Are motorcycles getting better, worse, or staying the same?

[SWriverstone]

I think the general question of whether motorcycles are improving or not is legitimate. There are plenty of things about new bikes that irritate people (digital this, powered that, linked this, electronic that).

Then again, there are plenty of things about new bikes that people love (digital this, powered that, linked this, electronic that).

It gets more complicated when you consider things like...
• reliability
• fuel efficiency
• handling
• looks

One thing I think most people can agree on is that bikes are more difficult to maintain yourself these days (or do you disagree?)

Personally, I think the "improvement curve" just flattens more every year—manufacturers are struggling more to make smaller improvements. There simply aren't any of those quantum breakthroughs that revolutionize motorcycling.

At the same time, everything is marketing-driven...meaning manufacturers will always act like they've made all sorts of colossal improvements, when the reality is that they're just stepping sideways with cosmetic and ergonomic changes that really can't be considered improvements—just changes.

What do you think?

Scott

[toddrod]

You'd have to make some type of better argument that bikes are getting worse?

The question is very general, and my general answer is in a vast majority of cases, bikes are a lot better today than they have been in the past.

The only thing that sucks is that they are getting more expensive too.  

[Rabidsnipe]

I would agree that bikes are getting more difficult to maintain.  But that is the cost that we pay for higher fuel milage, more power, longer lasting, etc.  For me it's a boon and a bane.  On the one hand I like my bikes (& cars) to be longer lasting, higher power, etc.  I like the better fuel milage, the longer service intervals, etc.  But on the other hand, I don't like the idea that, even though I might not have to tinker with the machine all the time to keep it in tip top shape, if it ever does break down it's more likely I won't be able to fix it.

[stefrrr]

They're just getting bigger. With the increased power-engine size ratio, I would expect that there would be better options in the smaller cc range. With few exceptions, what you have are 600-650 cc bikes or 1000+ cc bikes.

Something(s) in between would be nice.

[DogBoy]

Getting better all the time.

[Jeff N]

They're going in circles. At least that's what I think when I sort through my own personal checks and balances. The bikes themselves are fantastic. The fact that they're getting harder and harder for the home mechanic to do some of the even most basic maintenance? That's a negative to me. And if I can't do it at home, I wonder what quality of work will be performed by the dealer's mechanics. The only shops I've ever seen that had a majority of mechanics over the age of 30 and were well known amongst their local customers were BMW and Ducati shops and the like. Every other dealer seems to have one expert mechanic and then a bunch of spotty kids around him.

So, they're getting better, but is the improvement worth all the extra hassle. My old style Bandit 1200 seems to work just fine.  

[highside]

I would agree that bikes are getting more difficult to maintain.  But that is the cost that we pay for higher fuel milage, more power, longer lasting, etc.

In most cases bikes today arent much different to work on. What specifically is more difficult for you today than in the past? All I know is that they break down a hell of a lot less and last a hell of a lot longer they are faster and get better mileage. It is easy to make a case for bikes improving by leaps and bounds, really hard to make one that they are getting worse without resorting to intangibles.

[stromgal]

While I'm as guilty as anyone of nostalgia --why the heck else would I look at ebay ads for XS650s, of which I've owned three --  I'll say it again: this is the golden age of motorcycling. The quality, value, and reliability of today's bikes is unprecedented.

[hobbner]

Do you think we will ever have 'hybrid' bikes? or fuel cell bikes, the raw grease and gasoline aspect of motorbiking is half the fun but on the other hand, torque and acceleration would be incredible! on a electric drive bike.
I just hope bikes never run into legislative trouble as cars become more and more protective of there passengers and automatic and dont forget all the pollution yadda ya.

[Thor]

I would say yes.  The bikes are getting better and that is bad.  I look at the evolution of the Corvette.  The modern Corvette has gotten so "good" that an above average driver cannot control the car during aggressive driving without the active handling turned on.  At some track days you are kicked out if you are caught with your active handling off and not approved and in the expert group.

Modern motorcycles don't start to protest and give you many clues as you near the edge.  Fortunately, most of us don't get close to the edge that often.  What it does seem to do is let you develop bad habits and ride faster than you should.  You could be very near the edge and have no idea.

