2016 Sportsters get a Suspension Upgrade.
- Thread starter DuckRyder
- Start date
- Status
that is a sharp ride. I will read the article later as I enter my 32nd year of wanting a bike. ('wanting' in both senses of the word)
Last edited:
Anything could be considered a suspension upgrade on that bike. With past models hitting a bump could be bad for your kidneys.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,294
I like that 48
They look cool, but truly a pile of junk from a functional perspective. Bums me out a little. IMHO...
I have only owned Japanese bikes over the years but I almost bought a Sportster[a mini bike for adults] in 2013 but I crashed off of my wife's horse and really messed up my shoulder. It still hurts. Horses are really anal orifices. Shoulda had a saddle and a bridle.
Originally Posted By: WANG
They look cool, but truly a pile of junk from a functional perspective. Bums me out a little. IMHO...
I would absolutely love an XR1200. I could be good friends with a V-Rod.
They look cool, but truly a pile of junk from a functional perspective. Bums me out a little. IMHO...
I would absolutely love an XR1200. I could be good friends with a V-Rod.
Originally Posted By: WANG
They look cool, but truly a pile of junk from a functional perspective. Bums me out a little. IMHO...
I am no Harley fan, but even I cannot agree with this.
They are perfectly functional bikes in that they get you from point A to point B, don't constantly break(unlike some of their AMF era ancestors), and give enjoyment to their owners who are looking for a basic meat and potatoes type cruiser.
They look cool, but truly a pile of junk from a functional perspective. Bums me out a little. IMHO...
I am no Harley fan, but even I cannot agree with this.
They are perfectly functional bikes in that they get you from point A to point B, don't constantly break(unlike some of their AMF era ancestors), and give enjoyment to their owners who are looking for a basic meat and potatoes type cruiser.
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: WANG
They look cool, but truly a pile of junk from a functional perspective. Bums me out a little. IMHO...
I am no Harley fan, but even I cannot agree with this.
They are perfectly functional bikes in that they get you from point A to point B, don't constantly break(unlike some of their AMF era ancestors), and give enjoyment to their owners who are looking for a basic meat and potatoes type cruiser.
No, no. I don't see H-Ds at large as being non-functional (they make great touring bikes, and many other less "compromised" machines, IMO), but the 48 in particular I see as a pile. 27 degrees of lean angle? You don't have to be in much of a hurry to exceed that. Something like less than 2" of rear suspension travel? Ridiculous. Bad geometry all around, look at the swingarm angle at rest. This should cause the bike to squat under accelleration, eating into what precious little suspension travel they gave it. 2.1 gallon fuel capacity? Even with the stellar fuel economy that those engines can achieve, you are looking at a mandatory fuel stop every hundred miles. I'm sure many people will buy them and enjoy the 48, but I maintain that they are severely compromised from a functional perspective. I had a Thruxton 900 some years ago (2004 Cardinal Red, beautiful), and it had some functional compromises in the name of style, but not nearly to this extreme.
Originally Posted By: WANG
They look cool, but truly a pile of junk from a functional perspective. Bums me out a little. IMHO...
I am no Harley fan, but even I cannot agree with this.
They are perfectly functional bikes in that they get you from point A to point B, don't constantly break(unlike some of their AMF era ancestors), and give enjoyment to their owners who are looking for a basic meat and potatoes type cruiser.
No, no. I don't see H-Ds at large as being non-functional (they make great touring bikes, and many other less "compromised" machines, IMO), but the 48 in particular I see as a pile. 27 degrees of lean angle? You don't have to be in much of a hurry to exceed that. Something like less than 2" of rear suspension travel? Ridiculous. Bad geometry all around, look at the swingarm angle at rest. This should cause the bike to squat under accelleration, eating into what precious little suspension travel they gave it. 2.1 gallon fuel capacity? Even with the stellar fuel economy that those engines can achieve, you are looking at a mandatory fuel stop every hundred miles. I'm sure many people will buy them and enjoy the 48, but I maintain that they are severely compromised from a functional perspective. I had a Thruxton 900 some years ago (2004 Cardinal Red, beautiful), and it had some functional compromises in the name of style, but not nearly to this extreme.
Originally Posted By: OldSparks
Originally Posted By: WANG
They look cool, but truly a pile of junk from a functional perspective. Bums me out a little. IMHO...
I would absolutely love an XR1200. I could be good friends with a V-Rod.
