CTX 1300 Forum banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,452 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Man, some of those ST1300 owners over on that forum are really touchy about the looks and riding position of the CTX1300. First time I've read that much opinionated divisiveness about a bike. Almost like they are scared that this might be the ST1300 replacement. :rolleyes:
Not likely since it is designed for a very different riding experience. Maybe they are offended that Honda chose to use a great engine that happens to live in the ST only, until now. Maybe it's because they think that just cuz Honda hasn't come out with a new, improved ST1300. I think they can rest easy, or at least take it easier. Some of them are ok with the CTX but many are very verbose with how ugly and uncomfortable they think it is. That's fine. As I posted over there: everyone is different. Some like the foot forward controls of a real cruiser, some like the standard and sport touring style foot controls like the GW and ST series, and some even like the sport bike foot way back controls. It took me a while to get used to the feet under position of the ST. I like either the ST or Standard positions now as most comfortable. As long as my pegs are not behind my butt nor in front of my grips I am happy (ST and Standard). I know Honda keeps referring to the CTX1300 as a cruiser, but to me it is only generically that as much as a GW can be called a bagged out cruiser.
-
Just some thoughts I had to get off my mind. :)
I don't hold it against those guys. They are still friends. I'll still ride and camp with them. They'll just have to put up with me if one of these camping trips I show up with a new *different* style bike than they are used to. Not like it's the first time that's happened (BMW, Suzuki, Kaw, HD bikes have all been). I can't wait for the new CTX to show up here so I can try it out. :D
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,162 Posts
That's pretty funny. I noticed that over there too. And it isn't the first time -- same thing happened with the VTX guys when that line was discontinued and was replaced with ... the Fury. A lot of those guys -- myself included -- ride what they ride because that's the style, and usually brand, that they prefer. When that model reaches its end of life and there's no suitable replacement on the horizon, well, they get pretty disappointed, feeling like the brand has deserted them. And where better to express that disappointment than an online forum.

I think people are under the mistaken impression that the CTX1300 is supposed to be the replacement for the venerable ST1300 because 1, it's got the V4 that has so far only been in a sport tourer, and 2, there's no new ST for 2014. I'm not sure why Honda has done that, and it doesn't help that they're so tight-lipped about what they have under development. But I can certainly understand why many riders who are attached to their sport tourers are probably not going to flock to the CTX1300.

I'd guess that Honda either has a next-gen ST in the works, or they're getting out of that specific segment because it's gotten so crowded. I know how those ST guys feel, because I felt the same way when Honda got out of the heavy cruiser segment, ironically a segment they themselves created with the VTX1800 line. I feel for 'em, but on the other hand the CTX1300 is the bike I've been waiting for somebody to build for a very long time. So much better that it's Honda.

Sorry ST guys, but now it's my turn. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
The thing I like about the foot position on both the ST1100 and the ST1300 is that it's very easy to stand up.

My feet were too far forward on the Gold Wing to easily stand up. With the CTX700 it would be nearly impossible to stand up. The CTX1300 is somewhere between the Gold Wing and the 700.

It's nice to stand up when you jump the railroad tracks. It's also nice to stand up a bit after a few hours in the saddle.

I can stand up nicely on the Trophy, but I don't trust the bike enough to ever go anywhere outside my local area. I'll be trading the Trophy and keeping the little CTX. I'll just have to adjust to not standing up by driving more sensibly and stopping a bit more often.

I like the way Honda is redefining the cruiser. Everyone else is just following Harley-Davidson. At some point in the near future folks will be sick and tired of bikes that look like they came out of the 1940s. Honda has the right idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cjm76

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,452 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I agree with all. This just proves again that everyone is different. I didn't have any problem standing up on my GL1500 pegs. Though it is easier on my ST1100.
Also, there actually IS a 2014 ST1300 model, just not in the US. It's in Canada! Someone from Canada on the ST board mentioned about it but hasn't been to the dealer to check out the VIN and verify if it is really a new model year. I tend to go with the flow on these things. All my bikes have, so far, been used bikes by many years and are now all discontinued models. The only bike I owned that was a current model when I owned it was the Vulcan 750 and that was also the least old of my bike purchases. It was a 1997 model that I owned in 2001. The HD was 6 yrs old when I bought it. Both my GW and ST were about 12 & 11 yrs old when purchased. Nothing wrong with the classics. Some of the best bikes out there are classics.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,162 Posts
The thing I like about the foot position on both the ST1100 and the ST1300 is that it's very easy to stand up.

