The two RKs that I've ridden felt like much larger bikes than my Deuce. I made the mistake of visiting a friends with a long gravel driveway and that ended up sucking major ***** trying to get that thing turned around on gravel with the weight.

My Softail just handles better at slower speeds. It's also nice that I can ride around town with the bike practically slammed, yet I can lift the rear up and soften the ride with the switches for the air shock when I'm exiting on to the interstate.

 

I know this is an old thread but if I were picking for my use I'd pick the Softail. I live in Philly and 75% of my riding is in heavy urban stop-and-go traffic. No matter what some touring riders say, the bike isn't as nimble. If I lived in a rural area or didn't ride daily, I can see having a touring rig as my only bike. But, since I only get to do one 2000+ trip per year, I'd stick with the bike that is better for city life.


However, if I could afford a dedicated touring bike as my 3rd bike, I'd only want the RK in the Harley lineup.

 

The whole debate on what bike handles around town or in parking lots is a non issue, as soon as you put miles on it you get used to it and learn to handle it. the question should be if you want a radio, what type if any wind protection and how much crap you can carry. Lean angle and passenger comfort are also considerations. If you don't ride much, I suppose it would make a difference between a small or big bike because you never get a chance to get used to it.

 

Lean angle is part of handling and can change between bikes in the same family. The Deuce has one of, if not the highest lean angles of a Harley because it's pegs are high. I think they may be even higher than a standard softail. A softail with floorboards has less lean angle and a deluxe that's lower than a heritage will be even worse. Touring bikes generally don't have super huge lean angles. Weight plays in to it. It doesn't matter how use to it you are, you can feel the extra weight in and around town. More weight means slower stops, and more cumbersome low speed manuevers.

 

I've had both. On my 2nd Softail but put 50k miles on my old RK.

For those that can't handle any of the touring models and low speeds, take some experienced rider lessons and practice.

For the long haul, RK hands down. I went back to a Softail because I mainly do 100 to 200 day rides whereas I used to do a lot of long trips. I wanted a leaner bike but it's still an FL and not an FX.

Can't go wrong with either.

 

This is exactly the advice I was going to post. When I first got my Road King it was the biggest bike I'd ever owned at the time. I wasn't completely comfortable with the low speed manuevers so took an Advanced/Experienced Rider Course and by the end of the class I was spinning that Road King around the parking lot like any other bike.

 

I completely disagree. Some bikes handle much better than others. Period. It's a fact, not fiction. It's not a matter of if someone can handle a big heavy bike. It's a matter of want. Some people don't want to have to deal with a poorer handling bike in an urban setting.


A touring bike isn't as light or nimble as a Softail. If someone like myself, who rides 300+ days a year, spends 75% of their time on the bike in city stop-and-go traffic, it's more pleasant to ride a somewhat smaller and lighter motorcycle.

There are motorcycles that are designed for the urban environment. They're typically light and nimble. A touring bike is nothing of the sort. It's not about whether or not a big bike can do it. It's about fitting the right bike for the right circumstances. I, for one, don't want to spend my days on a touring rig for the two weeks a year I do long distance touring.

 

In your situation I agree, absolutely.