Silly Season - Blind Loyalty

Before reading, check out the new poll to the right.




Brand Loyalty is something I will never understand.

In fact, I find it silly to think one brand consistently better than others, with the evolution between major changes that each bike receives (think minor changes each year before one major change - it's cyclical), every bike has a good chance of being the top of the heap each year, as bikes late in their evolution are a little old, and bikes new in the evolution aren't tuned just right yet.

Magazines of course make their picks on what you should buy, what you should not buy, and what should be your deciding factor for one bike over another if you're on the fence. But of course most consumers don't care about the reviews in choosing their bike, rather to leap with joy if their favorite brand wins, or defend to the death if it looses.

"Of course, these days it's said all bikes are good..."


Brand Loyalty runs deep among humans, but why? Should you not buy the best bike for that year? At least that way, if a manufacturer makes a bike better suited as a shot put, it will force them to make a better one for next year. If they make a great bike they will be rewarded with lots of sales.

Of course, these days it's said all bikes are good, and that is certainly an understatement. In fact, if all bikes were made to cosmetically look the same, I bet many consumers couldn't tell the difference between one or the other. The great thing about evolution is the best combination and arrangement of parts, materials, geometry, and motor delivery universally finds its way to every bike. Modern bikes are no more than 10% different in any category, if that.

How about mental stigmas? In motocross, confidence and rider impression are easily 90% mental. If you were testing forks for a day like a factory rider, and they told you that this set of forks were 10 percent stiffer than the previous, but changed nothing, you would come back and say you agreed and felt they were ten percent stiffer. Why does Suzuki claim the crown as the best turning bike year in and year out? Certainly it must turn great, but if they can do it, others can copy it, right? Why does Honda still retain the reliability stigma? Let's just say the history of their race four strokes would led any statistician to say otherwise. Do die hard consumers truly feel Honda the most reliable bike? Or do they learn to cope and find it's valve quirks just part of routine ownership?


"We are all like raccoons really..."


The motocross consumer is simple. Sell him a product he already wants, and don't screw up the product. If you do that, you are golden for years to come. So how does one gain new customers, or change consumer perception?

In motocross, it seems impossible! But some things always lure the average Joe. One is new/different than the herd components. We are all like raccoons really, drawn to the shiny object that sparkles only because it's shiny and it sparkles. Don't think yourself better than this! Next time a shiny object glints in the distance, you will realize just how sad we are (Guilty as charged...)!

How about consistent qualities every year that over time change consumer perception. If year in and year out, you make the most reliable bike, eventually people will realize that, and if purchasing for reliability...your golden. But this isn't always true. Because of brand loyalty, public perception and comments are never objective.
Ask a Suzuki man who makes the most reliable bike, and he says Suzuki. As a Kawi man what bike makes the best power, he says Kawi. How can one get an honest opinion?


"When did necessary changes become perfectly acceptable?"


Maybe magazines should come up with a points system and treat motorcycles more like cars. In car magazines, they provide long term tests detailing every expense, be it a washer to a crank.
How cool would it be if a magazine tracked the brand's long term reliability over the years, with every penny spend recorded for every bike. Sure it would be a year behind, but for the next years reviews at least some evidence could be displayed for any claims made.


Also, when did consumers switch from thinking it wrong a stock motorcycle come incorrect -- to thinking it necessary to do suspension when you buy a new motorcycle? Or need to mess with the triple clamp location, or adjust the jetting/efi maps? When did necessary changes become perfectly acceptable?

Shouldn't showroom bikes be correct, stock? Of course modifications can always make a bike better, but the bike shouldn't come blatantly wrong, should it? Suspension should be balanced, jetting correct for a standard altitude and temperature such that it is easy to make corrections for the consumer's altitude and temperature. The tires should be the ones that people want and actually use, not tires that must be trashed to feel safe.


"Magazines need better evaluation procedures."


Now here is the can of worms. Who defines what is right? Of course everyone has their own thought on what feels good and what does not. Also, tires are not universal, right? Jetting is, however, and a simple, easy to use spreadsheet should come with every bike. If it comes stock jetted perfectly for standard altitude and temperature, and you ride at 5000ft above sea level in 60 degree weather, enter it in the spread sheet an out pops the jets you need to run. This spreadsheet is simple, and could be in chart form in any owner's manual.

Magazines need better evaluation procedures. They should have a pool every year that randomly selects subscribers who have filled out a data card with what size bike they ride, what weight they are, and what class they ride. Pool the data, and pick random people for each category typically tested aka speed level, bike size, and even weight range.

The magazine editors are not average consumer, they are not even close to an average consumer. Who says a random guy off the street can tell the difference between two bikes, and if he couldn't then it should prove that most other consumers couldn't.


"Pool the data, and pick random people for each category typically tested aka speed level, bike size, and even weight range."



Read a car and driver for me. After doing so you will realize just how much better their evaluation systems are.

Sure personal feel is important. But getting rid of a person's mental affinity for one brand bike or another is very difficult. Even on a sub conscious level humans like one color better than another, and that has no effect on a bike's feel.
Factory pro's test against the clock. Even if a part feels odd, if they consistently run faster laps with it, it stays on the bike.


Why aren't lap times more important? Shouldn't they at least have some pointed weight in decision making? I can tell you right now, if I rode all the bikes and was consistently faster on the clock with one or the other, trust me, no matter how bad the faster bike feels, I am getting it. I want every advantage when I line up to the gate, shame on you as my competitor if you picked the slower, but better "feeling" bike.

In car racing, the dyno doesn't lie. If the motor makes more average hp (over the range measured for their use) and you turn faster laps with it, even if it feels slower, it stays. In motocross, measured hp is never considered a legitimate comparison category. Last I checked, a dyno is pretty darn repeatable, accurate, and honest.

If you rode two motors done by different companies, and one felt faster than the other, but made significantly less hp, which one would you want to take to the starting gate?

These are questions you ought to ask yourself. But of course always question the data. Sure the peak hp numbers of one bike may be great, but does it make the best hp when your exiting a corner, or shifting to the next gear?

Well, actually, don't ask yourself these questions, I would rather you line up at the starting gate on your your favorite colored bike, while I line up on my fastest lap time, most reliable, or cheapest to own (whatever quality is most important to you) colored bike.



Better for me, don't you think?