The one that really brought it to the fore was the head-to-head between an XL1200S and an M2 Cyclone, and it was made very clear to me that Rich had got it right, and that I'd got it wrong. I enquired as to what I'd got wrong, and the basis of the problem was that I hadn't liked the Sportster Sport. It was late, I was half-deaf from the band that had just finished, and I was rather the worse for drink so, discretion being the better part of valour, I cut a hasty retreat and resolved to set the record straight.

I don't dislike Sportsters Sports, I just don't want one. Leastways, I don't want what is currently available, and it isn't because I think they are bad, but because they could - and should - be so much better. The X-series engine is inherently good: it works well and it can generate a lot of power if there is a will to produce it. Don't scoff at the back, it's true. The Buell Thunderstorm proves it, and the Thunderstorm is the basis for my frustration.

If it was a cooking 1200cc Sportster, I would take minor issue with the fact it is called a Sportster when it isn't, but I could live with the history behind it: yes, it does have some sporty credentials in style, shape and function, but it is the "Sport" tag which promises so much more and delivers, frankly, too little over the stocker compared to what it could give. I'm perhaps being a little churliush here: after all the suspension work is significant, and the 10% increase in torque is not to be sneezed at, especially dropped down the rev range as it is, and against the stocker, the numbers are impressive. But the stocker is a poor base against which to measure it.

It was the first year of the XL1200S when I rode my first Thunderstorm-engined Buell - a White Lightning - at an open day at Bauer Millett in Manchester. I was gobsmacked. It was stunning. I went back the following day to ride the new Sportster Sport expecting more of the same, and my sense of disappointment was so strong that I can still bring it to mind more than half-a-dozen years later. I've not forgiven it even now. I've not forgiven Harley-Davidson either for continuing to ignore what makes perfect sense to me: to harness the Thunderstorm engine in a Sportster guise. It would need a rubber-mounted or a balanced engine to lose the vibes at the higher revs required by the Thunderstorm to work its magic, but we are talking about a company who are not short of development engineers, and have demonstrated time and again that they are not short of ideas.

And now we hear rumours of a new Sportster engine.

Let's get the best out of the old engine first!

Of course the rumours could be so much hot air and I, for one, certainly hope so because I desperately want to want a Sportster Sport for its hot rod stance, its agile frame and its presence. It is a very different bike to a Buell, and vive la difference. Build a new motor, and you can be fairly sure it'll either be based on the new Buell engine, to maximise the return on that development, or else an OHC watercooled modern engine developed alongside the V-Rod, and I want neither. I want the Sportster Sport to realise its true potential: to return to its glory days when the name on the side of the tank was a description of its character and not just a model designation.

It's a great shame that the custom market has an obsession with turning Sportsters into small big-twins, because all the creative energies of a second set of development engineers are tied up with putting the XL motor into a rigid frame that it never had in the first place, and scaling down the big-twin tank to sit right on top of the smaller motor. Why? Aren't there enough big-twins out there already?

What's wrong with building a Sportster frame that utilises Dyna Glide rubber mountings, or the turnbuckles from the FXR, or even - especially as it is already designed to mount to the Sportster motor - Buell's Uniplanar mountings. The brochure would have you believe that the rigid mount engine gives the bike its taut frame, but tell a Dyna Sport rider, an FXR fan or even a Buell rider for that matter, that a rubber-mounted frame means a wobbly one and they'll laugh in your face. At worst it will be heavier, but it needn't be, and if you give it the power it'll make light of that anyway. You could stick a Thunderstorm straight into it, or this bike's engine and have better access to the power that is there without hitting the fundamental problem with the existing 1200S.

And that problem is?

Sportsters vibrate.

The bigger the Sportster and the faster the revs, the worse the vibration - unless you are very fortunate to have one that has half-decent balance from the production line. Sadly, this will have been delivered by a glitch in the production line, or by the grace of God depending on your religious viewpoint. The Sportster Sport is the worst of the bunch in this regard, because it encourages you to use those revs.

Oh, and I'd best explain here that I'm not advocating sticking balance shafts into the motor, as happened to produce the 88B. Oh no. I like some vibration. A lot of it in fact. Makes me realise I've got a proper engine between my legs.

