|
|
Post by rocky4948 on Mar 26, 2010 11:17:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by will on Mar 26, 2010 12:22:16 GMT -5
It's quite a change from an XX. Is forty-eight the same as 883 only in cubic inches?
|
|
|
|
Post by rocky4948 on Mar 26, 2010 12:27:02 GMT -5
It's quite a change from an XX. Is forty-eight the same as 883 only in cubic inches? It's a 1200. Fuel injected, forward controls. But that front tire is freeking cool!!! |
|
|
|
Post by arozanski on Mar 26, 2010 12:32:36 GMT -5
'48 was the first year for the peanut tank.
|
|
|
|
Post by will on Mar 26, 2010 12:35:55 GMT -5
Whatever size the motor is, it's a good looking bike.
|
|
|
|
Post by arozanski on Mar 26, 2010 12:37:31 GMT -5
Whatever size the motor is, it's a good looking bike. About the only incongruity is the spring seat, with a sprung rear suspension. More looks than functionality. |
|
|
|
Post by will on Mar 26, 2010 12:40:11 GMT -5
It is a Harley. It is all about looks. At some point, I think Triumph made bikes with a sprung seat and a sprung hub. The sprung hub was a real Rube Goldberg idea, but most bikes had rigid tails in the early 1950s, so I guess it was all fair game.
|
|
|
|
Post by arozanski on Mar 26, 2010 12:45:30 GMT -5
It is a Harley. It is all about looks. Bah!  |
|
|
|
Post by will on Mar 26, 2010 12:57:00 GMT -5
 Sprung hub, sprung seat. Not exactly about looks, because the sprung hub looks goofy, but it's a legitimate precedent. |
|
|
|
Post by arozanski on Mar 26, 2010 13:05:27 GMT -5
Sprung hub, sprung seat. Not exactly about looks, because the sprung hub looks goofy, but it's a legitimate precedent. I dunno - the Harley has actual springs/shocks - what does the Triumph use? Seems like the seat is necessary there to make up for the lack of travel in the Triumph. |
|
|
|
Post by will on Mar 26, 2010 13:13:53 GMT -5
It has a sprung hub. The hub is full of coiled up springs and has an inch or two of travel. I wasn't kidding when I said it's a Rube Goldberg contraption, and I wouldn't want to take one apart without a really strong shield between me and it. But, there it is. Springs and shocks are more obvious, but the idea is the same. Besides, a Harley is typically deficient in rear wheel travel, so a sprung seat isn't as silly as you might think.
|
|
|
|
Post by arozanski on Mar 26, 2010 13:19:49 GMT -5
It has a sprung hub. The hub is full of coiled up springs and has an inch or two of travel. I wasn't kidding when I said it's a Rube Goldberg contraption, and I wouldn't want to take one apart without a really strong shield between me and it. But, there it is. Springs and shocks are more obvious, but the idea is the same. Besides, a Harley is typically deficient in rear wheel travel, so a sprung seat isn't as silly as you might think. Sorry - I did understand about the sprung hub, was just curious about the travel compared to a conventional swingarm. My Sportster doesn't seem to have any less travel than my other bikes. |
|
|
|
Post by will on Mar 26, 2010 15:00:17 GMT -5
I haven't ridden too many Harleys and I have never owned one, so I'm hardly an authority, but cruiser type bikes generally have less travel than sportbikes and standards. It's a style thing. Also, your riding position puts your spine in line with a whole lot of shock your legs cannot absorb like they could on a different machine, so a cruiser *should* have more isolation between the seat and road, however it gets done. OK, I'm done being a pompous asshole defending Harleys. I don't thing it looks so odd, and I like the way the bike looks. Buying one is another story, because I would go for a Moto Guzzi California before going for a Harley.  |
|
|
|
Post by john on Mar 26, 2010 20:03:10 GMT -5
Harley's are known for having short wheel travel in their 'glide series (with the hidden shock). Sportys are just known for having bad suspensions.
Before you go all anti-harley guy on me, I will say the same thing about almost all cruisers. Only Yamaha (Warrior), Triumph (Rocket) and Honda (anything NOT under 1100) come close to getting the suspensions right. I heard the V-rod original is good, but has gotten worse as they moved it more towards their base.
That being said, that's not really what they are for.
|
|
|
|
Post by john on Mar 26, 2010 20:04:08 GMT -5
I would also wait a bit. Their resale value is dropping rapidly.
|
|
