Goodbye to the K1300s (MCN Article 2016)

[gibbo]

The front end of that Superduke really cracks me up.    Have a look at that headlight and think of human biology. Apologies to Kim. No offence intended.

[richtea]

But surely the K1600GT is just a "tourer"?

I think 160 BHP equates to 'powerful' on any bike. 

Your average adventure or tourer is 100 - 140 BHP:
Suzuki V-Strom 100 - 100 BHP
BMW 1200 -  125 BHP
Honda Pan European - 117 BHP
Honda VFR1200X Crosstourer - 127 BHP
Triumph 1200 - 140 BHP

Then there are some bigger beasts:
Yamaha FJR1300 - 144 BHP
Kawasaki GTR1400 - 158 BHP
BMW K1600 - 160 BHP

And finally ones with sportier pretentions - nearly always 150 BHP or more:
Ducati Multistrada - 156+ BHP
BMW S1000XR - 160 BHP
KTM SuperDuke - 160+ BHP
Honda VFR1200F - 170 BHP
K1300S - 175 BHP
Kawasaki H2 SX - 200- BHP
Kawasaki ZZR1400 - 197-207 BHP


Of course, the weight of a K1600 takes the edge off performance, but then again 'powerful' and 'power-to-weight' are different things.

[sudolea]

I'm interested to understand how you define the difference between a "powerful" tourer and a "sports" tourer.

For me, it starts with a sporty seat position. A LOT of bikes nowadays marketed as sport-tourers don't even start to come close to that. There's a big difference in the marketing story manufacturers tell you, and what I finally believe of that story. Some stories are made to be believed, but this sports-tourer marketing story of the manufacturers of nowadays isn't one of them. And as I am the customer, I'm always right   

It's not because they try to tell me the food is good, that I like it, let alone that I'd eat it. There's a nasty aftertaste...

[black-k1]

I'm interested to understand how you define the difference between a "powerful" tourer and a "sports" tourer.

For me, it starts with a sporty seat position. A LOT of bikes nowadays marketed as sport-tourers don't even start to come close to that. There's a big difference in the marketing story manufacturers tell you, and what I finally believe of that story. Some stories are made to be believed, but this sports-tourer marketing story of the manufacturers of nowadays isn't one of them. And as I am the customer, I'm always right   

It's not because they try to tell me the food is good, that I like it, let alone that I'd eat it. There's a nasty aftertaste...

An interesting approach. Does the addition of a set of bar risers and a raised screen stop a K1300S from being a sports tourer?

I would suggest that a bike being a sports tourer is more about the design approach than the seating position, although it does have some bearing.

Any bike where performance, handling, power to weight etc. are all well up the design priorities has, for me, some form of claim on the “sports” tag. Add in removable integral luggage, longer range/comfort, slightly better weather protection and some form of realistic pillion capability and you get a sports tourer.

The only “fly in the ointment” are the adventure bikes. To me, these are now a styling exercise where a suggestion of (originally genuine) off road capability, long travel suspension, tall seat, “rugged” luggage and integral crash bars are applied to bikes with sports, sports touring and tourer capabilities but, in doing so, removing them from the sports, sports touring and tourer categories.

[richtea]

The only “fly in the ointment” are the adventure bikes. To me, these are now a styling exercise where a suggestion of (originally genuine) off road capability, long travel suspension, tall seat, “rugged” luggage and integral crash bars are applied to bikes with sports, sports touring and tourer capabilities but, in doing so, removing them from the sports, sports touring and tourer categories.

A bit like a 4x4, but 2x2, and without the bonus of all-wheel drive.
It's selling a dream to 99% of owners. Only 1% are actually living the dream - farmers, emergency folks, and Steve in Wales.
I'm always amused by adverts for both types of vehicle - a car/bike heading off-road into the desert:
"Freedom - yeah!"
In Slough?

Only one disagreement with your statement, though. I think you could easily tour on the bigger adventure bikes, in capable hands.
But most people don't buy them for that - they're bought to look big. Literally.
I usually do the opposite - buy the smallest car/bike I can fit into/onto physically. Which is tricky when you're my size. 

