BMW recall 440,000 bikes....moments of appreciation

[fac191]

I think the other factors were weight (everyone "specialised" press made a big issue out of it) as well as the power....

Funny thing a bout the weight. I find the S10 much easier ro ride than my 800 Triumph Tiger.

 

[fac191]

I would be onboard an Africa Twin DCT should my ST need replacing. Provided Yamaha or someone else has not provided a more appropriate ride. I danced with the devil once having owned 2 Harleys over 10 years. I must admit I loved those bikes. But performance was sub par, and reliability started to become an issue. I describe the s10 to others as the Toyota of motorcycles. My S10 has been the most problem free bike I have ever owned.

On a side note that may have some bearing on future motorcycles, my printer copier scanner is giving me trouble. Giving its age was considering replacing it. There are no decent machines that I can find. They have gotten cheaper and far less reliable. I started out in the 80s and 90 selling computer equipment. The machines offered then were superior. I feel we are entering another period like the 70s. When everything you could buy was shit.

You can't even buy decent Shit now.

 

[RCinNC]

Sometimes I wonder if we are getting over engineered goodies that dazzle but don't really add to the riding experience. Some of you know I recently bought a 2021 Honda Africa Twin. The 6.5 inch touch screen dash board was extremely complicated and hard to navigate. It is also over 1400 buck to replace. I am old and like the old adage of KISS. I like my S10 just the way it is. My daily work truck is 38 years old and has served me well 28 years. I can fix anything on it myself and have numerous times over the years on the side of the road. I owned one BMW and that was an old airhead, which I loved for it simplicity and ruggedness.

Here is a picture of my truck odometer, just gotta keep her alive for two more years!

View attachment 93579

I think that this is where we're all being held hostage to generational changes, not engineering. I'm not going to take gratuitous potshots at Millenials or Gen Z or whatever group we're demonizing now, but anyone born in the 90's has grown up staring at a computer screen with massive information access at their fingertips, and people have had their faces planted into iPhone screens since 2007. Someone in their 20's who is looking at a bike (or a car) doesn't look at this sort of infotainment system the way older dudes do. It's not high tech to them, or a an unnecessary extravagance, and it doesn't matter that it adds an extra layer of complexity. They expect that level of technology and complexity to be present in their vehicle, because it's present in every other aspect of their lives and has been since they were kids. Even their refrigerators are connected. If a 20 or 30 something buyer was looking at a bike and it had an analog speedometer, the bike would look hopelessly outdated to him, regardless of how good the bike was in every other way. Even the LCD displays on the S10 are starting to look very yesterday, compared to the level of tech that's showing up now in just about every vehicle and appliance.

When I started driving in the early 80's, power windows weren't ubiquitous. I don't think I owned a car with them until I bought an 88 Chevy Beretta in 1990. My old man, who was a mechanic, often lived by the mantra of "eh, it's just one more thing to go wrong and break". Can you imagine looking at a modern car with roll up windows now, and not laughing? I can, because a few years back somehow my mother bought a used 2007 Nissan Versa with crank windows. I thought is was hilarious; I hadn't seen them in a car in years, and I certainly never expected to see them in what was, at that time, a fairly modern car. I imagine that's how people way younger than I am react when they see a modern vehicle that doesn't look like it has an iPad bolted inside the instrument pod.

 

[Purificator81]

Start from 1:05 ... as much as he used to sing songs about it....he had to buy a new bike...

 

[RCinNC]

Every failure is a totally isolated incident totally blown out of proportion with no bearing on your experiences...until of course that failure happens to you.

Man, from a BMW to a KLR. I imagine they had to have some kind of ceremony, where he had to stand in front of a formation of BMW owners as witnesses, while a German engineer ceremoniously stripped his official BMW ADV jacket of all its BMW buttons and patches while the band plays Deutschland Uber Alles.....

 

[WJBertrand]

I think that saying about added features just being another thing to break comes mostly from the pis poor quality of American cars before the Japanese scared them. As customers we knew no better so either accepted that or avoided extra features. The Japanese cars came with all sorts of options and standard equipment that just didn’t break the way they did in American cars. Cars overall are much better in reliability these days. Not to say there aren’t the occasional lemons now and again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Purificator81]

I think that this is where we're all being held hostage to generational changes, not engineering. I'm not going to take gratuitous potshots at Millenials or Gen Z or whatever group we're demonizing now, but anyone born in the 90's has grown up staring at a computer screen with massive information access at their fingertips, and people have had their faces planted into iPhone screens since 2007. Someone in their 20's who is looking at a bike (or a car) doesn't look at this sort of infotainment system the way older dudes do. It's not high tech to them, or a an unnecessary extravagance, and it doesn't matter that it adds an extra layer of complexity. They expect that level of technology and complexity to be present in their vehicle, because it's present in every other aspect of their lives and has been since they were kids. Even their refrigerators are connected. If a 20 or 30 something buyer was looking at a bike and it had an analog speedometer, the bike would look hopelessly outdated to him, regardless of how good the bike was in every other way. Even the LCD displays on the S10 are starting to look very yesterday, compared to the level of tech that's showing up now in just about every vehicle and appliance.