Older bikes would let you know they aren't happy.  The flexi-frame and forks would start to twist, the rear shocks would start to shimmy and you would slow down.

I just updated my clapped out suspension and I am suspicious of my bike.  It is very, very subtle with its warnings.  You have to be concentrating and really trying to feel it.  I'm worried that the new suspension will increase my confidence and take me places I don't really know how to go.  The problem is that I won't get much warning before things start going sideways.

I'm going to start my season riding roads where I know exactly how fast I have gone in the past to see if I start to unknowingly get closer to the edge.  I'm going to keep an eye on my tires and take note of how much I am or am not tearing them up.

The false sense of security modern bikes give me worries me, but there are so many things I like about them it would be hard to go back.

[maddjack]

As far as reliability ,better say I.looks,subjective to the current taste of a given individual.Mileage? Way worse,displacement and horsepower doesn't come cheap but its bad when my car does as well or better than many sportbikes with a 1000 or better pound weight penalty.handling,better but don't forget without advances in tire tech,it may not be the case. fuel injection is moving foreward quickly,but there are still some of those that need mucho work . Chains need to go away,outdated tech,yeah it works but there are alternatives out there that don't require the maintenance of chains.

[FiremanBob]

maddjack makes a good point. In the US we have powerful sportbikes, touring bikes, muscle bikes, and hybrids in between, all making more power than we need for everyday riding and use more gas. We have cruisers, some of which are economical but most not too practical - too heavy, too low and weak on storage space. There are a couple of ancient-technology baby bikes. There are a couple of large scooters that would otherwise be good mid-size utility bikes, but scooters have very limited appeal.

For everyday commuting, I'd like to revive the UJM with modern technology and quality, in a moderate engine size like 300-500cc, with belt or (better) shaft drive. Shaft wouldn't need to be heavy with modern steel in an aluminum swingarm. They already have bikes almost like this in Japan.

A comfortable, great-handling, partly-faired, easy-maintenance bike with room for a passenger and useful saddlebags would be a terrific alternative to a car for commuting and general errands use. My bike gets nearly twice the mileage of my car, and a bike that got 1.5x again greater mileage would be in my garage right quick.

[Baz]

Better, no doubt in my mind.

I restored a 1983 Honda VF 45, and really never rode it, because my clunky, buzzy new Bandit made it seem like a piece of junk. (And lets face it, the B-12 is not exactly a modern work of art either)

I have ridden a couple of other classic old bikes since and came to the conclusion that the only person who thinks classic old bikes are cool, are the ones that don't have to ride them on a regular basis. (Everyone but the owners!)

I don't know of anyone who can give an example per say, that a late 80's Gixxer is better than the newest model. I just can't think of any bike where this is the case.

[MOVFR]

Overall bikes are getting better. They function better, they are more reliable, they perform better, they have better safety features, they emit cleaner exhaust and so on and so forth. They might be more complicated to work on but they need less work too. A complicated and sophisticated bike is only a problem if it malfunctions which in my experience is rarely the case these days.
So yeah, bikes are getting better  

[ruffcut]

   I remember sitting at the kitchen table with my dad discussing that new fangled electric starter for lazy people. Just a few years later they took the points and condenser away and I worried what a guy was to do when it shut off along the road. Next they start into the tubeless era and spokes disappear. I think that`s about the time they moved all of the shifters to the left side. Right after that Triumph croaked and they took the beloved amal carb with them. They had a primer button you flooded your carb with and got your hand smelling like sunoco 220. Now they`re taking the whole carb.
There is no doubt in my mind theyre getting better      

[Corbeau]

I own a 6th generation Honda VFR.

Things are staying the same. And the same. And the same.  

[DaveG]

they are way better than what i had 20 years ago but they need not be so complex
that's why i bought an 02 Bandit
old style easy to work on, no liquid cooling (ok oil cooled)
not the latest frame and suspension but 1000% better than my 73 CB450

and reliable

[Hardware]

I own a 6th generation Honda VFR.

Things are staying the same. And the same. And the same.  

I remember a moto rag article a few years back where the writer opined that it was his job to find things wrong with new bikes - something, anything!  

