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.