I'm going to book mark this and watch it later.

I think the majority of us are all on the same page that we love motorcycles regardless of brands.

I considered a Harley before I bought my Triumph but ultimately Triumph won me over.

 

I'm going to book mark this and watch it later.

I think the majority of us are all on the same page that we love motorcycles regardless of brands.

I considered a Harley before I bought my Triumph but ultimately Triumph won me over.

Hope you enjoy it!

Re: Loving motorcycles regardless of brands, that's kind of what it's all about... which is why some of the facebook groups I've shared this to (both for Sportster owners, and for Bonneville owners) have been absolutely wild. The implication that something may exist that is better than their precious motorcycle seems to really upset a few people on both sides over there. Luckily Triumph Rat folk have always been more level headed.

If you've never owned a Harley before, I'd definitely suggest owning one, even for just a season, one day. It's a whole other experience! Maybe you find out you like it more than you thought you would, maybe you just find out what it's about and run away quickly lol. Either way, at least here, the nice thing is, if you buy a Harley for the right price for your model/year/mileage, you can pretty much cash out for the same price a year or two later. I made money on my Sportster despite doing several mods to it.

 

I owned a sportster 1200 before my 1200 speedmaster.

And though I loved my sporster, and enjoyed it a lot there is no practical concept, apart of pure personal subjective "style" considerations, where the triumph does not outstand the harley.

If living in northamerica I guess the wider service options are a clear advantage for Harley Davidson. But I do live in Europe, so... not even that. And my sportster needed in the first six months more "servicing" than my speedmaster in the four years it has been with me. With same level of usage.

There are some points I think not exact in that testing video.

First af all, speaking about "sportster roughness". It is basically false. The point is the bonnevilles include a traction control system and driving modes. But if you put the bike in sport mode and disable the traction control... you will notice the basic strenght in the triumph parallel 1200 is even more noticeable than in the sportster.

And I would say ridiculous that point of "not sure if traction control is good". If you never notice it, it means it is not acting. If you notice it... then good to exist. I do not get the point on consider

 

I love the way that adri, the poster of the video, chooses his topics to make the contest a draw.

No-one can accuse him of being anti-American.

 

Thanks! I think? Not sure how to interpret that last sentence haha.

In truth, figuring out what to put in a video is easy, it's figuring out what to leave out that's hard.

Some people mentioned I didn't talk about other topics like reliability, but:
1) None of my Sportsters have ever given me any failures.
2) Given that I've only had the T120 for a fraction of the time, it wouldn't really be a fair or accurate comparison, right?

The question kind of becomes, where do you stop with the comparisons?

I could mention that the Sportster has the worst kickstand of all of my motorcycles, whereas the T120's is just fine.

I also could have mentioned that the T120's fueling under 3000 rpm in first gear kind of sucks, whereas the Sportsters is already making almost it's peak torque at that point.

I could've talked about the smooth shifting of the Triumph vs the clunk into first gear, and clunk into second gear before things smooth out on the Sportster, but personally, I kind of secretly find that 'clunk' charming if I'm being honest.

I could have touched on tubed tires for authenticity and style on the T120, vs the practical tubeless tires on the Sportster, etc. etc., but then I would have had to explain that I like tubeless better and why not everyone else will, etc.

If I compared absolutely everything it would be a 60 minute video. I don't know if anyone wants to hear me talk for that long. I don't even want to talk for that long. If I made a video mentioning all of the things I'm not going to go into detail about, it would still be a 30 minute video and kind of lame. But if we take just the core essence of what that 60 minute video would be, and keep it down to just 5-10 points, it would be a 10 minute video that tells you that both bikes have similarities, both bikes have differences, these are two bikes that might have some cross-over appeal but that go about their jobs in different ways, and that while ultimately the T120 is the better motorcycle, better is objective and other people may score it differently.

Hopefully that's what I communicated in my video lol

 

I have nine bikes (assuming one counts a Ural with sidecar as a "bike"), and that includes a 2005 Sportster Roadster as well as my 2022 T120. The T120 is smoother, easier to ride, more powerful, and likely more reliable. The Sportster is rougher around the edges (though in all fairness, it's 17 years older, and carbureted). It's a lot of fun, regardless of its shortcomings. If I had to give one up, it would be the Sportster. Both bikes are tremendously good-looking.

I don't have either one for practicality. Hands down, my two BMW K-bikes are superior in that area (1994 K75RT for cold weather, 1995 K75 for warm). The T120 and the Sportster are for warm and dry weather fun.

 

Try the 2007+ Sportsters! They gain EFI which smooths things out, but they also lose some character with idle at 950-1050 RPM instead of down around 750 RPM on the carb'd models. It's an interesting trade off.

Just curious, why not the T120 in the cold? Is that just because you have something more practical or does this bike not do well in cooler weather? I'm coming into my first fall with the T120 so it's new to me! Enjoying the heated grips already though.