And so is a Ducati or R1 to a rider that is not a Sikh. We all climb the social ladder. Some just climb it with a little more flair.
|
|
|
Questions To Harley Riders
- Thread starter jemlinus
- Start date
Lakota
Well-known member
I know it is a Harley bashing thread, but why not ...
Looking at 2009, closest comparable honda I could find to compare against HD XR1200 was the VTX1300C
XR1200 CAN MSRP $13100 - current average Canada wide current sale price $8500 = $4600 cost of ownership over 10 years
VTX1300C CAN MSRP $11800 - current average Canada wide current sale price $5500 = $6300 cost of ownership over 10 years
2009 Honda VTX1300C – Canada Specifications
MSRP: $11,799 CDN
Engine Type Liquid-cooled 52-degree V-twin
Displacement 1,312 cc
Bore & Stroke 89.5 mm x 104.3 mm
Compression Ratio 9.2:1
Valve Train Chain-driven SOHC, 3 valves per cylinder
Fuel Delivery Single 38 mm CV carb
Transmission Five-speed
Final Drive Shaft
Front Suspension 41 mm fork, 129 mm (5.1 inches) travel
Rear Suspension Dual shocks with adjustable spring preload, 91 mm (3.6 inches) travel
Tires 110/90 – 19 front; 170/80 – 15 rear
Brakes Front single 336 mm disc with dual-piston caliper; rear single 296 mm disc with single-piston caliper
Seat Height 697 mm (27.5 inches)
Wheelbase 1,662 mm (65.5 inches)
Curb Weight 307 kg (678 lb) including required fluids and full tank of gas – ready to ride
Fuel Capacity 18 litres
2009 H-D XR1200
$13,079.00 for Vivid Black to $13,419.00 for the coloured models
Engine
Type: air-cooled 45 degree Evolution V-twin
Displacement, bore x stroke: 1202.81cc, 88.90mm x 96.82mm
Compression Ratio : 10.0:1
Fuel Delivery: Electronic fuel injection
Transmission: 5-speed; multiplate wet clutch
Final Drive : Belt
Chassis
Front Suspension: 43mm inverted fork, 5.3-in.travel
Rear Suspension: Dual dampers, 4.3-in travel, preload adjustable
Front brakes: 320mm discs, 4 piston caliper
Rear Brakes: 298mm disc, single piston caliper
Front Tire: 130/70-18M/C 63H
Rear Tire: 170/70-16 M/C 75H
Wheels: 3-spoke cast aluminum
Dimensions
Overall length: 85.40 in
Seat Height: 29.20 in
Wheelbase: 59.80 in
Rake/trail: 29.3°, 6°trees)/5.12 in
Fuel Capacity: 3.5 gal
Wet Weight: 580 lbs.
I love when people draw a conclusion on an entire brand by one model.
Riding a sportster and saying they are slow uncomfortable and handle poorly, is like saying Chevrolet can’t build a sports car because my wife 08 Cobalt is crap.
There are specific models that are very different.
I have ridden a sportster and for someone wanting to pop around town.
It’s fun it’s not a mile muncher.
I have ridden a v-rod, very much the muscle car on two wheels
I have owned a Road Glide absolutely amazing touring bike
Lots of muscle lump and sound at idle but pull away from the lights and smooth as glass. Great for the long day.
My dad rode an Ultra Classic virtually the same bike with even more comfortable seat and few more bells and whistles.
The do lack a sport/ race bike in there line up but after riding an R6 I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would by that bike for anything other than track days or riding like your on a track. No torque, loud and busy, so bloody uncomfortable, it was like a torcher rack with wheels.
I did however end up selling my two wheel couch and now went the adventure route. It lacks the aura of the HD but it’s more fun and almost as comfortable and way faster if you ask it to be.
Riding a sportster and saying they are slow uncomfortable and handle poorly, is like saying Chevrolet can’t build a sports car because my wife 08 Cobalt is crap.
There are specific models that are very different.
I have ridden a sportster and for someone wanting to pop around town.
It’s fun it’s not a mile muncher.
I have ridden a v-rod, very much the muscle car on two wheels
I have owned a Road Glide absolutely amazing touring bike
Lots of muscle lump and sound at idle but pull away from the lights and smooth as glass. Great for the long day.
My dad rode an Ultra Classic virtually the same bike with even more comfortable seat and few more bells and whistles.
The do lack a sport/ race bike in there line up but after riding an R6 I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would by that bike for anything other than track days or riding like your on a track. No torque, loud and busy, so bloody uncomfortable, it was like a torcher rack with wheels.
