A LOT OF PEOPLE TOOK THAT AS MEANING I thought that the Buell is a better bike than the Sportster, and took to defending their corner, but I was trying to get the point across that the Sportster could and should have been massively better than it was, and that by rubber mounting the Sportster's engine the XL-series would have a new lease of life.

When the rubber-mount - or to give it its Sunday name, Isoplanar -Sportster was announced in late 2003 I dissected the specification and wondered whether it might just be an evolution too far. It added weight and it reduced the lean angles, and while it did have 15% more power than the stock XLH1200 motor, it was nearly the same 15% that the XL1200S already had over its cooking cousin, and nowhere near the potential that had been realised with the Thunderstorm motors, never mind the further redeveloped version powering the XB series Buells.

And then I rode it. And I chose to ride it after spending the previous day crossing the country on the XL1200S, just to get me back into Sportster mode, and I spent the following days switching between the old "S", the new "R" and my old Buell Cyclone just to get a proper handle on it. I wanted to verify that rubber mounting the XL had made as significant a difference as I'd hoped, that losing the engine as a stressed member hadn't upset the handling, and to confirm that Harley should've given it more power.

I'll start by laying my cards on the table, as a card holding Sportster cynic of ten years standing, and by saying that the XL1200R is easily the best stock Sportster I have ridden without exception. Indeed, that I would consider buying one and would have no hesitation in recommending one to a friend - I know that, because I already have done. I'm not sure precisely which model would be the right replacement for her CBR600 Hornet, but the new XL is right in a way that the old model wasn't. I'll go further too, and recommend that anyone who took an old XL out for a demo and came back underwhelmed takes out a 2004 model.

Let's get the specification thing out of the way straight away, because if all you've got to work on are the 2003 and 2004 brochures, the differences stand out like a sore thumb.

The new Harley is heavier than the "S", but never feels like it is unless you're pushing it up a hill. It's easier to manhandle courtesy of wider, narrower gauge bars with their proportionally smaller grips fool your brain into making it feel lighter than you'd expect. I'm still a little disappointed that it isn't lighter, because there is no good reason why it shouldn't be, but I'm pleasantly surprised that it doesn't feel compromised. If you look more closely at the weight issue, you'll come away with 50lbs more frame on a bike that weighs, in this specific comparison, only 24lbs more, so there's a lot of weight shaved off from somewhere, and most of that's going to be within the engine.

The new model does have a more restricted lean angle, but that is more a result of the footrests being wider and lower, relative to the "S", which makes for a better riding position, with a straighter back if you're six-foot plus. There is a reduction in the ground clearance, but with a chassis this narrow it's unlikely that the bottom frame rails will touch the deck even if the bike is lying down, and with the absence of the big-twin's massive primary drive the absolute lean angle is going to be determined by the sidestand tag on the left and the exhausts, as ever, on the right. Worth noting here that the lower back end of the Custom models mean that the exhausts will restrict that model further. The footrests do fold up and back when they touch the deck, so it's perhaps not as big an issue as it first seems - in the hailstorms of mid January I confess I wasn't about to find out.

The "R" actually has less torque than a 1200S, and while the power is slightly up - a single horsepower over the "S" - it will only be evident on a Dyno. On the road any differences disappear by the second gearchange, and you'd swear the new motor has significantly more horses. It feels a little more like the Buells of old and you can spin it up a lot more easily than you can the 1200S, and I would suggest that it would take a seasoned owner of the older model to keep pace with it. I'd also be surprised if a 1200S owner wasn't swayed by the easier power of what feels like a sweeter motor.

In terms of power potential, there is a lot more lurking within its cases than Harley have offered, which will give Screamin' Eagle a bit more trade, and the better technicians at the dealers have their noses in parts book working out what can be done to liberate a few more ponies.

The rest of the spec is so close as to be not worth considering …except one thing: oil. We've pointed this out before, and will continue to do so because it matters. We know the oil tank is a different shape, and has a trick filler cap - which a lot of Sportster owners of my acquaintance have taken an immediate and irrational dislike to - but that's cosmetic. What matters is that it holds more than 20% more oil, and that is a good thing. It might mean it'll cost more for an oil change, but it will run cooler which will work out cheaper in the long run in terms of engine life.

