12-04-2018, 03:26 AM
Besides the enormous difference in cost between the two bikes, along with the new vs old factor, the most important difference is size and weight. Do you want a heavy tourer, or a relatively light, nimble, comfortable, do-everything bike that will easily handle any of the minimal touring duties you'd ask of it? You're only talking about doing a thousand miles per year for the next five or six years, so you obviously aren't planning on doing any long-distance work or serious touring. Under those circumstances, the ST1300 seems like massive overkill, as you will never make use of the one thing it does better than most bikes, including the Triumph: long-distance, two-up touring. In the meantime, you will always be burdened by its excessive size and weight, plus the lower-legs heat issue, making it a far less enjoyable mount for around-town things and other short-hop pleasure rides.
If you don't mind spending (and losing) the money on the Triumph, jump on it. For how you intend to use the bike, this is an easy call. I will say, however, that it just seems like a lot of money to waste on something you will barely ever ride. That's the one argument in favor of the Honda. You won't spend nearly as much money on it, or lose nearly as much money on it five years later. Its depreciation has already occurred, so you'll likely sell it for close to what you paid for it once you're again ready to move on.
Purely on a bike-merits-only basis, however, excluding financial considerations, the Triumph is clearly a better fit for you right now. So is the Tracer 900GT, as mickey mentioned, but, like you, I suspect, I would much rather have the more nicely turned out, premium-piece Triumph.
The bottom line is that you seem to want the new Triumph more than you want the old Honda, which is entirely understandable. So, if you can afford to have such an expensive garage queen, by all means, follow your heart and get what you want. YOLO, and all that.
Go for it.
If you don't mind spending (and losing) the money on the Triumph, jump on it. For how you intend to use the bike, this is an easy call. I will say, however, that it just seems like a lot of money to waste on something you will barely ever ride. That's the one argument in favor of the Honda. You won't spend nearly as much money on it, or lose nearly as much money on it five years later. Its depreciation has already occurred, so you'll likely sell it for close to what you paid for it once you're again ready to move on.
Purely on a bike-merits-only basis, however, excluding financial considerations, the Triumph is clearly a better fit for you right now. So is the Tracer 900GT, as mickey mentioned, but, like you, I suspect, I would much rather have the more nicely turned out, premium-piece Triumph.
The bottom line is that you seem to want the new Triumph more than you want the old Honda, which is entirely understandable. So, if you can afford to have such an expensive garage queen, by all means, follow your heart and get what you want. YOLO, and all that.
Go for it.