I did however end up selling my two wheel couch and now went the adventure route. It lacks the aura of the HD but it’s more fun and almost as comfortable and way faster if you ask it to be.
My take:
I understand the appeal of most HDs in the same way I understand the appeal of really most cruisers. They have a certain iconic style to them, and a brand that most other cruisers don't have. When people ask what you ride, and you say you have a Harley, they generally know what you've got. ****, I tell people I have a CBR1000RR and they're like "wtf is that". There's something to be said for name recognition.
When we choose what to ride, a lot of it is about appearance; we choose a bike based on the looks of it and the functionality of it, but the form generally follows the function. You picture what you will look like on the bike and possibly even the crowd you would associate with on said bike.
Cruisers are, generally speaking, ****** performers, and that's fine; nobody is riding them for top speed, acceleration, and pulling a 60 degree lean angle in the turn while dragging their elbow. There are a lot of sacrifices made to get the look of a cruiser (engine type, suspension geometry, etc.), and the market doesn't seem to generally want a lot of change outside of very minor tweaks here and there, so they continue to deliver on what sells. Also, to be fair, most people that own sport bikes don't track them, and most people with adventure bikes don't take them off road, so to say that the additional capability is needed is maybe not totally true.
I've ridden a small handful of cruisers, and rented a pair of iron 883s when I went to San Diego to ride around, and generally thought it was a fun bike. Of course it was lacking in power compared to an FZ09 or sport bike, but it wasn't terrible. The lack of wind protection on the Interstate was bad, but that's the same as it would be on any naked bike or non-faired cruiser. My wife, who is the slowest rider in the known universe, said she liked riding it, and preferred it over her Ninja 300, as she liked the additional heft of the bike in corners. I'd say she is pretty representative of the "average" rider; doesn't care about overall performance, just feel. She said it was ugly and only likes the look of sport bikes though, but everyone is allowed to have their opinion.
After riding it I considered buying one, but the main issue I had was the cost, and this is sort of where the cruisers lose me a bit. Why they cost what they do is clearly a "charge what the market will bear" and not a "cost + x" thing and that bums me out. I'd buy one as a second bike if I thought the value was more appropriate, but for something with such basic construction and no R&D in the last 30 years, I find it hard to pay the same as a modern sportbike with exotic materials, expensive components, electronics, and substantial R&D.
TL;DR: Cruisers can look cool and be fun, it isn't always about performance, but I think the cost of them is unjustified.
I understand the appeal of most HDs in the same way I understand the appeal of really most cruisers. They have a certain iconic style to them, and a brand that most other cruisers don't have. When people ask what you ride, and you say you have a Harley, they generally know what you've got. ****, I tell people I have a CBR1000RR and they're like "wtf is that". There's something to be said for name recognition.
When we choose what to ride, a lot of it is about appearance; we choose a bike based on the looks of it and the functionality of it, but the form generally follows the function. You picture what you will look like on the bike and possibly even the crowd you would associate with on said bike.
Cruisers are, generally speaking, ****** performers, and that's fine; nobody is riding them for top speed, acceleration, and pulling a 60 degree lean angle in the turn while dragging their elbow. There are a lot of sacrifices made to get the look of a cruiser (engine type, suspension geometry, etc.), and the market doesn't seem to generally want a lot of change outside of very minor tweaks here and there, so they continue to deliver on what sells. Also, to be fair, most people that own sport bikes don't track them, and most people with adventure bikes don't take them off road, so to say that the additional capability is needed is maybe not totally true.
I've ridden a small handful of cruisers, and rented a pair of iron 883s when I went to San Diego to ride around, and generally thought it was a fun bike. Of course it was lacking in power compared to an FZ09 or sport bike, but it wasn't terrible. The lack of wind protection on the Interstate was bad, but that's the same as it would be on any naked bike or non-faired cruiser. My wife, who is the slowest rider in the known universe, said she liked riding it, and preferred it over her Ninja 300, as she liked the additional heft of the bike in corners. I'd say she is pretty representative of the "average" rider; doesn't care about overall performance, just feel. She said it was ugly and only likes the look of sport bikes though, but everyone is allowed to have their opinion.
After riding it I considered buying one, but the main issue I had was the cost, and this is sort of where the cruisers lose me a bit. Why they cost what they do is clearly a "charge what the market will bear" and not a "cost + x" thing and that bums me out. I'd buy one as a second bike if I thought the value was more appropriate, but for something with such basic construction and no R&D in the last 30 years, I find it hard to pay the same as a modern sportbike with exotic materials, expensive components, electronics, and substantial R&D.
