Triumphrat

Old Scratcher · 01-13-2008

I was tempted to post this in the Bonnie Forum, to stir the pot a bit. But it'll only get moved here anyway. So it might as well start here.
I've been thinking about what kind of bikes we'll be riding in 10, 20, or 30 years from now.
Will we still be riding? Or will the doctors & the bureaucrats finally succeed in legislating us out of existence?
Will we still be on petrol powered machines? Or all electric? Maybe hybrids? Or even hydrogen?
I know they're all problematical right now. But who knows what future breakthrough's might achieve?
M/C's carbon foot-print isn't too bad, compared to a cage. But the tyre consumption of larger bikes, is a major concern there. So will tyre-munching sportbikes still be allowed?
Will there still be market for retro classics? & what will they look like?
Lastly, & most importantly for us here. Will Triumph have a place in this future?
I think that's stirred the pot enough.
Let the opinions flow.

HiDesert · 01-13-2008

I think the most likely change is for more countries to adopt horsepower limits, vis-a-vis the French. But my money is on petrol-powered bikes still going strong. Unless the ice age makes us all switch to cages with heaters the size of cement trucks. Retro will still be with us, and people will sit around, beers in hand, yakking on about the year the 675 was introduced, and how the 1500 cruiser turned out to be a step-through scooter with a trailer and three reverse gears.

StaggerLee · 01-13-2008

Oh they will survive alright, even thrive. They will also remain fun though we should always remain viligant against fun hating faceless rule makers. I do see ABS and other forms of electronic controls becoming more accepted and maybe compulsory (not a bad thing IMO). Better crash protection will also be on the cards, subtle nylon protectors rather than ugly crash bars of yore. Carbs will be dead in less than 10 years.

Wombat · 01-13-2008

I would like to think that as fuel prices increase, more and more people will start riding motorcycles in the future.
We will see more of the 3 wheel vehicles on the roads and hopefully less of those bloody land yachts (SUVs).
What fuel we will be using will be interesting.
I would hope that we will see more fuel-cell powered vehicles on the roads.

doodledog · 01-13-2008

Well in 30 years I will be 80, hope to be still riding the Daytona as its a keper, as for what everyone else will have what fuel will be around? I can see the slow creeping of Electric hybrids but where will bikes fit in unless a light long lasting power supply can be developed, I remember a tv programme from the 80's which was called towards the year 2000, I have seen nothing of what they preicte coming through but lots of developments in areas they did not expect such as personal computers an mobile phones. There is going to be rapid development in areas that we will never suspect, but as I said I will still be on the tona.

HiDesert · 01-13-2008

Fuel cells have their advantages, but current hydrogen separation technology requires lots of power. Would you prefer we burn coal or split atoms to make that power? I'm fine with splitting atoms, but then we also need to address safe storage and transportation, and build a distribution network. Remember the Hindenburg.

We already have biodiesel and synthetic lubricants, both developed entirely without governmnet meddling. How far behind can synthetic gasoline be? And that would presumably use all the current distribution infrastructure with no new infrastructure.

The free market can solve this problem better than any other mechanism.

doodledog · 01-13-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by hidesert

We already have biodiesel and synthetic lubricants, both developed entirely without governmnet meddling. How far behind can synthetic gasoline be? And that would presumably use all the current distribution infrastructure with no new infrastructure.

The free market can solve this problem better than any other mechanism.

With you to a point but......the cost of grain has gone through the roof due to it being used for Biofuels, what happens when the choice is between food for the world or fuel for the rich, I want a mini nuclear generator for my bike please I have no problems with nuclear, if it goes wrong ......well you gotta die of something.

richb · 01-13-2008

Yeah not too sure about the economy argument, really. Most of our bikes do between 40 and 50mpg, fair? That's just to transport one, or at most two people. An economical car will do 50 or 60mpg and transport five, and their luggage, so in terms of people-miles, a bike comes off pretty badly. While cars have a fair amount of space to put alternative fuel storage (batteries, seperate bio fuel tanks, whatever) a bike doesn't. So the alternative technology had better be small...

Old Scratcher · 01-13-2008

Tyre wear is where the economy argument really falls in a heap, for motorbikes.
It costs the same to put two Michelin Anakee's on my Scrambler, as it does to put four Yokohama low-profile sports tyres on my Suzuki Swift. Only the Scrambler needs new tyres every 6-8000 klms, whereas my car's tyres last for up to 25000 klms.
So the Scrambler will consume $2000 of rubber, to cover the same ground as the Suzuki's $500 worth of tyres.
There has to be a huge fuel advantage for motorbikes, to compensate for that. & unfortunately, there isn't (40-50mpg for the bike vs 35-40mpg for the car).
That's why I only use my bike for fun.
It's wasteful to commute with it, & I'd rather use my car for such mundane tasks (it's cheaper)

Femural · 01-13-2008

I think that one of the biggest challenges that bike makers are going to face is the lack of younger riders, it seems to me that whereas people of my generation used bikes as their first form of transport youngsters now go straight to four wheels and miss out on 2 all together I often wonder what the average age of riders is now compared to say the 70's & 80's?

How often now do you see a teenager or somebody in their early 20's on a bike? and insuring a mid size bike at that age must be almost impossible for em