So much for the specification, which brings us to the fundamental differences between old and new Sportsters. The biggest difference by far is that almost no cycle parts from the old bike fit the new one, and the same is true of most external motor covers and mechanical ancillaries: there are "Sale" tables across the country where dealers are divesting themselves of old XL parts and accessories. But for the forks, wheels and shocks, you are looking at a very different motorcycle, despite appearances. It's at the same level as the switch from Iron to Evo Sportster in the mid-eighties.

There are some major modifications, which will have a significant impact on most prospective customers, and there are the cosmetic changes, which you'll either love or loathe. I'll try to cover the former and leave you to rely on your own aesthetic for the latter.

First most noticeable thing about the new model is the lack of a balance pipe beneath the air filter. It is still balanced, but it follows the Dyna's lead and hides it behind the forward muffler. The balance pipe is a strange, substantial combination of balance-pipe and exhaust bracket for the rear muffler, but thankfully is separate from the mufflers themselves. This means you don't need to buy new headers if you want to lose the balance pipe - if it offended your eye as it did mine - but it does mean that you've got to use 2004-on mufflers to fit around or use the balance pipe, or else find a new way of hanging your rear muffler off the bike. It won't take long for the aftermarket to catch up, I'm sure, but your choices are limited to factory stock at present. Harley-Davidson offer two basic types: one that co-exists with the balance pipe, and a Screamin' Eagle II version that uses its additional volume for more performance - both come in "balony cut"or "slash down" forms.

Sticking with tuning, ignition modules are specific to the model, and at least partly because the timing cover is now little more than an empty pocket. Ignition timing is now taken from the crank itself though a new sensor. The same holds for high-flow air cleaners but as the only 2004 model range in the UK to be fitted with a carburettor, it will reward those owners who have a wealth of experience of traditional fuel metering.

The cams are the same as fitted to the old 1200S, albeit with an incremental suffix which generally means nothing, and you've got to wonder how easily the XB12 cams would slot in. A set of .551 lift cams are available from Screamin' Eagle and currently hold no warnings relating to additional engine work requirements but we'll keep an eye on that - slightly milder profile cams in the older model required careful measurements to check piston clearances, but we'll only know when we talk to someone who's had the top end off one.

The heads are closely based on the Buells, but there are no specifications in the public domain at the moment to qualify how close. They bear an uncanny resemblance externally, with different machine finishing and rocker covers to disguise the fact, but how far that extends into the combustion chamber and ports remains to be seen - certainly there is an expectation here that the 100hp output of the XB12 motor should be achievable outside the strict limitations imposed on production motorcycles.

But Sportsters aren't all about performance - even if the new one does have far greater potential.

Next up, and another challenge to the aftermarket, is the change in every piece of bodywork except the front mudguard. The tank retains the profile of last year's model but its mountings are different. It's interface with the seat is different, aided by the broader rear mudguard that accommodates the wider 150/80 rear tyre, and that item's requirement to avoid the oil tank on the timing side, and a matching cosmetic panel on the primary side, in place of the long-established triangular cover and exposed battery. If you want to change the overall shape of the bike, you're either going to have to stick with Harley's offerings, wait for the aftermarket to catch up again, or bend it yourself. For stuff like racks and sissy bars, you'd be better off starting with post-2002 Dyna and multi-fit gear than old Sportster stuff. And in case you hadn't noticed, there is now greater distinction too between the custom and street Sportsters, as the new custom tank will not fit with the street seat and vice versa, so if you want a big tank XL you might be better starting with a "C" and switching rear shocks.

Even stuff like controls have been impacted by the change. Handlebar controls for 7 /8 -inch 'bars are not common in the Harley market, and while the gear shift can't have changed that much, if you're putting forward controls onto a bike, or switching styles, you'll want to maintain some symmetry between left and right, which is when you first realise why the timing side looks so bare: the master cylinder has disappeared. Happy day! No more shifting that before you can get to the rear pulley, but slightly unsettling as it now lives in the dirtiest place on any motorcycle: in front of the rear wheel.

