The future of motorcycling

[Zwartie]

For our trek to Alaska last summer I relied on my Garmin Zumo 550 and Microsoft Streets & Trips (2013 edition) on the laptop. With MS S&T you can save your routes to gpx files and import them to the GPS. It worked quite well for the most part. What I did learn as I went was to insert more waypoints than needed as the gpx file is nothing more than a series of waypoints and the Zumo would calculate the route differently than MS S&T. I also imported some of the gpx files to my buddy's Zumo 665 and was surprised that it didn't always calculate the route exactly the same as my Zumo 550. We made sure both GPS units had the same route setting (quickest, no avoidances...) but that didn't seem to help. The GPS units must use slightly different algorithms to calculate the route.

Regarding GPS vs. maps, there is no contest (in my opinion) between the two. GPS (and a good map laptop for reference) has made riding on trips, especially in a group way more enjoyable. I would also argue that it's a safer way to travel as it beats constantly having to glance down at the tank-bag map to figure out where you are and where your next turn is. Fewer U-turns and when you do miss a turn just wait for the GPS to recalculate and carry on! Since using GPS units on our trips we've ridden some incredible back roads that we would not have found with our normal assortment of maps (usually State and Provincial maps).

Next favourite technology upgrade / gadget has been Bluetooth communicators - specifically the Cardo SCALA Q3.

Zwartie

[ribbert]

Well, it appears the Jury is in.
Maps (or Google) to decide where you want to go and GPS to tell you how to get there.

I have always loved maps and atlas' but poring over the computer and Google maps has elevated the experience exponentially.
I look at a paper map now and it now longer excites me the way it used to, it's just lines on a piece of paper. On-line maps and the world of information that is only a tap away has taken over, for the better.

I too travel with a paper map in the window of my tank bag but rarely need to refer to it. In fact, it has been displaying the same section for the last year. I seem to have the planning and the execution of the route fine tuned to the point where I have not needed the map, but I still make sure I have one with me, just in case.

Like Pat with his bacon and eggs on the morning of the ride planning the day with his paper maps and mates, I too have a tradition, I retreat to the computer room with a coffee after dinner the night before a ride and lose myself in Google maps. I love Google maps. Planning is a part of the ride I thoroughly enjoy.
I am like the kid in the lolly shop, so many choices, so much information. I can spend hours on this part of a ride sometimes, It's something to be savoured, not rushed.

Once the ride has been decided on, I enter the destination and way points into the GPS, mount it on the bike and go to bed well satisfied, dreaming of the day to follow and can't wait for the alarm to ring. I get on the bike next morning, hit 'GO' and I'm off.

How you get there really doesn't matter, as long as you're out there. If you choose maps, fine, as long as it's an informed decision. For those that feel they may have been unfairly categorised here, there is a difference between not having it yet and shunning it on principle (Luddites).

You often hear people say "I've done it this way all my life and it works just fine". Dragged kicking and screaming into the current century, it then becomes "I don't know how I ever did without it"

This is one application of modern technology that greatly enhances motorbike riding and over time I'm sure will be embraced by everyone.

Zwartie, I find if I keep adding way points (not many needed) on Google maps until it picks the route I want, I then just enter those same points into the Garmin and it will pick the same route.
I agree with the Q3. I have a Q2 that has done around 140,000km's and has just recently become unreliable after many years of brilliant service. After much research I will be replacing it with a Sena SMH10.
A few years back there was an icon on Google maps that would let you download direct to the Garmin. I believe there was some legal dispute that resulted in it being removed. A great shame, it made it so easy.


Noel

[~JM~]

What the hell is a "Luddite"?

I'm wondering if I'm one.

Is it cool to be a Luddite? Is it contagious? Can I get a vaccination that will prevent it?

C'mon man, spill it. Perspiring minds need to know!

~JM~

[FJmonkey]

Just in case you missed my post, Mapquest has a direct link to Garmin devices. Not exactly helpful if you don't use Garmin GPS units but it may help a few members.

[rktmanfj]

What the hell is a "Luddite"?

I'm wondering if I'm one.

Is it cool to be a Luddite? Is it contagious? Can I get a vaccination that will prevent it?

C'mon man, spill it. Perspiring minds need to know!

