Technology and Motorcycles: Icing on the Cake or Eroding Rider Responsibility?
Like most motorcycle enthusiasts, I respect and rely upon the reviewers digging past marketing hype, and smoke and mirrors sales presentations (ignore the frantic mechanical engineer behind the curtain!) to get at what is important to their audience.
I am starting to get the feeling that motorcycle reviews, at least press launches, are done at a very quick pace, in a limited and short time frame - on purpose. There's little more than being able to take a slurping teaspoon- sized sip from a bucket of bouillabaisse (thank you spellchecker!). I pity the reviewers - sometimes. I imagine they are crammed into a small room, frantically scribbling down, nearly verbatim, all the technical jargon thrown at them because hey, it makes them sound "cutting edge performance-y" (yes spellchecker I just made that up, get over it) They require "objective factual info" to put up against "anecdotal subjective impressions" of the bike. There must be an aura of mundanity too; always the same presenters, same marketing hype, always the same fellow motorcycle media faces. Then it is off to a track or roadway for a controlled-conditions ride. Then back to the hotel, should they be so lucky, or more likely the airport. The article is written on the plane ride home (what else is there to do?). Somehow, knowing the ambiance of an jet airliner cabin, I can't see it as an environment for imaginative writing.
The fact that, in the conditions like this, reviewers/writers DO manage to write entertainingly, engagingly and sometime enragingly, is testament to their skill and dedication to their craft. And hey they just got to blast around Spain on the latest hot MV Augusta. Where it's warm and sunny. While it is record-low temperature and snow January back in Canada. That had better put the reviewer in a happy mood.
The more and more bike review articles I read, however, the more and more it seems I am reading about electronics than mechanical aspects of the bike. And as astoundingly clever as the electronic technology on a modern motorcycle is, is that what is ultimately important about a bike?
The reviews seem to go on for paragraphs extolling "traction control systems with anti-lock brakes", 3 to 7 different "riding modes" varying throttle response and horsepower limits, and describing in loving detail the effects of the different modes. Sport and touring models seem to be the flagships of motorcycle technology.
The review(ers) can be excused for getting sucked into the technological depths, because frankly, it IS awesome, period. In the correct sense of the word - how all that technology functions on a bike fills me with jaw-dropping awe. Seriously. I am a fan of the technology - it is the implications of it that I question; it is the focus on it of which I am critical and wary.
Oh yeah and, btw, this brand/model produces x hp and goes x mph(km/h) at x rpm. Press Enter to submit review to editor.
When was the last time anyone did a 1/4 mile assessment? No wonder there's a movement to "retro simplicity" - almost a backlash rebellion.
What is driving all this performance-oriented and sophisticated motorcycle technology? Don't tell me it's just about higher horsepower and lower gas mileage.
Part of it is obviously marketing - and it is spoon-fed to those aforementioned captive-audience reviewers in the oven-like track-side shacks and thus passed on to the reader. (That's just the business, folks!) What does that say about the priorities of the marketplace? Are what was considered the essentials (engine, performance, suspension, the ride, gas mileage even) now considered a given and indistinguishable between bikes? Has the technology become what differentiates them? Is this technology being heaped on because if one manufacturer doesn't, the other one will?
What is selling the bike, the engine/mechanics/ride? or the bolted-on electronic technology? Has the icing become more important than the cake?
The other laudable driving force is "safety". Good. I am big on safety. And common sense. Most of the time.
How is the technology "making" you safe? Is the technology making the bike a better ride, helping you to hone your skills by "protecting" you from riding beyond your ability? If so, that's good because it allows for a larger margin for error. Or is the technology "protecting" people who are riding so aggressively, or irresponsibly, that they need a computer "nanny" to step in and say "whoa! whoa! whoa! hold on there buster!"?
So is technology as a safety feature or another example of eroding personal responsibility? "Know your limit, ride within it". The manufacturers (or insurance companies!) don't think we know what we are doing and so impose restrictions on us (shout out to Max Burns).
The technology itself isn't bad - relying too much on that technology to save you is bad. Like how people with four-wheel drive vehicles think they are immune to the laws of physics in poor road conditions.
What bothers me about it is how we hand over control and personal responsibility over to technology so easily - like cars that can parallel park themselves. The technology is awesome but your should still know how to do it manually. You must be in control at all times.
Here's a mental paradigm for you (sorry for the managerspeak): as a rider/driver consider yourself the same as the captain of a ship or an airliner: you are ultimately responsible for everything to do with your vehicle and passengers. Puts a a new perspective on things, doesn't it? The best safety technology therefore doesn't absolve you from that responsibility.
If you keep that perspective in mind it will go a long way - more than the technology - to keeping you safe and riding within your limits. It doesn't stop you from finding out where those limits are - but how you find them will be done in a responsible manner (i.e. closed course with professional instructors).