The good news is that there are things around that will attempt to damp the vibration, or try to balance the motor - and you can even go as far as to balance the crank properly to rid yourself of the problem. We hope to be looking at those options in a future tech feature because, at the risk of upsetting the fundamentalist wing of the Sportster owners club, the vibration is too great and it gets in the way of the Sportster Sport going from being a good bike into becoming a great bike. But by what standards?

I've ridden plenty of stockers now, and I've ridden balanced, tuned ones, and there is no comparison at all. I'll cheerfully admit that I've yet to ride the loan bike from Wayside - which is supposed to have been thrashed to within an inch of its life from the start and which spins up quickly and smoothly - but I've yet to meet a proud owner who'd put their own bike through such a tortuous apprenticeship having just shelled out more than seven thousand pounds on it.

It is mischievous to suggest - as I have done on a previous occasion, out of sheer bloody-mindedness - that all XLs should be hand-balanced, because it isn't economic. But that isn't the end of the story. Damping down the vibes using tried and tested techniques is achievable, desirable and would give a new lease of life to an engine that owes a very large part of its engineering principles to a design from 1957. It should at least give it another five years useful life to reach its half-century, and that would be even more impressive than Harley's centenary. What a marketing opportunity: "We've been making the Sportster for longer than most modern motorcycle manufacturers have existed".

Critics might wonder what balancing out vibration might do for a forty-five year old engine: after all, it's still a long stroke, OHV air cooled motor and, on paper, at the dawn of the 21st Century you'd be forgiven for thinking they may have a point, but I'll tell you what you'd get. You'd get access to a wealth of power that has always been there for those who were brave enough to ignore signs of mechanical disaster.

Mechanical disaster? Actually not the case, but it sure sounds like it: methinks the lady protesteth too much.

Wealth of power? Sportster? Yeah, right!

Actually, yes. Right! Sixty-nine brake horsepower at 5,200 rpm, but that assumes you will hold on to 5,200rpm, and most wouldn't. Below 5,200 rpm you'll have less but you'll be riding it on the increased torque rather than the power. So the XL1200S you've ridden has very likely not shown you what 69bhp actually is, because until you know that high revs aren't hurting the motor as much as it sounds like it is, or is hurting you, you just don't go there. You're probably looking at mid to high-fifties at 4,500rpm and feeling cheated. When you consider that the 1970s 61ci XL1000 was generating 61bhp, you probably are.

Check out the Screamin' Eagle add-ons for an XL and you'll see ignition modules that'll take it to 6,800rpm, and even 8,000rpm, but if you can't hold onto the bars at 4,500 what's the point. There is more to be had on a balanced motor at higher revs, and the track boys and girls know it - which is why their bikes are quicker than yours. There are those who will tune their 1200S for the street and they will embarrass a few unwary sports riders, but this is all aftermarket stuff, and while it is great that it is available, a chunk of it should be stock.

I've been very quiet on Buell's Thunderstorm engine for a while, so I'll make amends. The Thunderstorm engine, out of the box, generates 93.5hp at 6,100rpm - and we're using the carburetted Cyclone for the figures here. More than a modest increase in anyone's books. Ah, but what about the torque. Try 83ft lbs at 5,600 rather than 76 at 4,000. More torque too, then, albeit at significantly higher revs. And, again, that is stock: out of the box, before you go playing.

But if you can't get to high revs on an XL why can you on a Buell? Rubber-mounts. You've not been paying attention have you? I've bounced off the rev-limiter on the Cyclone by accident, and with no discomfort for me - or the engine because that's what the rev limiter is there for. I've only ever got close to that on one Sportster, and that was the balanced Big Rock bike we tested last year: that, too, got smoother the more you twisted the throttle and it comes highly recommended.

It's worth considering the plight of the original Buell riders who were disappointed when engine manufacture switched to the Sportster line, because until then they had the best of both worlds: a hand-built, hand-balanced motor in a Uniplanar mounting system. Just as well though, when you consider the seat's uncanny resemblance to a mohican haircut.

So, where does that leave us? A roadtest without a single road mile mentioned so far.

Let's put that right.

The frame is the star part of the XL1200S package. It's never going to be stressed by the stock 1200S motor, and it differs from the rest of the Sportster range courtesy of its suspension package: fully adjustable at both ends, and able to switch from a bone-jarring ride through to something akin to the feel of a sports tourer. I've always found the ride to be harsher than can be achieved on a big twin, but this is at least part of what makes a Sportster taut.

