I wonder if bike Manufacturers are putting electronics on bikes to make the bikes easier/safer to ride or for the ability to use them on Production based racebikes and for marketing hype?
No human alive needs a street bike with 200 bhp, 3 levels of traction control, abs, and a quickshifter standard.
No human alive needs a street bike with 200 bhp, 3 levels of traction control, abs, and a quickshifter standard.
Agreed but what if your competitor boasts those features and your superbike merely has 160 hp and none of the other goodies? People will flock to the higher spec sheet, paying thousands more in many cases. Meanwhile, you have to offer 0% financing and deep discounts just to move your bikes off the showroom.
Are electronics mandated on the bikes? Or can they choose to run them or not?
Not stipulated. But to be competitive because they ARE allowed...a must have.
(Until Dorna figures whether they have an issue with the "show", diminishing crowds and viewership (over and above the normal economic times), and lack of crowd pleasing drama from the bikes )
__________________ Old Baldy / WWBO #451
Ducati 996
Kawasaki KLR 650 '02
Kawasaki KLR650 '06 OB's Blog
Agreed but what if your competitor boasts those features and your superbike merely has 160 hp and none of the other goodies? People will flock to the higher spec sheet, paying thousands more in many cases. Meanwhile, you have to offer 0% financing and deep discounts just to move your bikes off the showroom.
If that was true, EVERYONE would've bought a BMW this year given their superior numbers on paper. People will still buy POS Suzukis and those ugly CBRs.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrgrn
why don'y you do yourself a favor and put me on ignore
Suzukis aren't shit . They're cheap to buy , but not shit . And last time I checked the S1000RR was selling very well considering its dear price and lack of discount .
If that was true, EVERYONE would've bought a BMW this year given their superior numbers on paper. People will still buy POS Suzukis and those ugly CBRs.
You call the CBR ugly but fail to mention the BMW is possibly the ugliest motorcycle ever made?
BTW, I would never buy the BMW for a couple of reasons. First it is incredibly, almost offensively, ugly. Second, I don't need the performance it offers over a standard literfour. Third, look closely at the bike and its materials and surface finishes look cheaper than the "POS" Japanese bikes.
it's just like when they put all the ground effects shit on the indy cars, it made anyone competitive if they could buy a seat,
even Kevin (Crash) Cogan...
Ugliness is certainly an adjective of personal opinion. Personally, I think the BMW 1000 is really cool. I prefer it's looks to the Aprilia, which looks like someone grafted a 250cc tail onto a 1000cc body, in my eyes. Many might disagree with me......confirming that design is personal taste.
Suzukis are damned fine motorcycles. They have led many new technologies, and changed the world of sport bikes as we know them. They have historically made some of the toughest, most reliable, most tunable motorcycles of all. Anyone calling them "POS" clearly has some agenda. They may have some negative image associated with them due to the legions of squids who ride them for their performance-value ratio, but that's not the bike's fault......much like the poor reputation of BMW 3-series drivers in the UK are not the fault of that superb car.
__________________ Old Baldy / WWBO #451
Ducati 996
Kawasaki KLR 650 '02
Kawasaki KLR650 '06 OB's Blog
i called all this traction control, wheelie control, slipper clutch, and abs bullshit gay years ago, and it is. i find no enjoyment in riding a bike like that.
Ok mate drop the crack pipe.
MotoGP is the single best cure for insomnia ATM not been able to sit through one race for more than a year now(then I am getting old), roll on Supercross and a fit RV.
Ugliness is certainly an adjective of personal opinion. Personally, I think the BMW 1000 is really cool. I prefer it's looks to the Aprilia, which looks like someone grafted a 250cc tail onto a 1000cc body, in my eyes. Many might disagree with me......confirming that design is personal taste.
I agree the RSV4 looks like the designer lost interest after the riders seat.
Although the new ZX10 looks sweet.
Ok mate drop the crack pipe.
MotoGP is the single best cure for insomnia ATM not been able to sit through one race for more than a year now(then I am getting old), roll on Supercross and a fit RV.
Ok mate drop the crack pipe.
MotoGP is the single best cure for insomnia ATM not been able to sit through one race for more than a year now(then I am getting old), roll on Supercross and a fit RV.
Greatest in terms of personal performance! Dominating in every sense of the word and that's INCLUDING Rossi in the field. An EPIC season for JLo!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrgrn
why don'y you do yourself a favor and put me on ignore
Anyone calling them "POS" clearly has some agenda.
Ummm, no! The local Suzuki/Honda dealership owners have said the Suzuki is the biggest POS and they sell them! They have a vested interest in moving them and they still say the Honda is lightyears better than the Gixxer in quality, fit and finish.
