Most Sporty Sportster now in the US...finally

[st ryder]

http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2010/06/harley-deems-u-s-market-worthy-of-xr1200x/

[chornbe]

http://www.sport-touring.net/forums/index.php/topic,53659.0.html

(should have probably been started in this section to begin with)

[xbud]

I rode last years xr1200 at a dealer demo ride a couple of weeks ago. Upgraded suspension may help a little but it won’t change the fact that this thing is way too heavy to be a sport bike. It was quite a bit slower than my Buell, and didn’t handle nearly as well, either. I was surprised at how unexciting it was.

I thought this guy's quote was pretty good.

[1KPerDay]

Of course you did.

[st ryder]

http://www.sport-touring.net/forums/index.php/topic,53659.0.html

(should have probably been started in this section to begin with)

Yes, well, my intent was to praise HD, not to bury them.   And besides, I didn't see that thread.
The guy who posted reply #42 in that thread "gets it", ie it's a fun bike, not a track bike. And how anybody would try to characterise this bike as HD's attempt at a Buell replacement is beyond me.  

[Galo]

I dunno.....56.35 hp at 4000 rpms...can that be fun?
I guess it would be just a small bit of fun, not a large fun.
 

[st ryder]

I dunno.....56.35 hp at 4000 rpms...can that be fun?
I guess it would be just a small bit of fun, not a large fun.
 

Fun is relative. Though there is a long standing old saying that says it's a lot more fun trying to go fast on/in a slow bike/car, than having to go slow on/in a fast bike/car, there's no old saying I've heard/read that says a fast bike/car is always more fun than a slow one.   I wonder why that is? In my experience, more speed does not always mean more fun, especially when all that fun you were having just about cost you your license. It's the sensation of speed that's the fun, not the actual speed itself. If you have a very high horsepower bike with a great chassis and suspension and brakes, the only way you can have fun is seriously breaking the speed limit to "feel" the speed. With a bike that's not built for very high speed riding, it's an adventure trying to go fast and as you're not so "isolated" from the road, it can be a blast. Like I said, the guy who entered post 42 in the other thrread, "get's it", you don't. That's fine. I can't remember how many times I rolled off the throttle on my old FXDL thinking I was going too fast, only to be pleasantly surprised that I was mildly over the speed limit, and having a blast.  "It's not a race."  

[Galo]

Fun is relative. Though there is a long standing old saying that says it's a lot more fun trying to go fast on/in a slow bike/car, than having to go slow on/in a fast bike/car, there's no old saying I've heard/read that says a fast bike/car is always more fun than a slow one.   I wonder why that is? In my experience, more speed does not always mean more fun, especially when all that fun you were having just about cost you your license. It's the sensation of speed that's the fun, not the actual speed itself. If you have a very high horsepower bike with a great chassis and suspension and brakes, the only way you can have fun is seriously breaking the speed limit to "feel" the speed. With a bike that's not built for very high speed riding, it's an adventure trying to go fast and as you're not so "isolated" from the road, it can be a blast. Like I said, the guy who entered post 42 in the other thrread, "get's it", you don't. That's fine. I can't remember how many times I rolled off the throttle on my old FXDL thinking I was going too fast, only to be pleasantly surprised that I was mildly over the speed limit, and having a blast.  "It's not a race."  

Ohh, I get it. I just don't agree with it.  
No worries, s'all good. Different strokes for different folks

[reppans]

The guy who posted reply #42 in that thread "gets it", ie it's a fun bike, not a track bike. And how anybody would try to characterise this bike as HD's attempt at a Buell replacement is beyond me.  

That'll be me st rider ... we're on the same page, and probably Chris too, but we'll be a tiny minority, so as a result, my guess is the bike won't survive in the long run.

I dunno.....56.35 hp at 4000 rpms...can that be fun?
I guess it would be just a small bit of fun, not a large fun.
 

Maybe not, but the 76 ft/lbs of torque at 3700 rpms is absolute heaven .  What matters more in the twisties - torque or horsepower?  

I will say, the power delivery of this bike absolutely rips the shit outta tires... and although that gets costly, damn it is sooooo much fun .  

Michelin PR2s at 5k (run in the Northeast):


Metzler Z6 at 2.1k (but to be fair, run on the BRP and NC on roads at least 2x as twisty as the Northeast):



I'm beginning to figure out what it is about the Harley's power - for me at least - and I would also guess for many other riders too, if they could ever check their egos at the door.  This quote put it in perspective for me as I have previously owned BMW boxers (R1100S and R1150GS) which have similar peak specs as the HD, yet don't feel as powerful as the XR in the twisties:

Need facts to substantiate? Bike Mag (UK) Oct 08 test. Bikes run on the same dyno on the same day.

H-D XR1200 -  Twin cylinder Long stroke  88.9x 96.8 air-cooled 1202cc  2 valves per cylinder compression ratio 10:1. Torque = 75.9lb/ft @ 3700rpm
BMW R1200r - Twin cylinder Short stroke  101 x 73 oil/air cooled 1170cc 4 valves per cylinder compression ratio 12:1. Torque = 77.8lb/ft @ 5800rpm.
So less than 2lb/ft at peak advantage to the BMW even with the big differences in bore/stroke, valve count & compression ratio.

Am I saying that all this modern tech is useless? No. Visordown Mag also from the UK published these figures taken on the same dyno but on different days.

BMW R1200GS peak torque 77.24lb/ft @ 5800rpm.
Ducati Streetfighter 1200 peak torque 77.05 lb/ft @ 8200rpm.  

