Making bikes easier to ride: right or wrong
Posted 03 May 2012 - 04:36 AM
Obviously they are all regularly debated topics on these forums. But I wonder about taking a more philosophical approach and discussing whether it's bad to go too far down the path of 'easy to ride'. For example one argument might be this:
Imagine a perfect bike that soaked up all the bumps for you automatically. It had an automatic throttle control system that kept the throttle at a nice consistent speed. Basically all you had to do was sit and it and it would even adjust it's own balance to keep it all in control.
You might think I have a view that helpful things are bad on motorbikes, but I'm really just wondering like most other people.
Posted 03 May 2012 - 06:34 AM
Posted 03 May 2012 - 06:55 AM
Posted 03 May 2012 - 07:02 AM
You have to remember too that if all of those things were already managed you might just advance further and find challenges that are difficult even with all of the assistance.
Edited by Oic0, 03 May 2012 - 07:03 AM.
Posted 03 May 2012 - 07:04 AM
Posted 03 May 2012 - 07:25 AM
That's all for my riding of course. If I was doing trials, or motocross, or desert racing, I might have a different opinion.
Posted 03 May 2012 - 07:56 AM
I would hate it if bikes became that way. Why sell to the lowest common denominator? Bikes need to be fun and challenging or what is the point?
Posted 03 May 2012 - 08:37 AM
Posted 03 May 2012 - 09:26 AM
Posted 03 May 2012 - 10:12 AM
Posted 03 May 2012 - 10:44 AM
My question to them always is "why do you ride a 2012 bike?" "why not use last years model?"
the answer is always the same, "why would I do that?, the new model is better and more advanced and improves my riding! "
There is your anwer, the rekluse improves certain riders, its not for everyone, but if you dont see the need for it, dont bash it
Posted 03 May 2012 - 06:52 PM
LegendLength, on 03 May 2012 - 04:36 AM, said:
Obviously they are all regularly debated topics on these forums. But I wonder about taking a more philosophical approach and discussing whether it's bad to go too far down the path of 'easy to ride'. For example one argument might be this:
Imagine a perfect bike that soaked up all the bumps for you automatically. It had an automatic throttle control system that kept the throttle at a nice consistent speed. Basically all you had to do was sit and it and it would even adjust it's own balance to keep it all in control.
You might think I have a view that helpful things are bad on motorbikes, but I'm really just wondering like most other people.
I'll take one...sounds like fun. I wonder how fast I could go
Don't wanna give up my smokers and their manual clutch though.
Posted 03 May 2012 - 06:59 PM
I think four strokes are too easy to ride. Lots of noobs running around tracks riding way over their heads because all they have to do is twist the grip and go. Unsafe for them and the people around them.
Posted 03 May 2012 - 07:00 PM
mictheaussie, on 03 May 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:
I would hate it if bikes became that way. Why sell to the lowest common denominator? Bikes need to be fun and challenging or what is the point?
The same people that love adventure and challenging ride!!!
Posted 03 May 2012 - 10:40 PM
Posted 03 May 2012 - 11:36 PM
LegendLength, on 03 May 2012 - 04:36 AM, said:
Obviously they are all regularly debated topics on these forums. But I wonder about taking a more philosophical approach and discussing whether it's bad to go too far down the path of 'easy to ride'. For example one argument might be this:
Imagine a perfect bike that soaked up all the bumps for you automatically. It had an automatic throttle control system that kept the throttle at a nice consistent speed. Basically all you had to do was sit and it and it would even adjust it's own balance to keep it all in control.
You might think I have a view that helpful things are bad on motorbikes, but I'm really just wondering like most other people.
My opinion? it's a skill vs. speed thing. And right now the racers obviously want to get to the finish line first, so it's all about who makes the fastest bike. The easier it is to ride, the faster a human can ride it. That's why there's vintage racing, for those of us who enjoy riding our bikes, and not purely racing.
Posted 04 May 2012 - 04:51 AM
Thumper35, on 03 May 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:
The problem I have with all the aerial gymnastics is just that....it reminds me of a gymnast, and those guys wear tights. Gotta be something wrong going on there
Posted 04 May 2012 - 10:30 AM
- Balancing on two-wheels is more challenging than an ATV, etc. This is similar to the Can-Am 3-wheeled bikes.
- Using a clutch makes it harder. Auto-clutch takes away from the experience, in my opinion.
- Jumps are harder and slower than a straightaway. That is why they are there. If the shocks were perfect, then why bother having a jump?
- ETC
Posted 04 May 2012 - 12:42 PM








