As a seasoned rider and a professional motor officer instructor, I found this bike with the E-clutch to be the best of both worlds because it gives you the choice of using the clutch as normal or using the tech. As for beginner riders, I'd suggest they start in 2nd or 3rd gear until they get used to the sensitive throttle. Otherwise, they may find themselves quite herky-jerky at low speeds in traffic or on hills. I found the E-clutch system far superior to the DCT.
For this technology to be accepted -- or even LOOKED at -- by experienced riders, its performance benefits (quicker/smoother shifting) needs to be promoted more than how beginner-friendly it is. We all like to think we were never noobs ourselves or that manually using the clutch is a mandatory (ie, "manly") part of riding a motorcycle. But manually shifting a multi-gear transmission will fade away eventually as it's inefficient and slow compared to constant acceleration without pauses between gears.
Drive up costs. Make simple mechanisms more complex. Add tons of part numbers to manufacturer's products. Increase part supplier complexity and inventory requirements. Fund advertisers and infomercials to explain said complex mechanisms. Market something to the public as a removal of barrier to entry, while asking them to pay more for it. Assist/slip clutches with featherweight pull is not enough. People cannot coordinate a clutch but they can play Xbox and Playstation and operate a Windows computer keyboard and mouse. Notice how seniors can ride a motorcycle but cannot figure out how to use a smart phone for the life of them. Think more critically.
I question why motorcycles should receive an auto-clutch system. Does it devalue motorcycles as challenging devices to learn and master, making them less aspiring? Does it make them easier to access by people looking to start riding? Does it drive up cost and complexity of models designed to be financially accessible, for no reason at all other than corporate profits and more bulky parts suppliers? Is this really about an attempt to get more people out of cars, trucks, SUV, off bicycles, and on to motorcycles as potential life long riders, or is this corporate profit driven?
Aren't those all one in the same? If it makes it easier, more approachable, and reduce the barrier for entry it will increase profits if it sells. Increased complexity and driving up price I disagree with given that there is no price increase in the US and even in the UK where it is an option it is less than $200 USD.
@@drumanaut I covered the first statement you made in a question. In other words, is operating a clutch actually some kind of barrier to entry? Consider that in the last decade or more, assist-type clutch designs have reduced clutch lever pull to almost NOTHING. Hand strength is not an issue. If people can thumb a cell phone, play Xbox or Playstation, master computer games with a mouse and keyboard, ride a bicycle with more than 1 gear, they can learn to ride a motorcycle with sufficient controls coordination. Making average motorcycles more expensive by cramming more and more technology onto them, more complex mechanisms in place of reliable and simple mechanisms, how is that going to keep the cost the same? It won't. Could return to similar cost if volumes end up being the same over a decade, but that's doubtful. Manufacturers aren't selling more variety and more models, they are consolidating models to use the same powertrains with more variations. That's a cost saving right there but I argue it is NOT interesting to customers. The powertrain is the core of what makes one motorcycle unique from another. Back in the 80's and 90's there were far more engines and proprietary motorcycles. The redesign phase on sportsbikes was every 2 years up until 2008. Without a historical perspective on all this stuff, people just don't get it.
It will make riding in heavy, stop/start, city traffic much easier while still allowing the rider, fine manual clutch control when needed or wanted. I think where it will really shine is on enduro/dirt bikes.
Why Honda sucks: It would have been nice to have a choice like in Europe of the E-clutch. Everyone else gets a beautiful metallic red, but on the bright side, at least it's not flat black. And where is the Hornet 750 and 1000?
Oh I don't know. Maybe an inline-6, a V5, a square four, a new improved 2-stroke, a turbo or supercharged engine, perhaps a Hayabusa competitor, maybe a new series of V4, maybe a triple, perhaps a flat-4, maybe a belt drive sportsbike, or a new series of shaft drive bikes, perhaps a set of exciting affordable UJM machines. Make Honda exciting again. Oh that's right, they couldn't care less about American markets and they refuse to spend billions on new engines when the bureaucratic climate thugs threaten combustion engines. Gotta make money somehow. I know. Let's make ordinary inventory far more complex and technologically packed, that will offer greater profits with minimal input.
As a seasoned rider and a professional motor officer instructor, I found this bike with the E-clutch to be the best of both worlds because it gives you the choice of using the clutch as normal or using the tech. As for beginner riders, I'd suggest they start in 2nd or 3rd gear until they get used to the sensitive throttle. Otherwise, they may find themselves quite herky-jerky at low speeds in traffic or on hills. I found the E-clutch system far superior to the DCT.
