Detailed review and pretty non biased - my two cents:
Why do reviewers have trouble categorizing the CTX? As soon as I saw it months ago I felt it was direct competition for a Harley Road Glide or Street Glide. Hence the shorty shield. All day long at 90+ mph doesn't seem to fit this bike or a CTX owner. It looks so good one should show it off by cruising at blvd speed "Modern Bagger" works.
UJM? It's too narrowly focused to call it that. That's a CB500F.
Not sure why the comparison to an ST or FJR. It's a completely different purposed bike, of course the red line will be lower. The author even says later in the article "unnecessary to use the top rev range". Seems most CTX owners fit that type of rider.
A centerstand is valuable on any bike - parking on loose sand, hot pavement, cleaning, just about 100% guarantee against a tipover.
Hoping they can't manufacture them fast enough...cool bike. Waiting for DCT
Very nice review. I think the best I've read so far. I like it even more now!!!
I totally understand the classification confusion journalists have. They always feel like they just have to put everything into some existing category or they cannot explain it. I agree it really cannot be classified in any of the "normal" current classes. But sport touring is a bit of a stretch.
At most "sporty" touring but not really sport touring. I like the comments about the seat... again. May not need to replace with aftermarket on this one
"Its shorty windscreen, however, did little to provide touring-bike wind protection."
That tells an interesting story. It doesn't say there's no protection, just not touring-bike protection. I guess if you're planning for now doing many long-milers, this could be a concern. I'm not.
Bob, you've mentioned a few times that you like the longer wheel base of the ST1100 over the ST1300 -- you're probably gonna love this CTX for all that and more.
I'll tell ya what I'm liking a lot is all this talk about the generous, low and wide torque curve. Downshift if you want, or not -- sounds like this motor is just as happy if you're lugging it or thrashing it. Oooooh yeah.
Yep, I like a longer wheel base on a bike. Better for touring. If I was a sport or sport leaning sport touring rider I would want the shorter wheel base to be more nimble. To me that is twitchy handling (what I thought of the ST1300 I test rode). A longer wheel base is more settled and comfortable (less fatigue) for touring. My GW (GL1500) wheel base was 66.5", the CTX1300 is 64.5", My ST1100 wheel base is 61.2", and the ST1300 is 58.7". Even my Burgman 650 was a 62.8" wheel base!
Yeah, I think I'd really like this longer wheel base.
I really don't think the mirrors are a problem at all, only how Honda sets the handlebars in the crate. If you adjusted the handlebars up too high on any bike with fairing mounted mirrors you will likely end up with an issue. But set them right and any issue disappears. I would expect the handlebars are lowered where they should be for these test rides in the reviews.
got a chance to take a short test ride a few days ago. I found this bike to be quite smooth and easy to handle. The low seat and forward shifter were easy to get used to. I thought the side bags were poor and flimsy. As it was a cold day, the short windshield offered no protection at all. I liked the fresh styling and looks. At $20,000.00 it is overpriced for what it is. I am still looking at other options.
One bike I really like is the triumph trophy. It is similarly priced but comes with some great options. I know it compares more to the st 1300 or a Yamaha yj 1300. I like a taller adjustable windscreen and heated seats plus cruise control.
I hope to take out one for a real road test soon.
Will keep you posted.