this.

[prakash_ajp]

Originally Posted by neil.jericho

If, on the other hand, Royal Enfield had force fitted the Rally Protection kit on all the bikes, then 99 other potential buyers would have been complaining on social media that Royal Enfield is forcibly bumping up the price (and the weight) with expensive accessories that add no value to them.

The way I see it, Royal Enfield has gone about this in the right way.

Neil, I agree with you and I don't have a problem. As you said, companies do it all the time. But then when the first reaction of RE is pointing finger at the after-market protection, then I tend to question the manufacturer for not being proactive. Also, chassis breaking is just ugly, especially when they have a history. There has to be something big here. It could be a sabotage attempt or over-enthusiastic youngsters playing with the bikes or something wrong with RE's design/manufacturing/QC. It's just too consistent to ignore, IMO.

[Sebring]

I just felt that RE should offer the improved seat as standard, or as a choice (during delivery time). People are ready to pay the extra.
The standard seats, once removed, take up considerable shelf space at home.

Originally Posted by neil.jericho

Sebring, motorcycle companies offering comfort seats is a well known industry wide practice. Here are some links to similar products from other motorcycle companies

[vj_v3]

Himalayan 450 Chassis failure -Autocar

[sinharishi]

Saw the Instagram reel from the owner, also saw the autocar article. Why don't they mention the make of the crash guard. It looks like the crash guard was not the problem but incorrect installation was? What could be the reason for not taking the name of the company?

[pcpranav]

talking about after-market crash-guards, be it for bikes or cars :
in many scenario, the aftermarket guys promote their product saying "very strong heavy duty metal". Some even make videos showing their bars are not broken or bent even after heavy bashing, claiming the metal is very strong to save the bike.

However, this logic is not very correct actually. If the crash-bar pipe doesn't bent or break, then impact force is directly transferred to the chassis or mounting point(s) - its simple. This leads to break of critical vehicle component. My idea is, the crash guard can / should bent or break after bearing the impact, but save the bike chassis. That's how the fuse works in electrical systems, it blows on impact !

Few weeks back, I had a very small fall on my RE-H-411, breaking the right mirror (I use Bajaj Avenger's - very good) and RE OE engine guard was bent. Went to nearby garage, the boy used a long iron rod to straighten the bent crash-guard pipe. If the impact was bigger, maybe the guard could have given away.

Additionally, the "sliders" on these aftermarket bike guards - are not very scientific and not align with bike's intended purpose. Many just go for the "macho" visual appeal, ignoring the science behind.

Talking about fitting & workmanship - I have all mixed experiences across brands and garages. For my own peace of mind, either I would be personally supervising the works, or would later do my checks.

take care all.

[ebonho]

Originally Posted by pcpranav

talking about after-market crash-guards, be it for bikes or cars :

take care all.

Please replace that straightened guard. Its functional life is over.

Cheers, Doc

[pcpranav]

Originally Posted by ebonho

Please replace that straightened guard. Its functional life is over.

Cheers, Doc

it was a very mild bent and such things occasionally happen, and don't pose any issue. similarly on many bikes, the gear shifter lever and rear brake lever are also made with milder metal that bent on impact, but easily straightened. This is happening around since ages, well designed.

[ebonho]

Originally Posted by pcpranav

it was a very mild bent and such things occasionally happen, and don't pose any issue. similarly on many bikes, the gear shifter lever and rear brake lever are also made with milder metal that bent on impact, but easily straightened. This is happening around since ages, well designed.

What do you think is going to happen the next time your bike goes down on the same side?

Cheers, Doc

[BullettuPaandi]

Originally Posted by sinharishi

Saw the Instagram reel from the owner, also saw the autocar article. Why don't they mention the make of the crash guard. It looks like the crash guard was not the problem but incorrect installation was? What could be the reason for not taking the name of the company?

When you're a huge MNC like RE/Eicher, you need to be highly circumspective for lawsuits, even if/when you're speaking the truth.

Mentioning the make might've simply read as "try me with a defamation case" to the makers of the crash guard. They probably can't make and win such a case against RE, but in the process they might get some good ink, while RE definitely would get a lot of bad ink. Which is exactly what they are trying to avoid (or cover up) in the first place- all they're interested in is to get the blame off of them and discourage their customers from buying ANY after-market crash guard. Mentioning the make might've read to customers as "You only need to avoid this particular brand". What if a different one causes the same issue in the future? Wouldn't be a good look for RE to then say "Turns out you needed to avoid that brand as well".

[prakash_ajp]

I am sure there's millions of bikes with aftermarket crash guards installed and a fair number of them have seen a fall or two. The question that comes to my mind is, how many of those resulted in chassis breaking down?

[vj_v3]

RE conducted a demo day today in hyderabad for him 450 with a custom built rugged track and 100's of riders with various skill levels riding on the track and doing very high jumps. The chassis seems to have held up really well from what I saw on the insta videos.

Ps: None of the demo bikes had any crash guards.

[marcussantiago]

Originally Posted by prakash_ajp

I am sure there's millions of bikes with aftermarket crash guards installed and a fair number of them have seen a fall or two. The question that comes to my mind is, how many of those resulted in chassis breaking down?

Exactly this.

I've not heard of something like this happening on any other bike. It smells a lot of "blame a small company that makes after-market accessories" and save their skin. Because I'm guessing a tiny company making accessories probably cannot afford to risk taking Eicher to court for defamation, even if they have a good case.

I could understand a scenario where someone did something really irresponsible with their modifications, like welding / cutting the chassis or messing with the ECU not knowing what they were doing, and it results in a catastrophic failure. That makes some sense. But it seems bizarre to say the least that you install a simple crash guard and it causes a chassis break like this.

And crash guards are such a common add-on for so many bikes, nearly everyone does them, and there are usually no issues this severe. So why is the Himalayan so special?