Are all of the wild and crazy, no limits, do as you please bikers really a very conservative group of buyers? Does everyone buy what they always have bought or what all of their buddies buy? Does different technology sell if you can see it?
At least 2 of The Kneeslider’s regular readers are working on motorcycle projects with Hossack front suspensions, Hugo, with the Bottpower project and Andy, who is building a VFR based special. Both of these look really good and quite a few engineers and designers would say the Hossack design has a lot going for it but there has been only limited acceptance from major manufacturers. (Well, except for BMW now that I think about it.)
Hub center steering is another area where a few attempts have been made to bring it into the mainstream but it never goes very far. Limited production is about it.
The recent concept bikes from Honda, for instance, are great looking bikes probably close to production ready. The EVO6, especially, looks nice to my eye but though it looks different visually from current bikes, the technology looks very familiar, telescopic fork, flat six engine, and probably all of the same technology you already know. Suppose they swapped the front suspension for a nicely designed and styled Hossack setup. Would it look as good to you or me?
Motorcycle companies build what they can sell, they can build unconventional or radically different chassis and suspension as well as or far better than small builders can, but they tend not to. Maybe they know what their buyers will actually write a check for so we see essentially, more of the same. It may be a bit more swoopy and a lot more powerful, but, it’s still essentially the same. Harley Davidson probably knows this better than anyone but the supposedly super technically advanced Japanese manufacturers do it in their own way, too.
The recent arrival of scooters like the Piaggio MP3 with dual front wheels may be a break from convention and the Can Am Spyder is pushing things a bit, too. How much that will cross over to the more conventional motorcycle segment remains to be seen.
Although many of you probably like the different and unconventional technology and you might adopt it on a project of your own, how many of you would actually buy a radically different bike at your dealer? Would you risk being one of the few who adopt to the new way of thinking, riding outside the mainstream? Or would you be one of those who admires and compliments it and praises the manufacturer for being bold while you buy something close to your current ride? Companies have to make those decisions all the time. Maybe some things can’t change. What do you think?
UPDATE: One additional question – What are some of the best examples of a motorcycle manufacturer pushing the envelope with new technology in a production bike?
hoyt says
I was about to jump in and say, “yes, I would buy unconventional tech”. But, I realized I delayed a purchase of a Buell Firebolt in its first year because I wanted the “growing pains” of a new model & new technology to be refined.
[Fuel in-the-frame was new tech on the new model at Buell at least].
Other factors were in play, too. It had been 5 years since my last bike and I couldn’t wait any longer, so I bought my 1st choice, a V11 Sport Guzzi. …somewhat unconventional in its own way.
Anyway, I would still buy unconventional tech (such as hub steer) IF the brand and model has proven durability. Part of the reason to buy unconventional for me, is to not see yourself going down the road all the time….which is a catch 22 in its own, considering the topic in this post.
akbar says
Sure, I would buy unconventional and new tech. Yet, I don’t buy brand new bikes, or cars for that matter, tend to ride either vintage or used.
gtada says
People say that they would. I’m here to say that for the most part “no, they won’t.”
Unconventional tech has a number of issues, but I’ll just focus on two. First and foremost is cost. The cost of developing revolutionary tech versus evolutionary tech is staggering. Instead of building upon prior work and refining proven technology, starting from scratch involves a lot more prototyping and testing.
The second is reliability. How many people are willing to ride a two-wheeled vehicle with unconventional tech? Seriously, I remmember some heated debates over fly-by-wire throttle, and that technology is literally battle-tested and proven. Maybe this is more an issue of superstitiousness or stubbornness, but a lot of riders trust old bikes because they know they work and work well.
I would LOOOOVE to see more exploration, but a motorycle isn’t like a car with a protective cage, and there’s something settling even in a Hayabusa with its massive power but using familiar technology. When I move back on the seat, this happens; when I do something else, that happens; etc.
Tinker says
My current ride is a 1978 Honda CB400A. That’s right, New Technology from 30 years ago. So I’d have to say that most of us will NOT buy a motorcycle that is different, or the CB400A and the CB750A would have sold better. Now they are the Edsel of motorcycles.
And how does the auto tranny motorcycle work?
Just fine, though it is a little bit slow taking off.
Hugo says
Just for info: our front suspension isn’t a Hossack. It is similar to the Wright-Bailey front suspension in that it has a suspended headstock, meaning we can use low friction needle bearings for the headstock to reduce friction.