But screw all that, how do they ride?

Chopping and changing between the three bikes reminded me of the Deuce/Vegas comparison of the last issue, being genuinely surprised by the commonality of the bikes, and the disparities.

The 1200S felt to me like the heavier, stockier bike: purposeful and planted, and very traditional in its feedback. And very much at odds with both the Cyclone and the 1200R. Buzzing round town, the "S" never got beyond its comfort zone but I made a point of a few cross-country runs on a selection of motorways, A-roads and fast B-roads - I left the nastier Bs alone as the weather wasn't up to it - and the "S" rewarded me with a tingling sensation round the feet, hands and backside, and a view of what would have been the underside of an airship, had one been hovering off to my right hand side, courtesy of a mirror that just wouldn't stay pointing where it should've been. I didn't pick upon the lack of tensioning screws on the backs of the new mirrors in 2003 - even on this same bike -but with a few more miles under its wheels, and higher revs to test it, the right hand mirror needed constant adjustment throughout our time together: typically every ten miles when cruising, and every hundred yards when holding more than 4,000rpm - to the point where I ignored it and just used the left-hand one and greater caution. For all that, though, I've largely forgiven the XL1200S for not being my sort of bike, and come to terms with its limitations within my personal context, and every time I ride one now, I enjoy it by keeping within its parameters rather than pushing it to mine - and that was equally true after switching to it from the Buell, and from the new "R".

The 1200R was first subjected to the slow roads out of Chester's historic centre and I was disappointed by its blandness. I was still warming the motor, and sticking well within legal limits, and I really wondered whether Harley had gone too far in taming the Sportster. Not for long though. Open roads, and particularly a long sweeping uphill bend climbing off the Cheshire Plain and up onto a hilly bit that must have a name but I'm damned if I can think of it, the Sportster showed its true colours. As soon as I cleared the urban 50 limit, I took Kirk at his word and opened the throttle more than I ordinarily would've on so young an engine, and was rewarded by the proper Sportster feel, albeit without the blurred mirrors or vision. I tstomped up the hill, and took to the more challenging road that signified the end of a dual carriageway with relish. The new frame was certainly up to everything I could put it through, and felt very much like the old model in its ability to hold a line, and there was never a hint of the extra weight it was carrying. This, for me, was what the 1200S should have been in 1997 - 1998 at the latest. This was the bike I'd expected to saddle after climbing off my first Buell demo ride. This was a bike that the Dyna had made possible a decade ago, and I wondered how Harley-Davidson could've justified holding it off for so long … and then I wondered, and continue to do so, about how I would've reacted to the Buell if this bike had existed in 1997.

Switching to the Cyclone last - because it was always intended to be a throwaway comparison - I was aware for the first time ever of the heritage that the Buell owes its distant relative. Sure the Buell has a spring in its step that the additional weight of any Harley will stifle, and the geometry opens up a new world of experiences, but the engine and its power delivery were unashamedly closely related. Kindred spirits to be certain, and proud to acknowledge the debt that each owes the other: without the Sportster, the Buell wouldn't exist in its current guise; without the Buell, the Sportster wouldn't have made this quantum leap out of its past and into what should prove to be a stunning future. I still want to see a Buell-powered, Harley-styled new generation XLCR though, because it is apparent that for all the Buell's technical superiority, the Harley wins hands-down in grabbing the attention of the rest of the planet.

I did wonder, before the 2004 range was announced, whether the new Sportster would be a token model to take the XL moniker through to its fiftieth birthday in 2007, but on first acquaintance I can see it providing a solid foundation for the rest of the range. I expect fuel injection will arrive in time for the tightening of the EPA regs, and I'd hope to see a reworked 1200R bearing the "S" suffix again complete with trick suspension and another 15% more power again.