It is this chassis that allows 1200S owners to give a good account of themselves in the roundabout wars, and in urban environments where a good dollop of torque can catapult you from one roundabout to the next, its power-plant can shame even some competent sports bike riders, but it is worth having a moment's silence here for the death of common sense. There are people who would struggle to find the limits of a CG125 Honda who are wobbling round on Fireblades, R1s and Gixers: replete in race leathers that you can only hope were remaindered, because the possibility that they chose them and paid full-price doesn't bear thinking about.

Mind you, it still makes you feel good knowing that you're in control of a solid, stable, competent roadbike. You feel better still when you pass these race-track wannabees on the inside on a roundabout, and the inside is the safest place to be, because while they could leave you standing with a subtle flick of the throttle, they might just as easily grab too much and soil their one-piece suit as their back end overtakes the front. Thankfully you've got a good set of anchors should you need to stop in a hurry, but it's worth being aware that you've little to brace yourself against on heavy braking - having nothing much by way of a tank to grip - and in nylon overtrousers, it is ... err ... interesting.

It is a pleasure running a 1200S as long as your mind is active, or as long as you avoid long straight stretches of road, dull carriageways and motorways, it's only a shame that it isn't more the bike it could, and should be. In my specific case, the seat ensures that I ride it solo, as herself has too vivid a recollection of other Badlander seats, but I'm happy enough pootling about on my own, lost in thoughts of how much better it would be with 50% more power … in a rubbermounted form … with XLCR bodywork … and upside-down forks.

Oh well, back to the original point. So, am I repentant?

No. Absolutely not. And I'll tell you why.

I got a couple of questions in, on the aforementioned occasion, before I shuffled off, because I was genuinely concerned that I had got it wrong. The first question would have been "what have you got", but I already knew him to be an 883 rider, so I asked whether he'd ever ridden a 1200 Sportster, to which the answer was no, but he couldn't imagine the vibration being a lot different to his 883. I then asked him therefore whether he'd ridden a Buell, and the answer again was no, although he offered the observation that I would be biased because I'd got one. He then asked, if Harley had the ability to produce a sportier Sportster, why hadn't they.

We are fortunate enough to be taken seriously by Harley-Davidson UK, and this gives us extended access to their press fleet, so we get to swing a leg across everything in the range. You have got to ride an XL1200S - or any bike - for a good few hundred miles to appreciate its strengths and identify its weaknesses. It is only then that you can get beyond the novelty value of a fresh experience - even if it is a revisited one - but it doesn't end there. It is only when you climb off one bike onto another that you can make a valid comparison between any two bikes and in the case of the 1200S, to climb aboard another bike with a very similar engine treated differently showed up the limitations immediately. In this case that other bike was the M2, and the Cyclone showed what the Sportster Sport could easily be.

The importance of his last question was in the phrasing of it. I would have asked why Harley don't make a better Sportster when they obviously can, because there is no shadow of a doubt in my mind that it is within the gift of the Motor Company to make a Sportster Sport that is worthy of the name, and they can do it using existing plant, components, experience and skills. Okay, so they'd need to look at the frame.

Unfortunately I don't know the answer to that question. I really don't have the first idea why they don't. Perhaps, more disappointingly, I don't know why the aftermarket frame builders haven't made an alternative XL chassis that either turns an unloved, unappreciated M2 into a hot-rod Sportster Sport, taking the running gear from the Cyclone while it's about it.

So there really is nothing to apologise for. I don't dislike Sportster Sports at all. I really do want one, but I want the Sportster Sport that the Motor Company could be making in 2002 rather than the one that they do. It would still take its styling cues from an original idea that first saw light of day in 1951, when the Sportster shape was wrapped round a side-valve motor, and it just might revive the flagging sales of the XL-series in the UK. And if someone doesn't do it soon, it could all be too late for the Sportster - struck down while being so close to realising its potential. It happened with the tube-frame Buells and it could still happen to the Sportster, and that would be a shame.