Seattle says
Hey Tinker,
Aprilia and Honda are addressing the “little bit slow taking off” issue but with different solutions. The Aprilia 850 Mana uses a final-reduction chain drive while the Honda DN-01 uses a hydraulic-mechanical transmission. One bike is a 90° V-twin, the other is a 52° V-twin, with similar engine BHP. It would be very interesting to do a dyno on these bikes to see which better transfers usable horsepower to the rear wheel and which company built the better mousetrap.
hoyt says
This is an intriguing discussion. I dig it.
gtada – “First and foremost is cost. The cost of developing revolutionary tech versus evolutionary tech is staggering.”
I agree about cost. Cost is keeping me from buying the Tesi 2D (I like it better than the 3D). But, unconventional tech doesn’t necessarily have to be “Revolutionary”, and therefore, expensive.
Is the hub steer concept so costly to manufacture that it drives the price of the Tesi to $30k+ ? Not completely. Bigger OEMs could produce a bike with hub steer with a lower price.
So, the cost element is definitely part of the situation, but unconventional tech, alone, does not have to be cost prohibitive like we see currently. To further explain my “catch 22” comment….the more unconventional an application is, lower sales volume could be expected. The lower sales volume, the higher the price climbs to recoup costs.
One question is: why is something “unconventional†to begin with? The fickle motorcycle consumer basing everything on something burned into our conscience.
“The second is reliability. How many people are willing to ride a two-wheeled vehicle with unconventional tech?”
Very true & I agree….but looking at alternative front suspension, is this unwillingness based on misconception? Is the collective conscience of how a motorcycle should look really the culprit of stopping progress? I think so. The unwillingness is based largely on a familiarity as you mentioned.
This “comfort zone” of doing it the same way as its always been done with the telescopic way, is, ironically, an inferior method from a theoretical and actual point of view.
It would be interesting to read the marketing at the time the telescopic front-end was introduced. What else was going on at that time to counter the “latest & greatest” telescopic fork? How did the tele become the “familiar†way for so many people?
Here’s to improvements in material science and people like Hossack, James Parker, Britten, Tryphonos, Julian Farnam, Hugo, Czsyz….companies like BMW, Yamaha, Bimoto, Yyrus, Confederate, etc. that will make unconventional front-end tech more familiar.
RH says
As long as motorcycles are primarily fashion statements and tribal totems, there will never be mass produced innovation. It will always be the individualists who build the new stuff.
aaron says
I keep waiting for honda to produce a “mono-tele” as seen on their NAS concept. (although gilera had their 125 in the early 90’s)
http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/photos/prototype-spy-concept/Honda-2004-NASb.jpg
http://www.geocities.co.jp/MotorCity/7994/image/BlackCX125.jpg
hoyt says
Aaron – yeah, me too…the mondo, mono tele should be explored. Landing a jumbo jet at x speed with essentially a similar design must have some merit to research (even if the jet doesn’t lean) 🙂
I forgot to include Bob Horn in my post above for alternative front-end designers & builders. Sorry, Bob !
Sid says
in response to Paul’s updated question:
fly-by-wire throttle control
improved ABS
airbag on the Goldwing
Sid says
variable valve actuation
RH says
Hoyt,
My work never made a big splash (to the public, that is) – yet – so I’m not feeling left out! But thanks for noticing! Your list is an impressive one.
Seriously – at the risk of offending my wheeled bretheren, gimicks are not progress or innovation. Fly by wire throttles, ABS, monkey motion valve trains (TM), etc…, are pearls on the pig (or hog, as it were). The entire motorcycle paradigm is OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD. Motorcycles do not need to resemble 115 year old bicycles – which got their ergonomics from what was the previous state of the art: The Horse.
Think MUCH further ahead, folks!!!!
zorm says
He didn’t make production motorcycles, but I feel one of the greatest examples of motorcycle innovation came from John Britten’s V1000. Sorry, just felt his name needed to be mentioned here. The man was a genius.
If a motorcycle came into production that used unconventional technology, I would certainly consider purchasing it if the technology came with benefits. A front end that was lighter, had better feel, enhanced control or better aerodynamics, etc… If it made the riding experience better or more enjoyable then sign me up.
The first example that popped into my head for a current production bike using unconventional tech is the Buell XB line. The bike is a rolling oxymoron, but if it works and it’s fun then there’s nothing wrong with that.