Harley have been very clever in continuing the Sportster's evolution, creating a bike that is much more of a small Harley than the old model 1200 ever was, but without being much less of a Sportster. It is still the lithe, quick rapier of a bike in comparison to the broadsword of any stock big twin, but it has gained a level of flexibility that it has lacked - for my money - for the last twenty years of its life, and had only been considered flexible for the previous twenty-five because we were a hardier bunch of people for whom a Honda CB750 was the height of sophistication, and who would put up with much more without complaining. It has joined the twenty-first century without losing its character, without compromising its principles and I anticipate that it'll make a lot of new friends over the next few years, both from within its traditional market and those people who have ridden one and then gone out and bought a smoother-running Jap cruiser.

How it will be received by die-hard Sportster fans remains to be seen. It will undoubtedly impact on the resale values of pre-2004 XLs, just as the Evo did the iron Sportster's, but that was more an issue of perceived reliability than comfort, and those riders of the last generation of Sportsters have acceptedthem for what they are, and come to love them for their character traits. I think the customs will have a better time of it as the pre-04 "C"s had a different style and were always less prone to the shortcomings of the solid-mount because of their riding style, while the new generation "C"s will use their flexibility to become Harley's light touring models with the new range of luggage.

And so Harleyworld in Chesterfield, and Centurion in Chester have their demo bikes back waiting to change a few more attitudes and raise a few more smiles. Centurion's black 'un is booked in to its service department sometime during the next week for an encounter with a spanner, which will see it sporting a Mikuni HSR42, free-breathing filter and a set of pipes, in anticipation of it breaking through the 80hp mark at least. I'd love to have the time to be able to add the experience of that to the end of this review, but we're late enough already. No harm in sowing the seeds of interest though because they're looking into that as an alternative to a basic stage one, which should run out at £650 by the book, and offering the improved response of the flatslide carb for another £250 at £900.

As for me, I've handed in my Sportster cynic card and am looking forward to riding an 883 - something I thought I'd never say - to see what the Motor Company is offering as its new entry level Roadster. Bearing in mind that the outgoing 883 was always in the top five best selling custom bikes for 2003, it bodes well for 2004.

Second Opinion:
Words: Rich

I arrived at Harleyworld, in Chesterfield, with a certain amount of trepidation, this was to be my first ever ride on a 'rubber mount' Sportster and, to be absolutely truthful, I was worried that Harley might have sanitised a model range I've always held very dear, having once owned a late four speed Sportster for four years, and near nigh 70,000 miles.

The XL1200R Sportster 1200 Roadster - or just plain 1200R as it will inevitably end up being shortened to - is certainly a handsome beast in the flesh. A bit of a shock, because when I first saw the pre-launch pictures of the new Sportsters I hadn't been massively impressed: another bike then that doesn't come across too well in pictures, looking perhaps a bit unfinished and ungainly in 2D. In actuality the new Sporty looks chunkier and tougher than its immediate stock predecessors but most definitely - and excuse me please while I use a bit of bro speak here - 'hangs right'. But as any crusty old salt will testify when he's eyeing up a new vessel for seaworthiness - as a pretty reliable rule of thumb- if it looks right, it is right.

That this Sportster is called a1200 'R' didn't go unnoticed either. Harley may perhaps want you to equate the 'R' suffix with Roadster in 2003/4, but this machine shares some definite styling cues with the solid mount 883R from the last couple ofyears: a nicely balanced and surprisingly comfortable semi-sporting machine in its own right, the big comfy looking seat, the wide handlebars etc. But please don't confuse the phrase 'styling cues' with 'shared parts' because, at the risk of spawning yet another conspiracy theory, hardly anything from a solid mount Sportster will fit a rubber one - not even seats, handlebars or petrol tanks, and that includes factory as well as aftermarket parts. "Could it all be completely accidental?" I ask, rather rhetorically. On the up-side, I suppose, if you currently own a solid mount Sporty, now is an incredibly good time to pop to your local dealer and browse for dirt cheap solid Sportster goodies!