Second Opinion:
Words: Rich

Why would a cruiser manufacturer like Harley-Davidson even bother making bikes with a sports moniker, surely it's missing the point? Well - deep breath - I would actually disagree with everything in that last sentence. Harley do not make cruisers, they make motorcycles … and anyone who can be bothered to actually ride one will very, very quickly find that out for themselves. All of Harley's motorcycles are surprisingly much better at being motorcycles than most other riders would give them credit for. The manufacturer makes different types of motorcycle for different purposes and tastes and some of the machines they offer are tauter, tighter and faster and so earn a 'Sport' suffix. That Harley's definition of 'sport' is rather different from many of these other riders' definition I'd suggest, is the fault of the other riders' pretty narrow interpretation of the word.

Discounting Buell for the time being as a rather special exception, Harley currently offer four performance orientated motorcycles: Two Dynas; the Super Glide Sport and T-Sport and two Sportsters; the 883R and this, the XL Sportster 1200 Sport.

Let me get something straight right away, about the only thing that really annoys me about this machine is that it has too many uses of the word 'Sport' in its title. How long, I wonder, did it take to come up with such an inspired model designation? How many concept, planning, production and marketing meetings were held in airy conference rooms in that office complex on Juneau Avenue? Can't one person have pointed it out? The scary thing is that someone may have, possibly repeatedly, but everyone else chimed in 'No, it's okay, not an issue!' Blinkin' 'eck, I was often asked what that handsome, thoroughbred beastie was between my legs. 'A 1200 Sportster Sport.' I'd be forced to reply and they would look into my eye and I'd know they'd be thinking 'You've forgotten haven't you?'

Name cast aside, the Sport I picked up from Wayside Harley-Davidson was a particularly fine example of the model. In an all black livery, the fairly compact machine did look very imposing - a black beauty. I like cast wheels and the sport offered two, the twin black conventionally mounted clocks - rev counter and speedo - looked just right as did the wide and low set stainless handlebars. While the Dyna Sports models can look a little sombre and utilitarian, the Sportster shone. Even the silver-grey coated engine cases looked pretty good beneath the black barrels. The machine appeared up-together: 'finished' if you like. While some Harleys demand attention from the ordinary person in the street and shout 'I'm a Harley me!' with acres of chrome and high handlebars, others attract the attention of only motorcycle afficionados, looking quietly purposeful, but distinctly different from every other marque. The Sportster Sport however, singularly, turned everyone's head … even supersport bike riders, normally disdainful of anything with that distinctive double-barrelled name on the tank, stopped short and gave the machine a good coat of looking at.

I was disappointed when turning on the ignition to discover that it had only about ten miles on the clock. Presumably ready to roll and on the road since before Christmas 2001, nobody else had ridden the Sportster since the initial shakedown, what a crying shame that such a great looking machine had lingered unwanted in the garage for so long. It also, of course, suggested that I was looking at a pretty tame week of gently running the brand new motor in, and a pretty uneventful - some might suggest tedious - long ride North.

On starting, however, the engine didn't appear 'too new'; seemed happy enough, so after warming it thoroughly I cocked a leg over and headed on a long loop home via Cambridgeshire.

You cannot keep a good bike down. It didn't take me very long at all to realise that although I might have to coddle the motor for a while, you aren't obliged to run-in running gear and the Sportster Sport's set up was adding up to instant fun out of the box.

It offers three, four piston calliper disc brakes, two at the front, one at the rear and they were so competent, full of feel and confidence-inspiring that leaving braking late into tight bends was almost a requirement. Allied to those brakes are some truly wonderfully set-up shocks. Helped massively by an extremely taut and responsive frame, the fully adjustable cartridge-type front forks and twin adjustable gas reservoir rear shockers meant that this motorcycle wasn't going anywhere except where you pointed it. Serious progress could and was being made - despite the motor - and, in capable hands, was not looking too sad when other riders appeared.

Perhaps, in fact, it was wrong to say 'despite the motor' because although I was unable, at least for a couple of hundred miles or so, to rev the motor very much at all, the power that I could use in that limited rev range was pretty damn good actually. Unlike any other Sportster, the 1200 Sport offers a pair of twin-plugged, higher-compression heads and that more efficient combustion chamber has been combined with a hotter high performance cam. I was surprised just how quickly this standard Harley picked up its heels and as the miles accrued, the engine loosened and the revs I could use without feeling like a complete git got steadily higher, the machine just got better and better. Fully loose, with a few thousand miles under its wheels, even without staging, the Sportster Sport hinted at an altogether involving, smile inducing and, dammit, bloody quick machine.