If the technology as safety device fails, what are you going to rely upon to keep yourself alive? How is that nanny state working out for us?
Ride like you don't have all that technology to save your butt. I know it's a dream - not a big dream, just a little one - but it's one worth striving for.
Cheers!
You must be logged in to comment
Login now
124 months ago
Thanks for taking the time to write a comprehensive comment, Agent3012! I mostly agree with your comments. The press-release articles are really "reporting" more than "reviews". As we agree, they reflect what the manufacturer wants to say about a bike. If the manufacturer spends a significant amount of time highlighting advances in technology and engineering then that's what the writer reports on. The writer gives a "first impression" of a bike, presented under, we agree, controlled conditions, to give the most favourable response. Professional reviewers have enormous pressure in those situations to write something unique, under deadlines. The real meat, as you say, comes when a reviewing team gets to have some long-term saddle time. And I also agree with you that post-release reviews are more real world and less manufacturer hype. As far as ABS and TC goes, I fall on the side of safety. What those systems do, properly, is to offer a larger margin of protection IF the rider has made an error. Most crashes are rider error. Our focus should always be on improving our riding skills and learning from errors. ABS/TC technology will most certainly help you survive or recover (as you put it) and learn from errors that without it may have caused serious injury and/or damage. That's good. I was also asking the question if technology could also be seen as "nanny-ism". Just askin'. I'm surprised that ABS is such an contentious issue - there's a reason they are fitted on every car these days. I will not be surprised to see nearly every model from the major motorcycle manufacturers fitted with ABS in a few years (say 5 - 7... or less). I advised friend who is buying a bike this year to spend the extra money for ABS version for two reasons: first, safety and second, resale value. Who is going to want to buy a bike without it in the near future? But I think we both agree (it was in between the lines in your comment) that, technology or no, the rider has the ultimate responsibility. As you say "ABS isn't going to prevent a rider from not paying attention..". This is why I concluded: "Ride like you don't have all that technology to save your butt" I have to repeat I really do find the technology fascinating. But what I also find fascinating is a rider's blend of the reality of the physical machine and the emotional connection that we have with the physical. Case in point: when a bike's glowing performance review is let down by an unappealing physical appearance. Or the reverse: a bikes's performance doesn't live up to its beautiful styling. One of the points I was aiming for (maybe you can tell me how well it did or didn't come across) was the changing idea or essence of a motorcycle - more in ethereal or artistic terms, I guess. What picture comes into your head when you think "motorcycle"? For me, I think of the "guts" of the machine: an engine slung between two wheels, handlebar bolted on top - the rider climbs aboard and roars off. That's what I mean by "the cake". Additions to that basic concept are "the icing" But maybe that essence is morphing so the "icing" is now what people think of when they think "motorcycle", and the manufacturers are responding to and/or feeding that change. It's a chicken-egg argument. Technology on bikes is something we are going to have to live with and accept. It's an old argument that predates even the "get a horse!" taunt directed at a broken-down driver in the early days of automotive transport. Thanks again for the comments!
124 months ago
Thanks for taking the time to write a comprehensive comment, Agent3012! I mostly agree with your comments. The press-release articles are really "reporting" more than "reviews". As we agree, they reflect what the manufacturer wants to say about a bike. If the manufacturer spends a significant amount of time highlighting advances in technology and engineering then that's what the writer reports on. The writer gives a "first impression" of a bike, presented under, we agree, controlled conditions, to give the most favourable response. Professional reviewers have enormous pressure in those situations to write something unique, under deadlines. The real meat, as you say, comes when a reviewing team gets to have some long-term saddle time. And I also agree with you that post-release reviews are more real world and less manufacturer hype. As far as ABS and TC goes, I fall on the side of safety. What those systems do, properly, is to offer a larger margin of protection IF the rider has made an error. Most crashes are rider error. Our focus should always be on improving our riding skills and learning from errors. ABS/TC technology will most certainly help you survive or recover (as you put it) and learn from errors that without it may have caused serious injury and/or damage. That's good. I was also asking the question if technology could also be seen as "nanny-ism". Just askin'. I'm surprised that ABS is such an contentious issue - there's a reason they are fitted on every car these days. I will not be surprised to see nearly every model from the major motorcycle manufacturers fitted with ABS in a few years (say 5 - 7... or less). I advised friend who is buying a bike this year to spend the extra money for ABS version for two reasons: first, safety and second, resale value. Who is going to want to buy a bike without it in the near future? But I think we both agree (it was in between the lines in your comment) that, technology or no, the rider has the ultimate responsibility. As you say "ABS isn't going to prevent a rider from not paying attention..". This is why I concluded: "Ride like you don't have all that technology to save your butt" There's a political/economic perspective to bike technology too. What happens when insurance companies insist on ABS/TC? What happens to the rates of those driving "vintage" bikes? And we all know how insurers weigh everyone by individual records rather than statistics. I have to repeat I really do find the technology fascinating. But what I also find fascinating is a rider's blend of the reality of the physical machine and the emotional connection that we have with the physical. Case in point: when a bike's glowing performance review is let down by an unappealing physical appearance. Or the reverse: a bikes's performance doesn't live up to its beautiful styling. One of the points I was aiming for (maybe you can tell me how well it did or didn't come across) was the changing idea or essence of a motorcycle - more in ethereal or artistic terms, I guess. What picture comes into your head when you think "motorcycle"? For me, I think of the "guts" of the machine: an engine slung between two wheels, handlebar bolted on top - the rider climbs aboard and roars off. That's what I mean by "the cake". Additions to that basic concept are "the icing" But maybe that essence is morphing so the "icing" is now what people think of when they think "motorcycle", and the manufacturers are responding to and/or feeding that change. It's a chicken-egg argument. Technology on bikes is something we are going to have to live with and accept. It's an old argument that predates even the "get a horse!" taunt directed at a broken-down driver in the early days of automotive transport. Thanks again for the comments!
