next bike has already been built

[dirtyron]

every bike i buy for the rest of my life has already been made. nothing from the new millenium does it for me. and there getting worse.

[zippy]

you are certainly limiting your choices... But to each his own..




and step away from the shrooms

[RxZ]

I just bought a low mileage 2002 FZ1. I would be upset if I wasn't allowed to buy it because it was built in the wrong century.

[fierostetz]

Originally Posted by RxZ

I just bought a low mileage 2002 FZ1. I would be upset if I wasn't allowed to buy it because it was built in the wrong century.

I loves me some 1g FZ1's - get ivan's jet kit - it's a whole new bike!

[ph0rk]

Originally Posted by dirtyron

every bike i buy for the rest of my life has already been made. nothing from the new millenium does it for me. and there getting worse.

[DOGSROOT]

Originally Posted by ph0rk

I dunno phORk, poking fun at octogenarians ain't too cool.



Dirtyron, its a shame that lovely bikes like the Ducati MTS PP weren't around when you were young and full of beans.



Like, say, in you earlyr 60's...
.
.
.

[dirtyron]

some nice bikes made in 02..... red keys, extra fat, headlights that look like chandoliers,more complexity, catalytic converters. pretty soon mandated abs. this is not what got me into motorcycles. yeah i 'm old.

[It'sNotTheBike]

All road vehicles are becoming increasingly complex because they must meet
ever-tightening regulations for emissions, and also because governments
force adoption of safety-related devices.


Anyone who knows much about cars knows that in the last twenty years they have
become increasingly complex and significantly more difficult ( and expensive ) to
diagnose and repair. I don't know a single engineer who would tell you that any of this
is a good thing. The same thing is beginning to happen to motorcycles.


The people who claim that a preference for slightly older vehicles is a symptom of
old age are making an ad hominem attack rather than using valid reasoning to justify
their position. If this was a debate moderated by educated people their position would
be the losing one. Increased complexity which detracts from reliability and adds to the
expense of operating a vehicle cannot be seen as desirable by a rational observer,
unless that observer is in the business of repairing vehicles and thus stands to gain from
fixing problems vehicle owners cannot possibly fix themselves due to the complexity
of the vehicle systems.


Bikes are nowhere near as bad as cars with respect to complexity and problems, but
they're headed toward the sort of complexity which will require connecting to a computer
to have any hope of determining the source of some problems. It is difficult to imagine
how anyone could find such a machine preferable to a machine which could be diagnosed
and repaired with common tools.



.

[ph0rk]

Originally Posted by It'sNotTheBike

I don't know a single engineer who would tell you that any of this is a good thing.

I bet some environmental engineers might. Safety engineers, too.

It isn't like we need bikes or cars to go any faster than they did twenty years ago. Safer and cleaner sounds like a pretty good idea, along with more comfortable.

[OrangeYZ]

Originally Posted by It'sNotTheBike

Increased complexity which detracts from reliability and adds to the
expense of operating a vehicle cannot be seen as desirable by a rational observer,
unless that observer is in the business of repairing vehicles and thus stands to gain from
fixing problems vehicle owners cannot possibly fix themselves due to the complexity
of the vehicle systems.

.

In the Carb's hayday it was pretty good for an engine to last 80,000 miles. Now if something doesn't last 200,000 it's a lemon.

If you get into a decent wreck, would you rather walk to the dealer and buy another car (nowadays) or have your next of kin hose what's left of you out of the dash and sell the perfectly good car to the next guy (good old days)?

[It'sNotTheBike]

Originally Posted by ph0rk

I bet some environmental engineers might. Safety engineers, too.

Of course some engineers could ( will ) have a bias in favor of their area of expertise.


But if that's all they are considering they aren't looking at the big picture, which is that
the bike must provide a satisfying experience to the end user. A bike which runs
poorly in stock form but meets emissions standards can be considered a success
by the engineer who was charged with meeting emissions standards yet the same
bike can considered a failure by the end user who will want to modify the bike
so it runs well. As you probably know many end users do modify their bikes such that
various emission control components are either deactivated or removed and the bike
runs properly as a result. I see the need to do this as a failure on the part of the engineers
who designed those systems in the bike; it is certainly no longer necessary to
remove parts of the emission control system in a car to make it run well.


I'm not saying all technological improvements are undesirable. But the sort of design which
causes a CANBUS system to go bonkers when a light bulb is changed is not an improvement.


.

[ph0rk]

Originally Posted by It'sNotTheBike

Of course some engineers could ( will ) have a bias in favor of their area of expertise.


But if that's all they are considering they aren't looking at the big picture, which is that
the bike must provide a satisfying experience to the end user.

Bike sales didn't decline in 2012 in the States, so I'm not sure what your railing against.

Are things they way they used to be? No. Is everyone upset about that? No.

Times change.

I should add that you couldn't pay me to go back to a carburated non-ABS bike. I've heard of bikes with unpleasant low-throttle fuelling, but that's a software problem on a FI bike, not a hardware problem.

[It'sNotTheBike]

Originally Posted by OrangeYZ

In the Carb's hayday it was pretty good for an engine to last 80,000 miles. Now if something doesn't last 200,000 it's a lemon.

If you get into a decent wreck, would you rather walk to the dealer and buy another car (nowadays) or have your next of kin hose what's left of you out of the dash and sell the perfectly good car to the next guy (good old days)?

There are many factors which result in engines lasting longer than they used to,
and the accurate mixture control given by fuel injection is not the only reason or
even the main reason. But if believing that fuel injection is why engines lasts longer
is pleasing to you that's fine.



Regarding a wreck, obviously the answer is that most of us would prefer to survive
and ideally we would prefer to survive without injuries. I prefer not to have
the wreck in the first place and I drive accordingly and for over 35 years this
approach has worked well for me. I prefer to take responsibility for my own life
rather than driving like an idiot and depending on safety devices to save me like
some of the morons on the highway do. By the way, air bags won't necessarily
save you if you are involved in a head-on collision. If you don't believe
this is the case ask any EMT or cop about what they have seen in the aftermath
of such accidents. ( DOA is a common result ).



.

[ph0rk]

Originally Posted by It'sNotTheBike

I prefer not to have
the wreck in the first place and I drive accordingly

Have you ever driven next to a lane of oncoming traffic? What prevents them from turning 15 degrees and slamming into you?

You have some control over what accidents you don't get into, but you don't have complete control. If you're old enough to be pining for carbs, your reflexes probably aren't so hot anymore, either.

[OrangeYZ]

Originally Posted by It'sNotTheBike

There are many factors which result in engines lasting longer than they used to,
and the accurate mixture control given by fuel injection is not the only reason or
even the main reason. But if believing that fuel injection is why engines lasts longer
is pleasing to you that's fine.



Regarding a wreck, obviously the answer is that most of us would prefer to survive
and ideally we would prefer to survive without injuries. I prefer not to have
the wreck in the first place and I drive accordingly and for over 35 years this
approach has worked well for me. I prefer to take responsibility for my own life
rather than driving like an idiot and depending on safety devices to save me like
some of the morons on the highway do. By the way, air bags won't necessarily
save you if you are involved in a head-on collision. If you don't believe
this is the case ask any EMT or cop about what they have seen in the aftermath
of such accidents. ( DOA is a common result ).



.

Would you say that air bags are better or worse than impaling yourself on the steering column?
You want to stay out of accidents in the first place, don't you think that improvements in tires, suspension, brakes and overall handing will help?

A helmet won't save me if I get run over by a semi, but I still wear one.