I forget which generation of VFR it was but in reviewing it, he said the only thing he could bitch about was the font Honda used on the gauge faces...

Bikes have come lightyears in terms of:

- reliability;
- power;
- refinement; and
- versatility (no doubt in part due to the aftermarket (i.e. Givi, Corbin et al)).

Value - tough call.  There are quite a few models pushing 20K+ - is a new base model Goldwing worth $26,000 CDN?  Not sure...

Looks.  Sadly I think many lines are going in the wrong direction.  (That means YOU - BMW!)

[hobbner]

im still waiting for a bike with a 'easy' button for when times get tougher than you want to deal with.

[Corbeau]

I see your point, Hardware. But mine was a reference that Vifferati biotch about Honda not upgrading the VFR (more displacement or less weight, pick one) for the last 3, 4 years.

[ctfz1]

Sometimes yes, sometimes not. Gen2 FZ1 is better sporty bike (when sorted) than Gen 1. First gen suits me fine, with minor mods.  Sport or Cruiser are better, standards what were they thinking? Marketing is trying.  VFR  vtec not. Sprint certainly. fjr1300AE NOT. New BMWs?

[Hardware]

I see your point, Hardware. But mine was a reference that Vifferati biotch about Honda not upgrading the VFR (more displacement or less weight, pick one) for the last 3, 4 years.

I agree 120%.  If they made a litre+ version of the Viffer I'da had one in a New York minute.

That said, they are still awesome, refined bikes.  Just compare a stock early generation VFR to anything comparable from the same model year.  Better yet, look at an average '70s era UJM to anything made in the US or the UK at that time.

[basco]

I say they are getting better unless you own a VFR.  

[mdloops]

I used to own a 2003 VFR.  Lets put it this way the 800CC VFR (if i remember correctly) is actually heavier than my brother's busa with a 1300+CC engine. ? I think the bike has a lot of character, but I just do not see why honda makes it so heavy.  BTW: I used to think the VFR handled well until I bought the R6.  In terms of performance (engine, handling) the VFR sucks compared to a super sport.  I mean, I know it does all things well, but it truely does not handle that well.  IF you think it does then just hop on any generic sport bike and go find some corners.

Honda needs to shave it down to 500 LBS (Full tank) and at least increase the hp to the stock numbers of a 600CC Supersport.  The VFR is WAY too heavy.  I loved it though and should have bought another one over my 07 R6, but oh well.  

[Mike-H]

Definitely better....from a running prospective....but worse in the sense with a lot of new bikes if the battery goes dead....your stuck....good luck bum starting alot of them....so maybe the answer is staying the same?.... .....

[Stormer]

In general way?
Better, for sure.

But, just a moment...if so, why I drive a 1975 bike?

[Busy Little Whiner]

Motorcycles in general are getting better... someday they might even surpass Mr.RC45... but I believe that honor will got to the Desmosedici V4... that is of course if Ducati ever releases it... mercy...

[jschmidt]

While I'm as guilty as anyone of nostalgia --why the heck else would I look at ebay ads for XS650s, of which I've owned three --  I'll say it again: this is the golden age of motorcycling. The quality, value, and reliability of today's bikes is unprecedented.

We own two, my wife's '79 Special and my '76 Standard. Bikes are getting better every year, but what the old bikes teach us is that they were quite servicable, just as much fun and that the improvements over time are basically incremental rather than earth-shattering.

[jhampshire]

Kawasakis get better about every 20 years.  That's how long they run a model before replacing it.  Having said that, why change something that works so well.

Send me your unwanted Concours!!!!

[Oilhed]

They are getting better but, some types are disappearing.  The smaller displacement bikes, between 600 & 1000cc are mostly gone.  Also, some are becoming overly complicated. Something like the Kawi Concours has no replacement.

[timk]

   When I started riding, I had to carry 2 spare sparkplugs, due to the weak ignitions back then. I think the # of Iron Butters has gone up steadilly also,to the point of making 1500 the new bench mark.

[Lawn Dart]

Good topic.  Actually, very good topic.  Are bikes getting better?  The real question is, can someone define better?  Better what, power?  Handling?  Reliability?  Economy?

