hp still does not equal better bike. there's more too it. my 90+hp sportster is total garbage on the highway for long trips. (william wallace pain machice). my dyna, even when stock at whatever it was hp/tq wise, was a far better choice and still is for long hours in the saddle. folks will debate that (setup right bs) but, i'm past that bs. the sporter is also an actual small bike... again, folks will debate it but, gtfoh a touring bike vs a sporty... is one physcally bigger than the other?

i'm not getting beatup by my sporty over 12+ hours... been there, done that. why suffer when a tc or m8 will deliver smoother, more pleasent/plush ride with better power delivery @lower rpms at high speeds? for nonsensical pride rubbish.... no way. that's why you'd go m8

 

In its infancy the sportster was in fact considered "sporty" for the time period.

 

Many people do tour on a Sportster and do not feel beat up. I guess its the individual person and how they perceive it.

Theres one in this thread with 227,000 miles on it. His ride reports are listed.

https://www.hdforums.com/forum/sport...touring-2.html

 

no ' ' ' 's given.

 

Your opinion. Every one is not like you We are all different. You cant judge the whole population by your standards. I know you try sometimes but its not realistic. I don't feel beat up every time I ride for a few hours. Many do and many don't. But since you seem to have to always be right. Ill let it go.

 

it's not a debate

 

 

I consider this "Sporty"

 

man sportsters. i rode a 73-ish sportster that made me respect the folks that came up on them. ouch. guy i know and his son built it from a crates.

 

I rode Knuckleheads, panheads and shovelheads back in the day. You had to be tough.