Originally Posted by Kenneth_Moore
I'm wondering about some of your comments. Tires: really just a choice isn't it? Both bikes have 17" rims, so the rider can pick from a wide variety of compounds, treads, and prices. Is the ST known to "eat chains and sprockets?" I've noticed a direct correlation between riding style and chain/sprocket life. That and how well maintained the bike is, especially the cush drive, bushings and bearings. Lastly, yes, Triumph isn't as widespread as Suzuki, but we're not talking about a Moto-Guzzi or MV Agusta here. Triumph has a lot of dealers in the US.
BTW: I ride a DL1000, the cousin of your SV's. It's a great bike and I like the dealer. But I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Triumph for any of the reasons above.
Right now I own an '08 Z1000. When you have more power/torque, you'll use it and usually this results in more wear, tear, and reduced tire life. I got 3000 miles out of my stock Qualifiers before a few threads started peeking through. I mounted Conti Road Attacks now.
I'm not personally biased either way, as the ST675 is a fine bike. I don't know that the SV650 can be compared directly with it, being a notch lower in all aspects (cost/suspension/power). I know reviews pit the SV against the ST. I like the 675 and I have yet to demo on this summer hopefully.
Having had SV, ZX, and now Z...I'd say I had the most fun on the lighter bike. Curves are downright fun, and the lighter the better. The torque of the 675 and SV are good for that kind of thing. Supermotards do well because of the grunt off the bottom and lightness too.
It's all good if you have the Bejaminz to fork over. I like the low end usable torque and sound of a good twin. People say the triple is close to that sensation.