
Before I get into full swing, I came at this bike wanting to like it, but fully expecting to be disappointed after everything I had heard about it. I currently have a 40K VFR which needs replacing, and prior to that I had a R1100S, which some of you may remember. Before that it was all Jap sports bikes. I also ride Classic racers, and test ride bikes llike Gromit buys them. I commute 80 odd miles everyday into London, do trackdays once or twice a year, and I like to get my knee down regularly because I think its great fun.
I dig BMWs because I like their wacky design. The ST appeals because it is so mad in appearance. It is the perfect companion to my Vel Satis. I also like BMWs because they are underrated by most, and signal owners out as those with at least some imagination. Also important, but not so much to me, is the qualilty and all the extra features. I don't personally believe BMWs are as well made as Hondas, as my VFR has lasted considerably better than my R11 did.

Slinging a leg over the ST the most remarkable thing is how small and neat it feels. I didn't expect this at all. The tank is about half the width of that on the VFR, and overall the ST is about 5 per cent lighter too. As it carries its weight lower down, it actually feels a lot lighter than the Honda.
The ergonomics are exceptional. I had the seat at the higher setting, but I don't know where the bars were. The riding position was very similar to the VFR, which I also had not expected. I played about with the adjustable screen, but found it made no real difference to me how ever it was set. The plus point to mention is that I had no problems with any setting, as I have had considerable problems with other BMW screens in the past. The bike looks best from the front with the screen down.
We started out with a 30 mile blast up the motorway, and there is nothing to report but that this bike is near perfect in such conditions. But I was expecting that, and my real questions were about its "sporting" crudentials. Is this a bike that would let me scrape my knee sliders every day?
Well, it was very cold, and very wet and wintery, but I think I got my answer. Its no, but yes.
It all comes down to what you think "sporty" means. Is a bike more sporty the better it is at being ridden like a race bike, or is it more sporty the more fun it is to ride it like a race bike? Which is the more sporting team, Minardi or McLaren?
I'll not deny that I could lap a track quicker on an R1 than on the ST, but to my mind that misses the point.
So, in terms of raw talent the ST is not a pedigree sports bike, but crucially, it IS good enough to be ridden like a sports bike, and you can most definatley have fun on it. I once rode my VFR in the fast group at a track day, and while I was mixing it with 999s and R1s, an instructer on a bog standard GS blitzed past the lot of us and buggered off. I got it all on camera. The ST is better handling and faster than the GS.

So yes, if I had one of these bikes I would be reaching for fresh knee sliders every few months. At first the bike felt quite weyward because, as I discovered during a break, the rear pre-load was at its softest position. However, once I had re-set the rear pre-load to maximum, it was all a lot better. It still all a bit loose and flabby, but you just have to make up for this with skill.
The best thing about the ST, from a "sporting" point of view, is the engine. It has 110 bhp, but this is all channelled to the mid range, so it picks up like a brute from about 50mph. Following RB on the GS 800, where he had to wait for gaps in the traffic I had no such trouble, able to slot the bike to where ever I wanted wih a quick gun of the mighty engine. The power delivery is is quite refined, so you can ride like this is the wet and the bike doesn't get into trouble. As a pure A to B tool the ST is mighty.
I've read some reviews of this bike which said it was "bland". I simply don't get this attitude. This bike is about as flavoursome as Haggis Vindaloo. It has character with a capital K. I think an accusation of blandness says more about the reviewer than the bike. I suppose if you rode this bike like a tourer, at sub limit speeds, and like Mother Theresa after a particularly heavy bong session, then it would seem so accomplished that it might appear "bland". But this is no excuse. This bike is hugely quick, and if you give it the berries it is incredibly rewarding.
Anyone who says this bike is not sporty simply isn't trying hard enough. In my view ANY bike can be sporty, and in fact, the less adept the bike is at being ridden fast, the more enjoyable it is to ride it like that. I'll tell you what bland is, bland is riding an R1 at 80mph. OK, there may be some satisfaction to be had from riding a bike with razor sharp handling that can take anything you throw at it, but where is the challenge in that? Satisfying it may be, but exciting and sporty it simply isn't. Riding an R1 in a sporty fashion on British Roads is like riding an ST like a tourer. Its dull and it requires no imagination.
On the other hand, chucking an ST into a round about in a snow storm at 80mph is exciting. Its proper exciting. I mean its pupil dilating, bowl clenching, stomach churningly exciting. Some bikes may be accomplished speedsters, but this thing is proper FUN. Remember when Rossi rode for Honda? He was "condemned" to win, as he put it. But as soon as he switched to the inferior Yamaha team, THATS when Moto GP got exciting. Why is Moto GP boring now? Its because the best just wins in a predictable and boring way. Where's the fun in that?

One last thought. In a recent TWO there was an article about the GS. It ended with these words: "If you really want a bike that feels normal the very first time you ride it and doesn't feel any different six months later, stick with what you've got. But if you want to grow as a sports rider, get on one of these."
My thoughts exactly.