Jump to content

Replace '97 with a '01????


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Suzuki416 said:

...The reality is that there are VERY FEW riders out there that can handle a 200hp bike without driver AIDS - especially in the wet when it gets interesting...

 

While that is undoubtedly true, it is also a fact that NO-ONE can make use of 200hp on the road. Power is a product of torque and rpm. To produce max. power the engine must be revving at the speed at which it produces maximum torque - and it must not be accelerating (that's why it is correctly termed BRAKE Horse Power). The only static state you can achieve in which the bike produces max. power is effectively flat out in top and if you ride a 200hp bike like that, you won't be for long.

 

The maximum speed at which anyone can ride (even your favourite biking hero/MotoGP god) is dictated by the road conditions and the laws of physics, not the bike. That will only change when they can make light bend so we can see round corners and I'm afraid even Honda can never make that happen. :biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I owned a Suzuki Hayabusa for 5 years--the model BEFORE the voluntary top speed restriction of 186 mph.  That bike had 160 rwhp in a package that weighed 550 lbs.  At the time it was the fastest production motorcycle.  It had no electronic aids whatsoever.  It was fine in the rain.  It felt normal any time I rode it in a sedate manner.  But when I went WOT or even halfway, it was like opening the floodgates of Hoover Dam!  It accelerated so quickly I felt invincible to any and all comers.  You say you have a Dodge Viper with 700 hp?  Owned!  A Porsche 911 Turbo with 500 hp?  Owned!  A full Akrapovich exhaust on your Blackbird 1100 (LOL!), you're kidding right?  Smoked!  5 dawdling cars on a mountain pass that needs to be behind me?  No problem.  

 

Today's BMW S1000R naked/Adventure bike puts out 165 rwhp and much, much lighter!  I can only imagine.  How often did I use this kind of power?  Rarely.  Most times I didn't have to because everyone in their right minds backed off.  And to be perfectly honest, I'm quite happy having JUST 100 rwhp.  99% of the time it feels plenty fast to me and I don't really need any electronic aids on it.  But electronic aids is the latest craze today and if your bike doesn't have it, well, you're positively outdated and a dinosaur!  

 

Having said the above, there are a few things I like about electronics:

1)  It allows for quick shifters!  This in my opinion transforms your riding, whether it's just tooling around town or gunning it at the track.

2)  Full digital displays for rider information.  I like to know gear position, exact coolant temperature, and volt meter would be nice.  And an accurate gas gauge.

3)  Tuning your engine for performance gains is much easier than removing the carbs to re-jet.  

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rogue_Biker said:

... there are a few things I like about electronics:

1)  It allows for quick shifters!  This in my opinion transforms your riding, whether it's just tooling around town or gunning it at the track.

2)  Full digital displays for rider information.  I like to know gear position, exact coolant temperature, and volt meter would be nice.  And an accurate gas gauge.

3)  Tuning your engine for performance gains is much easier than removing the carbs to re-jet.  

 

Couldn't agree more, on ALL points.

 

I also like LED lighting. Oh and electronic ignition. Anyone else remember having to set the points gap/dwell angle and timing on EVERY service? Complete PIA. Electronic engine management all the way.

 

I guess that's it, electronic engine management is good.

Electronic rider management is bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People seem to think big power = spinning wheels and instant death. It's just common sense, don't pin the throttle and you'll be fine. Anyone who just jumps on a bike and assume it's the same as any other they've ridden, are clearly a bit daft and asking for trouble.

 

Or you could just be this douche:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUs8nw0q-os

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BiKenG said:

 

Yes it is. :smile:

Let me get this right, just so I know I've not misunderstood you...

 

You think anti wheelie, ABS, traction control, lean angle sensors...so on and so forth...are NOT good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's pulling your chain (kidding around to a point).

 

I think the main point is you don't NEED the electronic aids if you have the skills and the right mindset.  And if you MUST have these aids in order to better control the bike, it may be too much bike for you (not you directly but in general "you").  10 year ago, race bikes were the only ones with 200 bhp.  Today you can buy one off the showroom floor.  And any Tom, Dick, & Sally can ride one home and tear up the local canyon roads with it using "ONLY" 125 rwhp at most!  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're both right. But in all honesty I would say to 750 that yes, I think they're all bad. All those things are basically what riding a bike is all about. You don't need traction control. Just don't open the f*****g throttle so far. If you have no ability to suitably moderate your right hand, you have no real business riding that bike.

 

Do you really think a 200hp SuperBike should be so controlled by electronics that a complete numptie can ride it? That is such a bad idea. No matter how clever the manufacturer, there WILL be times when the electronics are not able to help because they cannot be programmed to deal with absolutely every situation that might possibly be encountered by every single rider that ever rides the bike. So when that does occur, the inexperienced rider will not be able to cope. Far better that riders are dissuaded from riding such a bike until they actually have the right experience to do so. I also believe that someone who's just passed their test should not be allowed to drive something like a Bugatti Veyron. It's a ridiculous notion and there WILL be tears.

