New vs Old - The Honda ST1300 vs ST1100

Words by Colin and Sue Andrew

I have now owned 3 ST's since 1997, and interspersed those with 2 BMW's. My first beaST was a new green 1997 model 1100, and I rode 90,000km in 21 months. There was no commuting to work, but rather all genuine great fun trips away before I traded it on a new 1999 model BMW R1100RT. Big mistake! I corrected the mistake 4 months, 14,000km and an $8,000 loss later. My second beaST was a new 1999 blue model 1100, and I did 77,000km before it “broke” in March 2002. That was 2 days before I was due to leave for Mt Gambier for the Ulysses Club AGM. There were no parts in Australia to fix it, and Honda told me to “sod off” on the warranty anyway (altogether another story), so I traded it. I got a very low mileage 1999 model BMW K1100LT (Leroy) just to get to Mt Gambier.

I loved the look of the ST1300 once I saw it at Mt Gambier. However, at that stage Honda could not say how much or how long, so I persevered with Leroy but disliked most of the time on it. In the end my riding dwindled off to almost nothing while I waited for the ST1300 to arrive because I didn't want to damage Leroy's trade-in value too badly.

Finally the new beaST arrived at the end of October 2002, and I have now done 4,500km including one trip of about 1,100km. I bought it with the genuine Honda 45-litre top-box ($880) that has not arrived yet, and genuine Honda heated handgrips ($550) that have arrived but are not fitted yet. All up the cost was $26,000 on road, with a $12,000 changeover that means Leroy effectively cost me $3,000 + orc for 7 months and 14,000km use. If anyone wants a good BMW, it's still at Fraser Motorcycles Newcastle as at the time of writing.

So, what's different so far, and what's not?

First and foremost is that the ST feel is not different. I bought without a test ride for various reasons, yet when I hopped off Leroy and onto the beaST I was immediately back on an ST. It felt the same – well balanced, comfortable, not at all top-heavy, powerful with a quiet and positive gearbox, and generally with all the good points of the 1100.

To get the picture, I have to tell you that I ride almost exclusively 2-up, and I am not a lightweight. The last time I got on the bathroom scales it flashed up “one at a time, please”. Sue is not as large, but likes her creature comforts, so the amount of room in the rear cockpit is almost as important as the power plant. The lack of room on the back was one of the biggest problems I encountered on both of the beemers, with a continual knocking together of helmets and SWMBO getting a sore back and legs. I test rode the Yamaha FJR1300, but seat size on the rear was also inadequate. Also, the panniers were in the way when she tried to drop her feet off the pegs, which were also set up too high and made like sports pegs rather than wider touring pegs.

On the old ST's Sue could wiggle and jiggle, stand up on the pegs, or drop her feet off the pegs to keep comfortable on long trips. On the new, she could immediately do the same once again. My tape measure tells me the rear seat on both models is exactly the same length, but with the new split seat on the ST1300 there is a part of the back of my seat that I don't use, so she can slide further forward over that bit if need arises.

The new adjustable-height split seat places me about 50mm further forward than the old. I am 182cm tall, and I always found the old ST seat height at 800mm was perfect, so the new middle position of 790mm remains about as good as it can be for me (although I may try the highest 805mm soon just for comparison). However, the more forward position tends to enhance my perception of control and I find slow u-turns and manoeuvring considerably easier than they used to be with the 1100 (they were a nightmare on Leroy given its high centre of gravity).

The adjustable screen is new, and I am currently riding with it at its highest position. This puts the screen just below my line of vision so I look over it, not through it. I had the 100mm higher after-market screen fitted on both previous beaSTs, and the new bike's top position is roughly equivalent. I am regularly asked whether I was upset by there being no electric screen standard on a bike costing this much. In absolute truth my answer to this is “no”, for the following reasons:

I had electric screens on both the BMW R1100RT and the K1100LT, and once the screen was set to my preferred position I never once adjusted it on either bike;

I didn't have an adjustable screen on either of the previous ST1100 models, and had to buy an aftermarket screen to get 100mm more height. So, the manually adjustable screen is already a significantly upgraded specification for this model;

having ridden the FJR1300 Yamaha I can't think of anything much more annoying, once you have actually found your perfect screen position, than the screen reseating itself every time the ignition is turned off; and

the price of the new model at $22,990 + orc is only about $1,000 higher than the old 1100 model (albeit without ABS brakes, but remember the top-box being thrown in is only a recent offer to sell the remaining 1100's – it used to be about $1,200 extra). I think this is a fair price trade-off for newer technology, fuel injection, 1300cc, and all the other bits that I cannot name due to my personal lack of technical competence.

The brakes are dual combined, but without ABS. Again I am asked the same question as with the screen. Again my carefully considered answer is “no”, because:

all 4 of my previous 1100's had ABS, and I either never braked hard enough to cut it in on the ST's, or I braked harder than intended and had the BMW ABS cut in when it was the last thing I wanted or needed. I just don't miss it; and

in 1997 before returning to big bikes after 15 years away, I had a lesson with Stay Upright to get my confidence back up to scratch. When the instructor heard that the new bike I was getting had ABS, he did all he could in order that I understood how to “out brake the ABS” and not become dependent on it in an emergency. The police don't have or want ABS, as it apparently diminishes a rider's ability to brake properly.

