so, I was over having a chinwag and tea with an old mate who builds chopper frames for a living. He told me that he used the same jig and lower frame rail bends for Hinckley Triumphs and rigid (pre-rubber mounted) Sportsters. That set me to thinking. I rode the new, 270-deg T100 a short time ago, and the engine reminded me quite a lot of a Sportster - very different from my 2013 aircooled 865, which (at least to me) reminds me quite strongly of a Meriden T100, with its revvy, angry sort of feel and power mostly at the top of the range. Now I’m thinking hard. I’ve always liked Sportsters, I switched to them when I couldn’t get Triumphs or BSAs any longer... but I never took to the rubber-mounted ones...
I guess it's all relative, but I'd never say the 865 motor is revvy with mainly top end power Try a Street Triple RS at some point.....
I had a 1200 sportster sport from new a long time ago, probably around 1996. Came with twin discs and I had the full screaming eagle upgrades, cams, carb, everything. It was genuinely fast, though it did feel like it was about to shake itself into it's component pieces. I really liked it, only Harley I ever owned, even took it to the Isle of Man TT !! Funnily enough, I saw it last year, guy who bought it from me still had it. Apart from being a natural rival to a Bonnie, I can't recall any other similarities.
I don’t know any of the modern Triumphs. Apart from anything else, the long-term effects of an old leg injury mean I can’t get my right leg into that sort of riding position.. Yes, of course it’s all relative. My T100 isn’t a standard bike; it has Dunstall exhausts (I won’t flatter them with the term “silencers”), a fairly aggressive remap and a dyno printout showing 76bhp at the rear wheel. It’s much more like a Meriden T100 than a Meriden Bonneville. The 270deg Bikes remind me a lot of what the Sportster used to be, before it turned into a posers toy
Well, that is the trouble with Sportsters. They don’t HAVE to feel as though they are about to shake to bits (my flat track one doesn’t, which I attribute to much more time and care in the engine than 95% of Sportsters get) but they often DO feel that way. They can be quite fast, but usually aren’t, and the extra 70lb or so of rubber mounting doesn’t help at all. Look at the power and torque curves for the latest, water-cooled Bonneville and compare them to the Sportster..
I had mine from new, bought it from Warrs with all the go faster bits. I believe it was set up well by them, it did go very well but compared to my previous Ducati and Guzzi V twins it did vibrate hard, but the nature of the tuning did encourage you to rev it as high as any Harley can rev. It wasn't rubber mounted though. As I say, I liked it, and it can't have been too badly set up if the guy who bought it was still riding it today with no issues. I did ride one of those 48 Sportsters when they came out, and that did feel very different to how I remember my one. Haven't ridden one of the new Triumphs yet other than the Thruxton R, and that or the standard Thruxton would definitely be on my list if I get another bike.
In 2004 the Sportiest went rubber mount. And in 2006 the went to f.i. I rode one,2 up from Western N.Y. To Connecticut and back and it was as smooth as my 06 Road King.
Well, quite. They turned into a sort of updated Norton Commando, with reliability added in. But it’s worth bearing in mind that the modern Sportster has a 61” wheelbase and weighs 600lb, which was Electra Glide country at one time...
Now the Glides run from about 650,(Street Glide) to close to 1,000 lbs (Ultras and Road Glide). I've had 750 Commando and nowhere near the Sportster except maybe in size.
