aka 'huffer' but that goes back a ways and unfortunately has since been co-opted by the 'drug' community.
Is the ST1300 quicker than the ST1100?
- Thread starter BarnRat
- Start date
Blrfl
Natural Rider Enhancement
I think the term you're looking for is "normally-asphyxiated."Non aspirated bike would definitely be the slowest
--Mark
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2015
- Messages
- 1,960
- Location
- near Harrow, Ontario, Canada
- Bike
- '83 BMW R100RS
- STOC #
- 8870
My pleasure. There is so much jargon flying around these days in the automotive/transportation technologies fields that it is easy to mix-up marketing hype and technical fact. One major manufacturer even uses the phrase "Its liquid engineering" to sell theirMaxPete- thanks for the very thorough and lucid explanation. I'm less iggernant and ill-informed as a result.
- whatever the heck it is. That kind of baloney drives me nuts.
Oh well.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2015
- Messages
- 1,960
- Location
- near Harrow, Ontario, Canada
- Bike
- '83 BMW R100RS
- STOC #
- 8870
Indeed UP - too true!And so are we ...
Gosh, I thought they were talking about good single malt scotch.
wjbertrand
Ventura Highway
Well, chemical engineering certainly deals with plenty of liquids.My pleasure. There is so much jargon flying around these days in the automotive/transportation technologies fields that it is easy to mix-up marketing hype and technical fact. One major manufacturer even uses the phrase "Its liquid engineering" to sell their
That kind of baloney drives me nuts.
Oh well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
What a silly question, of course it is! From the ST1300 owner
When I first saw the subject line I thought 'Of course it is. Just ask any ST1300 owner!' Personally I have no dog is this fight. The ST1300 may not be the quickest or fastest thing on two wheels but it's more of both than I'll ever know. I'd just like the ability to do 70mph at 3000 or so RPM. I'm more ST than ST.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2015
- Messages
- 1,960
- Location
- near Harrow, Ontario, Canada
- Bike
- '83 BMW R100RS
- STOC #
- 8870
Yes GUI, if you geared this big girl with that in mind you could probably do 70 MPH @ 2000 rpm - BUT - when it was time to leave, you'd be stuck with a bike that said "who - me?" instead "ya baby - let blast out of here" - which is what the ST does now.
Personally I have no dog is this fight. The ST1300 may not be the quickest or fastest thing on two wheels but it's more of both than I'll ever know. I'd just like the ability to do 70mph at 3000 or so RPM. I'm more ST than ST.
It would be like driving a two-wheeled Chevy Cruze, Kia Rio or Toyota Camry.
The remarkable thing about the ST bikes (1100 or 1300) - and many other modern bikes for that matter, is that they can clean the clock of just about ANY car at any RPM from 2000 to about 8000 - where most cars are out of breath above about 4 grand.
THAT is engineering.
I love FI when it comes to mountains and elevation changes. Plus storing the bike for the winter don't have to worry about evaporating fuel out of the carb bowls on FI. Instant starts are nice to and I never have to worry about forgetting to turn the choke off on FI.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Good choice to n the CTX! I'm not biased in any way.....
Believe me you're not telling me anything I don't already know. I had a Duc 750 Sport (90º V-Twin) at the same time I had my 750-4. The Duc turned somewhere under 3K RPM at 70. The Honda was the typical 4.1K at the same speed. The Duc was a little slow off the line compared to the Honda but I didn't care. Roll-on was brisk and the engine never felt 'busy' like all the Hondas. That was a wonderful bike.MaxPete said:
And 'let's blast out of here' is more for the ST guys not ST Gui. To that end I wouldn't mind having a little more low end torque because I don't spend much time at all anywhere near the upper limits. Roll-on throttle is more important to me. So I wouldn't gear the ST to do 70 at 2KRPM but 70/3000 even 3500 would be fine by me.
There are a lot of opinions in this thread and also some factual info but like the poet said, "numbers add up to nothing son. It's how it feels that really matters". I don't like the 1300 compared to the 1100 in how it feels on the road. That is MY opinion and you can flame me if you wish but that is how it feels to me.
I'm sure either bike is more than fast enough, but I'm curious as to what it is about the 1100 that you prefer. Someone in this thread mentioned that the 1300 felt more stable in crosswinds, but I find that counter-intuitive based on what I know about their geometry.
I regret starting this thread . . . One good thing is the discussion of engineering terms.
Instead of starting this thread, I should have just looked out on the net for motorcycle reviews of both bikes because many times they have 1/8 or 1/4 mile drag tests. Besides, the riders for the main motorcycle hard-copy magazines and the main motorcycle online sites have professional riders.
Anyhow, I learned my lesson . . .
I will never try to start a flame war . . . Oh, by the way, the CTX1300 is faster, quicker, and better in every way than the STs. (Just kidding folks . . . )
Instead of starting this thread, I should have just looked out on the net for motorcycle reviews of both bikes because many times they have 1/8 or 1/4 mile drag tests. Besides, the riders for the main motorcycle hard-copy magazines and the main motorcycle online sites have professional riders.
Anyhow, I learned my lesson . . .
I will never try to start a flame war . . . Oh, by the way, the CTX1300 is faster, quicker, and better in every way than the STs.
(Just kidding folks . . . )
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2005
- Messages
- 9,519
- Location
- Cedar City, Utah
- Bike
- 12/04 ST 1300s
- 2024 Miles
- 000420
- STOC #
- 5901
You should be!
Good!Instead of starting this thread, I should have just looked out on the net for motorcycle reviews of both bikes because many times they have 1/8 or 1/4 mile drag tests. ...
Anyhow, I learned my lesson . . .
And you expect us to believe that?
HA! You haven't been on this forum long enough to understand that all the "flames" were actually just Whipping Cream! We don't Flame on this site, just hit them with Whipping Cream!Oh, by the way, the CTX1300 is faster, quicker, and better in every way than the STs.
(Just kidding folks . . . )
Congrats on your CTX1300, I hope you get lots of years of enjoyment out of it!
Thank you. But, like I've said, if there had been an ST1300 available instead of the CTX1300, I'm sure I would have bought that instead.Congrats on your CTX1300, I hope you get lots of years of enjoyment out of it!
I have to say that the red is faster, http://www.ridelust.com/the-5-car-colors-cops-ticket-most/
Anyway, my St1100 from 1996 didnt go any faster than 220km/h (137m/h) and i have tried several times on the Autobahn. My 2007 ST1300 did 230km/h (143m/h) when i tried it this year on autobahn and there was more throttle to give if i had not been hindered by danish campers or "Baustelle".
Booth my bikes have been red in the color.
I have also tried to do a wheelie on my st1300, and i managed that.Thanks from this forum for howto do a wheelie!. I newer managed to do it on my ST1100 (More of a bad driver than the bike i think...)
When i drive along with other bikes and they stretch out i always manage to keep up. So the bikes has a good weight to accelerate ratio i think.
I just love the ST1300! :biker:
Anyway, my St1100 from 1996 didnt go any faster than 220km/h (137m/h) and i have tried several times on the Autobahn. My 2007 ST1300 did 230km/h (143m/h) when i tried it this year on autobahn and there was more throttle to give if i had not been hindered by danish campers or "Baustelle".
Booth my bikes have been red in the color.
I have also tried to do a wheelie on my st1300, and i managed that.Thanks from this forum for howto do a wheelie!. I newer managed to do it on my ST1100 (More of a bad driver than the bike i think...)
When i drive along with other bikes and they stretch out i always manage to keep up. So the bikes has a good weight to accelerate ratio i think.
I just love the ST1300! :biker:
Last edited: