Performance baggers
#111
Ohlin 13" HD-159 rear shocks
Ledgens AXO front fork cartridges
117 Motor
CP 11.4 pistons
Head work by HD Street Performance
AV&V 650 lift beehive valve springs
Woods Alpha Directional lifters
Woods TW-9B-6 cam
5.3 rpm injectors
55mm HPI throttle body with a 58mm intake
SE Adjustable push rods
Fullsac "D" Head pipe
Fullsac 2.25 baffles with tech mat and screens
Agitator air cleaner
Ledgens AXO front fork cartridges
117 Motor
CP 11.4 pistons
Head work by HD Street Performance
AV&V 650 lift beehive valve springs
Woods Alpha Directional lifters
Woods TW-9B-6 cam
5.3 rpm injectors
55mm HPI throttle body with a 58mm intake
SE Adjustable push rods
Fullsac "D" Head pipe
Fullsac 2.25 baffles with tech mat and screens
Agitator air cleaner
#112
Same goes for the rider too it they do too, but you don't seem slimming topics on this forum!
I don't think the "because he can" answer is such a good one. The rubber mount engine is a plus, size is definitely a plus (if you're bigger), there's a sort of obstinate, perverse pleasure in building a sleeper that looks and works as a touring bike but will surprise most average riders on much more recent sports bikes ... to a degree.
But, otherwise you are right. "Performancing" a Harley is like becoming a sumo wrestler and then taking up sprinting. Check out RB Racing's turbo Orca bikes for where it all ends.
#113
Ok maybe I am missing something. In post 26...what is the purpose of reducing the weight. Now I understand why don’t get me wrong...but what is the benefit of shaving all the touring stuff off the bagger, why not just start with a dyna or something. Is there something desirable with the frame that I am missing?
Yes, the touring frame is superior to the dyna frame. Shares some similarities with the FXR. You can google their frames, but the touring frame (I believe) is more rigid and stable. I assume they also did it "just because" to show what they can do, being a shop. That weight claim is total BS by the way. No way that is down to 400lbs, but I digress.
As for weight savings...less weight, the less HP needed to move it the same speed. So lowering the weight and keeping the HP the same, is essentially adding HP. Example: 500hp in a motor home vs 500hp in a go kart. (Power to weight ratio.)
#115
Ok maybe I am missing something. In post 26...what is the purpose of reducing the weight. Now I understand why don’t get me wrong...but what is the benefit of shaving all the touring stuff off the bagger, why not just start with a dyna or something. Is there something desirable with the frame that I am missing?
#116
The following users liked this post:
Jeff Dodson (04-02-2021)
#119