So, this 1200R then. Well, I know intellectually that the machine is meant to be heavier, but wheeling it about prior to starting I cannot honestly say that I noticed. The 1200R seemed just as light and manoeuvrable as an 883R, which up to that point had been the 'lightest' Sportster I'd handled. The 1200R's seat is fairly narrow so while it isn't particularly low, most people can get their feet down on both sides, and its wide handlebars offer tons of low speed leverage. In the real world what this means is if you've parked nose first into the kerb, backing the 1200R up the camber isn't completely impossible even for the vertically challenged … and for gorgeous, long legged, big buggers like me it's really easy.

The 1200R (and no, R doesn't stand for rubber) cold starts exactly the same way as a solid mount, pull out the choke, two big fistfuls of throttle, let go and jab the starter. A couple of times with this one and then it caught: nothing to worry about, there's not a lot of people take demo rides at this time of year, and it probably hadn't been run much since Christmas.

Well, it certainly sounded like a un-staged stock Sportster: muffled but definitely a Harley vee twin and as such, rather pleasant. And indeed, while the 1200R warmed, it seemed to shimmy and shake much like any best beloved Sportster of old too - well okay, some of it did …you know, the enginey bit - not the whole bloody bike like said beloved solid Sporty.

Sitting astride the machine I was again reminded, favourably, of the earlier 883R; big, wide and fairly low handlebars, and footpegs and controls slightly forward of the rider, allowing the rider to sit bolt upright in full control. Most reassuring. Something felt just slightly odd though and it took me a little while to work out what it was - it was the handlebar grips. The new rubber-mount models have ditched the familiar inch bars that all V-twin Harleys have had for generations for skinnier ones. Harley cite usability, as it allows smaller hands to reach the levers easier but I wouldn't be surprised if it were also to make the 1200R feel more metric for nervous first timers.

Whatever, it was pudding-eating time. The 1200R was warmed nicely and there was therefore no more reason to put off actually riding it. The clutch slid in, pumped twice, then first was selected with a neat snick and even as I fed the light clutch back out, nothing, nothing at all felt out of place - I was definitely riding another Harley, and furthermore, that Harley was most definitely a Sportster.

Squirting out of Chesterfield, trying to lose the Saturday 'I've no idea where I'm going' traffic I was only really aware I was piloting a Sportster. It was narrow, manoeuvrable, well braked and, performance-wise, eager to please. Here, around town, I really welcomed the wide handlebars of the 1200R. On such a narrow machine the extra leverage of the wide 'bars meant that the Sportster literally felt as if it had shed half of its weight - no longer a lengthy wheelbase, stiff turning Roadhouse hopper, but a sharp turning, responsive, city slicker, requiring very little effort to influence the direction, or to check, or indeed increase its velocity.

However, with the town left behind I really began to get the measure of this new Sportster. Despite the dreadful riding conditions - riding soaked slippery roads through high hill fog or low cloud - and in that soaking fog/rain/complete bleck the Scandinavians call 'haar' and I call heavy spitting - the Sportster 1200R shone. Not only did the new Sportster take this notoriously gawdawful mid-winter High Peak weather in its stride, feeling secure, planted and surprisingly agile, the rider was enjoying every damp moment.

I won't pretend for one moment that I was getting a knee down on every bend - I'll safely leave that claim to the serial tossers that 'test' the usual machines around the exact same deserted Peterborough roundabout when the weather is nice enough for the photographer to turn up. On the other hand I was riding the machine a hell of a lot faster than I'd originally intended on these dark, wet and winding hill roads. The 1200R inspires confidence, but not recklessly: I wasn't being a nutter by any means- after all, I'd signed the usual document saying I was liable for the first grand if I dropped the machine - but nothing came close to me.

Over the hills, down into Matlock Bath and then off away again on roads I'd never ridden before, I could do no more than marvel how smooth the new rubbermount was. True I hadn't explored the brand new upper reaches of the 2004 rev range yet, but within the 'normal' Sportster rev range the new 1200R was every bit as fast, while also being uncannily smooth.

Charging out of some remote Pictish hill village or other the road broke out of the fog and ran straight and fairly flat - I couldn't believe my luck. Here now was an opportunity not to be missed, a chance to explore uncharted stock Sportster territory and hold the bike in gear!