Chaz says
On their competition/offroad bikes, BMW uses telescopic forks instead of the Telelever or Hossack. At least part of BMW’s attraction to these suspensions is to be exclusive. In the more distant past, a few MotoGP bikes had alternative front suspension, but none do now. The Britten was successful, but no one has emulated that in the last few years. Maybe the answer is that there is no advantage over telescopic forks, and no strong reason to change.
One area of design which is changing, especially with automatic transmissions, is hand and foot controls. It is difficult for newbies to use their right hand to steer, operate the throttle, and brake at the same time. A foot brake for both the front and rear brakes is already available on production bikes. Adjustable seats, bars, and pegs are also here, and the FJR automatic has a handlebar shifter. And there’s traction control, Suzuki’s multi-range engine programming, and throttle-by-wire. So really there’s lots of innovation going on and it’s useful, but not apparent.
hoyt says
Chaz – the advanced teles do have a lot of functional purpose, no doubt. They’d better for the price. The high-end Ohlins fork is about $10k, isn’t it?
Another factor involved in that debate is that virtually all of the racers have been brought up on teles. The feedback on other front-ends is foreign to them to the point that it affects their racing. Theoretically, separating steering and suspension is the better approach. Its getting to the point of being able to apply the theory in a way that is accepted by the masses, so more and more R&D can be applied.
Tryphonos & Czsyz seemed to be best positioned to ween racers, who only know the feedback provided by a tele, to alternate front-ends.
todd says
I appreciate tech but only where it adds value. Sure an Ohlins fork works better than an OEM fork but do the benefits out weigh the cost premium? To be honest, I could probably never notice any difference between a silver fork and an orange fork and the orange one certainly won’t get me to work any sooner.
Fly-by-wire throttle? Gimmick. I have cables that I don’t even lube. They are still opening the throttle on my carburetors (!) perfectly after 35 years. They even seem to work for the brakes and clutch as well. I could go for ABS brakes if it didn’t mean I’d have to buy a $15,000 bike just to have ABS on my motorcycle.
This “tech for the sake of tech” thing makes me think of the BMW K bikes. Why did BMW lean the motor so far forward to its own detriment? BMW (and Beamerphiles alike) will resist doing something that the Japanese have already perfected so as not to risk the assumption that it is superior. Just like Chaz said, BMW uses telescopic forks on their competition machines…
I just want a simple bike that is light and inexpensive. That doesn’t mean I want inferior components or out-dated, funky styling. That is why, I too, tend to buy, ride, and embarass other riders on new bikes… with used bikes.
-todd
Mark Savory says
The one bike that comes to mind recently that had a different riding position is Dan Gurney’s “Gator”. There were numerous prototypes built / tested and a few have been sold to customers — but the riding position hasn’t caught on with the regular consumer.
Morpheous says
Aprilia Mana 850, CVT, selectable tranny modes, Fly by wire, ……..
jim says
Change whether in motorcycles or autos is slow and often occurs where it is unseen, unfelt areas of the vehicle. MCs have a form that resembles bicycles because that is what the rider wants and is comfortable with. Same with the basic layout of a car.
Regarding the Gurney Gator, what ever the benefits of this and similar designs there are a couple of obvious (to me anyways)detriments that make this a failure as a street capable design; The rider sits so low that he/she can not see over cars and watch for traffic hazards and where in blazes do you put a passenger?
BluVida says
The super scooters, bergman,silverwing,ect., are examples of successful unconventional machines. They also show that a lot of riders would not even consider them.
Jeff says
When it comes to airplanes I like high tech . When it comes to motorcycles I like the shake rattle and roll of the old stuff . But that’s just my personal choice . My Buell XB12R is about as high tech as It gets for me as compared to my 1972 BMW R75/5 in which a BMW salesman tried to convince me into converting my front drum brakes over to disc brakes . I just smiled and said no thanks . But then again a quiet hybred supersport would be a hoot too!
Robbie Dean says
Motorcycle Technology can change a lot. But the question is who’s going to buy it? Most of the guys on the rode tend to love the bike they own and if they do think of buying a newer one, they tend to avoid the cutting edge, bike-of-tomorrow marketing pressure. We’ll take a look at that stuff in a magazine or look it up on the internet, but not too many guys want to lay out the cabbage for the latest and greatest techno.
Here’s what I mean, how many guys do you know who own motorcycles? Okay, now how many of those motos are on the leading techie edge? Very few right? You may know all kinds of bikers with all kinds of bikes but the scientific-breakthrough, wonder-bikes- of-tomorrow are for a very small minority.
