Total Motorcycle Community Forums

buy a used bike. 883? that about 44 hp? ick.

I read a review of the 48 yesterday. Two gallon gas tank! Yow!

RockBottom wrote:I read a review of the 48 yesterday. Two gallon gas tank! Yow!

Yeah I don't know why they can't use the bigger 3+ gallon peanut tank which virtually looks the same and covers up the frame rails. Trust me a 2 gallon tank is a huge PITA. I have a 1.9 gallon in my KLX and that bike gets 60+ mpg and it's still a huge PITA.

HYPERR wrote:Yeah I don't know why they can't use the bigger 3+ gallon peanut tank which virtually looks the same and covers up the frame rails. Trust me a 2 gallon tank is a huge PITA. I have a 1.9 gallon in my KLX and that bike gets 60+ mpg and it's still a huge PITA.

Keep in mind the Sportster was never designed to be a long distance touring rig. It is a boulevard cruiser, a bar hopper, a muscle bike and a precursor to the whole streetfighter genre, where less weight means more speed. A 3gal fuel tank defeats the whole purpose.

HD does (I think they still make them anyway) make a "budget touring" version of the Sporty, called the Roadster. It has a higher seat height and larger fuel tank for those who want the features of the Superglide series without the bulk and weight of the big twins.

Gummiente wrote:

HYPERR wrote:Yeah I don't know why they can't use the bigger 3+ gallon peanut tank which virtually looks the same and covers up the frame rails. Trust me a 2 gallon tank is a huge PITA. I have a 1.9 gallon in my KLX and that bike gets 60+ mpg and it's still a huge PITA.

Keep in mind the Sportster was never designed to be a long distance touring rig. It is a boulevard cruiser, a bar hopper, a muscle bike and a precursor to the whole streetfighter genre, where less weight means more speed. A 3gal fuel tank defeats the whole purpose.

I don't see how the 3+ gallon peanut tank defeats the purpose in any way. When they made that tank, HD painstakingly made sure they "duplicated" the iconic shape of the original peanut tank. It virtualy looks identical and it actually looks better due to the fact that it covers up the rear portion of the frame rail which otherwise is exposed.

The 3+ gallon peanut tank is one of those win-win designs that significantly increase function without any sacrifice to the form whatsoever. It's really silly not to use it. They will not lose any sales whatsoever by using it and will most certainly will gain some from buyers that would have otherwise eliminated it from their list of bikes due to the dismal range.

Here is the pic of the 3.3 peanut tank on a sportster. As you can see, it is designed to look virtually identical to the 2.1 gallon peanut.

HYPERR wrote:I don't see how the 3+ gallon peanut tank defeats the purpose in any way.

Again, you have to keep in mind the Sportster's intended purpose, as viewed by HD corporate. It started out as a boulevard cruiser and has now become the "entry level" bike of the lineup. HD is reluctant to change what works, especially in the traditional design & styling department, because they know what sells and what doesn't. Plus, if they were to add more touring oriented features to the XL series it would take sales away from the FX series and that just won't do.

Remember the FXR Sport? It was built in response to critics who wanted a more nimble platform on the Super Glide - great bike, but it was a sales flop and dropped from the lineup after only a couple years. Harley learned from that lesson. The Sportster is an HD icon and as such it does not get a lot of reworking and massaging because they continue to sell quite well the way they are. As baffling as that may be to those looking for bigger gas tanks, larger frames, bigger engines, etc, HD is not going to muck around with it.

Gummiente wrote:
Again, you have to keep in mind the Sportster's intended purpose, as viewed by HD corporate. It started out as a boulevard cruiser and has now become the "entry level" bike of the lineup.

Actually the Sportster started out as their high performance sport bike to compete with the lighter, faster, well handling British competition. Hence the clever name Sportster

HYPERR wrote:Actually the Sportster started out as their high performance sport bike to compete with the lighter, faster, well handling British competition. Hence the clever name Sportster

True, that. Sharp eyes you've got there. But what I actually was referring to was how HD corporate viewed the Sporty at the time they bought themselves back from AMF, not back in 1952 when the "K" model was launched.

Gummiente wrote:

HYPERR wrote:Actually the Sportster started out as their high performance sport bike to compete with the lighter, faster, well handling British competition. Hence the clever name Sportster

True, that. Sharp eyes you've got there. But what I actually was referring to was how HD corporate viewed the Sporty at the time they bought themselves back from AMF, not back in 1952 when the "K" model was launched.

OK I see. You were talking about the Caveman Era and I was talking about the Jurassic Era.

HYPERR wrote:

Gummiente wrote:

HYPERR wrote:Actually the Sportster started out as their high performance sport bike to compete with the lighter, faster, well handling British competition. Hence the clever name Sportster

True, that. Sharp eyes you've got there. But what I actually was referring to was how HD corporate viewed the Sporty at the time they bought themselves back from AMF, not back in 1952 when the "K" model was launched.

OK I see. You were talking about the Caveman Era and I was talking about the Jurassic Era.

ouch.