TL;DR: Cruisers can look cool and be fun, it isn't always about performance, but I think the cost of them is unjustified.
wonderings
Well-known member
Will be interesting to see how Harley does when they enter the adventure category. I know I am very curious and interested. The dealer network alone makes it attractive, just needs the tech/features to match the BMW's and KTM.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
You can't draw that conclusion about a brand by comparing just 1 of their motorcycle. Maintenance costs can be a big factor if you don't turn your own wrenches.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
People also like cruisers because they are the easiest motorcycles to ride. Even the small ones have gobs of torque (helps when you're not i the right gear), the steering geometry is about as stable as it gets, and lower seat high helps with stationary stability.
This is the heritage of a cruisers -- they were made popular by military users who needed something you could train a soldier to ride in 1 day.
bigpoppa
Well-known member
I dont have to ride around the world to learn that I can scrape floorboards completely unintentionally, doing a 20 km/h right turn at 0 lean angle.
roadrash
Well-known member
Lol try 'fireblade' or just 'supersport' and enjoy the judgy looks.
Or tell them you have a FLH-TC and see what kind of look you get
(I'll save you diving for google; A FLH-TC is a Road King Harley, the big one with a beer box. Looks like a police bike)
I won't, unless they drastically change their product lines ... and I know they have a few blank-slate new models in the works, so I wouldn't say that's impossible. I won't buy anything they currently build or anything comparable.
Not so sure about that. A lot of cruisers have a feet-out riding position which is awkward and makes it cumbersome to weight the footpegs or shift your weight around or stand up in the seat. Most of them are too heavy, many have inadequate cornering clearance. The directional stability works against you when you have to turn. "Failure to turn" is one of the most common reasons for single-vehicle motorcycle crashes ...
Lightweight standard-ish bikes are the easiest to ride because they have the fewest compromises for street riding. No extremes of riding position (neither feet-out cruiser nor tucked-in supersport - the rider's back is upright but the rider's feet are under their center of gravity), no excessive weight, they generally have decent-enough brakes and suspension and tires, seat heights are generally sensible (some ADV bikes excluded). There's a reason the 1970s-1980s UJM "universal japanese motorcycle" was laid out the way it was. Nowadays, a lightweight standard-ish bike could be styled like an ADV bike (Versys 300, CB500X, etc), or a naked sport bike (CBR500, R3, etc), or a plain ordinary naked not masquerading as anything else (MT07, MT09, Z800, etc).
HD model codes are ridiculous. At least with other manufacturers, you have a chance at learning something about the bike from it's model number. If you arent part of the hd cult, their model codes mean absolutely nothing. I suspect even most cult members only know the bike they own(ed) or want to own.
sburns
Well-known member
You can always say you ride a Honda. Seems people would recognize that name. No one in the HD side would say they have a FLHTP etc unless they are asking for parts.
Sent from the Moon!
But there is a significant difference between sportster, v-rod, dyna, Road Glide
I would never have taken my Road Glide to the drag strip but I would take a v-rod
I would never recommend a v rod as a starter bike but I would a sportster
I would never take a sportster on a trip across the country with a passenger but I would a Road Glide.
Lumping all Harley’s as one is like saying my KTM 1190 ADV is a dirt bike because it’s a KTM.
Btw Honda sport bikes are slow as sxxt I know because I test rode a CBR300
And as for selection of bike being based primarily on looks.
You will enjoy the bike much more if you select a bike that has been designed and engineered to your riding style and ability.
My first bike was a chopper bought for looks and horrible to ride any distance.
Second bike was HD Road Glide very comfortable on the long road trips that I don’t do.
Third bike ugly ass adventure bike with toolbox looking storage containers
Fast, comfortable, has storage and looks just as bad dirty as it does clean.
I love it.
I would never have taken my Road Glide to the drag strip but I would take a v-rod
I would never recommend a v rod as a starter bike but I would a sportster
I would never take a sportster on a trip across the country with a passenger but I would a Road Glide.
Lumping all Harley’s as one is like saying my KTM 1190 ADV is a dirt bike because it’s a KTM.
Btw Honda sport bikes are slow as sxxt I know because I test rode a CBR300
And as for selection of bike being based primarily on looks.
You will enjoy the bike much more if you select a bike that has been designed and engineered to your riding style and ability.
My first bike was a chopper bought for looks and horrible to ride any distance.
Second bike was HD Road Glide very comfortable on the long road trips that I don’t do.
Third bike ugly ass adventure bike with toolbox looking storage containers
Fast, comfortable, has storage and looks just as bad dirty as it does clean.
I love it.
|
|
|
|
|