 

So I'm afraid that I do believe big powerful motorcycles should be seen as being as dangerous as they are and not recommended for novices. Then if anyone rides one and crashes, well, who's fault is that. Life is dangerous and no amount of vehicular electronics are going to eliminate that.

 

In any case, where does it all end? Riderless bikes (as in driverless cars)? Why would anyone want that? But that's where it's all heading. That is the logical conclusion of this continuing headlong rush to imbue bikes with ever more electronic control. But it's not what I want. Nor I suspect any other true biker. Riding a bike is raw. Just man and machine. Not man (or woman) and a bunch of fancy electronics doing it all for you and making it all soft and cuddly so you won't get hurt.

 

If I'm honest, I'm crap at getting it sideways on a roundabout and drifting it round leaving a dark line of rubber on the tarmac. Ignoring the utter stupidity of even trying this, would I feel better, a more accomplished rider if all I had to do was twist the throttle and the bike would do it for me? Would you?

 

In fact, why twist the throttle. Hey, Siri...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People make mistakes and get a bit lairy, so the rider aids are a good idea....besides, seems most of them come as stock and (again, by the looks of it) most can't be switched off completely. So it's irrelevant whether we think it's good or bad, really.

 

Also, anything to make someone safer AND faster is a good thing, otherwise we'd all just ride 125's around and play it safe. Gotta push yourself beyond your normal comfort zone or you'll never adapt and improve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Letting the electronics control the bike to go faster doesn't constitute 'improving' your riding in my books.

 

I cannot overstate how I fundamentally disagree with your point of view. Valentino Rossi is no hero of mine, but he is to many and he has constantly argued against the excessive use of electronics in MotoGP as it detracts from the ability of a rider to make the difference. It just comes down to opening the throttle and trusting the electronics do their job and where's the skill in that. But what does he know.

 

I don't ride motorcycles to be safe. I ride because they're thrilling and fun, all the more so the better you learn to ride. If I want to be safe, I'll take the car. Make motorcycles 'safe' like that and they'll be no fun. People don't climb mountains because it's safe. Risk is what makes something fun. Sure, minimise the risk, but not at the expense of the thrill. Once you do that, there's no point doing it in the first place.

 

Of course I understand that it's hard to avoid the electronics these days, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them and is one reason I'm planning a number of VFR750/800 based projects. If I ever buy a bike with what I would consider excessive electronics, it will be despite the electronics and certainly not because of.

 

Ultimately I think it's rather sad that so many bikers these days seem to think you have to have all these electronics. Learn to ride the bike rather than waste concentration on having to figure out how to change engine modes while riding or generally faffing about with the dash display. Really, riding a bike is way more fun if you don't have all that to contend with and distract you. I'm not alone in thinking this, as exemplified by the upsurge in retro styling and general interest in older bikes.

 

It will all become irrelevant anyway once hydrocarbon fuels are banned, even if motorcycles themselves are not banned from the roads by then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I blame the professional reviewers on convincing people they "need" electronics.  Just watch a few online review videos from Cycle World, Motorcycle, etc.....You will easily find the lines, "this bike is great BUT it lacks the electronic controls of that other bike"....You can also add lots of horsepower to that list of "Must-Haves" on today's bikes.

 

I remember when Honda released the 2014 CBR1000rr SP model.  Everyone agreed that bike does NOT need electronics due to the smoothness of its power delivery, sublime handling of its Ohlins suspension, light weight, etc.  They heaped it with praise, but took it all away because it had no throttle by wire, and it only had 154 rwhp.  Because the S1000rr was way more exciting to ride with its additional 10 rwhp and "superior" top end punch and a quick shifter.  Because you know, if you can't toggle between riding modes and you're not applying WOT with abandon, you're not going to enjoy yourself!  

 

This is the same attitude that brought us street bikes with racebike ergonomics.  Because If you're not riding a repli-racer, you can't possibly be able to go faster!  Hence the slow but deliberate march from more reasonably comfortable VFR ergonomics to the totally committed Ducati & Co. riding position.  Thus, owners don't ride their bikes that much because they're too uncomfortable.  Of course they are.  You just assumed the position of a cat that's about to pounce!  

 

Today, you have 100 rwhp bikes such as Suzuki's GSX-S750 that has electronics to control all that power!  LOL!  Doesn't the new R6 also have electronic controls?  Yet it still doesn't have any midrange.  Go Figure.  They forgot the one thing that bike could most definitely use!  Sure is great at the track though.

 

I would gladly give up all those electronics, including ABS, for a silky smooth throttle response and a slick shifting gearbox.  Give me that first.  If that's made possible, then give me a quick shifter!  LOL!  Give it to me in a lightweight package with about 120 rwhp & VFR ergo's.  Then I'm happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy.