FJR-ST1300 comparison made

[motoman]

Interesting comparison made between FJR and ST1300 60mph roll-on. Was done on the ST site. Myself, never would of thought the ST1300 would even hang with an FJR.

Interesting "test" on a recent ride. I was riding with 2 FJR's. One a '14 with a 5 speed and the other a 17 with 6 speed.
Roll on against my ST. ST in 5th, New FJR in 6th, Old FJR in 5th. Starting from 60 mph.

- New FJR ( with it in touring mode). ST pulled ahead about 20 ft and stayed there to about 90 and then the FJ started to gain slowly. Backed off before getting much past 100.
- New FJR (with it in Sport mode) - for all intents and purposes, even.
-Old FJR - sport mode - pretty much even.

Too many variables to draw any real conclusions (things like rider weight, luggage weight, amount of fuel, etc etc) but it was fun.

Surprising how much the changing from Touring to Sport mode made on the 6 spd. Also surprising that the ST did as well as it did given that it was giving up about 20 hp and 12 lbs of torque. I had expected that it wouldn't, especially as I outweigh the other 2 riders and had a full tank of fuel.

[Bonz]

Interesting. Thanks Brant! My main question would be how does a bike making less torque from 3000 RPM on up (looked up multiple dyno comparisons from magazine tests) that weighs 50 or 60 pounds more, with a heavier rider and admitted full tank of fuel pull that off?

The only thing I can see, is in a Rider Magazine comparison I saved from 2008 (when I owned an '04 ST1300 for a year) is the 5 speed FJR is turning 150 rpm lower at 60 mph than the ST1300, and that small gearing difference may give the ST "the jump" and make up for the lower power output before the FJR pulls out the hp above 100 mph (the guys rolled out around 100 mph). Yet each magazine comparison I can find where it is mentioned, the FJR pulls the ST in similar comparisons of roll-on.

I am sure in a week and a half we will have an opportunity to do some fun yet safe comparisons.

[Bigfoot]

Yeah, 60 mph in 5th is really lugging my FJR considering its about 90 when it hits redline in second. Might be the same problem with all the bikes listed, but really sort of a weird test IMHO.

[motoman]

With the 'grunt' from 5K to 7k that ST little hemi V-4 16valve that looks like a miniature small-block Chev. V-8 shortened up a bit, the ST does keep pounding out fairly serious torque.....least 'seat of the pants' says so. So, that speed roll-on WOT comparison was smartly chosen by him, cept for maybe the starting speed, as that ST would of likely been in the 3400-3600rpm range, and at a 100mph maybe the 5800-6000rpm range.

[Bigfoot]

Stacking the deck by choosing parameters of the test, or race as it were, to take advantage of the strong points of your bike vs the weaker points of the other is smart. But it if those parameters are are so narrow as they are in this case just to get some sort of bragging rights is almost laughable.

It reminds me of a politician cherry picking one statistic to prove a point but ignoring hundreds of others that prove him wrong.

[Bonz]

ST1300=3,200 rpm at 60 mph, FJR 5 speed = 3050 rpm at 60 mph.

Dyno charts from various publications show (for fun I look these up, real numbers, tells it all) the FJR1300 at a torque disadvantage up until 3,200 rpm or thereabouts. Start the roll-on at the rpm listed above and due to lesser weight of the FJR 1300, the five speed model would be an even heat until horsepower starts taking over, just like the fellow said.

I recall reading in an early road test of the 6 speed FJR 1300 that Yamaha claimed to strengthen the power curve all around but only a few more horses up top. That would hold true if the much taller geared 6 speed in sport mode was an even heat with the ST 1300. The 6 speed is turning 10% less rpm "at cruising speeds" vs the 5 speed, which the 5 speed was already geared taller than the ST 1300.

In touring mode, throttle response is muted/softened so I would expect the ST 1300 to have an advantage like it did at initial roll-on. The fact of the FJR started to reel it in as the approached 90 mph, definitely says the FJR is a strong puppy.

Honda left so much on the table with the ST 1300. I am sure it's because they wanted to sell more Gold Wings.

[madmax-im]

Very interesting but the FJR1300 looks so much better styling wise than the ST1300....And the STs are difficult bikes for me to get comfortable on..not without alot of expensive farkles..the FJR on the other hand fits me like a glove right off the showroom floor..
now as a testament to Honda's design..the STs never excelled at any one category..like hp..or handling or even weight..but they are excellent all around machines..they do everything well but nothing exceptionally if that makes sense..
Its is a real shame that Honda totally gave up the Sport Touring category by ending production of the ST1300 4 years ago already..many Honda faithful waited only to be told after the fact that there would not be a new or updated ST 1300.. My preference has always been the ST1100s anyway..they are still solid machines and lots of miles left in them...and they are dirt cheap ...

[Bonz]

One thing I noticed and can say "ditto" on, my ST 1300 was fugly with the hard bags removed. The FJR actually looks like a decent bike when they are removed.

Honda had the CTX1300 for one year, 2014. Same 1261cc with different bits and pieces that made the two engines not interchangeable, however it was seriously detuned for what they call more low-end and mid range. The ST 1300 was never lacking for that, a bit more thought to what American buyers like could make a big difference.