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.