Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Maybe you sould start with something lighter and used. Ride it for a year and then move up. I two got a used Harley for my 2nd bike (amf) and I push it more then I rode it. I wish I still had it now that I know more about Harley's. But if you really want one for your first bike save your penny's and buy a new or newer one.

I know a guy he weights in at 450 and is 6.2, he rides a honda Reb. I really has more room then a sportster but alot less motor. I was going to get a nightster and sat on it too thight for me. I got the Buell it gave more more room

Gummiente wrote:And the AMF era was from '69 to '81; the timeframe where Harley earned its undeserved bad reutation for the Shovelhead big twins and Ironhead Sportsters. The Dyna series commenced production in '91, long after the company bought itself out from under the AMF banner and retooled for better quality and reliability, which included revamping the engine design to the EVO motor (which evolved into the TC - Twin Cam).

Sorry, but the EVO engine is a product of "AMF era."

While Harley didn't put the EVO into the market until 1984 it started development of the engine 7 years earlier. The EVO was most definitely an "AMF era" design.

http://www.harley-davidson.com/wcm/Cont ... cale=en_US

NewGuy wrote:Sorry, but the EVO engine is a product of "AMF era."

If you had taken the time to read the entire thread and my post, you would realise that the subject was about the unreliability of Harleys that were manufactured and sold in the AMF era, not the ones that were still in the design stage. Read the exhange between jonnythan and myself once more and let's keep things in context next time, m'kay?

Gummiente wrote:

NewGuy wrote:Sorry, but the EVO engine is a product of "AMF era."

If you had taken the time to read the entire thread and my post, you would realise that the subject was about the unreliability of Harleys that were manufactured and sold in the AMF era, not the ones that were still in the design stage. Read the exhange between jonnythan and myself once more and let's keep things in context next time, m'kay?

I read it all, my comment is in context. You claimed that the EVO engine was a "revamped" post "AMF era" design, but H-D's own history as published on their website shows that 1984 release of the EVO was primarily an "AMF era" design.

As you once said on this very forum, when defending H-D hiding behind it's Uncle by asking for tariff protections, "If you think that two years is sufficient time to completely redesign, retool, secure finacing for and to launch production of an improved product, then you clearly have no understanding of how a manufacturing industry works." ( viewtopic.php?p=261426&highlight=evo#261426 ) Anyone who cares to read that discussion, and this for that matter, will understand that I do understand how long it takes to "redesign, retool, and secure financing" to launch a new product.

In the previous discussion you stated that H-D was justified in getting the government to interfere in the free market from 1983 until 1987 because they had to correct the problems from the "AMF era." Yet here you are trying to claim that any bikes not made in the "AMF era," including early EVOs who started their design, testing, and production primarily in the "AMF era" and introduced in 1984 the year after they begged for government protection to get time to fix their "AMF era" problems, are somehow free of all the "AMF era" problems.

So which is it? 1) What you say here that as soon as H-D got rid of the "AMF" management everything coming off the line was high quality, OR 2) what you said on the previous discussion that it was going to take many years after the "AMF era" to correct the huge problems at H-D.

I'd also point out that in the previous discussion you claimed the protection from the government rather than just having H-D compete fairly in the free market was justified so that they could innovate and compete in the market after mismanagement during the "AMF era," but as I pointed out earlier their only innovative design during the tariffs was the EVO and that was actually an "AMF era" innovation.

NOTE: Just in case anyone thinks I'm a H-D hater/basher, I'm picking up my brand new H-D FXD next week. I'm not here to bash H-D I just people to be accurate about the facts on these discussions.

I was in your same situation last year. I am 38 and had not ridden since I was a kid (dirt bike). The MSF course was awesome, very glad I took it. I personally went out and bought a new 883 Iron Sportster ( I am 5-8, 135lbs) and think it is a great first bike. As someone else posted, they are definitely top heavy, much more so than the MSF bikes, however, unless you are weak or have bad balance, no worries.

I hear a lot of people on here say you should not buy a new bike right away, as you will drop it a few times. I understand your bike going down, if you are in an accident, but not sure why everyone isnists that you will be dropping your bike as a newbie.

All about taking your time, knowing your surroundings and being careful.

warrick wrote:I personally went out and bought a new 883 Iron Sportster

I'm not familiar with that model... is that the same as the Nightster?

Gummiente wrote:

warrick wrote:I personally went out and bought a new 883 Iron Sportster

I'm not familiar with that model... is that the same as the Nightster?

A little different

Iron 883



Nightster

csspostal wrote:Iron 883

Me like!