Power:  Yes, bikes are more powerful.  However to get more power more fuel needs to be burned.  Sorry, there's no other way around it.  1000+cc superbikes are increadible bikes, but to make 180 hp means that they have to burn fuel at a rate that can support 180hp.  People bitch about Buell's XB12r only making "100hp" in an antiquated aircooled motor that redlines at 7k.  Buell also advertises as much as 65mpg on the highway...  Low horses, low power...higher fuel economy.  Damned, that equation hasn't changed since, what?  The advent of the internal combustion engine.  The real question?  What is actually needed in the real world.  

But build a bike for the real world it's tossed in the trash without a single kind word.  Honda Deauxville anyone?  Honda Hornet 919?  BMW telelever and to some extent hossack suspensions, maligned and distrusted by the press.  The telelever front is a marvel of technology and allows a 600+ # bike to handle far better than any bike weighing 600+ should - damn, it's not an Ohlins USD fork and doesn't give enough feedback on the track...the hell with the real world.

Bike manufacturers who have answered the question of "what is needed in the real world" are ridiculed and labeled as "Never-has-beens" and lousy bikes.  BMW Boxers, VFR's, Buells, Bandit 1200's - all piss poor examples of overweight (VFR), underpowered (Buell, Bandit - note that the bandit and the xb12r make the same power:  100 horses), Techno-inferior (Buell, Bandit), Techno-superior (VFR, BMW) bikes that are maligned by the bike press for their shortcomings of not having Busa-like power or 600cc handling.

Bikes ARE getting better.  It's our attitudes that are getting worse.  

People, moto-journalists, riders, US, we want, no DEMAND higher horsepower bikes.  We DEMAND that Honda make a bike that can do cut sub 10 second quarter miles.  We DEMAND that Yamaha make a 1000cc bike handle like a 400.  We DEMAND more specialization.  We DEMAND that Michelin build tires that stick to walls without warmup.  

We DEMAND extremes.  Yet we don't live in the extreme.

Yes, we ARE living in the Golden Age of Motorcycling.

We are just too stupid to get it.

[Hardware]

Good topic.  Actually, very good topic.  Are bikes getting better?  The real question is, can someone define better?  Better what, power?  Handling?  Reliability?  Economy?

Power:  Yes, bikes are more powerful.  However to get more power more fuel needs to be burned.  Sorry, there's no other way around it.  1000+cc superbikes are increadible bikes, but to make 180 hp means that they have to burn fuel at a rate that can support 180hp.  People bitch about Buell's XB12r only making "100hp" in an antiquated aircooled motor that redlines at 7k.  Buell also advertises as much as 65mpg on the highway...  Low horses, low power...higher fuel economy.  Damned, that equation hasn't changed since, what?  The advent of the internal combustion engine.  The real question?  What is actually needed in the real world.  

But build a bike for the real world it's tossed in the trash without a single kind word.  Honda Deauxville anyone?  Honda Hornet 919?  BMW telelever and to some extent hossack suspensions, maligned and distrusted by the press.  The telelever front is a marvel of technology and allows a 600+ # bike to handle far better than any bike weighing 600+ should - damn, it's not an Ohlins USD fork and doesn't give enough feedback on the track...the hell with the real world.

Bike manufacturers who have answered the question of "what is needed in the real world" are ridiculed and labeled as "Never-has-beens" and lousy bikes.  BMW Boxers, VFR's, Buells, Bandit 1200's - all piss poor examples of overweight (VFR), underpowered (Buell, Bandit - note that the bandit and the xb12r make the same power:  100 horses), Techno-inferior (Buell, Bandit), Techno-superior (VFR, BMW) bikes that are maligned by the bike press for their shortcomings of not having Busa-like power or 600cc handling.

Bikes ARE getting better.  It's our attitudes that are getting worse.  

People, moto-journalists, riders, US, we want, no DEMAND higher horsepower bikes.  We DEMAND that Honda make a bike that can do cut sub 10 second quarter miles.  We DEMAND that Yamaha make a 1000cc bike handle like a 400.  We DEMAND more specialization.  We DEMAND that Michelin build tires that stick to walls without warmup.  

We DEMAND extremes.  Yet we don't live in the extreme.

Yes, we ARE living in the Golden Age of Motorcycling.

