Quote:
Originally Posted by javadog
If you got the impression that I was trying to pass myself off as a Harley expert, you should perhaps take what I say more literally. I wasn't trying to knock the whole Harley line, it was just one data point.
I have no idea what year it was, although when I rode it, it was new. I'm guessing it was 7 or 8 years ago. I suppose my ride, and thus my viewpoint, was limited, in that it handled so poorly that I cut the ride short.
If you read between the lines (  ) prehaps I'm suggesting quietly to Signor Dottore to actually go ride a couple of these things and see if that helped further his quest. And, prehaps, that he should pick one that is more function than form, as I saw plenty of bikes this weekend that suffered from form over function and their riders were having to be pretty conservative in the corners, even for a cruiser...
JR |
My appologies; I miss-understood and read too much into your post.
Great advice for our friend Dottore, JR - go ride 'em. One will either grab his fancy or not.
The Sportsters, by the way, underwent a major face-lift several years ago. The motors are now rubber isolation mounted in a much improved frame. Far better bikes than the one you rode.
Your observations on Harley form vs. function are spot-on. The more "custom" (off the showroom floor?.. nevermind...) they are, the worse they ride. When H-D gets serious about it, though, they now build a damn fine bike. Their customers, alas, dictate the market, just like anything else. Many are no longer serious motorcyclists, which has become quite telling in the current product line that caters to them. One can still find a good bike among the rabble, however.