Bikers are cultish. They kind of like what they like and do not consider radically different bikes as part of their cults. It’s almost disloyal to get into a set of wheels that’s too far off the beaten path. But accessories, modifications and upgraded component systems are usually admired and welcome by all but the purist classic riders.
So, I think you have to keep the broad strokes moving in the same direction they have been and slowly make changes in the details. It’s not that we are limited by inhibition. It’s not that minds are not open. But whether or not we want to admit it, we all feel kind of cool because of the bikes we own. The machines we ride say something about us as individuals and as groups. I think that most guys want to feel like they are graduating through a rite of passage with their new equipment and not just being posers ’cause they’ve been to the bike store with their credit card.
So, I don’t think anyone wants to move too far from our current designs. Improve them, yes. But don’t change them too much and not too fast either… or most people won’t even give them a chance. I’ve seen lots of new ideas put on the market and the sleek sexy fairings or tele-mono-actuating, hub mounted whatevers on the front ends of bikes and I just felt like I was looking at the kid on the playground with his new calculator watch who didn’t get picked for dodge-ball again.
What gets admired and respected, that is what gets driven. I own a newer bike but I have a man crush on the old thrasher-cruisers with hunks of chrome engine parts poking out from between the riders’ legs and great big ridiculous tires on stretched, raked and lowered choppers.
Come to think of it, I don’t think there is any type of motorcycle that I don’t appreciate. But that appreciation has to be earned.
Motorcycles are art… clear and simple. even the ugly ones are art. Granted, some of them are bad art (rat bikes) but art just the same. I don’t know anyone who rides who isn’t trying to express something about themselves by the moto they’ve chosen.
Of course this is art that goes really fast and makes loud manly noises. But as far as technology goes, I don’t really care what my beast score is on the dyno. I don’t even want to know amount of torque produced at 9,500 RPM. What I want to know is that I put my head down and twist my right hand and I feel like I’m flying… and I don’t think I wanna change that.
-Rob
RH says
I’ve always been amused by those who are obviously threatened by anything which makes their pride and joy seem rather stale. And the mass marketed motorcycle design world has become downright moldy, in my opinion.
I also wonder how many retro-grouches are reading this from Pentium I/Windows 95 or earlier computer – I’m guessing: None of them.
todd says
Unlike computers, motorcycles never go obsolete… at least not until they stop making gasoline.
-todd
hoyt says
Todd – I think RH is saying additional things between the lines.
One can still appreciate and cherish the old bikes while at the same time wonder what the next major phase the 2 wheeled world will take.
Don’t let the affection for the current crop of old bikes get in the way of creating the next generation of great old bikes.
“Do The Evolution” – Eddie Vedder
RH says
Todd,
There are loads of “obsolete” bikes that I still like – some from a distance, some from the saddle.
But that doesn’t make me feel any need to maintain any commitment to those machines or even genres. I’d hate to miss out of an even better riding/owning/staring-at experience. And there will always be a better one. Sort of like moto-infidelity?
Hoyt got what I was trying to say……….
Robbie Dean says
Sorry it took me so long to respond… I was going as fast as I could with Windows 95 and a dial up modem… Or so some would say.
Let me repeat from October 7:
“Come to think of it, I don’t think there is any type of motorcycle that I don’t appreciate (meaning new or old). But that appreciation has to be earned.”
As I also said, “…I have a newer bike” (obviously with newer technology) …BUT… newer is not always better. It’s often just newer… and it has to stand the test of time. The older bikes, at least the ones that have achieved notoriety, have been tested on highways, race tracks and road trips for years. Every once in a blue moon a new one will pop onto the scene and quickly gain respect, but those blue moons are few and far between and whether or not a bike is going to gain wide popularity… only time, and time alone will tell.
Additionally, genres are there if we like it or not. And people hold to them pretty tightly. It doesn’t mean that we have to agree or disagree with that… We just need to look around and ask around in order to see that it’s true. It happens to be the world we ride in. Motorcycling is more than just a hobby to an awful lot of people. It is their freedom and subculture and escape and yes to some, their totem.
Should this drive motorcycle design? Well maybe and maybe not. But that is not the question. The question is: ‘DOES this drive motorcycle design’? Yes it does. Wanna know why? Because people buy what they like. Why then are there so many new bikes coming out that are so similar to older traditional ones? Because that is what lots and lots of bikers like.