For this technology to be accepted -- or even LOOKED at -- by experienced riders, its performance benefits (quicker/smoother shifting) needs to be promoted more than how beginner-friendly it is. We all like to think we were never noobs ourselves or that manually using the clutch is a mandatory (ie, "manly") part of riding a motorcycle. But manually shifting a multi-gear transmission will fade away eventually as it's inefficient and slow compared to constant acceleration without pauses between gears.
Drive up costs. Make simple mechanisms more complex. Add tons of part numbers to manufacturer's products. Increase part supplier complexity and inventory requirements. Fund advertisers and infomercials to explain said complex mechanisms. Market something to the public as a removal of barrier to entry, while asking them to pay more for it. Assist/slip clutches with featherweight pull is not enough. People cannot coordinate a clutch but they can play Xbox and Playstation and operate a Windows computer keyboard and mouse. Notice how seniors can ride a motorcycle but cannot figure out how to use a smart phone for the life of them. Think more critically.
@@exothermal.sprocketNot really and unlike dct its optional and 50 dollars more
@@unpotatoedsalmon Which part? Cost? Complexity? Part numbers and supply chains and parts suppliers?
@@exothermal.sprocket its a mechanism that is mounted alongside the clutch it is not inside the transition it is a part of the clutch
Having a ATAS currently I would be more interested in the E clutch than the DCT.
I question why motorcycles should receive an auto-clutch system.
Does it devalue motorcycles as challenging devices to learn and master, making them less aspiring?
Does it make them easier to access by people looking to start riding?
Does it drive up cost and complexity of models designed to be financially accessible, for no reason at all other than corporate profits and more bulky parts suppliers?
Is this really about an attempt to get more people out of cars, trucks, SUV, off bicycles, and on to motorcycles as potential life long riders, or is this corporate profit driven?
Aren't those all one in the same? If it makes it easier, more approachable, and reduce the barrier for entry it will increase profits if it sells. Increased complexity and driving up price I disagree with given that there is no price increase in the US and even in the UK where it is an option it is less than $200 USD.
@@drumanaut I covered the first statement you made in a question. In other words, is operating a clutch actually some kind of barrier to entry? Consider that in the last decade or more, assist-type clutch designs have reduced clutch lever pull to almost NOTHING. Hand strength is not an issue.
If people can thumb a cell phone, play Xbox or Playstation, master computer games with a mouse and keyboard, ride a bicycle with more than 1 gear, they can learn to ride a motorcycle with sufficient controls coordination.
Making average motorcycles more expensive by cramming more and more technology onto them, more complex mechanisms in place of reliable and simple mechanisms, how is that going to keep the cost the same? It won't. Could return to similar cost if volumes end up being the same over a decade, but that's doubtful.
Manufacturers aren't selling more variety and more models, they are consolidating models to use the same powertrains with more variations. That's a cost saving right there but I argue it is NOT interesting to customers. The powertrain is the core of what makes one motorcycle unique from another. Back in the 80's and 90's there were far more engines and proprietary motorcycles. The redesign phase on sportsbikes was every 2 years up until 2008.
Without a historical perspective on all this stuff, people just don't get it.
Did people ask the exact same things about automobiles in the 1950's?
It will make riding in heavy, stop/start, city traffic much easier while still allowing the rider, fine manual clutch control when needed or wanted.
I think where it will really shine is on enduro/dirt bikes.
@@0markvari Dirtbikes already have Recluse.
Why Honda sucks: It would have been nice to have a choice like in Europe of the E-clutch. Everyone else gets a beautiful metallic red, but on the bright side, at least it's not flat black. And where is the Hornet 750 and 1000?
Oh I don't know. Maybe an inline-6, a V5, a square four, a new improved 2-stroke, a turbo or supercharged engine, perhaps a Hayabusa competitor, maybe a new series of V4, maybe a triple, perhaps a flat-4, maybe a belt drive sportsbike, or a new series of shaft drive bikes, perhaps a set of exciting affordable UJM machines. Make Honda exciting again.
Oh that's right, they couldn't care less about American markets and they refuse to spend billions on new engines when the bureaucratic climate thugs threaten combustion engines. Gotta make money somehow. I know. Let's make ordinary inventory far more complex and technologically packed, that will offer greater profits with minimal input.