Uncle Phil
Site Supporter
Depends on if they are fighting or showing ...
Grok answers which is better, the ST1100 or ST1300
- Thread starter irunamok
- Start date
Well, that was ruff!
Having read this entire thread, both St's are great bikes, question is , does the ones you have put a smile on your face when ridden?
Sadlsor
Site Supporter
@Sunday Rider beat me to it.
So, here goes... Michelin tires are way better than Bridgestones.
(Yeah, I'm bored. How could you tell?)
Honestly have never ridden the 1100, but my 1300 suits me better than fine.
I don't see any point in debating which of them are "better", many of y'all have successfully ridden enough miles to make a case for your preference, and that's fine.
But I will debate tires.
Nah. I really won't. Ride what works for you.
So, here goes... Michelin tires are way better than Bridgestones.
(Yeah, I'm bored. How could you tell?)
Honestly have never ridden the 1100, but my 1300 suits me better than fine.
I don't see any point in debating which of them are "better", many of y'all have successfully ridden enough miles to make a case for your preference, and that's fine.
But I will debate tires.
Nah. I really won't. Ride what works for you.
1100 or 1300 as judged by Grok.
Does Grok even ride or is it a wannabe?
Does Grok even ride or is it a wannabe?
T
That has been my experience too. My carbs have not been touched since they were put on when the bike was builtHow many times have I had to remove my carbs and clean them in 1/2 million miles between 4 ST1100s?
ZERO - Not an issue if you ride them regular and don't tinker with them!
I did have to do that to the one that I bought that had been sitting for a few years.
But if you ride the carbs seem to work pretty well.
And from what I've heard, I believe I'll take a ST1100 waterpump replacement over a ST1300 one (which you can change the timing belt while you are in there).
T
That has been my experience too. My carbs have not been touched since they were put on when the bike was built
Then, let's hope Honda improved them over the V45/V65 Sabres of the mid 80s!
And the camshaftsThen, let's hope Honda improved them over the V45/V65 Sabres of the mid 80s!
Bingo. 14 years riding my current 2000 bike. I've never had to touch them. It doesn't run perfect but not enough for me to chance making it worse thru disassembly. And I never have to experience the dreaded "FI" light. Keep gas in it, keep the btty charged and it lights off every time. I'm all good.T
That has been my experience too. My carbs have not been touched since they were put on when the bike was built
.....that only means that you are fine riding at 10K with 25% less power (same power drop for 11 and 13 btw, except that with 30% less, the 13 still has more ponies).
And 10K is no magic switch either....power decreases with every foot you climb up.
Last edited:
Come on, it's an ST1100, not know for it's power!
In 2003, my brother, Dave and I decided to go with V65 Sabres, instead of ST1100, because the V65 Sabres had better power.
Then, in October 2005, Dave calls me a tells me he just picked up a ST1300. My Transition to a ST1300
A month later, I had one in my garage!
Hard at work...
Attachments
Come on, it's an ST1100, not know for it's power!
Not bad though, about same as the NT1100.....which however is a good 150 lbs lighter.
Andrew Shadow
Site Supporter
I am not disagreeing with the physics, nor am I doubting your math skills or your calculations. Nor am I suggesting that 10,000' is a magic threshold. I referenced that number only because that is the elevation range at which I took note of performance changes when riding at higher elevations on my ST1100's. I had no GPS back then so my only accurate altitude indicator was when I rode past an elevation sign which would allow me to make an educated guess. Maybe the actual altitude was 9,500' feet, or maybe it was 9,700', or maybe it was 10,300', I don't know. I just recall that it became more noticeable when I was riding in the 10,000' range.
My post was in response to the two elevations that ST1100Y cited, both of which are below 9,000'. While I may not have a scientifically accurate number for you I do know that I did not experience any performance change worth noting until well above the altitude that he cited. I can also tell you that other carbureted motorcycles that I have owned and have ridden suffered a much greater effect at lower altitudes than my ST1100's ever did. Some of them exhibited a significant change climbing Mount Washington, which is only around 6,500' or so. Why is that? I have no idea what the difference is. Obviously there are more factors governing how altitude will affect a given normally aspirated engine than a simple matter of altitude. Some manage higher altitudes better than others for whatever reason it would seem. Both of the ST1100's that I have had fell in to that catergory from my experience.
Last edited:
Please forgive my imprecise language, no loss of power that I noticed.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2006
- Messages
- 8,056
- Location
- Jacksonville
- Bike
- GL1800 R1200RT NC700
- 2025 Miles
- 005081
There was a time when I thought I'd be riding a ST1300 forever. It did everything I ever asked it to do but after 180,000 miles I wandered. Now I've been married to one woman for 36 years and plan on staying home but I'm not going to be married to one motorcycle until I can't climb on top of it any longer. There's a lot of fun to be had with other motorcycles. Don't wait until you can't find that out.....
Since I never took my V45 or V65 Sabres up more than Carson Pass on US88, east of Sacramento, I can't say much other than I always had issues with their carbs!
Now as for the ST1300 and altitude; in 2016, I followed some ST1100s up Pikes Peak. I can't say if they had issues or not, because once at the top (14,000+ feet) I lost track of them. But to me, they looked to struggle a few times.
Dave (my brother, driving up with his son) posted on YouTube a video driving behind me, but I'm not sure where it is.
But what I do know is I had a harder time breathing, than my ST1300, up there.
Absolutely.
Pilots check if they have enough power to take off, like on hot AZ Summer days where they just cannot anymore, and what they go by is the density altitude, the "feels like" altitude, which is not just the actual altitude. Temperature, barometric pressure and dew point are also part of the equation.
10,000 feet and above flying small planes, your only allowed a half hour,or go on Oxygen.
OP
OP
So true! I have an NC700X, too, and I love the torque-y nature of the bike between 40-80 mph. Definitely NOT boring like it has always been described. I just wish I had the white one, which I think looks a lot better than my silver model.