Yes, looks are relative, but the CBR is by far the ugliest machine ever sold. It's hideous to me! But judging by the popularity in the squid demographic on 1000rr.net, it's selling ok. People can say what they want about the S1000rr, but we will see if they ever discount 2 year old models rotting in warehouses 50% to move them while not putting new models on the floors cuz there's a glut of unsold inventory. Talk about fails!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrgrn
why don'y you do yourself a favor and put me on ignore
Actually I think I nailed it exactly. What this boils down to is you guys (and the more verbal riders) dont like the bikes getting 'easier' to ride (as if a 220hp motorcycle will ever be easy to ride)
Disc brakes make bikes easier to ride, as does fuel injection, radial tires, hydraulic suspension, stiff frames, etc etc etc...yet we hear no outcry to ban these. Why? because we're used to them being on racebikes. They all had their detractors when new to the bike racing world.
I suppose if we ban electronics because it makes the bike easier to ride, then we have to ban everything that makes it easier to ride, no? Will they wind on on what is essentially 1900s era board trackers? Should we actually make the bikes more difficult to ride just so you guys can see a good race?
Its the same bunch of whining that went on when DMG bought out AMA, or WSB allowed 1200cc Vtwins, or any other major change in racing thats ever happened since racing began. Change happens, technology marches ahead, and racing goes on. If you want to see totally analog bikes on the verge of crashing, I suggest following the AHMRA.
Kevin Cameron has a theory about racers. I forget exactly how he words it, but basically its that as a racer comes up through the ranks, he is learning on then-current machinery, and develops techniques that work with that machinery. But the longer they race, the more the bikes change, and eventually the rider gets to a point where they cannot adapt their techniques enough to win on newer equipment, and the results fade.
Perhaps even the mighty GOAT, his highness Rossi, pines for 'the good ol days'
Actually I think I nailed it exactly. What this boils down to is you guys (and the more verbal riders) dont like the bikes getting 'easier' to ride (as if a 220hp motorcycle will ever be easy to ride)
Disc brakes make bikes easier to ride, as does fuel injection, radial tires, hydraulic suspension, stiff frames, etc etc etc...yet we hear no outcry to ban these. Why? because we're used to them being on racebikes. They all had their detractors when new to the bike racing world.
I suppose if we ban electronics because it makes the bike easier to ride, then we have to ban everything that makes it easier to ride, no? Will they wind on on what is essentially 1900s era board trackers? Should we actually make the bikes more difficult to ride just so you guys can see a good race?
Its the same bunch of whining that went on when DMG bought out AMA, or WSB allowed 1200cc Vtwins, or any other major change in racing thats ever happened since racing began. Change happens, technology marches ahead, and racing goes on. If you want to see totally analog bikes on the verge of crashing, I suggest following the AHMRA.
Kevin Cameron has a theory about racers. I forget exactly how he words it, but basically its that as a racer comes up through the ranks, he is learning on then-current machinery, and develops techniques that work with that machinery. But the longer they race, the more the bikes change, and eventually the rider gets to a point where they cannot adapt their techniques enough to win on newer equipment, and the results fade.
Perhaps even the mighty GOAT, his highness Rossi, pines for 'the good ol days'
I know I miss the smoking wheel spin, the wheelies, the major stoppies, the writhing, bucking, almost out of control show that was racing prior to this recently engineered throttle and power control that is out of the rider's hands and in the hands of the backoffice software guys.
Again....the electronic rider aides are very efficient, make the bikes very fast, and, IMO, totally boring to watch. I don't subscribe to MotoGP any more, don't bother to watch the race live and it's become a filler in my day's schedule, rather than something I plan my day around the live race time. It's become less exciting....almost boring. Why?
Maybe we'll see REAL progress soon....and have remote controlled bikes, where the racers are sitting in their pits and don't need to even suit up and get on their bikes to win a race? Hell, they could be much faster without the human rider's direct input. THAT would be progress. Maybe we don;t even need the riders to handle the remote control......it could be done directly from the factory back in Japan/Italy. Think of the efficiency of THAT!
But then it might be simply a Manufacturer's Championship only, and not a RIDER'S Championship as it's meant to be focused on today.....
A little facetious? Yeah, sure.....but the point I'm trying to make here, is that there is a huge difference between adding technology that effectively counters or offsets a rider's mistakes, or his errors of judgement, or his lack of experience, or his courage....then there is removing mechanical systems that allow a rider to go faster under his direct control (such as disc brakes, sticky radial tires, etc, etc). As soon as you start to take over the RIDER'S control...his thought processes....his reflex and fine motor control.....that's when you start to diminish the rider, in a RIDER'S championship. Then, it becomes much more a case of who has the most money, who has the latest software technology, and the result becomes, ultimately, an almost mistake free, clinical procession of racing where the best backoffice technology and setup prep wins on the day. We're not there yet...but this is where this is heading, when the bike starts to "think" and "act" on behalf of the rider.
