I think there is a world of difference between how these things can, and should, be used on the road compared to the track. On the road they are primarily safety features whilst on the track they are primarily performance features. Notice the use of the word primarily here .
Couldn't agree more. This is why I've ordered a DVT, I feel it's the safest and most comfortable bike for one and two-up riding. Pot-holes, diesel, tractor mud, over-banding, that kitty litter they throw on the roads every summer, and that's just the surface we ride on.
They are still doing the same job though... maximising grip as much as possible as often as possible.
I disagree, electronics do not "maximise grip", they prevent you from exceeding the grip that is available, a subtle but very real difference. Anyway, road riding is not about "maximising grip as much as possible as often as possible", but electronics will, maybe, save your ass when you screw up. It is almost impossible to use the bulk of the performance of a modern bike on the road and maintain an adequate safety margin to take into account what is happening around the next bend, at the next junction and what that idiot in the Volvo will do next. Just my opinion.
Yes poorly worded on my part maybe but ultimately its the same goal in making sure you don't use more grip than their actually is whether that be speeding up or slowing down. Electronics wont save you from exceeding the maximum lean angle though.
from what i hear, WC beyond 2 really slows the bike down.... and switching from 1198R to 1299 : its the kick in the butt you ll miss... the 1299 seems supersmooth... but giant pull...
I may have said this before, in which case please forgive me, but on a 1299 the electronics make it possible for the average rider to ride the kind of bike only an expert would be capable of using in the past. The enormous power output, the immense braking forces, unimaginable cornering capability, all are so beyond 'everymans' grasp, that those irritating 'electronics' are all there is between us and our maker. Just to put things into perspective. When I was younger, I fancied myself as rather a good car driver. I knew I was pretty good since I could beat pretty much anything I came across, even in my crumby old car. Then good fortune allowed me to join an ARDS course (racing car driving school). That's when I realised just how useless I was in comparison to the experts. They weren't great motor racing names, just professional racing drivers..... the ones who make up the numbers in any race you might watch. To be in the top of the business, well that is actually almost impossible for anyone not sufficiently skilled and experienced enough, even to imagine with any accuracy. I make this point to demonstrate that although we all believe our skills are more than capable of controlling the amazing machine we have bought, in actual fact the vast majority of us are so inept and incapable that prior to today's electronic aids, we wouldn't have been safe on anything with much over 100bhp. So accept that you can now ride something , which only a few years ago would have been a world-championship winning machine in the hands of a world champion, with relative ease and similar safety levels as that 100bhp machine from those few years ago
I've always felt that the difference between a good/talented rider/driver and a professional is the ability to put in regular and consistent lap times. I've always asked myself, "why do the best racers stop winning and become also-ran?". Injury seems to be the number one reason for motorcyclists (especially when you see how everyone's adapted to the 'elbow-down' lean angles:Woot, I remember hearing something (before Stoner and the GOAT) that every GP champion walks with a limp.... Hang on, does Rossi now limp? But for the riders at club level that I know/knew (RIP), it's revolved around being 'inconsistently' fast as they passed the big 40. Electronics may buy you another 1-5 years, I don't know... But Stevenson-Kaatsch, give yourself a bloody good pat on the back for effort
