Harley-Davidson Low Rider ST Review
2022 Harley Lower Rider ST test by Wayne Vickers – Images RbMotoLens
Cruisers are a bit deceiving I reckon. The expectation is that they are relaxed and comfortable. Plush places to be – veritable lounge chairs. I often don’t find that, particularly when you first jump on after hopping off something like an Adventure bike (my Tiger). This is a case in point. While the seating position is fairly upright, your knees are noticeably higher than your hips so your lower body is not in so different a position to a sports bike in reality. That’s what my hip flexors told me anyway.
I found this Harley to be one of contradictions. It’s probably the model I’ve preferred riding the most out of all of the recent Harleys that I’ve ridden (including the Sportster S and the Nightster), but also the one with the biggest flaws. And yet, despite those flaws – and in one case maybe because of it, there is something about this bike that I find compelling. Endearing even.
First impressions other than the gargantuan size of the front screen are around the bike’s weight. There is no getting past the fact that it is seriously heavy. Good grief. I just looked at the spec sheet. 327 kilograms! That’d be why it feels that way. Plenty of steering effort needed to change direction and even then you feel like you’re only just diverting the front wheel if you need to change direction to swerve around an obstacle quickly. Moving it around at standstill is a chore. This is obviously a *cough mans bike *cough.
That engine though, it’s what I expected – as a non regular Harley rider – a Harley engine probably would be. Trademark exhaust note from the big 117 cubic inch donk, idles like a tractor and would probably pull a tree out too with 168 Nm of torque. When I parked it behind my much loved grey fergie (tractor) I swear the fergie let out a jealous creak… For those not familiar with cubes – that’s one thousand, nine hundred and twenty three cubic centimetres. Which is umm, quite a lot.
Torque – 169 Nm (125 ft-lb) at 3500 rpm
Very nice fuelling, surprisingly so. It will have the occasional tiny delay on throttle opening if you happen to do so at the wrong time between big bangs, but is largely spot on. Not abrupt, just a nice cruisey engine. Must have a crank the weight of a small child. No need to rev it, it doesn’t feel overly powerful but plenty enough hump. Harley marketing does talk about it having ‘outrageous performance’ and a matching attitude. I did not find that at all. I found it quite cruisey and docile and better for it.
The gearbox is particularly agricultural. It does NOT like to be rushed at all. Doing so will have it making a solid clunk, but give it a bit of clutch, especially in the lower gears, time it just right and it snicks in nicely. Just like 3rd to 4th on the grey Fergie… When you adjust yourself to the mechanical requirements of the bike and slow things down accordingly, it’s oddly rewarding to cruise along on.
Now the Harley folks probably won’t like me making this comparison, but I got the same sort of enjoyment from riding this bike that I do from driving my old Fergie. I love my old Fergie. It’s hard to define why, but it’s simple, unkillable and you have to tune yourself in and work with it to make it work well. When I started to apply the same thinking to the Low Rider ST, I enjoyed it all the more. So while the gearbox is hardly an engineering achievement – somehow it added to the experience for me in this case. Contradictory I know.
Rear Brake – 2-piston floating caliper, 292 mm
Brakes are okay. Front is quite good. Nice two-fingered lever feel. You’re fairly aware of the aforementioned heft… and the rear brake needs a proper stomping on to work well. That air intake pipe kinda getting in the way of my right shin whenever I needed to throw down my size nine is a bit ordinary in terms of packaging. I don’t think you really want to be distracted by anything when you’re needing to brake. Especially something this heavy. It’s the weight of three dirt bikes. Or my dirt bike and my adventure bike combined. Or my dirt bike with the missus and my two teenage kids on board.. Hopefully I can get away with mentioning that.. She doesn’t read my reviews anyway.
Front screen-fairing has a larger frontal area than a postbox and yet somehow just doesn’t work. Major buffeting for me – as bad as any bike I’ve ever ridden, which in the words of Ralph Wiggum should be unpossible with that much plastic acreage at the front. Speaking of post boxes. That front slit is about letter sized. Good thing they don’t make these in red I reckon… Yeah. I bet you can’t unsee that now either can you. Sorry, not sorry. If it’s stuck in my head, you can have it too.
I would much prefer this bike without the front screen if I’m honest. I know that it harks back to 80’s styling that will excite some Harley fans of old. But for me, given that it doesn’t really work it probably should have stayed in the 80s. Or just been tested and refined until the aeros worked. Currently, it’s a no. Which means I’d probably much prefer the four grand cheaper Low Rider S version that Trev tested recently…
Behind that small moon sized screen sits the tiny little LCD dash screen that seems utterly lost and almost like an afterthought. With all that space for a proper dash, I can’t fathom why this one got the gong. It’s hard to read in most light and just at odds with the rest of the bikes character. Normally you’d use a tiny screen for weight saving purposes, but they clearly weren’t worried about making this bike light… so I can’t quite understand the rationale.