The key for me is that the HD delivers its max torque lowest in the rpm range, the most usable street rpm range.  

I ride 80-90% in slower speed tight technical twisties - Deal Gap tight - but with half the number of corners per mile.  When riding in the tight technical stuff, you don't want to be in your upper rpm range - way too snatchy and difficult to ride smoothly at the on/off throttle transition line.  You want to be in the mid range, and that's where the HD is putting out max torque.  The BMWs are hitting stride at the very top of the mid range, the Duc even higher, and well, you can guess where most inline 4s are making their power.  

Balls out riding in the upper rpm range of a real "high performance" bike, I absolutely agree, will leave the XR for dead.... but who rides like that on public roads?  Do you?  Please post a pic of your melted-balled-up-to-the-edge street tire please.  

I've been riding technical twisties for 35 years, and group riding for about 8 years, with plenty of miles with track junkies, and I know 90% of the riders simply don't have the skill to use their "performance" bikes anywhere near their potential (myself included), and the 10% that actually do, won't because they know they'll end up in a coffin or a cell.... on public roads.  So what's the point.... other than to pose?

And speaking of posing, perhaps one of the best things about owning the slowest bike - is earning a position in front of all the performance posers..... esp. from a Harley poser .  

But to be honest, on the Harley, I can no longer keep up with my former riding group (the fast guys) on Aprillia's, Ducs, Triumphs, BMWs, etc.... but that's what I wanted.  Despite being seasoned riders with 30+ years of experience, speeds eventually escalated, and two crash at medium speeds totaling bikes, breaking ribs and collapsing lungs, and one that lost it at high speed.... well RIP .  

Really makes you think - are we riding to attain maximum speeds ... or to have maximum fun? .  I just happen to find that both are not the same.    

[Bikenut]

Really makes you think - are we riding to attain maximum speeds ... or to have maximum fun? .  I just happen to find that both are not the same.    

Well put. The reason I sold my ZX12 and TL1000 and got a Road King. The ZRX is plenty to scratch the fast itch once in a while. I was eyeing up the XR''s at Road America this weekend and told the wife I could possibly...maybe...almost...give up the ZRX for one. But it's been paid for for 10 yrs and is essentially perfect. Maybe one day.

[Flightar]

Well I'd agree, torque is more important than absolute horsepower on the street when you are in the twisty bits. I own a VFR right now and have ridden the following bikes in the mountains: FJR 1300, R1100S, Bandit 1100 and 600, YZF 750R, Z1000, and a ZX7R.

Out of all those bikes the most fun, easiest to ride quickly, and confidence inspiring in the mountains...for me, was the BMW R1100S.

The reason for that IMHO, is that shifting and RPM were largely an after thought...just roll on the gass, roll off the gas, turn, stand bike up, gas it out...repeat again and again.

More focus on the actual riding is, for me anyway, more fun.

The VFR I have now is better than the R1100S in every respect and will rip it's lungs out easily...but it takes more effort and concentration to realize it.

[bomber]

I'm beginning to figure out what it is about the Harley's power - for me at least - and I would also guess for many other riders too, if they could ever check their egos at the door.  This quote put it in perspective for me as I have previously owned BMW boxers (R1100S and R1150GS) which have similar peak specs as the HD, yet don't feel as powerful as the XR in the twisties:

The key for me is that the HD delivers its max torque lowest in the rpm range, the most usable street rpm range.  

I ride 80-90% in slower speed tight technical twisties - Deal Gap tight - but with half the number of corners per mile.  When riding in the tight technical stuff, you don't want to be in your upper rpm range - way too snatchy and difficult to ride smoothly at the on/off throttle transition line.  You want to be in the mid range, and that's where the HD is putting out max torque.  The BMWs are hitting stride at the very top of the mid range, the Duc even higher, and well, you can guess where most inline 4s are making their power.  

You just very accurately described a Buell -- any Buell (with the possible exception of the Blast) . . . . . very easy to ride at an elevated pace all day long.

[falconati]

Why choose between horsepower and torque?  Buy a Ducati and get both.

[1KPerDay]

Plus a crapload of whizz-bang gizmos to break, and a hell of a lot of expensive and complicated maintenance to go with your inflated ego.

[falconati]

Exactly!  *Designer clothes not included

[reppans]

....I ..... have ridden the following bikes in the mountains: FJR 1300, R1100S, Bandit 1100 and 600, YZF 750R, Z1000, and a ZX7R.

..... Out of all those bikes the most fun, easiest to ride quickly, and confidence inspiring in the mountains...for me, was the BMW R1100S.

..... More focus on the actual riding is, for me anyway, more fun.

This is STN Sacrilege....

An admission that that lowest "spec" bike can be the most fun

Ah my R1100S, lovely bike it was:


But for some of the reasons you so well describe, the Harley is even more fun..... not as fast, mind you, but fun and fast can be different things, which my license will greatly appreciate .

[st ryder]

Plus a crapload of whizz-bang gizmos to break, and a hell of a lot of expensive and complicated maintenance to go with your inflated ego.

Not all Ducatis are Multistrada 1200's.   Some are as complicated and as expensive to maintain as other mainstream bikes that don't deliver the same rewarding experience as owning and operating a Ducati. But to each his own. Some are happy with bland bikes, others not.  I mean one can buy a metric cruiser or a HD or one can buy a big four sport bike or a Ducati, it all comes down to what you want from a motorbike, and if those wants include something different, with soul and character, well.....  

[1KPerDay]

Well said.