u sure about that kev? what's a non-cruiser harley? beside the XR ive never seen one... and the XR seems like a cruiser with some 'standard' touches to make it less cruseresque. The new roadsters are less cruiserish but I went and looked at those, would need thousand$ in aftermarket & re-farkling to get it de-cruisered enough for me to bite.
I really don't know, Im not busting your balls. But i would be interested to see any 'non-cruiser' Harley as I don't even know what they would be?? That's the main reason I ignore harley?
The problem is going to be semantics, but I'll happily break it down.
Half the world sees only two kinds of bikes: Cruisers and Sportbikes.
That's the view from orbit, but if you ascribe to it then so but be it they're all cruisers.
But as motorcyclists most of us see more diversity in the world with a lot of gray area between the two.
Sport Bike, Sport Tourer, Enduro, Motocross, Adventure Tourer, Standard/Naked, Classic/Roadster, Touring Bike, Cruiser.
And I'm sure we can subdivide those categories even more the closer you look.
As someone who tends towards the right side of that sliding scale I look very closely and see huge differences between the bikes I would buy and what I would therefore deem a "cruiser".
Now what are the defining characteristics of each and where does one begin and the other end?
I think that's somewhat fluid.
Does one trait define a bike to a single category?
Anything with rearsets is sport, anything with forwards is cruiser?
Can a Tourer have rearsets or forwards?
You can't just say:
Rearsets, Mids, Forwards (because people even differ on the definition of those terms).
How about seating position?
Leaned forward, upright, leaned back?
But that varies based on the size of the rider, and can be changed with a set of bars.
I think ultimately that you have to arrive at the definition by the sum total of all the parts and how it is intended to be used, or modified to be used.
To ME a Cruiser is the most stylized form of bike made mostly/only for looks and meant for limited use. A combination of traits from extreme forward controls, raked front end, large pullback or ape bars, tiny tank, extreme differences front to back wheel sizes, sits very low, has an extreme wheelbase, lacks luggage or windshield, has a small seat, etc.
The more you depart from this chopperesque picture, the less "cruiser" a bike becomes to me.
To illustrate it from another brand look at Triumph who split Bonnie's into Modern Classics and other bikes into Cruisers. Though even some of their "cruisers" would likely fall short of my definition.
Anyway loosely basing on these things I would split much of the Harley line based on their various characteristics.
I'd call them:
Classic Standards: some Sportsters (like the standards, and Roadsters, maybe even some of the bobbers all with mid mount controls some with dual discs, USD forks or other traits) and some Dynas (again largely with mid mounts and dual discs)
Standards: Street models, especially the Street Rod. Fat Bob might fit here best.
Cruisers (some Sportsters, especially models with forward controls, and most FX and some FL Softails of the past)
Power Cruisers (Maybe Sport Cruiser is a better term and would encompass more models): VRod maybe the new Fat Bob, but it's not really playing in the same league with only about 100 hp.
Touring Cruisers: One Sportster (Superlow Touring), FLST Softails that come with bags and windshields (like the Heritage), the Dyna Switchback might wind up here for low ground clearance. A few FLH models that are lowered might wind up here for the same reason.
Touring Bikes: most FLH models like Road Kings and Electra/Road Glide Glides wind up here.
Similarly the new Softails would be scattered mostly in Cruisers, but possibly Modern Standards, Classic Standards, or Touring Cruiser depending.
But truthfully bikes like:
Base 883, 883R, 1200S, 1200R, XR1200, XR1200 CX, FXDX, FXDB, and most of the FLH models were and are not "cruisers" to me.
