divisive opinions- but I like it

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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.