~JM~

Lud·dite   ˈlədˌīt/

noun: Luddite; plural noun: Luddites
1.
a member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, esp. in cotton and woolen mills, that they believed was threatening their jobs (1811–16).
a person opposed to increased industrialization or new technology.
"a small-minded Luddite resisting progress"
Origin

perhaps named after Ned Lud, a participant in the destruction of machinery, + -ite


NeoLuddite

A slang term used to describe an individual who believes that using science and technology will have moral and social implications on society. Neo-Luddite is used to describe those who are considered to be anti-technology, or those who dislike or have a difficult time understanding and using modern science and technology. The word Luddite is a historical political movement term used to describe people who are opposed to technological innovations. Neo-Luddite is the modern term used to describe a Luddite.

Just in case you missed my post, Mapquest has a direct link to Garmin devices. Not exactly helpful if you don't use Garmin GPS units but it may help a few members.

I saw it, but after being misled a time or two by the old Mapquest site, I won't use them.   

[~JM~]

How about "Semi-Luddite"?

Someone who is on the fence & can swing either way as far as technological advances are concerned. Someone who believes that the influx of many modern pieces of equipment actually contribute to the dumbing down of society. How many of you use speed dial & can't remember anyones phone number, sometimes even your own. Or the several Search & Rescue missions that are sent up the mountain to retrieve the unprepared casual hiker that is lost but has dialed 911? Etc.

Yes... I'm a Semi-Luddite

~JM~

[airheadPete]

I actually considered getting a personalized "LUDDITE" license plate for my unrestored '58 Chevy truck, but then I ride to work to go fly a $30 million dollar piece of heavy equipment around with all the bells and whistles.
I'm so conflicted.

There's a time and a place for everything, you can go both ways.

[andyb]

The problem isn't really the glut of tech.  Honestly, it isn't.

GPS absolutely rocks.  Sometimes.  Like when you're a zillionty miles from home, navigating an ugly city that you don't know at all, and it gets you through the maze of one-way streets to your destination.  Of course, it's usually most useless for the last two turns, when you're actually trying to get someplace that actually is on the alley despite what the address says.  It's no replacement for knowing where you're going, or good, logical directions.

Side story:  I went to visit a friend who was going to a college a few hour's drive away from home.  I was a fairly recent driver, and had only had a liscence for a year or two at the time.  His directions were brilliant though; take this road into town, exit where it makes sense, and from that exit ramp, look for the highest building around.  Get to the base of it, and be wary of one-way streets.  I made it in record time, with no missed turns.  Much easier than a more specific set of instructions, because it forced me to think (!) and pay attention to what I was doing.

The problem with technology being applied to cars/bikes/etc that I've had is a very simple one. 

ABS is no replacement for having good brakes.
Traction control is no replacement for having a decent chassis.
Stability control isn't either.

And none of these are a replacement for skill of the operator.

A friend recently bought a new Focus.  It's got all the fancy shiny gadgets on it, a kickass stereo, bluetooth integration, etc etc etc.  The problem is that it sucks to drive, because the chassis is crap, and the motor doesn't respond well.

I recently bought a GTI.  It's got many of the fancy shiny gadgets on it.  The stereo is kinda crap, no bluetooth, etc.  But fundamentally it's a fairly good chassis, with sharp steering, good feedback from powerful brakes (admittedly they could be more linear!), a fair chunk of power, lots of grip.  The biggest problem with it is the stupid damned computer power in it.  When you hit the gas, there's a very perceptible delay before the throttle blades open, followed by a bit of turbo lag.  It's easily the most difficult car to drive smoothly that I've ever driven, because of this delay.  The delay is noticable when you turn the cruise off, when you use the throttle, when you do pretty much anything that the computer has any control over.

If I could only buy a bike that had this lack of immediacy, I'd stop riding, frankly.  To me, the big appeal of riding is the control.  My bike does exactly what I tell it to do, WHEN I tell it to do it.  Grab the brakes hard and it'll flip over.  Grab the gas hard, and it'll flip over.  It's not often that you hit WOT on a big bike and are left wanting more, nor left waiting for it to start pulling hard.

People will tend to shop based on how many gadgets and tricks and toys something has, because it's much easier to compare two things and buy the one with more features.  It's much more difficult to buy based on which has a good chassis or feel.

Frankly, I'll trade all the stupid electronic trickery for a brilliant ride in the first place.  Sure, without an onboard GPS I'll get lost more, circling the block twice before finding the damned turn, and so on.  But if the machine is worth riding for pleasure, then there's a great reason to go get lost.

Because I'll enjoy it.  Lost or not.

