The ZX14 is considered a Sport Bike/sport tourer before the birth of the Concource.
Argh
I hate the twisting of words for poor [the actual words in my head are a little stronger] reasons. And - let's get this straight. First I presume you mean the Kawasaki Concours? The Concours pre-dates the ZX-14 by decades.
The ZX-14 is NOT a sport-tour bike. The original '86 Concours (ZG1000) was based on the Ninja 1000 of the time. Ninja=sport bike, Concours = sport-tour; Goldwing, Aspencade, Voyager, etc = Tour bike. Simple
The use of "sport-tour" for bikes other than the 3/4 faired Concours, ST1x00, BMW RT/KT 1000cc+, etc bikes was the marketing silliness of trying to split hairs on sport bike/hyper-sport (street legal race bikes), or for European types with roads/gov'ts not condusive to larger vehicles. As a conformity-challenged type, I refuse the redefintion of the term unless it aids in clarity and understanding.
There are various levels of Sport bikes. A sport-tour was roughly defined as 1/2 way between sport bike and tour bike. A sport bike was contrasted with the UJM/standard/cruiser type bike. A sport -tour would typically be a bike with hard luggage (usually removable), and a fairing somewhere around 1/2 way between a sport bike and a Goldwing. Further, as anything with the word tour in the name means ability to cover large distances, personally I figure anything with a chain (vs shaft drive) doesn't qualify [but I understand the Triumph may otherwise qualify, so may the exception prove the rule?). Then again, it's not like I don't have a strong opinion on this ;^)
Within Sport-Tour, there are those bikes with strengths more in one direction than another. Is a ZX-14 somewhere near half-way between a sport-bike (even an R1/MV Augusta/etc) and a GoldWing? of course not. Even when compared to the most hyper of street legal sport bikes, the ZX-14 is going to be much closer to them than a Goldwing - by a lot. So, the ZX-14 is a sport bike, with capabilities for riding more than 30 minutes at a stint [making it a reasonable street bike]. What are today typically called Sport bikes, really are hyper-sport or race bikes [but the industry doesn't like to call it that for insurance and other reasons].
However, back to the original posters question. The real issue as alluded to, is what style riding is desired. If you want to race on the street/mountains (foolish thing to do, but I digress), then a much lighter bike than a FJR would help. If you are looking for a bike that can be ridden for hours relatively comfortably including with pillion, scrape pegs in the moutains if desired, can easily handle multi-day trips, etc - then sport tour it is. Then questions of budget, how much maintenance you are willing to do yourself, vs pay others to do vs is rquired in the first place, the cost of maint, one's priorities on form vs function, etc all come into play. Fortunately, there are many bikes to fit many different needs.
ugar-6
- Gen I vs Gen II heat - depends on where you live and how much riding you do, and what you wear when you do, as to whether this will be an issue for you.
- more info on your riding style, preferences, desired capabilities in a bike, etc will help in advising on what is a better match for you.
I ride a sport tour as I commute 50+miles daily, and occassionally I ride as I did recently in my Lap Of California, an 8-day, 3100+ mile trip (would have been more miles or shorter length except mets non-riding friends along the way). I want a bike that, in my early 40s, I can ride for 500+miles/12 hours in 1 day, and repeat again and again as desired. I can do this 2-up if desired. I live in San Diego, CA. There are some nice mtn roads not too far away, but the really good one are hundreds of miles away. When riding to such destinations, I only want to have to stop when its time to refuel. I won't tolerate a bike that I have to get off, stretch, rest my wrists, etc every hour or two. So that is my riding style, and why I ride what I do.
Which bike is right for you depends on your situation.
