Rode this.....

[Mr Gazza]

This is like a confession box!.. I have also sinned.

A friend of mine built a 45 engine (750 side valve, iron heads) into either a Norton 16H or ES2 frame. it was rigid originally, not hard tailed, had the original girder forks and used a fat back wheel and tyre.
It was amazingly light and surprisingly quick, it handled very well too. The bumps would shoot me out of the sprung saddle, then I would kind of float above the bike with the saddle slapping my bum as further bumps bounced the bike up. But it held a line while all this was going on! Quite impressive really. He called it the Norty five, he also built a very nice rigid ES2 with girders, which was also very quick and nimble, he called that his sleazy two. The reg was 911 KNB which he said read as 9" knob... and he was.

I also rode a Buell lightning, but the one before the 1000 came out, I think it was 888? very nice competent chassis with lots of trick engineering. Handled like an RD250 or something, but was gutless even compared to my '98 M900 at the time.

The marque must carry the most baggage of any other and just don't buy into it because of that alone, so I know very little of the technical merits of them if they have any.

[Darren69]

Forgive me father Taglioni, I have sinned....

[Dennis menace]

I think his reply would be: "You will be sleeping with the fishes"

[slob]

I liked the lazy plod of the sportster motor, I thought it lost its mojo in ‘91 with the introduction of belt final drive and 5 speed gearbox, which made it feel less agricultural and more like a Japanese ‘custom replica’. Lack of civilisation , and simplicity, was part of the charm. Totally different experience to Monsters.

[jerry]

Pete built a Magnum 45 using a 750 45 engine cases with Iron head sportster barrels and heads ,, bike had a Norton Commando 4 speed box instead of the HD 3 speed ,, and was 1000cc went very well
when his current HD project is finished it looks a standard 1977 Superglide buts its a stealth bike I will ride it to UKMOC runs to show that some HDs are very cool and trick

[Uncle Bob]

No thanks. It's like being married to Halle Berry but trying out Susan Boyle anyway 'just to see'.

[manwithredbike]

I rode a 1340 Heritage Softail a bit in the late 80s. Not my own, but was keeping it for a friend for a year or so. I really enjoyed it then, prob because my own bike was a 750 or a 650 Triumph of some sort and it was a stepped upgrade.
I wouldn't thank you for one now, too wide, heavy, and too much of a commotion.

[Darren69]

Originally Posted by manwithredbike

I rode a 1340 Heritage Softail a bit in the late 80s. Not my own, but was keeping it for a friend for a year or so. I really enjoyed it then, prob because my own bike was a 750 or a 650 Triumph of some sort and it was a stepped upgrade.
I wouldn't thank you for one now, too wide, heavy, and too much of a commotion.

The Fat Boy I rode was an oil tanker of a bike, I imagine that was similar but even heavier as the Fat Boy is essentially a stripped back Softail but then they added solid wheels!

[uncle duke]

Well i'm quite taken with the style of the Harley Iron 883 you'd have to do a fair bit to it to 'release' its inner self i believe a Hammer 1275 kit would get you close to the 80's bhp which not mind blowing is a major improvement on standard .I have an old 'evo' sitting in the garage which i do enjoy riding especially on a long run & if not in a hurry !! I did think at one stage of getting a Sportster sport which has a few more horses & half decent suspension as standard but the lightness & extra power of my S2R will do me thanks.

[spuggy]

Sportster? That's not a Sportster..

Now, THAT'S a Sportster



(random picture, not mine. I loathe the sound of drag pipes - and they also sap mid-range torque - but correct for the XLCH competition model).

Meh. I've never wanted a Harley (although one guy I knew had a WLA45 and another had a Knuck, and they were both really cool bikes) - but I own two 60's magneto, kick-only ironhead Sportsters.

They're like, living history - but the only thing that says "Harley Davidson" on mine are the footrest rubbers. And they're almost worn off

They're a throwback to when dwarves forged the headstock (to paraphrase part of Mark Williams' review from Bike magazine). Remember, they were developed from the flathead KH models in the 50's to compete with those new-fangled OHV 650 Brit twins eating their lunch on the flat tracks/desert racing.

Put lumpy cams in 'em, and they're quite interesting. Massively over-engineered and almost eternally rebuildable.

The pre-1972 883s (or 900) ironheads made 55 HP & 55 ft/lbs of torque. Pretty studly compared to a Trumpet of the same vintage.

Despite the passing of 60 years, today's 1200cc Sportsters are rated at almost exactly the same power output, LOL. With only 10 ft/lbs more torque. And weigh ~200 lbs more...

Hell, the 1972 1000cc Sportster made 4 HP more than the current 1200. HD won't even quote power output for the current 883...

[larsen]

Just to join in I owned an ironhead Sportster and an evo Road King as well as a Buell S1 Lightning, over many years and had no complaints. Would I buy another, possibly but there are so many other bikes I need to own before I get too old.

[Flip]

Thanks for all the replies ... both for and against- some of the appeal is that they are so polarising but I have to agree I am not keen on all the models and the full one tourers are just too big for me and on UK roads and would miss the point anyway I would imagine.

The attraction for me is really only the Sportsters and in particular the '48' model like I rode.

I'm not overly keen on any of the current crop of new bikes- some of the super sports look great and twenty or thirty years ago I would probably be thinking about one but the roads are rubbish, too busy plus I like to actually 'go places' rather than for just a hoon around these days.

The R nine T was nice to ride with a characterful motor and to be honest quite a tempting proposition given the choices around.

Ducati's own Scrambler was good too but in many ways too much like a 'refined' Monster for me to get excited about.

I've not tried any of the latest Triumphs but again they all seem to have this fixation for rider modes and overly complicated electronic aides, plus the fact the false Amal's and cooling fins get my goat a bit too.

Moto Guzzi V7 nice looking but very low on power and rider modes?? Seriously on a 50bhp bike??

I did think about the California Vintage (not the huuuuge 1400cc one) but even those are a bit too big really although the lazy engine would have been perfect as that's what I want, a big lazy revving motor to just soak up the countryside and not make me feel like I need to overtake everything in front of me- just sit back and enjoy the ride.

And so, stereo types and preconceptions aside the 1200 '48' pretty much fits the bill, there's no over the top electronics. Ok it's fuel injected but it seemed pretty unobtrusive and it has the legal requirement of ABS but other than that, it's a big air cooled motor bolted into a fairly small package (I said small, not light but it's weight is low and so not badly balanced).

They also have the advantage/disadvantage of ridiculously high residual prices.

New £9995
2017 models about £9000
2015 £8000 upwards

There's no hard sell, at least not from the dealer in Guildford- they just want people to give them a go and make their own minds up. I guess for a lot of people some brands sell themselves but anyway, I have it for another afternoon in a couple of weeks time and I'm seriously tempted to put one along side the Monster.