[Alf]

About the GPS: in our summer travels we use the old and classic Michelin maps. The GPS is absolutely useful. It is all time crying "unknown road" mainly when we are at the most fabulous roads, in lost places with fantastic views with no traffic, no gatsos, no cops....

[Bill_Rockoff]

GPS is great for telling me where I am relative to where I want to go.  Otherwise, man, you can wander around on 221 and 321 south of Boone forever.  "I'm ON 221!  How on earth can I possibly be crossing 221???  Which one of these damn roads gets me to the KOA?  Do I make a left, or a right, or go straight?"  But yeah, it's no substitute for a big ol' map, which itself is no substitute for knowing where you're going.

On longer trips through the unknown, GPS is infamous for routing you along horrible surface streets. "That 67 mile highway route will take you over an hour.  Here, try this 45 mile stretch of Shopping Center Boulevard, which will only take you an hour with its 45 mph speed limit.  You're welcome!"

[ribbert]

Andy, there are a handful of people here, that in my opinion, consistently offer good, sound advice, you are one of them (not that I always agree with you)
But in this case I disagree with pretty much everything you say.

........His directions were brilliant though; take this road into town, exit where it makes sense, and from that exit ramp, look for the highest building around.  Get to the base of it, and be wary of one-way streets.  I made it in record time, with no missed turns.  Much easier than a more specific set of instructions, because it forced me to think (!) and pay attention to what I was doing.

Verbal directions from someone who knows how to get there trying to think like someone who doesn't rarely works. They get so focused on the detail, they forget the big things.

The problem with technology being applied to cars/bikes/etc that I've had is a very simple one. 

ABS is no replacement for having good brakes.

ABS is in addition to good brakes. Under ideal conditions I'm sure you can out brake ABS, I can. The other 95% of the time the ABS equipped bike will have stopped well short of you, unless you locked the front wheel on that bit of gravel you didn't see and fell off or hit whatever it was you were trying to avoid because you were light on the brakes in the wet.
Govt accident research says that in accidents where the bike has hit something, 80% could have stopped short of impact had they used maximum braking. Most riders have no idea how hard they can brake but they are all shit scared of locking up the front wheel.

Traction control is no replacement for having a decent chassis.
Stability control isn't either.

I don't understand either of these been seen as a negative. They remain inactive up until the point at which you are on the brink of losing control (I'm talking about road driving/riding here)
The significant decline in high sides in MotoGP is attributed entirely to traction control. R1's were the most over represented bikes at wreckers when they were new for the same reason. I'm sure some very skilled riders could have explained from their hospital beds what it feels like to light up the back wheel, cranked over, mid corner.
I've experienced traction control both in a test environment on a racetrack and on the road, brilliant.

And none of these are a replacement for skill of the operator.

Yes they are, you can't out drive/ride the electronics. Do not forget we are talking about mass production vehicles here and if the Rossi's and Stoner's can't do it, what hope do we mere mortals have.


A friend recently bought a new Focus.  It's got all the fancy shiny gadgets on it, a kickass stereo, bluetooth integration, etc etc etc.  The problem is that it sucks to drive, because the chassis is crap, and the motor doesn't respond well.

Ford Focus? It's a shopping trolley. What did you expect?  I have driven the current Focus and it is an excellent car FOR WHAT IT IS. I wouldn't have one if you gave it to me but I can appreciate it for what it is.

I recently bought a GTI.  It's got many of the fancy shiny gadgets on it.  The stereo is kinda crap, no bluetooth, etc.  But fundamentally it's a fairly good chassis, with sharp steering, good feedback from powerful brakes (admittedly they could be more linear!), a fair chunk of power, lots of grip.  The biggest problem with it is the stupid damned computer power in it.  When you hit the gas, there's a very perceptible delay before the throttle blades open, followed by a bit of turbo lag.  It's easily the most difficult car to drive smoothly that I've ever driven, because of this delay.  The delay is noticable when you turn the cruise off, when you use the throttle, when you do pretty much anything that the computer has any control over.

The problem with the Focus and the GTI is not the cars but your expectations. You are talking about cars built in their hundreds of thousands for the masses. If you want a car with crisp handling and super brakes you will have to buy a dedicated, low volume sports car or tap into the huge GTI aftermarket scene.


If I could only buy a bike that had this lack of immediacy, I'd stop riding, frankly.  To me, the big appeal of riding is the control.  My bike does exactly what I tell it to do, WHEN I tell it to do it.  Grab the brakes hard and it'll flip over.  Grab the gas hard, and it'll flip over.  It's not often that you hit WOT on a big bike and are left wanting more, nor left waiting for it to start pulling hard.