The motor is obviously new. I repeat I have no technical competence, but my impressions of riding it versus the old are clear:

1100's always purred, the 1300 initially buzzed. Now it has 4,500km up, it is starting to develop the same throaty purr as its predecessor, so it sounds good (don't laugh – for the non-technical amongst us, that's very important!);

it pulls from anywhere in any gear, on demand. One of my complaints with the 1100's was that on longer hills on longer trips they would back off under the weight of me, Sue and the packed panniers. I would catch up eventually using the gears, at the expense of fuel economy, but the 1300 so far doesn't have that problem. Twist the wrist a little more and it just keeps going without major fuel cost. The 1,100km trip just done included the Oxley from Wauchope to Walcha (i.e. the uphill way), then down Thunderbolts Way to Gloucester.

the purists will note it revs out about 500 revs higher than the 1100 in all gears. It has always been for me and my ST1100 friends that 4,000 revs in 5th gear meant 130kmh. But that's now 120kmh, and you'll need about 4,300 revs to hit 130. For those who may push harder than me (g'day Rob!), I'm informed the rev limiter doesn't cut in until 9,500 revs despite the redline of 8,500.

The fuel tank is new, with about 22 litres up the top where the air filter really should be, and 7 litres down low under the seat. This combination has not affected the ST's centre of gravity in any negative way that I can feel. As I said before, combined with sitting a little further forward, I think it's more stable in low speed manoeuvres than ever, and I am genuinely cornering at speeds 10km or more faster than I used to. However, as usual Honda has delivered without some of life's little necessities. The fuel tank filler doesn't have an “unleaded fuel only” sticker on it, and its absence is still a bookable offence carrying a fine around $300 in NSW if you are detected.

The fuel injection is new. There is a well-documented flat spot on the throttle just over idle, and this is annoying because you need to give it a bit of a rip to explode off the lights. However, once moving the beaST still runs out of speed limit in 1st gear pretty quickly, and most other vehicles will still be at the lights when it does.

The area of fuel consumption was one where I had some concerns at first, because the overseas write-ups were not altogether too complimentary. We were initially hearing stories about maximum ranges of 380 – 400km on a tank of 29 litre capacity. However, so far I am delighted. I have kept fuel economy statistics on all of my bikes since 1997, and the old ST's were averaging about 18.5 km/litre in lower-speed local travel (remember, I ride 2-up most times), down to 14.5 km/litre on higher-speed trips with luggage. I'd count myself as doing well if the reserve fuel light stayed off until the distance travelled reached somewhere over 400km, although on one trip to Broken Hill the reserve light lit up at about 320km. In any case the ST1100 always had and still has a great touring range (and the BMW doesn't – I hated Leroy's need to look for fuel at 280-300km).

The new ST1300 is so far sharing its predecessor's credentials with regard to fuel. To date my consumption has not been worse than 18km/litre, and that was on the hilliest part of the Oxley run carrying full panniers (but no top-box as yet). On local trips I'm getting anything up to just over 20km/litre (a local trip is one where the speed limit, ranging up to 110kmh on the F3 freeway, is not exceeded by too much). These consumption rates are calculated by me based on fuel put in at each fill, not what's showing on the trip computer. The trip computer shows about 18.6km/litre average when the actual fuel used calculates to 20km/litre, so follow the computer and you shouldn't run out.

The bigger fuel tank and these mileage figures mean that the trip computer's display has not gone to reserve below 465km of travel on the last 2 tankfuls, with reserve showing 90+km remaining travel range when it finally came on. That's amazing, but the trade-off is that the ST1300 takes premium unleaded (at least 95 octane) instead of normal unleaded. However, the premium I'm using (Caltex Vortex Gold) is costing only 4.7¢/litre more than normal unleaded, so a full tank would only run out about $1.37 more costly than normal.

I don't know what affect the top-box will have on the fuel consumption. I normally carry the weight of some tools, at least one puncture repair kit, a lightweight bike cover, wet-weather gear for 2, heavier gloves for 2, bike cleaning gear, and a litre of drinking water, all the time. The result of that permanent weight, plus the aerodynamic drag if any of the box itself plus its weight, remains to be seen.

The panniers are attached by a completely new system, and they fit exceptionally well. More importantly, they don't rattle and shake at all like the old ones. They can be opened out flat like a suitcase for packing, simply by disengaging a small internal strap.

So far so good. Are there any bad bits? Yes:

I don't think there is as much heat protection, so the fairing gets hotter than I recall the 1100 doing;

If you don't do up the little strap inside the panniers, then open one while it's still attached to the bike, the lid can fall open onto the naked exhaust pipe (I grabbed fast enough to avoid damage, so I don't know what could have happened);

the well documented flat-spot on the throttle, which I believe some consider to be a serious fault as it is not evident in any other Honda bike that is fuel injected; and

the digital part of the instrument cluster can be hard to see. However, I really don't think this is the magnitude of problem documented by others. If you're wearing sunnies under the visor it's a bit hard, otherwise you can see pretty clearly by simply moving your head a little.

I guess the result for me is that the ST1300 is better than the ST1100 in the area of pull and power (but give it 500 more revs than you're used to doing), and it looks pretty good on fuel consumption and range. The new configuration makes me feel more comfortable cornering anything up to 10km/h faster, and the bike is extremely well mannered and more stable at low speed. It's as comfortable and roomy as its predecessor, and naturally it looks newer and more sharply engineered. The bits fit well, and the new pannier locking system means the luggage no longer rattles and shakes.

So was it worth buying? Definitely yes for me, so far. I don't think it's overpriced, the brakes and screen are not really an issue, and frankly there are no real alternatives available from competitors that work for me.

And, let's face it, whether I am singly or we are collectively happy about it or not, the ST1100 has entered the early stages of retirement. You may be able to get a “new” one for a while from floor stock, but what year model will it be when you come to trade in after a few years? Some good second-hand ones will be available for a while, but they won't appreciate in value either.

For better or worse, the ST1300 is now in production and the ST1100 is not. I think it's basically for better.

Visitors to this site