I admit, I struggle with my own conviction here, because I am NOT a technology-phobic Luddite. I am somewhat of a technology geek, love gadgets, and advances in technology. But I think that in the context of watching riders/drivers duelling it out on a track against each other, there should be a limit to these rider aides which effectively diminish their own control and significance. It's a very tough dilemma to face, and to regulate, and gets back to what we are ultimately trying to do with the Rider's/Driver's Championships in motor sports. Are we trying to get the fastest bike with rider sitting on it, around the track, or are we trying to pit rider against rider, using their own skills and abilities on a racing motorcycle under their direct control?
__________________ Old Baldy / WWBO #451
Ducati 996
Kawasaki KLR 650 '02
Kawasaki KLR650 '06 OB's Blog
Actually I think I nailed it exactly. What this boils down to is you guys (and the more verbal riders) dont like the bikes getting 'easier' to ride (as if a 220hp motorcycle will ever be easy to ride)
Disc brakes make bikes easier to ride, as does fuel injection, radial tires, hydraulic suspension, stiff frames, etc etc etc...yet we hear no outcry to ban these. Why? because we're used to them being on racebikes. They all had their detractors when new to the bike racing world.
I suppose if we ban electronics because it makes the bike easier to ride, then we have to ban everything that makes it easier to ride, no? Will they wind on on what is essentially 1900s era board trackers? Should we actually make the bikes more difficult to ride just so you guys can see a good race?
Its the same bunch of whining that went on when DMG bought out AMA, or WSB allowed 1200cc Vtwins, or any other major change in racing thats ever happened since racing began. Change happens, technology marches ahead, and racing goes on. If you want to see totally analog bikes on the verge of crashing, I suggest following the AHMRA.
Kevin Cameron has a theory about racers. I forget exactly how he words it, but basically its that as a racer comes up through the ranks, he is learning on then-current machinery, and develops techniques that work with that machinery. But the longer they race, the more the bikes change, and eventually the rider gets to a point where they cannot adapt their techniques enough to win on newer equipment, and the results fade.
Perhaps even the mighty GOAT, his highness Rossi, pines for 'the good ol days'
Something to consider also: this is the first season in MGP that Rossi has lost to a team-mate. I think that is very significant.
I've read that Cameron quote too and I agree. Another rider who also was for tech and development was Rainey, Mladin etc. I particularly remember the Mladin era TC debacle when everyone said he was winning because of TC cheating yet later when everyone of note on the grid had it the grid never changed.
I feel the arguement that tech turns relative zeroes into heroes is bunk. Spies clearly has distingushed himself as something special from his AMA days to WC and now MGP. Is that all the tech? I'm not understanding the whining in MGP since the cream is still rising to the top. If it truly was easier for the entire grid how come it's still the same aliens and same also-rans in the same positions? How come Rossi is still on top after all these yrs and challenges... Skill, no doubt, tech... debateable when all his teammates have had the same tech and this is the first season in his entire MGP career where he will lose to a teammate. Is that significant, I think so, and I think it has brought out the tech quotes again.
It's a circular arguement really. Rossi saying drop the tech implies the rest of the grid would be nowhere near him and these comments always seem to come out when he's threatened. Stoner's year was a banner yr for the drop the tech quotes and now Lorenzo's running away with the championship has brought them out again. But Rossi is clearly the rider who has benefitted the most from the tech since he has always ridden the most technically advanced, technology endowed motorcycle out there by the #1 and #2 companies arguably in MGP and in the world of motorcycling.
Rossi is great, no doubt, he's nearly omnipotent in MGP, but he too has benefited from the tech. His enviable lack of crashing record is as much attributed to the tech as to his ability.
This goes back to his Honda-Rossi arguement where it was tech v. rider and Honda purportedly lost when Rossi won that first race on the "crap" Yamaha.
Nice optic but lets be realistic. The Yamaha wasn't "crap" - yes it was behind the Honda but it wasn't the worst bike on the grid, it was secodn best. Get Rossi on the Suzuki or Kawasaki with their less developed product and lets see where he places.
These systems allow a great rider to focus more on the riding and less on trying to keep from getting killed. They make the racing safer. I still argue that it is Rossi's dominance not the tech that has made the series boring.
We all found F1 boring when MS was winning multiple titles. We all found AMA boring, despite the lack of tehc I might add, when Mladin was winning everything too.
I'm a member of the CVMG vintage motorcycle club; I have a plethora of 60's and 70's mags and it's funny hearing these arguements because it was the same thing when new tech came into the forefront of motorcycling even then.
__________________
2006 BMW HP2
2011 Husqvarna TE630
Sour grapes are a lesser man's fruit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Little Shop The [fact] that the RC45 was a "relative failure" is what matters most...
