American Rider Mag on XR1200...
#1
#6
I don't know very much about the XR1200 except for various articles that I've read, but it seems to get pretty decent reviews.
Seems like the major complaints against the bike are it's lack of horsepower (which is the same as the XR750 released back in 1970) and it's heavy weight (about 600 pounds wet).
Here is a little blurb from Motorcycle.com after testing the XR1200;
"If it hadn’t been for the 1970 launch of the 90-horsepower XR750 for flat-track racing, we would not have seen the XR1200. That the new 1200 makes the same horsepower as a 38-year-old bike will have to be forgiven, as modern noise and emission regulations don’t allow for much more."
Seems like the major complaints against the bike are it's lack of horsepower (which is the same as the XR750 released back in 1970) and it's heavy weight (about 600 pounds wet).
Here is a little blurb from Motorcycle.com after testing the XR1200;
"If it hadn’t been for the 1970 launch of the 90-horsepower XR750 for flat-track racing, we would not have seen the XR1200. That the new 1200 makes the same horsepower as a 38-year-old bike will have to be forgiven, as modern noise and emission regulations don’t allow for much more."
#7
I don't know very much about the XR1200 except for various articles that I've read, but it seems to get pretty decent reviews.
Seems like the major complaints against the bike are it's lack of horsepower (which is the same as the XR750 released back in 1970) and it's heavy weight (about 600 pounds wet).
Here is a little blurb from Motorcycle.com after testing the XR1200;
"If it hadn’t been for the 1970 launch of the 90-horsepower XR750 for flat-track racing, we would not have seen the XR1200. That the new 1200 makes the same horsepower as a 38-year-old bike will have to be forgiven, as modern noise and emission regulations don’t allow for much more."
Seems like the major complaints against the bike are it's lack of horsepower (which is the same as the XR750 released back in 1970) and it's heavy weight (about 600 pounds wet).
Here is a little blurb from Motorcycle.com after testing the XR1200;
"If it hadn’t been for the 1970 launch of the 90-horsepower XR750 for flat-track racing, we would not have seen the XR1200. That the new 1200 makes the same horsepower as a 38-year-old bike will have to be forgiven, as modern noise and emission regulations don’t allow for much more."
Trending Topics
#8
The one thing that kills the XR1200 isn't really horsepower, it's weight and that weight flat screws it up. The 1203 Buell Ulysses weighs roughly 460 dry and flat hauls the mail for what it is. The bike uses modern lightweight framing materials and I can just about promise you it will corner or stop with the XR1200. So, what's up with Harley using old school heavy materials to build their frame? The XR750 had a lot of parts missing from any street bike including the front brake assembly. It also weighed in at 390 dry. The XR1200 looks great and it has some good horsepower but again, the weight is killing any real performance it could have had.
Have you put any miles on an XR yet? Yes or No...
#9
No, nor do I need to. I don't need to ride a bike 100 miles to figure out what it's going to do either. The best part is the bike has been out in Europe for a year and many that have been on the bike (professionals) have not been overly enthusiastic about the bike relative to what it is sold as. Sure they like it, but the shortcomings were not well received.
#10
Some may be missing the whole point of the XR1200. It is a modern, rubber-mounted, Sportster that has been styled reminiscent of the XR750. Think along the lines of the new Triumph Bonneville, or Moto Guzzi V7. HD actually improved the power, brakes, cornering clearance, and suspension over the Sportster whereas Triumph and Moto Guzzi did not with their replicas. Anyone looking to discuss high performance motorcycles really should be on a different forum 'cause it isn't HD's thing. Like it or dislike for what it is, rather than for what it is not.