124 months ago
I don't personally believe that professional reviewers are deliberately talking about, or even focusing on technology. Instead, as you mention, there is a deliberate rush to getting reviews out. Much of this is due to the odd schedules created by print publishing, which often have anywhere from a 1 to 3 month lead time.
My understanding is that a reviewer only gets a few hours of access to a pre- release bike, and often in very controlled environments. Since other writers are often getting the same access, there's a real push to get the ‟first ride” preview completed as quickly as possible. Since the reviewer likely doesn't have as much time to get used to a bike over a length of time, much of their word count is going to end up talking about the specs, the tech, the price points, the promises, and the hopes and dreams served up by the manufacturer.
Usually, we don't get to see a more in-depth look at the bikes until after release, when most reviewing orgs put together a comparison test between similar bikes (‟This month: We test out the top 4 superbikes that come in purple!”) If anything, when reviewers start getting into more in-depth long- form reviews, they often skip most of the technology and get down to how the overall bike performs in the ‟real world”.
As for the public, I'd suggest they are often rabidly anti-technology, and have been for decades. The anti-Fuel Injection arguments have been around since the 1980s, and I'm sure there were plenty of arguments against that new- fangled electronic ignition vs points during the 1970s.
However, the most furious arguments you can find on the Internet these days has to be around anti-lock brakes. Some days, I am honestly shocked there hasn't been at least one reported murder caused by an ABS fight online.
I often see the argument that ABS teaches ‟poor riding skills”. That by having it, a new rider never learns how to properly threshold brake. To that, I can only say, BULLSHIT. First, it's very obvious when the ABS system has engaged. If anything, ABS is a better teacher, because it allows a new rider to brake up to, and beyond, a situation that would result in a crash. If the rider is seriously willing to learn, they're going to learn more from an ABS-equipped bike than they will otherwise.
Personally, I don't know that I understand claims that ABS and traction control technology are protecting poor riders from riding beyond their ability. Those two technologies are there to help during a moment where most riders, including many who consider themselves ‟skilled”, are likely to be overwhelmed by everything they would need to do to recover otherwise. Those technologies aren't ‟auto-pilots”. They will help a rider recover from a bad situation, but only help. The rider still has use their skills and training to get themselves out of that situation.
Most accidents, particularly those that involve dismemberment or death, involve a situation that the rider could have actively avoided in some way. ABS isn't going to prevent a rider from not paying attention to slowing traffic in front of them. Traction Control isn't going to prevent a rider from ignoring road conditions and hitting gravel along the side of the road. But ABS and TC will help many riders live through dangerous situations they weren't prepared for, and hopefully help them learn not to get into those situations in the first place.
Bring on the technology! I want the ABS and TC found in KTM's Adenture 1190 available as standard in EVERY bike I buy!
As for the riders who think they're so great at riding that they'd NEVER-EVER put themselves in a situation where ABS or TC would help? Well, there's a term for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
124 months ago
@marina Thanks! The next post will be on the impact of the "tinkerable" vs "untinkerable" motorcycle technology. I'm really enjoying writing these! Glad you are enjoying them! I'm off to Toronto Motorcycle Show tomorrow - so I'm sure there'll be a report!
124 months ago
@Slyck255 @Alex great rant. Keep 'em coming. We want the technology to help us ride better and safer - that's clear. Tech for tech's sake is when you get the marketing bouquets of tech roses. On top of that, the tech makes it more difficult to customize & modify our bikes - that's a big problem. Agree with you on some of the bike reviewers... Looking forward one of yours!