Winding the throttle open and seeing the rev counter needle sweep past four thousand revs on a stock solid mount Sportster was just a tad short of barely legal torture - for both the machine and to be fair, its rider too. The old Sportster felt as if it was being screwed to death and the rider felt every throe! But the 1200R felt smooth and sophisticated and, perish the thought, gave the impression that it might actually like being thrashed. Pervert!

So I did, I wound open the throttle in third on that safe straight and boy, did the 1200R like that or what? I truly couldn't believe what had just happened, the 1200R had taken the 4000+ revs in its stride, which was okay in itself, but the machine had continued to perform, had continued to accelerate hard and this poxy road was no longer the place to best explore this new found potential.

M1, Sportster? Sportster, M1? Surely not?

Oh yes!

Eagerly seeking and then following signs to the infamous M1 I quickly found a slip road heading North and swept down very rapidly into the stream - incidentally stuffing a soft-top Saab Turbo with a bad attitude into the bargain. I was pretty impressed I can tell you, I'd nudged a ton before loosening off - virtually impossible before on a stocker - and then shifted into fifth. But it wasn't fifth, it was bloody fourth! Now actually, finally, in fifth, I was totally comfortable, upright and unstressed, trundling along a motorway at a steady ninety five - with tons of power in reserve. Amazing! 80mph saw just on 4000rpm, 90mph added up to 4250-ish and the machine officially redlined at on or over 6000rpm.

Returning to Chesterfield (with only a couple more detours) before the purple mass of cloud advancing from the West broke on me personally, I just fast-cruised about on theSportster 1200R. No need to hit the rev range too hard now (despite the urge to) seeing as the bike had less than 400 miles on the clock. No real need to, I now knew the machine could shift like no recent stock Sportster ever could, it handled equally as well as a solid mount 1200S, had effective brakes and a hard seat that would be fun getting used to. It is truly hard to envisage what a correctly run in example will be like - other than F****N' SWEET!

The 1200R was smooth, the vibes no longer shaking mirrors or fillings loose but somehow, despite all the improvements, it had retained its essential Sportster-ness. The rubber-mounted 2004 1200R is still most definitely a Harley-Davidson Sportster but - and I never thought I'd be writing this - to be absolutely honest, the 1200 Roadster is just like a real Sportster - only better.

Third Opinion:
Words: Mark

I climbed off Andy's M2 Cyclone straight on to the 2003 Sportster Sport and it felt like a toy. The ergonomics of the handlebars, seat and footpegs meant that from the belt and braces, slightly aggressive sporting stance of the Buell, I suddenly felt as though I was riding a machine two thirds of the size. The handlebars felt too narrow, and the footpegs too far forward, and a couple of inches too high. Generally speaking, I like a low seat height on a bike, coupled with a feet forward riding position, but the footpegs on the Sport are neither forward nor rearset, meaning that if you are of average height (I'm 5'11") your knees ends up slightly higher than your hips, which, coupled with the narrow and low handlebars produce a riding position that is slightly hunched. Not comfortable for cruising, and not that comfortable for riding quickly, come to think about it. Given the 'Sport' moniker, a set of rearsets wouldn't be that out of place, located somewhere near where the pillion pegs are now. You would have to remount the pillion pegs further backwards as well of course, but it would be well worth it. A lot of Sportster riders use the rear pegs when doing long distance, and I can see why.

And another thing. In 2003 they still made Sportsters with the footpegs bolted to the engine, which was never a bright engineering solution, it meant that the already lumpy and vibey Sporty lump beat its potato potato rhythm straight into your ankle bone. Okay for a quick putter around town, or even a fifty mile blast across country, but not that great for hammering down the motorway for a hundred miles at a time. In 2003 the solution to this problem was to made the footrests out of really thick rubber with slots cut into it, thus isolating the worst of the vibes from the rider. To be fair, they do work fairly well, but the vibration is still noticeable right through the rev range.