We are just too stupid to get it.

Well said.    Now, go take a valium and lie down with a cold cloth on your forehead...

[Lawn Dart]

LMAO!  Nice  

[Busy Little Whiner]

We DEMAND extremes.  Yet we don't live in the extreme.

Yes, we ARE living in the Golden Age of Motorcycling.

We are just too stupid to get it.

WTG... I like this train of thought...

[sprale]

It all depends...

Harley's are still gas guzzlers. No one imports a decent 250 other than Kawasaki. A true standard is hard to find anymore. Good small bikes are still only foreign market.

On the other hand, more people are riding today than ever here in the States. The bikes themselves are inexpensive forms of transportation for those not wanting a huge car payment. Keep a beater cage at home and take the bike every day, no problem. Especially in metropolitans. Fuel economy is good, but not leaps beyond the 1950s.

I suppose it is all a matter of opinion...

[highside]

It all depends...

Harley's are still gas guzzlers. No one imports a decent 250 other than Kawasaki. A true standard is hard to find anymore. Good small bikes are still only foreign market.

On the other hand, more people are riding today than ever here in the States. The bikes themselves are inexpensive forms of transportation for those not wanting a huge car payment. Keep a beater cage at home and take the bike every day, no problem. Especially in metropolitans. Fuel economy is good, but not leaps beyond the 1950s.

I suppose it is all a matter of opinion...

I think the reason why bikes in the US arent made for economy is because there isnt really a huge market for them here. Most bikes are sold as toys and luxury items in this country, few people consider them to be legitimate modes of transportation. If that changes the shear size of our market might prompt the manufacturers to start considering the importation (and innovation) of new economy models. There is probably a huge potential for more fuel effecient (and still well performing) motorcycles, there just isnt enough money at stake to justify making them yet.

[maddjack]

Good topic.  Actually, very good topic.  Are bikes getting better?  The real question is, can someone define better?  Better what, power?  Handling?  Reliability?  Economy?

Power:  Yes, bikes are more powerful.  However to get more power more fuel needs to be burned.  Sorry, there's no other way around it.  1000+cc superbikes are increadible bikes, but to make 180 hp means that they have to burn fuel at a rate that can support 180hp.  People bitch about Buell's XB12r only making "100hp" in an antiquated aircooled motor that redlines at 7k.  Buell also advertises as much as 65mpg on the highway...  Low horses, low power...higher fuel economy.  Damned, that equation hasn't changed since, what?  The advent of the internal combustion engine.  The real question?  What is actually needed in the real world.  

But build a bike for the real world it's tossed in the trash without a single kind word.  Honda Deauxville anyone?  Honda Hornet 919?  BMW telelever and to some extent hossack suspensions, maligned and distrusted by the press.  The telelever front is a marvel of technology and allows a 600+ # bike to handle far better than any bike weighing 600+ should - damn, it's not an Ohlins USD fork and doesn't give enough feedback on the track...the hell with the real world.

Bike manufacturers who have answered the question of "what is needed in the real world" are ridiculed and labeled as "Never-has-beens" and lousy bikes.  BMW Boxers, VFR's, Buells, Bandit 1200's - all piss poor examples of overweight (VFR), underpowered (Buell, Bandit - note that the bandit and the xb12r make the same power:  100 horses), Techno-inferior (Buell, Bandit), Techno-superior (VFR, BMW) bikes that are maligned by the bike press for their shortcomings of not having Busa-like power or 600cc handling.

Bikes ARE getting better.  It's our attitudes that are getting worse.  

People, moto-journalists, riders, US, we want, no DEMAND higher horsepower bikes.  We DEMAND that Honda make a bike that can do cut sub 10 second quarter miles.  We DEMAND that Yamaha make a 1000cc bike handle like a 400.  We DEMAND more specialization.  We DEMAND that Michelin build tires that stick to walls without warmup.  

We DEMAND extremes.  Yet we don't live in the extreme.

Yes, we ARE living in the Golden Age of Motorcycling.

We are just too stupid to get it.

excellent post,well said

[xbud]

 I think the more horsepower, better braking, better handling bikes of today beat the bikes of just 5 years ago, Hands Down...