The OP sought opinions on low rev behavior. He got them. The dissenting opinion was received poorly.

Conclusion, the OP didn't want opinions.

I really don't understand the point of this thread. The OP thinks his bike is fine. OK...so ride it and smile?

But, while I'm here...My poor old carbed 88" doesn't IMO buck or sputter below 2000. Just off idle, 1000-1200 maybe, creeping thru a parking lot in 1st, it does have a pronounced surge with every ignition event (buck, if you want... I disagree with the terminology, but whatever). The compensator exists solely to absorb some or all of that surge. I slip the clutch slightly to get a smooth creep. Just on the verge of being able to keep the bike upright. If the OP thinks that's bucking, well then, I guess mine bucks. I prefer to call it frogging. My bike frogs. Does yours?

 

 

Huh?

I stated that my bike lugs under 2000 when under a load, which results in a low RPM high load pull that is not smooth. It seems most agree that is normal and advise to shift, which is what I do. I was being told by another member that my bike has issues because it does not pull smoothly off idle in top gear.

This all started because I stated in another thread that my 1441cc sport bike has a much wider power band than my stock HD and it pulls better at low RPM.

 

I'll stand by what we've actually said in these threads, which is not the same as your characterization above.
Sure, a 45 degree, single-crankpin, uneven-fire, non-conterbalanced twin without a cushion-rear-hub will vibrate a lot more at low rpms than your inline 4, and the rubber engine mounts do a better job of isolating engine vibration at some rpms than they do at others (if that's what you mean by "bucking"). But your Harley should be no less capable of operating at low rpms than your inline 4, if it's working right.

"Lugging" is a rather archaic term, hearkening from back in the days before computerized engine controls, when a combination of low rpm and high throttle opening was likely to result in engine-destroying detonation. That's not really the case any more.
For example: Both of us have 650 horsepower, 650 torque supercharged Corvettes. On the automatic versions, the engineers have the transmission programed to have the engine turning about 1300 rpm when cruising down the freeway. Uh oh, has nobody informed them that this is "lugging" the engine, is harmful, or is likely to make it self-destruct?

What exactly do you think there is about our recent computer-controlled stock Harley engines, which would make them any less capable of low rpm operation than these extreme-performance engines?

 

Harleys have a roller bearing lower end. Your Corvette have a plain bearing lower end. Lugging a Harley beats the hell out of the rod bearings & the crankpin.

 

Actually, roller bearings are much more tolerant to low speeds and high loads, than plain bearings. Take wheel bearings as an example. Have you ever heard of someone who was worried about trashing their wheel bearings, because their wheels weren't turning fast enough? Or someone who wanted to replace their rolling-element wheel bearings with bushings? Or do you know of any vehicle manufacturers who use bushing style wheel bearings, rather than ball or roller bearings?

Rolling-element bearings are the universal choice in steel rolling mills, where the speeds are low and the loads are extremely high.
(I've used some terms which are derived from the professional bearing trade. If you don't understand what they mean, please ask)

 

The reversing of the load at low RPM's is what beats the **** out of the rod bearings. There's not a constant load like a wheel bearing.

 

These loads increase as rpms increase, not the other way around. A lot more force is required to move a piston and connecting rod up and down 83 times per second, reversing direction 166 times each second (about 5000 rpm), than to push it up and down 16 times per second, reversing direction 32 times (960 rpm).