[black-k1]

The only “fly in the ointment” are the adventure bikes. To me, these are now a styling exercise where a suggestion of (originally genuine) off road capability, long travel suspension, tall seat, “rugged” luggage and integral crash bars are applied to bikes with sports, sports touring and tourer capabilities but, in doing so, removing them from the sports, sports touring and tourer categories.

A bit like a 4x4, but 2x2, and without the bonus of all-wheel drive.
It's selling a dream to 99% of owners. Only 1% are actually living the dream - farmers, emergency folks, and Steve in Wales.
I'm always amused by adverts for both types of vehicle - a car/bike heading off-road into the desert:
"Freedom - yeah!"
In Slough?

Only one disagreement with your statement, though. I think you could easily tour on the bigger adventure bikes, in capable hands.
But most people don't buy them for that - they're bought to look big. Literally.
I usually do the opposite - buy the smallest car/bike I can fit into/onto physically. Which is tricky when you're my size. 

I absolutely agree that you can tour on the bigger adventure bikes (and that they'll be pretty damn good at it!) but being good at touring doesn't , for me, make an adventure bike into a tourer or a sports tourer. It's still an adventure bike! After all, Nick Saunders toured around the world on an R1 but no one would suggest the R1 was a tourer. It's still a sports bike.

[sudolea]

...
I would suggest that a bike being a sports tourer is more about the design approach than the seating position, although it does have some bearing.
...

That's why, for me, it starts with a sporty seat position : any bike not having a sporty seat position is, by design, not a sports-tourer. Or should I say, a sports-tourer bike has, by design, a sporty seat position   

Power-to-weight ratio ? Not even all that important. Just to name one : the VFR800F has a (considerably) lower power-to-weight ration than the SD 1290. However, while I consider the first a proper (altough less powerful) sports-tourer, I don't consider the latter to be a sports-tourer. How hard KTM tries to make me believe it indeed is a sports-tourer, well to me, it isn't.

P.S. please take no offence, nothing personal, this is just my opinion ...

[black-k1]

...
I would suggest that a bike being a sports tourer is more about the design approach than the seating position, although it does have some bearing.
...

That's why, for me, it starts with a sporty seat position : any bike not having a sporty seat position is, by design, not a sports-tourer. Or should I say, a sports-tourer bike has, by design, a sporty seat position   

Power-to-weight ratio ? Not even all that important. Just to name one : the VFR800F has a (considerably) lower power-to-weight ration than the SD 1290. However, while I consider the first a proper (altough less powerful) sports-tourer, I don't consider the latter to be a sports-tourer. How hard KTM tries to make me believe it indeed is a sports-tourer, well to me, it isn't.

P.S. please take no offence, nothing personal, this is just my opinion ...

No offence taken and none intended. If you can't debate alternative opinions on a subject specific forum "as grown ups" where can you have such a debate?

The VFR800 is always going to be down on power to weight, it's lacking 500cc, but I agree, it's a sports tourer.

As for the KTM, I think we'll just have to disagree on that. For me it's not an adventure bike, despite the more upright riding position. The power, weight and overall handling all point to it's sportier pretensions but with the luggage and decent range it definitely has touring aspirations.

[Phmode]

You're all wrong, including me!

Seeing as a 'sports' bike is as much an anachranism as a 'sports' car, any bike that anyone uses for sport is a sport bike. To them. One meaningful definition might be one stripped to the bare bones and with no sophisticated or unnecessary add-ons, that's sure what a sports car 'used' to be.

Likewise, any bike that anyone tours on is a tourer. To them.

Seeing as we don't understand what the universal definition of sport is (let's face it, football to most, seemingly) and touring can be anything from a lone rider with nothing but a credit card to pack, right up to the tent and kitchen sink brigade who would be in caravans if they were car drivers, then the very definition of a Sports-Tourer is open to individual interpretation.

