"Funny, never heard anything bad about the rest of the White Star fleet."
Damn dude! The rest?! Isn't one giant mistake bad enough?
My point here is the design of the Titanic didn't sink it. Running it into an iceberg did. And the technology wasn't what killed over 1500 people. It was the lack of sufficient numbers of lifeboats.
"The Edsel...One of THE most collected cars from the late 50's/early 60's. The car was a marketing disaster. Overpricing, quality control and poor styling killed the Edsel, not technological problems."
Bottom line; new technology... and it still didn't make it, did it?
Where's the rap on technology? It was simply a new model of car that bombed due to poor marketing, poor styling and poor workmanship. It's happened before, it's happened since. A more telling argument would have been if you'd used the Corvair as an example, but I guess 40 odd years of Volkswagens and Porsches with air cooled engines and swing axle transmissions would have proved you wrong, huh?
"The Buster Brown Xray shoe machine." " I want some of what you're smoking."
Read your history books. Believe it or not, years ago the xray shoe machine was a "new" technology. Unfortunately it had a tendency to create radiation poisioning.
I'm giving you half a point on this one. I never heard of an xray shoe machine until today. but the limited research I just did (ain't Google wonderful) indicates a technology in use from the early '20s through at least 1970. 50 years of use kind of blows your "unnecessary technology" argument, and I can't seem to find any statistics backing up your assessment the machines "create radiation poisoning."
"35 successful flying years with only 1 fatal accident."
Here's one more techie achievement that didn't continue, and struggled to stay financially afloat. Notice no one is making super-sonic passenger planes any more?
Oh please...there is ongoing research and development underway right now for continued commercial SST ventures. A French/Japanese joint venture. Sukhoi, Lockheed/Martin, Boeing -- all committed to continue the study of SST flight.
"Just what the heck is your point with the examples you provided?"
Simple! Your thread, "Electronic Shift, you're gonna want it!"
Look again, Sparky. This is fjrpilot1945's thread. Not mine. My you do jump to incorrect conclusions.
Points are:
A- Since you haven't driven it, you're guessing will like it.
B- If you want it, go for it, but don't think we're all gonna want it.
C- Not all new technology is so great.
A- I don't personally give a rat's ass if anyone, or everyone, likes it. That's Yamaha's problem, not mine.
B- See a) above, substituting "wants" for "likes"
C- I never once said, nor implied, it was. But, unlike you, I didn't cobble up an argument based on questionable examples to attack new technology.
Personally I think it would make a lot more sense to report on the AE "after" you spend some time on it.
I'm doing no more than anyone else in these non-stop AE threads. I'm speculating on it's operation. Not once have I said it's better than, or will replace, the current state of technology. However, I have pointed out that dismissing it because it IS new technology is rank Luddism, plain and simple.
You've shown us you're capable of that innumerable times.
but I believe that's the way motorcycle magazines recommend most new bikes.
Would these be the same magazines, one of which recently place the FJR dead last out of 5 Sport Touring bikes tested, because the sound of the motor "lacked character"?
Yeah...that's what I'm gonna base MY purchase on...some pinhead author who likes the sound of a V4 over an Inline4.
Here's to hoping the AE is everything you hope it is.
See a) above, this time substituting "hope" for "likes".
Will I purchase an AE? Probably. In a couple of years. Heck, I just got my '04, so I'm in no big hurry to switch. Is the AE concept a risk? Hell yeah -- just look at the incessant "scooter" insults being passed around here. God forbid someone buys one, then has a wreck for ANY reason...you KNOW the autoclutch will be blamed.