Thanks to all who have shared an opinion thus far, and to those who have yet to weigh in.
It seems as though the general view is that a GW is the bike you "have to" ride if the Missus won't ride two-up on the ST, but is willing to ride on *something*. Thus far, I have yet to establish either side of that proposition definitively. Despite repeated urging, she has yet to get out on the ST; it is not clear that she'd look more favorably on a 'wing.
So, let's take the two-up scenario out of the picture. What's left?
A lot of you have opined that rather than a bike whose sweet spot largely overlaps my ST, I should be looking in the direction of a dual sport. That's all well and good, except that that is not the sort of riding I want to do, or at least not now. Nor is it what I outlined in the original proposition.
I have a hankering to do some long tours once I am released from the shackles of corporate servitude, and I am not entirely certain the ST is the right choice for it. It's physically capable of it, for sure, but is it really the "right" choice?
Several people have made remarks about the handing of the (1500?) Wing relative to the ST. The specific bike in question has had both front and rear suspension upgrades, as well as a fork brace added. It was certainly a different, more "plush" ride than my ST (as it naturally would be) but it felt like the sort of bike I *could* do consecutive 1,000 mile days on and not end the day battered and bent and beaten. I've gone 750+ on the ST on several occasions, and have been glad to get off for the night when I reached my destination. Even after consecutive instances of more modest 450-500 mile days, I reach the point where I want to say "Enough, at least for a spell."
Some of that might be alleviated with a different seat (I'm working on getting a Russell Day Long), but some of it is more fundamental. The ST is windier than the Wing, and even with riser blocks it positions me in a more leaned-over posture that eventually makes my hands and elbows tired. The oft-discussed engine heat is not an issue for me, nor am I especially aware of back pressure; just general buffeting.
Others have pointed out that a failure of some critical part, on a bike nearly two decades old, while I am far from home, could be.... let's say "inconvenient". True enough. but then, the 'wing is 17 and my ST is 13; at some point that difference becomes pretty thin. And there are a LOT more 'wings, of nearly all vintages, out there than there are ST1300's. Seems to me that the odds would be in my favor even with the older bike (and it has only 27,500 miles on it; it sat for ten years before being bought two years ago by the present owner, who has put 7,000 miles on it in that time.)
It IS carburetted rather than fuel injected, which would mean I'd have to learn how to live with that. But I've tackled some of the ST maintenance under careful adult supervision and not ruined it (yet) so why would carb maintenance be any more daunting?
Finally this: I'm not talking about an either/or deal here. The ST is definitely NOT going away. The question is, will Brutus get a Big Brother? If not now, maybe later: I hear the subtext that the 1800 series is preferable to the older models, and I can see the truth of it. It is, of course, also $pendier; the asking price for the bike I looked at seemed sufficiently modest as to make the risk minimal if things didn't work out.
In the end, this may all turn out to have been an intellectual fantasy. Mrs. Fun has adopted the stance that she might be willing to let me deal away the ST if I really wanted the 'wing instead, but a two-bike driveway is, for the moment at least, apparently a non-starter.
But keep those comments coming!