The Vietnamese (or Thai?) riders who rocked up at Costas's BMW dealership in Athens on Honda 90's (or whatever they were) with plastic crates tie-wrapped to the back were sure as hell doing more touring than I did that year and possibly more than most of us.

If they enjoyed scaring the living bejeesus out of themselves chucking the bikes round the lanes when they stopped for a few days and considered that to be 'sport', then to them the Honda 90 was a sports-tourer.

The sad thing is that whatever you use your K12/13 for, there are precious few bikes out there to replace it when it comes time to change.

[TomK1300s]

But surely the K1600GT is just a "tourer"?

I think 160 BHP equates to 'powerful' on any bike. 

Your average adventure or tourer is 100 - 140 BHP:
Suzuki V-Strom 100 - 100 BHP
BMW 1200 -  125 BHP

Honda Pan European - 117 BHP
Honda VFR1200X Crosstourer - 127 BHP
Triumph 1200 - 140 BHP

Then there are some bigger beasts:
Yamaha FJR1300 - 144 BHP
Kawasaki GTR1400 - 158 BHP
BMW K1600 - 160 BHP

And finally ones with sportier pretentions - nearly always 150 BHP or more:
Ducati Multistrada - 156+ BHP
BMW S1000XR - 160 BHP
KTM SuperDuke - 160+ BHP
Honda VFR1200F - 170 BHP
K1300S - 175 BHP
Kawasaki H2 SX - 200- BHP
Kawasaki ZZR1400 - 197-207 BHP


Of course, the weight of a K1600 takes the edge off performance, but then again 'powerful' and 'power-to-weight' are different things.

The KTM SDR is 179 BHP @ 8870 RPM as standard, with a wet weight of 449lbs  The SDGT is 173 BHP @ 8870RPM weight 452 lbs.
last year I did 3500 miles in a week with a 60ltr box on the back with no problem and riding with GS and others, this year its going to be 4500 miles in two weeks with two up,
at weekends I go out with the lads on BMW1000R and all they see is my number plate, I would call that a Sports tourer with extra power. 

[MadMountainbike]

Interesting debate, as an owner of a K12 and having previously owned: 1150GS (one of the original pre Charlie and Ewan press bikes and I did 120k on it), KTM 990 (only 40k) Blackird... Awful got rid... ZZR1100 and a few sports bikes... Mille Factory, R1

I didn't ever see my big trailies as 'sports tourers' I did shed loads of miles on them and plenty of touring but ultimately they were always 'cruisy' bikes... At any serious speed on cross continental trips they were always a poor compromise... Beefy luggage = weave... Minimal fairings and odd screen shapes caused me no end of buffeting... However at the other end, on twiddly back roads with the luggage off they were a hoot.

I kind of view the K12 as I do GT cars... You know the sort of front engined V12, like a Scaglietti or a Vantage.. A bit lazy, classic lines, need a bit of muscle and patience to handle... Smooth, quick long distance runners and scare the pants off you fast when you feel like it and kind of subtle, which suits me down to the ground as my hair gets greyer.

I really like the K, I also kind of like the fact that not that many people are finding them 'fashionable' means they'll only get rarer and that's cool... It's still a damn fine looking bike.

In fact I bought mine because when I had my GS one of my friends that went to the Moto GPs with me had one and it was always brilliant on those long trips... and I was always covetous of the thing... and it looked great.

[capnvini]

Yeah. Not much on the horizon for "sport tourers". My K1200 looks good, is pretty comfortable and loves to go fast. Seemingly effortless power. You get hooked on that. I wish I could trust it more, i.e. brakes but will figure that out. With full Remus exhaust the bike sounds awesome.
The market for sport n sport tour bikes has shrunk I guess, thus the adv bikes. I'm happy to be part of the sport tour bunch. There are so many Harley's here n cruisers. Not interested.
Enjoy your K bikes folks.

[TurboBevy]

I went to look at a K1600, but it didn't have all the bells and whistles and while I was thinking about it some more, spotted the K1300 and fell head over hells right there and then. Did the deal without even test-riding it. A bike needs to be special and for me the K is that.