When I started driving in the early 80's, power windows weren't ubiquitous. I don't think I owned a car with them until I bought an 88 Chevy Beretta in 1990. My old man, who was a mechanic, often lived by the mantra of "eh, it's just one more thing to go wrong and break". Can you imagine looking at a modern car with roll up windows now, and not laughing? I can, because a few years back somehow my mother bought a used 2007 Nissan Versa with crank windows. I thought is was hilarious; I hadn't seen them in a car in years, and I certainly never expected to see them in what was, at that time, a fairly modern car. I imagine that's how people way younger than I am react when they see a modern vehicle that doesn't look like it has an iPad bolted inside the instrument pod.

Generational evolution is a normal phenomenon and as you said there is no reason to be judgemental against or for any generation because it is like a rule of nature....the issue start when the fundamentals are left aside for matters that are considered secondary....there we loose substance and we become superficial in our thought process... if only we could, irrespective of the generation, focus on the fundamentals first then car about the rest may be things will look a bit better...

 

[Purificator81]

I think that saying about added features just being another thing to break comes mostly from the pis poor quality of American cars before the Japanese scared them. As customers we knew no better so either accepted that or avoided extra features. The Japanese cars came with all sorts of options and standard equipment that just didn’t break the way they did in American cars. Cars overall are much better in reliability these days. Not to say there aren’t the occasional lemons now and again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I was thinking about Lexus with all its features yet extreme reliability...I think I will put it this way for features: "if it is ABSOLUTELY RELIABLE and could be useful/fun then why not"

 

[RCinNC]

If your theory is that fundamentals are being left aside for matters considered secondary, then you have to define what a motorcycle's fundamentals are. I bet you'd find a broad range of what people consider a fundamental design necessity in a bike, depending on who you were asking, and that one of those fundamentals very well might be connectivity.

I think ABS brakes on a street bike are a fundamental necessity. They represent a significant leap in safety over standard brakes, partly because of efficiency and partly because they make up for variations in the skill level of riders. Yet you'll easily find people on motorcycle forums who'll look at ABS the same way someone would look at the instrument cluster on a new KTM; that they aren't a necessity, that in my day we learned to ride the right way and didn't need them, that they're just one more techy thing to go wrong. Some people will say that fuel injection is a fundamental, and yet you'll find lots of guys who pine for the days of carbs, and say things like "wait'll that fancy fuel injection system fails you in the wilds of Patagonia".

What fundamental qualities do you think are being ignored in favor of matters that are considered secondary, and what are these secondary matters?

 

[RCinNC]

I think that saying about added features just being another thing to break comes mostly from the pis poor quality of American cars before the Japanese scared them. As customers we knew no better so either accepted that or avoided extra features. The Japanese cars came with all sorts of options and standard equipment that just didn’t break the way they did in American cars. Cars overall are much better in reliability these days. Not to say there aren’t the occasional lemons now and again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I very much agree. I remember cars from the malaise years of American design in the 70's, and they were produced with the attitude of "this is what's available to you, so you'd better learn to adjust your expectations". Could anyone look at a 1977 Cordoba and believe for a second that it was someone's absolute best effort? Japanese innovation forced American companies to catch up or die, and they opted to catch up.

Other than from an aesthetic design standpoint, I have zero nostalgia for the "good old days" of cars and motorcycles. I know a lot of great stories start with that time you tore down your Triumph Bonneville in the parking lot of a motel to fix some problem, but I'll take a bike that is much more complex (and difficult to repair at the roadside), but simply doesn't break down. In 91,000 miles my Yamaha has left me stranded once, and that was because of a battery failure, not a bike failure. It's absolutely a reasonable concept now that a motorcycle can easily last til 100,000 miles with decent maintenance and without suffering a catastrophic failure; could that be honestly said about a bikes from the 1970's?

And it's definitely true that all of these advances haven't weeded out the lemons; designers, even with all the advances in technology, are still quite capable of producing absolute shit.

 

[Purificator81]

If your theory is that fundamentals are being left aside for matters considered secondary, then you have to define what a motorcycle's fundamentals are. I bet you'd find a broad range of what people consider a fundamental design necessity in a bike, depending on who you were asking, and that one of those fundamentals very well might be connectivity.

I think ABS brakes on a street bike are a fundamental necessity. They represent a significant leap in safety over standard brakes, partly because of efficiency and partly because they make up for variations in the skill level of riders. Yet you'll easily find people on motorcycle forums who'll look at ABS the same way someone would look at the instrument cluster on a new KTM; that they aren't a necessity, that in my day we learned to ride the right way and didn't need them, that they're just one more techy thing to go wrong. Some people will say that fuel injection is a fundamental, and yet you'll find lots of guys who pine for the days of carbs, and say things like "wait'll that fancy fuel injection system fails you in the wilds of Patagonia".