Out on the road it's a nice bike to ride, the extra horses are welcome when it comes to overtaking or powering out of bends. It holds a line well in a bend, but the front end feels a little bit vague at first. The seat is firm but surprisingly comfortable, the instruments are clear, and the switchgear is nice and easy to use. The teardrop mirrors work better than circular ones - offering slightly more peripheral vision - until you start revving the bike towards the red line and then the vibes from the engine render them next to useless. It's notable how quickly you develop a technique of checking the mirrors when you change gear; disengaging the clutch is done in synchronisity with a quick check rearwards.

Stylistically the bike is very successful. Harleys have always sold well on the heritage of the marque, and this is particularly in evidence with the Sportster range. The Sportster has always been a very pure machine, right from its inception in 1957, and the lean, uncluttered Sport wears its small tank and small mudguards with pride. A shame about the balance pipe on the exhaust, but more about that later.

In summary, the 2003 Sport is a fantastic looking bike, great fun to ride on sweeping A-roads, but a pain in the wrists, knees and ankles on motorways and dual carriageways. Would the new generation 2004 Roadster meet the shortcomings of the 2003 Sport? Or would rubber mounting the engine render the bike far too sanitised, too bland, and shock horror - no longer a 'true' Sportster?

I wouldn't have to wait long to find out.

I rode the Sport over to meet Andy who had picked up the Roadster from Centurion Harley-Davidson that morning, and got straight off the old and onto the new which sat gently ticking, its oil still warm from Andy's ride. A direct comparison in fact ...

The wider 'bars, despite being smaller seven-eighths bar, felt purposeful and instantly comfortable, due to their increased span. The footpegs are in a much better position too, and joy of joys, are no longer bolted straight to the motor. No, the pegs now sit on elegant brackets which sweep backwards from the pegs underneath the engine casings where they meet the frame cradle. Given that the motor is indeed mounted on rubber, at tickover (where the engine is running at its lumpiest), it does shake about to some degree so it's just as well. A glass of water wouldn't last long on it that's for sure.

As soon as I got out on the open road the difference between the old and new bikes was immediate. The Roadster really wants to go! Despite the traditional lumpy Harley tickover, as soon as you open the throttle the engine really comes alive and wants to rev. The power curve is smooth, and the power keeps coming in until you get right into the red. This is the buzziest standard Harley I've ever ridden and it feels an absolute blast. Because of its willingness to rev, it feels as though the new engine produces power before the old one and is still making it after the old engine has run out of oomph. So how have they done it? Is it purely a case of isolating the rider from the worst of the vibration so that the rider is more willing to rev the engine harder? In a word, no. The combustion chambers have been completely redesigned, they've lightened the rods, pistons and reworked the valve train, resulting in a engine that produces 15% more power than the 2003 equivalent. Because the engine works harder, there are improvements in the cooling systems both internally and externally. Inside the engine there is a oil spray device which sprays oil to coat the underside of the pistons, and externally there are more cooling fins. The oil tank now holds another quart which is a good idea too. The trade off for all this new found power is a slight reduction in maximum torque output, but unless you spend all your time riding at the precise rpm where the maximum torque is delivered, the trade off for more power throughout the rev range is most welcome.

The Roadster also seems to steer and handle better than the Sport, but this is probably solely down to a better riding position rather than slight change of the rake angle (the 2003 Sport has 30 degrees of rake and 117mm of trail compared to the '04 Roadster's 29.6 degrees and 116.8mm of trail - so hardly a massive difference there). Somewhat strangely, when it comes to lean angles there are five degrees less available on the 2004 model, not that I found that an issue.

The new bike is 24lbs heavier overall than its nearest predecessor (about twelve bags of sugar), most of which is down to the thicker, stronger frame. The extra weight isn't at all noticeable when riding the bike, in fact I only noticed the slight difference when I pushed both bikes around when Andy was taking the photos.

Given that the Roadster is a totally standard machine, and therefore has the stock pipes, mufflers and baffles still in situ, the traditional Harley rumble is somewhat muted, far too quiet for my tastes. It also means that the mechanical noise from the heads is much more evident to the rider, even becoming somewhat annoying at times, which presents a stronger case for justifying the purchase of some aftermarket mufflers, as and when they become available. Which, somewhat to the bikes credit, is the only thing that I would want to change straight away.