I know I miss the smoking wheel spin, the wheelies, the major stoppies, the writhing, bucking, almost out of control show that was racing prior to this recently engineered throttle and power control that is out of the rider's hands and in the hands of the backoffice software guys.
So do I but I don't miss the Rainey-in-a-wheel chair scenario which a major result of that knifed edged control lost. It was impressive but it was also simply too dangerous to keep going. F1 had the same issue in Jackie Stewarts day with drivers dying weekly... There's got to be a balance and I think the tech hasn't gone too far yet to let anyone win.
Quote:
Again....the electronic rider aides are very efficient, make the bikes very fast, and, IMO, totally boring to watch. I don't subscribe to MotoGP any more, don't bother to watch the race live and it's become a filler in my day's schedule, rather than something I plan my day around the live race time. It's become less exciting....almost boring. Why?
You sure it isn't the total Rossi dominance either or the lack of a decent grid? Whatabout the loss of mystic that the 4 strokes brought compared to the more pedestrian 4 strokes?
Quote:
...
But then it might be simply a Manufacturer's Championship only, and not a RIDER'S Championship as it's meant to be focused on today.....
Never make that error my friend, racing has always been a manufacturers championship. Sure they would like to win the riders too but the money garnered from the mfgs championship is significant too esp. from a technical standpoint.
Quote:
A little facetious? Yeah, sure.....but the point I'm trying to make here, is that there is a huge difference between adding technology that effectively counters or offsets a rider's mistakes, or his errors of judgement, or his lack of experience, or his courage....then there is removing mechanical systems that allow a rider to go faster under his direct control (such as disc brakes, sticky radial tires, etc, etc). As soon as you start to take over the RIDER'S control...his thought processes....his reflex and fine motor control.....that's when you start to diminish the rider, in a RIDER'S championship. Then, it becomes much more a case of who has the most money, who has the latest software technology, and the result becomes, ultimately, an almost mistake free, clinical procession of racing where the best backoffice technology and setup prep wins on the day. We're not there yet...but this is where this is heading, when the bike starts to "think" and "act" on behalf of the rider.
That's racing in its essence. The most money = the most tech = the most wins. Racing is purely clinical and technical. That's why Rainey was a multiple world champion and Schwantz only won one. Rainey was the more technically savvy, clinical racer.
Riders have to be near technical/clinical perfection, the machine cannot fall behind. If you don't think the riders are near automations you're wrong. Look at the laps and how the riders hit the apexes consistently at the same spot over and over again and again and how they are nearly doing a replay on the dataloggers. They are as near to perfection as you can get and that level of skill requires a level of consistency that rivals technology. Watch the Mladin interview series on youtube on this facet - it's very interesting how automaton like the best riders are. Rainey was the same in his less tech era.
Quote:
I admit, I struggle with my own conviction here, because I am NOT a technology-phobic Luddite. I am somewhat of a technology geek, love gadgets, and advances in technology. But I think that in the context of watching riders/drivers duelling it out on a track against each other, there should be a limit to these rider aides which effectively diminish their own control and significance. It's a very tough dilemma to face, and to regulate, and gets back to what we are ultimately trying to do with the Rider's/Driver's Championships in motor sports. Are we trying to get the fastest bike with rider sitting on it, around the track, or are we trying to pit rider against rider, using their own skills and abilities on a racing motorcycle under their direct control?
[/quote]
I agree the spectacle has lost some of its luster as time has gone on simply because we've grown up in a era where rossi dominated and the tech and performance of nearly everything has jumped in leaps and bounds not steps. We've become blaise about tech and truly start to believe that with the tech we can go from zero to hero. It's simpy not true.
Today teams understand things they never got back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. They have science to address rider fitness, mentality, and apptitude for winning. It's not simply a case of guesswork anymore. For the money involved they simply cannot afford to have guesswork rule the roost anymore. This is a business afterall and consistent throughout all sports.
If you can find it check out the M. Schumacher video by Discovery iirc where they go through the F1 driver selection process and show MS testing compared to other drivers. It's similar to Rossi's comparison to Biaggi in Faster where Rossi was performing at rest heart rate to Biaggi's elevated levels. In the F1 video they compare MS to Alsono and Button I think, and then to other lower level drivers and the average athelete and the hand-eye coordination, endurance, g-force impacts over a duration etc. are analysed. MS, like Rossi, rose to the top of the cream and it resulted in him moving from his championship winning ride with Benneton to down in the dumps Ferrari and repeating his successes there. The cream, despite the tech, will still rise to the top. We are nowhere near the nth degree of racing imo.
__________________
2006 BMW HP2
2011 Husqvarna TE630
Sour grapes are a lesser man's fruit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Little Shop The [fact] that the RC45 was a "relative failure" is what matters most...
Linear Mode