Remember the V-Rod Street Rod? That would be a great one to get, but they were wildly unpopular. The XR1200 (make mine a 1200X, thankyouverymuch) nearly found its way into my stable, too. My comment is directed to the "48". I'm not a motorcycle bigot, I just think that that specific machine is junk, some of the characteristics of the "48" that inform that opinion are listed above. Conicidentally, neither the XR nor the Street Rod (my favorite of the VR family) have any of those characteristics.
Originally Posted By: WANG
They look cool, but truly a pile of junk from a functional perspective. Bums me out a little. IMHO...
I would absolutely love an XR1200. I could be good friends with a V-Rod.
Remember the V-Rod Street Rod? That would be a great one to get, but they were wildly unpopular. The XR1200 (make mine a 1200X, thankyouverymuch) nearly found its way into my stable, too. My comment is directed to the "48". I'm not a motorcycle bigot, I just think that that specific machine is junk, some of the characteristics of the "48" that inform that opinion are listed above. Conicidentally, neither the XR nor the Street Rod (my favorite of the VR family) have any of those characteristics.
IMO it isn't really fair to call it a "pile" or "junk". It doesn't meet your needs, but that doesn't make it junk any more than a Panigale is junk because it doesn't meet my needs.
That said as much as I seem to gravitate toward the 48 having one Sporty with a 2.2 peanut tank is enough. I'd have to change it to a 3.3 from an Iron but then it wouldn't be a "48" since the name is derived from the year the "peanut tank" was first used. I liked the heavier and less functional laced wheels of 2014 better too. Though I'd prefer the longer shocks from a C model.
Many lament the loss of the "Sporty Sporty" but every time the MoCo builds one it is a sales flop. I do think they are responding to competition, primarily from the Bolt and Scout.
The new 48 and Iron shocks are similar to the ones used on the 1200T but without the knob style preload. Ive ridded a 1200T several times and it is a comfortable smooth ride. The 48 also has a cartridge style front fork, I need to figure out if it carries over to the other models with the mid glide and narrow glide front forks, which are smaller diameter than the 48.
Oh well, different strokes for different folks.
That said as much as I seem to gravitate toward the 48 having one Sporty with a 2.2 peanut tank is enough. I'd have to change it to a 3.3 from an Iron but then it wouldn't be a "48" since the name is derived from the year the "peanut tank" was first used. I liked the heavier and less functional laced wheels of 2014 better too. Though I'd prefer the longer shocks from a C model.
Many lament the loss of the "Sporty Sporty" but every time the MoCo builds one it is a sales flop. I do think they are responding to competition, primarily from the Bolt and Scout.
The new 48 and Iron shocks are similar to the ones used on the 1200T but without the knob style preload. Ive ridded a 1200T several times and it is a comfortable smooth ride. The 48 also has a cartridge style front fork, I need to figure out if it carries over to the other models with the mid glide and narrow glide front forks, which are smaller diameter than the 48.
Oh well, different strokes for different folks.
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
.
I need to figure out if it carries over to the other models with the mid glide and narrow glide front forks, which are smaller diameter than the 48.
Oh well, different strokes for different folks.
Yes the new suspension is used on the other Sportsters (not the 1200T as far as I know)
Upgrades are available from Harley for the older bikes in both low profile and standard height
.
I need to figure out if it carries over to the other models with the mid glide and narrow glide front forks, which are smaller diameter than the 48.
Oh well, different strokes for different folks.
Yes the new suspension is used on the other Sportsters (not the 1200T as far as I know)
Upgrades are available from Harley for the older bikes in both low profile and standard height
Yep, I was watching the technical briefing last night, all sportsters save the 1200t get the "new" shocks and cartridge forks. I understand the rear shocks as the 1200t has special shocks already.
I guess I need to review it again since it seems to indicate the 1200t did not get the cartridge fork, but the above p@a seems to indicate if got the cartridge.
There some debate about the he website discrepancies in front rake/trail and wheelbase numbers on the 48.
I guess I need to review it again since it seems to indicate the 1200t did not get the cartridge fork, but the above p@a seems to indicate if got the cartridge.
There some debate about the he website discrepancies in front rake/trail and wheelbase numbers on the 48.
OK.
I watched the technical forum again, it clearly says the 1200t did not get the new cartridge fork, but if you look at parts&accy for a 16 it doesn't give you the cartridge fork, where as if you look for a 15 it does and it says the fitment ends at "15".
Color me confused.
I watched the technical forum again, it clearly says the 1200t did not get the new cartridge fork, but if you look at parts&accy for a 16 it doesn't give you the cartridge fork, where as if you look for a 15 it does and it says the fitment ends at "15".
Color me confused.
Looks like a Bolt
- Status
