Or...

I could just use my sat nag 

I thought that method was too difficult for you. Sorry for misjudging the situation 

...
Now, which way was north again?

You could use a compass. But I bet your question originated from you having too much trouble correcting a compass' magnetic heading to true North. Indeed, the more North you're located, the bigger that correction gets : too much trouble.

So I suggest the time-based method : quite a lot simpler !

The Bryncelyn Guesthouse's exit is located at 52°06'27.1"N 3°38'20.1"W, or in decimals : 52.107519N, 3.638926W.

In Greenwich, in the summer, the sun is right in the East at 6 o'clock UTC, so 7 o'clock UK local time. The sun moves 360° in 24 hours, so 15° per hour, so 1° every 4 minutes. So at Bruncelyn's exit, the sun is exactly East 3.638926 (in decimals) degrees later, which is exactly 3.638926 x 4 minutes, or 14,555704 minutes, or 14 minutes and 33 seconds later.

All this together means that at Bryncelyn's exit, the sun is exactly East at 7 hr 14 minutes and 33 seconds in the morning. But you asked where North was, not East, so there's some more to it ...

At that calculated time, look straight into the sun, and then look left in a perfect 90° angle : the direction then pointed at by your nose, thát's where true North is 

(hope for a clear sky !)

... the Missenden flyer's review ... It sounded a bit bargey. ...

I don't think the guy riding his K1600GT in the link below would agree with that statement... He abused (or I could just as well say : "really used properly") his K1600GT ... Including footpegs touching the ground. I doubt if the average K1300S rider could follow this guy. I couldn't have done so...
https://youtu.be/xTZa2iSyn-g?t=120

I wasn't referring to comparing bikes with one another, I was referring to the torque tables I made before for my own "just-for-fun" exercise. Based on these 2 tables from some days ago (the one of my own bike and the one of the K1300S), there is no extra dimension needed. The 2 tables from before showed torque values. So : expressed in Nm.

And to calculate from there the force, delivered at the back wheel (the "thrust", expressed in N), if I didn't make any logical errors, the only extra calculations to be done are :
1. take the torque of the engine at that speed's rpm (in Nm) in that gear,
2. multiply it by all reductions of the concerned gear, and
3. divide it by the (back) wheel's radius (in m). The result's unit dimension is then N.

So e.g. taking the 140Nm, delivered from the K1300S's engine in first gear at it's 100 km/hr's rpm ...
1. the torque is 140 Nm,
2. multiplied by 10.085 (being the primary reduction x secundary reduction x the first gear's reduction),
3. divided by the 0.32 m of the K1300S's back wheel (the value I used)
results in a force of 4406.8 N which is the maximum force the K1300S ever delivers at it's back wheel. Above this speed, the values only decrease.

This must be the number you were after initially, isn't it ?

Indeed, if you want to compare bikes to one another (which wasn't my initial goal), you'd need to add a third dimension. But as from (rough guess) about 100 km/hr, everything will become very unreliable, as the force result will be significantly biased by aerodynamical drag if you ask me... Whereas below that speed, it's difficult to compare. E.g., the K1300S's performance time specs to get from 0 to 100 km/hr say "in under 2.8 seconds". So you'd need quite some precise chronometer 

Indeed, fully agree. However it has to be stressed that this calculation HAS to be done BEFORE the constant changes value !

Exercise complete.



Provided I made no mistakes, I found out that I have 3 superfluous gears  ...

I don't know if the seat position is the same as the one on the (naked) GSX-S1000. If it is, take care : the seat position (to start with) is not at all comparable to the K1300S because too much upwards (and not sporty at all).

And regarding all the rest (I'm speaking of the naked GSX-S1000) the same applies : it's at best a weak copy of the K1300S. After my K1300S (which only had 106 BHP in my version), I've riden the naked GSX-S. I won't say more : it's sold in the meantime 

I prefer the less powered VFR800F (106 BHP) to the GSX-S with 146BHP. You're nothing with 146BHP if you can't put it on the road properly : contrary to the K1300S and the VFR800F, the power delivery feels like an "all on/all off". In the mountains, I am pretty confident that with my VFR800F, I keep the pace of a GSX-S1000 (GT). Contrary to the K1300S and the VFR800F, I will never call this bike "properly balanced"...