My feet were too far forward on the Gold Wing to easily stand up. With the CTX700 it would be nearly impossible to stand up. The CTX1300 is somewhere between the Gold Wing and the 700.

It's nice to stand up when you jump the railroad tracks. It's also nice to stand up a bit after a few hours in the saddle.

I can stand up nicely on the Trophy, but I don't trust the bike enough to ever go anywhere outside my local area. I'll be trading the Trophy and keeping the little CTX. I'll just have to adjust to not standing up by driving more sensibly and stopping a bit more often.
You can stand up on forward-positioned pegs, although it's more like pulling yourself up. The pegs on my Thunderbird are much farther forward than the Wing and CTX700, about the same as they were on the VTX C model. I can always get my backside off the saddle if I need to by pushing off the pegs and pulling on the bars. It just takes a little more effort and coordination, and I certainly wouldn't want to do it for more time than it takes to get over a pothole or RR crossing, but it isn't all that difficult. ;)

I like the way Honda is redefining the cruiser. Everyone else is just following Harley-Davidson. At some point in the near future folks will be sick and tired of bikes that look like they came out of the 1940s. Honda has the right idea.
For sure -- Honda set itself apart back with the Magna's and original Valkyrie, but then they caved and joined the rest of the herd. I am so glad they're doing their own thing again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
People just like to me negative about things that are new.

Change is not welcome to most people.

I welcome the CTX with open arms. I don't see how it wont be a great option in this segment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
I do see how the design of the CTX1300 is polarizing. I think it is one of those things that you either love or you hate. Its kinda an odd size for a lot of people. Many would rather go for smaller or larger. The CTX1300 is for those who want something in between.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
People are just hating, this happens all the time and with just about anything, even cars. Guys in the car communities are like this.
But I bet if you put them ont he CTX1300 they'll love it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,162 Posts
You wanna see some hate, go over to North American Motoring (a MINI Cooper forum) any time MINI introduces something new. If it isn't smaller than everything else on the road, it's too big; if it isn't that, then it's too ugly, to fishy-looking, too something. MINI doesn't know what they're doing. They're abandoning their core principles. They're selling their soul just to sell more cars. How can they get away with calling anything that big a MINI. I hate it (I've only seen a few pictures of it on the web, but I hate it anyway).

Whenever they announce something new, it's great entertainment to just sit and read and
.

Every other bike I've owned has been a compromise. As I said above, now it's my turn to get one that's exactly what I want.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,452 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Yep. Everyone has a different idea of what is right *for them* and should understand that if it's not right for them, that's ok, they'll eventually find something that is. That's the beauty of variety in the product line. And that's what I see Honda doing... adding to the variety in their product line.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
399 Posts
I was amazed at the level of HATE I saw on some of the pages that announced the CTX1300. Comments like "ugliest bike I've ever seen", etc. I suppose this is typical, but to each his own. This bike is not for everyone but it IS for me! It has a lot of the things I liked about owning a Gold Wing but is much sleeker, getting away from the "rolling armchair" look while hopefully retaining a lot of the comfort and tech features (the "CT" part of CTX). I love the look of my Shadow but compared to the CTX it looks dated, and it is just not comfortable for anything except short trips (75 miles max). The V-twin vibration is tiring and once you get up to 65 it seems like the bike is really struggling to keep up. I'm guessing the CTX will be as smooth as my 4-cylinder Wing was, and I look forward to getting a chance to really hear those tuned pipes. It's funny, that has never been much of an issue for me before--I don't much care how a bike sounds as long as it's not blasting everyone's eardrums and setting off car alarms. But the Shadow is a bit louder than I'm used to and the CTX should be just about perfect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
IMO,for what that's worth,lol,it's different strokes for different folks.What one guy likes,doesn't mean that the next guy will.The same applies to a newer version or model,which in his opinion, could be good or no good.It's called adjustment and many times the newer model is improved over the older models.But then again,sometimes it's NOT.
For Example,I liked the first generation Ventures,83-93,[I owned one of each]but was dropped in 93,and reintroduced in 99 as the RSV [Royal Star Venture],which made me hesitant because it was a new model and quite a bit different from the old Ventures.But after I tried one,then bought it,I discovered it was INFACT,greatly improved over the older model Ventures and was and still is,the finest machine I have owned and driven to date.But now,the RSV is gone and Yamaha is replacing it with their Stratoliner 1800,dressed like a touring machine,but sounds like a cement mixer,is I believe air cooled,verses water,and is belt drive verses shaft drive,which IMO,is the way to go.The Tbird I own right now is ok,but is belt drive which I will publicly state for the record,is the FIRST, and will be the LAST belt drive machine I'll ever own.There are just too many variables or things that can go wrong with the belt. [I think I've experienced every one of em,lol] And the only reason I can see why so many MC manufacturers are going to belt drive,is because it's cost effective,in other words,the manufacturers make more profit on a machine that costs them less to build.Anyways, the shaft drive is what brought me to look at the CTX1300,and to this site.

