There's a few interesting questions raised in [url=http://motorbikewriter.com/motorcycles-hi-tech/]this article.
And the answers are complex. But, being a simple soul, to question 1 I answer YES.
Cheers
I would agree that motorcycles are becoming too high tech for my taste but that's just me. Anti lock brakes are something we can all agree have added a great margin of safety. Still, it seems that we give up something for every gain that's made in technology. Our distant ancestors could break a flint to make a sharp edge and from there build a shelter, make clothing, create fire and weapons to secure food. I love the trappings that technology gives us but the downside is our increasing dependence on it. That said, the first bow to cast an arrow was a wonder of technology in it's time.
I put 12,000 miles on my 2013 Honda CBR1000RR (non abs) which has none of the safety features mentioned in this article. The only super bike not to have any of this technology. You learn how much throttle you can push out of a turn without spinning up and gives you complete control of the bike. I agree there's way to much tech for the young kid mounting a liter bike with no seat time under his belt.
Put them on a CB1100 for a few 1000 miles and they will learn the respect and knowledge of ridding.
Edit: 2010 not 2013
Maybe, but at my age, I wish I had all those things on my bike, especially if they were free.
If I were to buy a BMW S1000R naked like I dream of...I would want all the safety features it had to offer, although may not want to spend the extra money for them.
I've mentioned ( or maybe ranted ) before about how I left BMW after owning 8 or 10 of them due to the fact of increasing complexity and high cost to maintain. BMW motorcycles have become like their cars and some other brands ( Mercedes ) where they are great to own, but you don't want to own one after the warranty expires.
To be clear, I'm not lamenting the safety improvements like ABS brakes and traction control, but other increased technology seemingly installed just for the sake of being able to claim technological supremacy of their brand. Do we really need a front shock absorber that talks through the onboard computer to the rear shock, telling it that it just went over a bump and to get ready for it? And what happens when something goes wrong? How does an owner trouble shoot that, to determine just where the problem lies? Answer is, he can't. Back to the dealer it goes and probably waits three weeks for parts from Germany. Are the shocks going to cost $2,000 each to replace, along with a $4,000 computer? Their clutch jobs already cost $4,000, and final drives over $2,000.
Gentlemen,
Time marches on and as tech gear gets cheaper we will see it added to more and more bikes. When it gets added to enough bikes legislation will make it mandatory (like air bags and ABS in cars). I bought a CB1100 because I like the elemental simplicity of the bike. To me it's as much a piece of art as it is a machine to ride. Because I live in AZ with our super low humidity and high heat, carburetors dry up quickly during storage and require rebuilding so I love the fuel injection. And electronic ignition sure beats points and condenser. I chose a non-antilock CB for myself but I paid for antilock on my sons Ducati.
Computer controlled suspension, stability control, ride by wire, and 7 different riding mode power and throttle control settings are things I'm not ready for or excited about. But I'm an old guy who likes old stuff. Sometimes bow hunting is more fun than high power rifle hunting with a laser range finding variable power scope. Cheers.
Chip
There is room for both and all.......technology advances have always been met with skepticism and resistance.....takes all types, luckily everyone is not a nay-sayer and against change or we would still be on horses and wagons.
I'm all for advancing technology in bikes, cars, toasters, sex aids...wherever it can be applied. The article almost presents the issue as an either/or choice: should we either increase rider training or spend on tech? I say do both.
I'll admit that if I had TC on the CB it would probably be in the max setting 99% of the time, but if I had a superbike I'd probably use the system in conditions like rain etc.
Its easy to wax nostalgic about the days when manly men managed a bikes power with raw reflex and speed, but I can't help but wonder if Wayne Rainey wishes he'd had TC at that Italian Grand Prix.
There you go. The answers are complex. Depends on your world view I suppose, or more accurately, your view on the essence of motorcycling. Ambivalence is everywhere, especially in me. I don't want a super high tech bike but I prefer, apart from the odd nostalgia hit, to ride my CB (non ABS) than my Bonneville ('61). Would I have liked ABS on my CB (not available on models sold in Oz)? Probably. So with that outlook am I a Luddite? I don't think so. Maybe a Luddite Light
.
Technology can be a two edged sword. Spaceman, Chip, Classic, Hiker, you all make good points. However, there is one aspect that disturbs me - "Regulation". Regulate rider training, not a bad thing in my view. Regulate the design and construction of motorcycles to make them perfectly safe (Pterodactyl proof)? Or even a lot safer than they are now? Compulsory high tech for our own, and other road users safety? Not for me. Could that happen? I believe so. The thin edge of the wedge is already there. The PC brigade would have us in one seat, high tech Toyota Econoboxes, if they could.
Cheers
WARNING: If you own a Toyota Econobox do not take my remarks regarding these fine vehicles personally.