Rear Suspension – Hidden, free piston, coil-over monoshock; 56 mm stroke; hydraulic preload adjustment, 112 mm travel
The overall suspension ride however works particularly well and is easily the nicest of any of the recent Harleys that I’ve ridden. Plush on surface changes and bumps yet not bad on the bigger hits. Everything below your butt works really nicely. The seat is lovely and generously padded, working well with the rear suspension to soak up bumps and even big hits reasonably well. It could be the bike’s heft plays a part in beating the bumps into submission, but whatever it is seems to work very nicely indeed. Thumbs up there. Two thumbs up in fact.
And while Trev wasn’t in love with the mid mounted footpeg set-up, I didn’t mind it at all once I got used to it. Nice panniers too. Sorry, Harley call them ‘saddle bags’. Even though they are hard plastic. They are the other differentiator between the ST and the S (along with the enourmous front screen).
The bags are easily removable and have decent storage in them. With or without them though – a commuter bike this is not. Super wide and frustrating when you can’t squeeze between traffic (and it’s surprisingly quiet with those stock pipes).
However I must say that I quite enjoyed this bike on the open road once I got used to the overall vibe, barring the wind buffeting. If I could get that sorted it would be a fine machine. You can get a higher front screen lip so that would definitely be worth a try. Or simply opt for the cheaper S and add some panniers. Sorry.. Saddle bags.
One thing it isn’t, is cheap. Thirty five and a bit big ones. And you don’t exactly get a lot of tech for your dollar. Seems hard to justify to be honest but plenty do. Fair bit of metal for your dollar though. Maybe do the comparison to other bikes in dollars per kilo? That would help for sure. You just have to find the right data and you can justify most things 😉
I’d take a grey one. It’ll match my Fergie nicely.
I like the Harley Lower Rider ST because:
- The engine is actually bloody nice. Cruisey, laid back but grunty when you want it.
- Suspension that actually seems to work pretty well
- Oddly enough that fairly agricultural gearbox somehow actually adds to the experience
I’d like the 2022 Harley Lower Rider ST more if:
- Be even nicer if that front screen worked and didn’t shake your head around so much.
- And give it a proper dash
- Is it really worth thirty-five big ones?
2022 Harley-Davidson Low Rider ST Specifications
- Engine – Milwaukee-Eight 117, 1923 cc, pushrod OHV
- Bore x Stroke – 103.5 x 114.3 mm (4.075″ x 4.5″)
- Power – 103 hp (77 kW) at 4750 rpm
- Torque – 169 Nm (125 ft-lb) at 3500 rpm
- Compression Ratio – 10.2:1
- Induction – Electronic Sequential Port Fuel Injection (ESPFI)
- Intake – Heavy Breather intake with synthetic media, washable exposed element
- Exhaust – 2-into-2 offset shotgun; catalyst in muffler
- Lubrication – Pressurised dry sump with oil cooler, 4.7 litre oil capacity
- Primary Drive – Chain 34/46 ratio, 1.18 litre oil capacity
- Final Drive – Belt, 32/66 ratio
- Transmission – Six-speed Cruise Drive
- Clutch – Mechanical, 10 plate wet, assist & conventional
- Front Suspension – Single cartridge 43 mm inverted fork with aluminum triple clamps; triple rate springs, 130 mm travel
- Rear Suspension – Hidden, free piston, coil-over monoshock; 56 mm stroke; hydraulic preload adjustment, 112 mm travel
- Lean angle – 31.3 degrees
- Front Brakes – 4-piston fixed front calipers, 300 mm rotors
- Rear Brake – 2-piston floating caliper, 292 mm
- L x W x H – 2365 x 870 x 1300 mm
- Seat Height – 720 mm
- Ground Clearance – 150 mm
- Rake – 28 degrees
- Fork angle – 28 degree
- Trail – 145 mm
- Wheelbase – 1615 mm
- Tyres – 110/90-19 (F), 180/70-16 (R)
- Frame – Mild steel, tubular frame; rectangular section backbone; stamped, cast, and forged junctions; MIG welded; aluminum forged fender supports
- Swingarm – Mild steel, tubular sections, stamped x-member, forged axle junctions; MIG welded; removable belt spacer
- Fuel Capacity – 18.9 litres
- Weight – 327 kg
- Gross weight rating – 526 kg
- Warranty – 24 months
- RRP – From $35,250
