Issue 138 : December 2004 - January 2005

NEC Bike Show
MAIDS
MZ 100S
Stormin' the Castle
XL 1200R Sportster
Milward in Africa

Chalk & Cheese

Barbara Alam compares a 2003 Sportster with a 2004 model and discovers that they've taken note of the critics...

First impressions
My first impression of the 2003 Sportster was that the footpegs were in entirely the wrong place - I got tangled up in them every time I put my feet down between home and Crystal Palace but I did get used to it after that. It was a very different riding position. The Sportster is very slim too and it felt odd not to be able to grip the tank between my thighs. I couldn't go over the speedbumps by Dulwich College at 30mph like I usually do because I couldn't adopt my usual Hickstead-style "showjumping" position.

Before long, on the 2003 model, I had a huge bruise on the inside of my left thigh where the corner of the battery stuck into me and another on the inside of my right where the oil filler cap stuck in there. Oh, and another at footpeg height on each shin. However, the first thing I noticed about the 2004 model (the XL 1200R) was that the footpegs have been moved to a more comfy position and the battery and oil compartments have been rounded off, which makes for a better ride as well as a better look.

Torque
The low-end torque of the Harley was a revelation - I needed to change gear much less often, and rarely went over 3rd during my commute into London. It's the complete opposite of most modern bikes, where generally the power kicks in at high revs. However, there's a downside to that. I found myself coasting with the clutch in when I wanted to go slowly in traffic because when you let it out you go from 0-30mph in about 3 seconds. Apparently I needed to adopt a different riding style and put it in a higher gear to cruise slowly, the opposite of my Diversion.

Vibes
I tried that and it did work, but the vibration was something else! It was like sitting on a washing machine during the spin cycle, when all it's got in it is one wet blanket. (Here comes the science bit - I was told it's because the "smaller" Harleys didn't have rubber-mounted engines - but read on...)

Practically, it meant you couldn't see anything in the mirrors above 25mph because the handlebars vibrated so much (finger-tingling, in fact). But the mirrors were very easy to adjust, just a simple two-screw device on the back of the mirror itself, even though they were next to useless for seeing behind. However - big plus - the 2004 model has a rubber-mounted engine, which causes some amusement to people in cars at traffic lights as it wobbles like a big shiny jelly. But at least I can see in the mirrors. Except at 68-75 mph where there is a real "discomfort" zone generally.

The indicators on Harleys switch off automatically, which is a great idea and it works well. But there's a button to press on each handlebar, depending on which way you want to indicate, and I find it quite hard to indicate right without blipping the throttle.

Clutch!
And that 2003 clutch - it fought back! By the end of my journey my fingers were aching and no amount of adjusting it did any good - it simply did not like being pulled in. And when I changed gear it sounded like somebody throwing a rock into a metal bucket. I quite like a notchy gearbox, but some riders don't. The brakes were excellent, not too harsh yet firm and positive. The only problem was the rear brake pedal. For someone with small feet like me the pedal was too long. If I had the heel of my boot behind the footpeg, I was braking with the tip of my toes. Still, I guess Harley probably make shorter ones - they seem to make endless variations on everything else.

Mods for ladies
Those nice people at Warrs in Chelsea have told me they are making a few modifications to their Harleys to make them a better ride for us ladies, such as softening that clutch, redistributing the weight to make them easier to haul up off the sidestand (plus adding a bit to that sidestand so you can extend it fully in the first place) and making them generally fit us better. Good for them - Jap manufacturers take note, instead of making your bikes taller and taller.

The Sportsters feel incredibly stable though. It's easy to sit stock still, feet up, without any feeling of being about to tip over. But they are both HOPELESS for taking pillions - I've been literally reduced to tears because the standard seat is so uncomfortable - small and hard, nothing to hold on to, bit like perching on a flying brick. As for luggage, I did try to put a tail-pack on the back seat but there was nothing handy to hook it up to and it looked so dangerously precarious that I used a tank bag, not ideal on such a skinny tank. I've since bought panniers.

Sportsters aren't the bendiest bikes in the world in rush-hour traffic either. I find they have to be hauled round the dog-legs between stationary cars because of their long wheel-base. There's probably a knack, but I've never found it. Neither do they fit into standard London motorcycle bays - they stick out too far.

Diversion
So, a couple of days later, I retrieved my Diversion from the shop with a sigh of relief. Was I pleased to be back on it? Well, yes, kind of. Everything is made so easy. I can just get on it and ride off, blending into the traffic seamlessly. But no-one looked up as I passed by, smiled enviously from the back of a taxi, or talked to me when I stopped. I looked just like everyone else. My engine sounded creamily bland and quiet. I didn't have to put a great deal of effort into my riding. And this is the point. My commute didn't feel like "real" biking any more.

Why is this? Because the Harleys have to be ridden. You have to think about everything you are going to do. They are demanding yet quite forgiving and they react reliably. They require so much input and give me so much feedback - not only about the road but about how they "feel", even at slow speeds - that I couldn't help but get personally involved with them. To get this sort of feedback from a modern sportsbike you'd have to be doing 120mph plus. In fact, to get any kind of "buzz" from a sportsbike, you'd have to be going much faster than is either legal or good for you. Most sportsbikes have capabilities which are WAY beyond their rider. And by the time you realise you've pushed it too far, it's too late. You're going too fast, and you're on a public road. No wonder, then, that as performance figures improve year on year, casualty numbers rise accordingly.

Motorcycle manufacturers are producing road-legal bikes which are the equivalent of Formula One racing cars for a fraction of the cost of a top performance car. Harley haven't got in to that contest. No wonder, then, that when the number of fatal accidents involving motorcycles over 600cc are discussed, you don't ever seem to hear the words 'Harley-Davidson' mentioned. Riding a bike like this puts you into a different frame of mind in which you can enjoy riding at sub sonic speeds. If the Sportster has a basic problem then it is that it's a large capacity motorcycle trying to be a small one. But at least it has a "personality" and it won't be ignored, either by its rider or by passers-by. Maybe everyone should have to ride round on one before being let loose on a sportsbike. They'd realise what it is to be on a powerful machine on a public road.

Would I buy one? Mmmmmm - the 2004 Sportster (the XL 1200R) was an unexpectedly pleasant experience and I'd love one for a second bike but not as an everyday go to work on across town bike. It's a little more of deep relationship machine that never leaves the brain in neutral; it's more than simple transport.

My Diversion on the other hand is nice, does a good job, but now it doesn't feel like a "real" bike, doesn't make me feel like I'm 17 again and free as the wind. Decisions decisions eh.

Mrs Peel

home  |  top
StreetBiker  is the official publication of the Motorcycle Action Group