With staging … coo!

A stage one Sport would be a lovely beast, I'd wager, breathing properly with a decent set of pipes. With its already hot cam, and sorted ignition, I suppose it could be argued that the machine is already at stage two … to some extent at least. While a full-on stage three is the kind of berserk thing you could do to any Harley, whatever its earlier heritage, but at least with a stage three Sportster Sport you already have a more than competent chassis to handle all that unleashed power: no need to shell out good money on high performance running gear to avoid the magnetic trees!

While the low profile, semi-gunfighter seat didn't promise maximum long-range comfort for the rider, it actually was pretty supportive; constructed with enough knowledge of human bums to offer a degree of comfort while remaining low and hard. There's a job for you, 'Ergonomical Arse Expert' - apply now! I won't go into great detail however regarding any comments made by pillions, suffice to say that if you removed the rear pegs I don't think anyone would mind too much.

Like any Sportster the 1200 Sport was a joy around the city, very, very few other motorcycles are anything like as happy ducking and diving, dodging and darting through a busy city centre as a Harley-Davidson Sportster. Guffaw 'til your ears fall off matey, it's true. With it's superior set up, the Sportster Sport was even better most of the time than a run of the mill Sporty - though I'd definitely plump for a staged 883R as the ultimate city street stomper.

Seemingly longer legged and taut, the Sportster Sport loved the open road. Smaller A-roads were where the bike made most sense, real fun could be had hovering around the National Speed Limit, whereas the supersports boys - those who can actually ride - are forced to go ballistic before the fun can start. If you can't ride, of course, then just about any two wheeled vehicle is going to be a bit of an 'experience' so get yourself one of those mean little step through 50cc sports scooters to start with, honestly - I'm not being 'funny' or dismissive: you'll have a fairly safe hoot, guaranteed.

No, the Sportster Sport will not win the TT, it'll also get its arse kicked bigstyle on an all-marques track day. The Sportster Sport is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a race bred 'sports bike'. But it does deserve its 'Sport' moniker. Because out in the real world, on real roads, it works very, very well indeed. The Sportster Sport can be ridden very enthusiastically, it won't bite back, you're always pretty certain of what the machine can do and is capable of, you can push yourself and your ability pretty damn hard, without compromising safety or the laws of the open road too much. THAT'S what the 'Sport' moniker means, because isn't that what 'sport' is all about?

Specifications        

Engine:	OHV V2 Evolution. Air-cooled 45° V-twin.
Displacement:	74ci (1199cc)
Compression Ratio:	10.0:1
Bore & Stroke:	88.8 x 96.8
Torque:	96.0 @ 3000rpm
Fuel System:	Single Keihin Carburettor.
Exhaust System:	Staggered shorty duals
Oil Capacity:	2.8 litres
Fuel Capacity:	12.5 litres (includes reserve)
Primary Drive:	Triple-row (triplex) chain
Final Drive:	Kevlar belt
Overall Length:	2250mm
Seat Height:	711mm
Ground clearance:	170mm
Rake/Trail:	29.6 / 116.8mm
Brakes: Front: Rear:	2 x 292 x 5.08mm 292 x 5.84
Wheels: Front: Rear:	T19x2.50 TLA DOT Cast spoke. T16x3.00 TL DOT Cast spoke
Tyres: Front: Rear:	100/90-19 51V 130/90 V16
Wheelbase:	1515mm
Dry Weight:	240kg
Lean Angles:	37.5° left / 37° right
Instruments:	Electronic Speedo with odometer and re-settable trip meter. Electronic tacho. Oil pressure light.
Colour Options:	Vivid Black, jade sunglo pearl, white pearl, real red pearl, impact blue pearl.
Price:	£7,295 Prices include usual otr inc. PDI, full tank of fuel, 12-months tax, first service, 12 months membership of Harley Owners Group (HOG) including their European roadside recovery
Test bike kindly supplied by:	Harley-Davidson UK. Oxford Business Park, 6000 Garsington Road, Oxford England OX4 2DQ Tel: 0870 850 1903 (UK)