Upgrading to a Dyna a have a few ?'s Fatbob vs WG
#11
01-18-2010, 05:17 PM
The only thing going for the WG is the raked out neck.
You get sooooo much more with the FB.
The way I see the two is:
If you want a bike for the looks… get a WG.
If you want a bike for the ride… get a FB.
I've rolled 25,800 miles under my Fat Bob since April 2008... never ridden a WG, but I'm certain that... ride-wise... there's no comparison!
You get sooooo much more with the FB.
The way I see the two is:
If you want a bike for the looks… get a WG.
If you want a bike for the ride… get a FB.
I've rolled 25,800 miles under my Fat Bob since April 2008... never ridden a WG, but I'm certain that... ride-wise... there's no comparison!
#12
01-18-2010, 05:25 PM
That being said, I love my Fat Bob. I did enjoy my short time a Wide Glide, though. (20 minute demo ride) For me, the Fat Bob works better. OP, you should definitely try both if you can.
#14
01-18-2010, 07:46 PM
Road Master
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: East Texas
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not really a fan of the older WGs.
#15
01-18-2010, 07:52 PM
Cruiser
The only thing going for the WG is the raked out neck.
You get sooooo much more with the FB.
The way I see the two is:
If you want a bike for the looks… get a WG.
If you want a bike for the ride… get a FB.
I've rolled 25,800 miles under my Fat Bob since April 2008... never ridden a WG, but I'm certain that... ride-wise... there's no comparison!
You get sooooo much more with the FB.
The way I see the two is:
If you want a bike for the looks… get a WG.
If you want a bike for the ride… get a FB.
I've rolled 25,800 miles under my Fat Bob since April 2008... never ridden a WG, but I'm certain that... ride-wise... there's no comparison!
#16
01-18-2010, 08:24 PM
I believe that just like your pick-em-up truck, longer wheel base = better ride. I love em both, Pick the one you like and to heck with the rest of us.
#17
01-18-2010, 08:27 PM
#18
01-18-2010, 08:32 PM
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll play along.
Tell me where I said is looked like an old school WG.... I did'nt.
Here, I'll break it down a little further for you since you can't seem to grasp what I meant.
It is my opinion that the WG looks more old school than the Fatbob.
Follow?
For the rest of you, Thanks!! I have another 2 weeks to sort it out so I'll be spending a few days after work down at Harley.
Tell me where I said is looked like an old school WG.... I did'nt.
Here, I'll break it down a little further for you since you can't seem to grasp what I meant.
It is my opinion that the WG looks more old school than the Fatbob.
Follow?
For the rest of you, Thanks!! I have another 2 weeks to sort it out so I'll be spending a few days after work down at Harley.
#19
01-18-2010, 08:46 PM
Road Warrior
The only thing going for the WG is the raked out neck.
You get sooooo much more with the FB.
The way I see the two is:
If you want a bike for the looks… get a WG.
If you want a bike for the ride… get a FB.
I've rolled 25,800 miles under my Fat Bob since April 2008... never ridden a WG, but
I'm certain that... ride-wise... there's no comparison!
You get sooooo much more with the FB.
The way I see the two is:
If you want a bike for the looks… get a WG.
If you want a bike for the ride… get a FB.
I've rolled 25,800 miles under my Fat Bob since April 2008... never ridden a WG, but
I'm certain that... ride-wise... there's no comparison!
We know what some things are... by knowing what they're not.
The 130mm front rubber, 16" wheels, short wheel base, dual disk front brakes...
Ask any one who rides one farther than a demo ride and they'll tell you...
the Fat Bob is a rider's machine.