Now my wife owned a brand new 1982 GL500 Interstate,which was water cooled, shaft driven, and was a great machine.The bad part about it was,after 55 mph,your hands would vibrate off your arms.But aside from that,which was bad enough, lol,it was an excellent machine,as I'm sure the CTX1300 will be,as it does appear to be based on that old GL500 Honda,only with a V4 1300 motor verses a Vtwin 500 motor.But we'll just have to wait and see how the CTX1300 works out once they've been on the road for awhile. Dave!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
That GL500 Interstate I mentioned in the above post was called the Silverwing Interstate.A slight loss of memory on my part.Tough to get old ya know.My appologies gentlemen. Dave!!!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,162 Posts
That GL500 Interstate I mentioned in the above post was called the Silverwing Interstate.A slight loss of memory on my part.Tough to get old ya know.My appologies gentlemen. Dave!!!
My first bike was a '85 GL650 Silverwing, with the whole tour package. And yes, one of the biggest reasons I traded it was because my hands would tingle for hours after a long ride from the vibration. Otherwise, it was a pretty fine machine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
The wife's Silverwing 500 used to give her over 60 mpg as she was a very conservative rider.All my Ventures,which came with 1200 and 1300 V4 motors were consistent at 55+ mpg,as long as I drove em sanely,not to mention that the first gen machines,83 and 93 weighed well over 800 lbs. curb,and the 99 weighed in at 869lbs curb,plus accessories.:eek:SO!! It would only stand to reason that the CTX1300 V4,weighing in at alittle over 700lbs.curb,should also be very reasonable on fuel mileage,again, as long as it's driven sanely.I'm gonna guess some wheres between 55-60,or maybe even better,:cool: which would be very respectable for a decently dressed touring machine.;)Whadaya think??? Dave!!!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,162 Posts
I think low 50's is doable in real-world riding, but 55-60 is probably a stretch. The best I ever got on my ST1300 was 50-ish. Thinking back on my old rules of thumb -- tuning for torque usually results in lower fuel mileage, and we've been told that this 1300 motor has been retuned for more low-end torque. So I'm not expecting crazy mileage out of it.

And one thing I've noticed over the years is that while cars have become more efficient in attaining better power AND fuel economy per CI, motorcycles seem to have not kept up, remaining relatively low-tech compared to their 4-wheeled counterparts. If anything they've gotten worse. Gone are the days when it was a given that any bike would have better fuel economy than any car. I will be very happy if I can manage around 50 mpg with the CTX1300; but I'll be pretty surprised if it gets significantly more than that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
399 Posts
I think low 50's is doable in real-world riding...
Hmmmm, interesting. I admit that I do mostly stop-and-go city riding on my Shadow, and I am not a skinny guy. But I just calculated my typical gas mileage (something I have not really done before) and it came out to about 25 MPG. That kinda sucks, since our Toyota Highlander Hybrid gets 26-28! This is not at ALL what I expected. Perhaps I need to make some adjustments to my riding style. And since I expect to do more highway riding on the CTX, hopefully the overall mileage will improve somewhat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
If you're gonna play squirrel, running the machine hard and or up thru the gears at high rpm,then naturally,fuel economy will suffer.This is true of all gas driven vehicles.But if you drive sensibly,getting into high gear ASAP,and staying in that gear,keeping the speed down as much as possible,then mpg will be decent.That's how I drive my machines most of the time and how I've achieved the excellent fuel economy that I have. Dave!!!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,162 Posts
Without question, Dave -- I just think you'd have to do most of a thankful downhill and with the wind to see 60 mpg on the CTX1300. Just my experience. And I usually ride sensibly, too -- bikes I've had where other riders complain about only seeing 30-35 mpg I'd usually be getting 40 or better. With the T-bird where most riders get mileage in the 40's, I've had several tankfuls of at least 50 mpg.

Lots of things to take into consideration besides just displacement and weight that impact mileage; gearing, valving, ECU tuning, just off the top of my head. Everything I've read indicates they tweaked the 1300 for better low-end performance, which usually translates to less than optimum fuel consumption. It won't be crappy, I'm sure; but I really think you're gonna be hard pressed to see much more than 50 mpg.

I'll bet ya a cup of coffee on it right now. :D
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top