Lots of bikers like the innovations too… Me included; that’s why I own a newer one. It’s fast and scrappy and handles great and I love to ride it. But I also try to have an open mind toward other styles and modes of machine. That makes me a fan of the Euros, Rice rockets, V-twins and a lot of the less popular models; including some of the almost forgotten beasts of yesterday.
Motorcycle design could change a whole lot over the next decade but that doesn’t mean everyone is going to buy up all the new stuff. If you want to be great, then you have to do great things… not just different things. If you want to be a great painter… well, shut up and paint. And if you want to see some changes in motorcycle design, then you had better get your wrenches out and turn on the CNC because the proof is in the pudding.
And the saying is true: ‘Art is best displayed with the artist out of the way’. There are many an artist who when out-sold or unpraised enough by others begin to throw stones. Let’s hope that none of us are so easily offended. Motorcycle design IS art as well as science and as such may be liked or disliked depending on whim and taste. This means that the old and the new designs each have their chance in the gallery. And if something ain’t sellin’… then it probably ain’t that great.
Finally, those old relic motorbikes have in them the very foundation on which newer technology stands. In many ways THEY are the reason that motorcycling is so popular. I would hope that, for the future of our common interests that, as we reach for the future, we hold well onto the past. To do any less is to live in denial and self absorption.
Sorry if I offended anyone who’s been to the motorbike store with their credit card lately. If that means you, I hope your new bike stands the test of time with the best of them.
Ride on,
-Rob
RH says
What is both sad and funny is that an awful lot of the currently desirable machines from the past were sales duds when they were new – some of which destroyed the companies that made them. Then they are suddenly great machines. That doesn’t say much for the market, either.
That the new has to somehow pay homage to something else’s past is a guarantee of both acceptance and mediocrity. No thanks – immediate acceptance isn’t sufficient motivation. That’s for someone else’s tribe – you know, the one that takes years to figure out the obvious.
tincan says
So if the market takes years to figure out what’s cool, they’re wrong? And if they accept it immediately, they’re wrong again? Sounds like they’re wrong either way…
I’d say that the market, or rather the people who make up the market are right either way as long as they find a design that they love and really, really dig the ride it allows them to have. If that means they jump on something off the showroom floor, cool. If that means that they wanna drive a chrome dinosaur, also cool… But I find way more people leaning away from the new wiz-bang stuff. Even if they kind of like it. And I think has to do with the fact that they’re uncertain about it (even if they think it’s cool).
It’s kind of like the philosophy question: ‘does culture drive art and technology? Or does art and technology drive culture?’ I think both are true. People ascribe to what they like and design follows to meet demand. Additionally, the designers bring something new and people respond with demand or not. One hand tends to feed the other.
I’ll admit it, the market can be brutal, but people just simply buy what they like and that simple fact has helped drive the market to be what it is today. I wouldn’t expect people to give up design styles they love just to make things easier for new designs.
It’s not an unreasonable demand that the public puts on new products, that if something claims to be better than those before it, they have to prove it; just like those who came before them. And the burden of proof falls to the designers to drive people into recognizing value, performance and passion in their new concepts.
How much can motorcycle design change? It can change a lot but if it strays too far from what people want, it’s going to have to change back.
Brian says
A lot of people believe a motorcycle is art. BUT, art is not mass-marketed to consumers in the way motorcycles are today. So I would argue, not whether a guy thinks one particular genre of bikes are cool because of some universal truth, but rather WHO told him it was cool.
So for a game-changing design to take hold, it not only has to trump earlier designs but must also reverse the thinking of those who have been seduced into thinking the earlier design was ‘cool’.
Yes, I believe bikers are cultish. It’s part of human nature for the ‘many’ to want to belong to a group, to feel ‘accepted’. It’s also human nature for the ‘few’ to NOT want to be a part of a group. But then, you could lump all of those people into a group, too. So they’re screwed!
jim sadler says
Young women and old bikes make for one lifestyle and they can both rip your heart out.
Seriously, old bikes are way to hard to get parts for in most cases. Where I live we ride all year as there is no winter. To me one needs a long winter to get older bikes ready for the riding seasons.
What I would love to see is a return of two strokes like the H2 Kawasakis and also I would like to see modern development of old fashioned engines like L head V twins with fuel injection and modern blowers to help them breath. Those old L heads were so compact that they looked great and some of them seemed to run forever as well.