The lack of immediacy is more your particular car than a consequence of modern technology and you will get used to it. The lag on the Focus is only noticeable between idle and redline in all gears anyway.

People will tend to shop based on how many gadgets and tricks and toys something has, because it's much easier to compare two things and buy the one with more features.  It's much more difficult to buy based on which has a good chassis or feel.

That's because 99.9% of the people want gadgets, toys, electronic bling and will never get even remotely near the cars outer limits, unless of course they get into trouble, in which case the electronic trickery will save them.

Frankly, I'll trade all the stupid electronic trickery for a brilliant ride in the first place.  Sure, without an onboard GPS I'll get lost more, circling the block twice before finding the damned turn, and so on.  But if the machine is worth riding for pleasure, then there's a great reason to go get lost.

The electronic trickery doesn't detract from the brilliant ride, it's not a case of one or the other. You wouldn't know it was there until you were on the threshold of an 'oh shit' moment.

A light weight, near enough to 200hp sports bike ridden on the road in all conditions is going to do two things without electronic aids. Either you are never going to get any where near using it's full power on a regular basis (but why else would you buy one) or you're going to crash it.
You can't tell me that cranked right over at 100mph in a corner that you have never seen until this very second, that you can pick the point just a whisker before the wheel lets go under power and know exactly how fast you can feed it on as you exit. Then we've got dips, bumps, pot holes, tar snakes, gravel, water AND what if right at the point you needed to stand it on it's nose to avoid some hazard.

Andy, I fully understand your sentiments, the purity of the simple machine, it has a lot to do with what I like about the FJ. In cars I love the gadgets, ALL of them, from the oscillating air vents to the voice commands because my car has a different role. It's not an excitement machine or a toy. It's just transport, and for that I like comfort and don't need sports car handling or power and that is what most of the world wants, car makers spend millions researching this and that's why they make the cars they do. dull as most of them are, like the Focus.
As well as the FJ, I have a couple of 1920's cars that I enjoy for there simplicity.
The pilot of a modern passenger plane will tell you that these days, rather than being in control of the plane, they monitor the device flying the plane.

Now, THAT would be the day to stop riding.

Noel

[/i][/color]

[Alf]

Noel: about the traction control. Sorry, but I disagree with you

What is it the necessity for a lightweight 200 CV machine if the traction control only let you apply 40?

Last summer I´ve been fortunate enough to test a 2002 MV Augusta 750 and a 2003 GSXR 750 in a closed track, without electronic gizmos. Well, both bikes were considerably faster in acceleration than much modern machines with controlled traction and in theory more powerful, and not only in my hands

Well, yes, with a computer at the levers the bike will run faster, like drones...

[fj johnnie]

Thanks for correcting Andy's homework. It looks like he gets a zero on his report card. Everything he said is wrong wrong wrong. All hail the chief!!!!
In case anyone doesn't get it that is sarcasm.

[ribbert]

Thanks for correcting Andy's homework. It looks like he gets a zero on his report card. Everything he said is wrong wrong wrong. All hail the chief!!!!
In case anyone doesn't get it that is sarcasm.

Johnnie,

Credit where credit is due. I acknowledged that Andy, in my opinion, is one of a few members that consistently offers good advice and knows his stuff.
I didn't say he was wrong, I said I disagreed with him.
This is a forum, you are as entitled to comment on my views as I am on his if you don't agree with me.
There was nothing malicious in my post and I expressed my views without sarcasm and I'd be surprised if Andy felt slighted by my comments.
Andy is no stranger to disagreeing with other members himself, and saying so.
I like the fact that people comment on each others views, if done so respectfully (Klavdy?) it just puts more information out there.

Noel

[ribbert]

What is it the necessity for a lightweight 200 CV machine if the traction control only let you apply 40?

Alf, the traction control only kicks in when the wheel starts to spin. It does not rob you of any power. If you want to spin the tyre out of corners, turn it off and it is the same as a bike that does not have it fitted.

Unless you are talking about adjustable engine mapping with settings like "rain mode" which does make the bike dull but that is not traction control. And, if you don't select it, it has no effect on engine power.

Well, both bikes were considerably faster in acceleration than much modern machines with controlled traction and in theory more powerful, and not only in my hands

What can I say? MotoGP bikes use it and reckon it's faster. You lose drive when the wheel starts to spin so I can't see how this would be faster.

Noel