When it comes to looks there is little to set either machine apart from the other. True to form for Harley-Davidson, this year's bike is practically identical to last year's bike, with just subtle changes to update the overall image. Hey, if if works, don't break it. The main difference in the look of the two bikes is the lack of visible balance pipe on the exhaust system (it's still there, just painted matt black and well hidden behind the staggered mufflers, in fact it looks more like a mounting bracket than a balance pipe). This is a big plus point; leaving the V-shape of the cylinders uninterrupted save for the air filter, itself a very pleasing piece of design. The extra few millimetres of rubber on the rear tyre create a nice relationship with the rear mudguard, and the new press-and-release oil filler cap is a delight, both to use and to look at.

There is a delicate balance that Harley-Davidson have to get exactly right when it comes to revamps and new model launches. The world in general, and even the Harley world, demand progress. Which must be true, otherwise we would all be riding around on pedal-assisted leather belt driven Silent Grey Fellows, wearing deerstalker crash helmets and smoking briar pipes, which, the last time I looked, we clearly aren't. No, we want the new bikes to be more powerful, have better brakes and suspension, be more comfortable, to have better build quality, and yet we don't want them to be too far advanced. After all, a Sportster that developed 125 bhp, revved sky high, transmitting no vibration at all to the rider would be deemed as having lost the plot, and wouldn't be seen as a 'true' Harley. The Motor Company are capable of pooling their resources and producing just such a machine, but in short, we, the loyal Harley-buying public don't want it. Yet.

That delicate balance of progression coupled with retaining the traditional character of the model is something that Harley have just about got spot on with the new Sportster. There is more potential there, but Harley know it, and I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't too much more in the way of development until 2007, when the Sportster will be 50 years old. I would hazard a guess that there's a pretty special Sportster in the pipeline, probably one that has a more direct relationship with the Motor Company's other rubber mounted sister act: Buell.

A few months ago I had imagined that a lot of people would bemoan the passing of the last of the solid mount 2003 models, but for my money the 2004 model is a much nicer bike to ride, it looks better than previous models, and has still 'got it' when it comes to the essential undefinable Harley X factor. The 2003 Sport is a lovely bike but isn't as flexible, capable or refined as its replacement. The 2004 Roadster is clearly the superior machine, and a move in the right direction for the Motor Company.

Specifications        

Model:	2004 Sportster XL1200R Roadster (2003 XL1200S in brackets)
Engine:	1202cc, air-cooled 45-degree V-Twin (1199cc)
Bore & Stroke:	88.8 x 96.8mm
Compression Ratio:	10.0:1
Fuel System :	Carburettor
Power:	70bhp (quoted) (69bhp @ 5500rpm - 1998)
Torque:	93NM @ 3,300rpm (96NM @ 3000rpm)
Drive Train:	5-speed gearbox. Duplex chain primary drive. Belt final drive (Triple row primary)
Chassis:	Tubular steel duplex cradle with twin rear shocks
Rake & Trail:	29.6 degree / 116.8mm (30.0 degree / 117.0mm)
Length:	2245mm (2250mm)
Wheelbase:	1520mm (1515mm)
Seat Height:	713mm (711mm)
Ground clearance:	141mm (170mm)
Weight:	251kg (240 kg)
Fuel Capacity:	12.9 litres (12.5 litres)
Suspension:	Front: Telescopic forks Rear: Twin shocks
Brakes:	Front: Twin disks with two-pot calipers (2 x four pot calipers) Rear: Single disk with single pot caliper (four-pot caliper)
Wheels & Tyres:	Front: 19-inch cast wheel, 100/90-19 57H (100/90-19 51V) Rear: 16-inch cast wheel, 150/80B16 71H (130/90-B16 64V)
Colours:	Vivid Black, Brilliant Silver, Smokey Gold, Lava Red Sunglow, Racing Orange, Real Red, Impact Blue, Real Teal
RRP:	Solid: £7,495 (£7,445 R/W/B, Blk) Pearl: £7,795 (£7,545 Gunmetal)