Kawasaki have moved from an unbranded ECU in the old bike to a Bosch ECU in the new one. This may be part of the solution to meet the Euro 5 requirements, though that's just my guess. The change of ECU supplier opened up a whole range of alternative functions not available via the old ECU, hence some of the fiddling.

Things like the brake changes were likely a result of the launch of the Hayabusa. It uses Brembo Stylema brakes and I think Kawasaki and Suzuki share quite a lot of their supply lines so I expect the volume purchase of the Brembo brakes probably brought them down to be cost effective vs. the Kawasaki brakes. It's also a book marketing point as the Stylema brakes are, I think, one of the current fashion items.

But, THE most important change is the colour, which is now majority black so must have significantly increased performance as a result!

So, a quick update now I'm 400 miles in on the new bike. Run-in will be complete after it's 600 mile oil change.

Firstly, it's very familiar, while also being different! The feel of the bike is the same. The controls are all in the same place but the mode of operation can be different. I thought I'd really miss the analogue tacho from the previous bike but I quite like the growing green line of the large TFT dash. A also find the electronic, semi-active suspension excellent, with it managing to soften up on bumpy Suffolk lanes while stiffening up when the road smooths out and the pace picks up. The "sky hook" technology appears excellent and keeps the whole thing steady and at a reasonably constant ride height.

The seat is definitely better than the previous Kawasaki unit but I'm still not sure I can retire my AirHawk seat cushion. I think it'll be getting a trip to the French Pyrenees.

I know I'm still running it in and l taking it gently, but the fuel consumption is definitely improved such that 220 is realistic to a tank. I have a weekend ride with some friends booked in a couple of weeks time. Mark, my Australian friend who is currently visiting the UK, will be riding my old H2 SX so I'll get a direct side-by-side comparison of fuel usage.

The active cruise control is both a benefit and a pain in equal measures. Firstly, the range of the radar re-sets to maximum every time the bike is switched off. Maximum is way too far away for my liking. Even medium is about 5ft longer than the distance I'd use to pull to the right lane for an overtake on a dual carriageway or motorway, which means that just as I'm making the shoulder check to move out, the bike starts decelerating. A little unnerving and frustrating. That said, being able to simply set the cruise in town, knowing it will speed up and slow down as the traffic ahead changes, is excellent.

I am also getting caught out in that, on the old bike, a light flick of the clutch lever would disable the cruise control, but not on the new bike. Instead, a hard close of the throttle seems to be the easiest way to disable it but that tends to happen after I've flicked the clutch lever only to find I'm not then slowing down!

The new bike has Brembo Stylema brakes fitted as standard. All the write-ups I read were saying how wonderful these brakes are but, in all honesty, I think there is just as much feel and bite from the Kawasaki brakes on the older bike. Both are excellent and pull 265kg of bike plus over 100kg of fully kitted rider to a controlled stop in very respectable distances. There's not much of a similar weight that can stop as short as a K1300S, but the H2 SX feels as if it's there.

The auto change of the dash colour/brightness according to ambient light is great and while I've not yet done a nigh ride, will, I'm sure, mike life a little easier.

One other minor frustration is that where the mirrors were crystal clear on the old one, regardless of either bike speed or engine speed, the mirrors on the new one do buzz very slightly at certain engine speeds. You can still see that there is something behind you but it's not so easy to tell if it has blue lights on the roof!

So, all in all, I'm still a very happy bunny and feel I've made absolutely the right choice of bike for how I ride.

Finally, I have been told that the newer '22 on bikes can now be flashed. There's no rush but I'll be looking at doing that at some point in the future. As with the old bike, more power is not required, but is always welcome.

I think the key point from both is the lack of options available to us, the paying customers. We all have freedom of choice (and long may it stay that way) but I'd like many more options to choose from!

Quote from: 8ace on March 26, 2024, 07:41:24 am

I see that Michelin are still recommending GTs for the 1300GT but standard ones for the year equivalent 1300s.

K1300s   Wet Weight 254Kgs
k1300GT Wet weight 255kgs

Data sourced from MCS.

At a guess it probably relates to the likelihood and regularity of pillion and luggage

...

Luggage is a purely personal thing, no metrics or facts will change what you need/want. Speak to David about top boxes to see what vitriol can do to overcome emotion...

...

My "problem" with top boxes is that they put the load in exactly the worst place on a bike. ( Not my opinion - physics fact!) If you don't care about the handling of your bike then go for it!

Hello and welcome Andy. The K1300S is a superb bike and I'm sure you'll love it, but it's not without it's "features". Have a good read through this site, and especially the buying guide, so you know what to look out for.

I'm looking forward to the pictures of the bike once you have it. What colour is it? (Motorsports are the fastest, closely followed by the black ones!   )

Chris, David, were your long distnace rides fun, or just a jaw-clenching necessity?
i.e. would you do it again?

Matt needs to know...

I wouldn't call it fun but it wasn't too bad and I did do it again on a K100RS in 2 hours less about 8 years later.

On both occasions I had got off the ferry from Malta in the very early hours of the morning then just rode north until I was happy I could get home easily the next day, which I did.

The K100RS was better than the CX500 but at the time of the CX500 run I don't think there was a better option (that I could afford) and it was surprisingly comfortable.

Assuming you are comfortable on your bike then long runs are just a "state of mind". Make as few stops as possible and make the stops is quick as possible. Top speed is not important, it's all about the average speed so finding the bikes sweet spot where it's covering the ground at a reasonable rate but not getting through the fuel too quickly is the key. On the CX500 that was around 78mph and on the K100RS that was about 84mph.