What fundamental qualities do you think are being ignored in favor of matters that are considered secondary, and what are these secondary matters?

Ok let me break it down into steps to may be explain better what I wanted to mean by fundamentals:

1- what category of riding? Adventure
2- what is adventure: exploring places that may be very remote taking road that are not suitable for all bikes hence the need for adventure bike designed for such activities
3- why adventure riding: a form of unwinding, reconnecting, with nature, feeling of freedom, etc..
4- what are the risks that such riding style entails: different risks including breakdown risks...
5- what is the bike that can satisfy 1 to 4 above? A bike that can enable me doing all these with the least probability of breakdown...while providing the fundamentals needed to have a fun, enjoyable experience:
1- basic stuff: adequate fuel tank size, proven engine, (chain vs shaft is a matter of taste as long as both are reliable), sitting position/comfort, load capacity,
2- safety: due to the size of the s10 for instance, ABS and TC are good to have as do not raise reliability issues, crashbars because falling is a matter of when, etc
3- fun: here it is a matter of individual tastes but as I mentioned in a previous post: the guiding principle is that as long as it does not increase the breakdown risk then spoile yourself! For me electronic suspension is not a must, cruise control is nice to have as I does not create reliability issues, navigation, music, etc..

I am not suggesting that we need to go back to the technology of the 80s...but more of sticking to proven technology from reliable manufacturers when it comes to adventure riding because the fundamental here is living the adventure and the key first requirement is to do it with a reliable machine

 

[RCinNC]

I think those bikes exist now, Purificator. We're riding one. The V-Strom is one. The Africa Twin. The Versys 300. KLR650. We're living in a time where something as niche as adventure riding has way more choices than I would have thought possible. I could go on, but I think my gist is clear. If the bikes are lacking in some areas, like fuel capacity, there are aftermarket solutions for that, especially for the bikes with long production histories like the DR650 and the DR-Z400.

I'm not entirely clear on a motorcycle that has a secondary characteristic that's emphasized over a fundamental one that illustrates your point; can you clarify that with an example?

I would certainly dispute that high tech components increase the breakdown risk, unless of course they're poorly made high tech components. They may increase the difficulty of a roadside repair, primarily because those type of components aren't made to be fixed, they're made to be replaced when they fail, and riders rarely carry a spare ECU they way they might have carried a spare set of points. If that component rarely fails, however, its difficulty in repair isn't really a critical factor. I don't for a minute believe that a modern ECU with electronic ignition and fuel injection is less reliable than a mechanically driven distributor with points and a carburetor.

 

[Purificator81]

I think those bikes exist now, Purificator. We're riding one. The V-Strom is one. The Africa Twin. The Versys 300. KLR650. We're living in a time where something as niche as adventure riding has way more choices than I would have thought possible. I could go on, but I think my gist is clear. If the bikes are lacking in some areas, like fuel capacity, there are aftermarket solutions for that, especially for the bikes with long production histories like the DR650 and the DR-Z400.

I'm not entirely clear on a motorcycle that has a secondary characteristic that's emphasized over a fundamental one that illustrates your point; can you clarify that with an example?

I would certainly dispute that high tech components increase the breakdown risk, unless of course they're poorly made high tech components. They may increase the difficulty of a roadside repair, primarily because those type of components aren't made to be fixed, they're made to be replaced when they fail, and riders rarely carry a spare ECU they way they might have carried a spare set of points. If that component rarely fails, however, its difficulty in repair isn't really a critical factor. I don't for a minute believe that a modern ECU with electronic ignition and fuel injection is less reliable than a mechanically driven distributor with points and a carburetor.

Ok here is the list of what I think is secondary and just increases the risk of breakdown of failures:

1- Fob key: many friends get stuck either because they lost one on the road
2- electronic suspension: many BMWs come to my friend's mechanic shop to replace it because it fails
3- quickshift
4- telelever which failed and caused injuries for so many riders
5- drive shaft (unless really reliable)
6- too much driving modes (rain, sand, snow, dynamic, tired, no coffee mode, beer mode, sleep mode,, heavy meal mode, ...like seriously??
7- controlling navigation from the handlers bar while riding: for me it is a bit of a risky proposition to stare for too long on a screen while riding...
8- electronic centerstand
9- TFT screen: I am not sure yet about this but I am just wondering what if it breaks: you would have zero control on the bike without a display screen

 

[RCinNC]

I think that there's a fundamental difference in our opinions regarding technology. Yours seems to be "complicated=unreliable", and I don't agree with that. I do agree that "unreliable=unreliable". I don't think anyone would dispute that the old 1960's Lucas electrical systems on motorcycles weren't that complex, but they are certainly legendary for being temperamental, with that "leave you stranded by the roadside" quality.

A lost keyfob is no different than a lost regular type key: either way, you aren't starting your bike without it.

Our Super Teneres have a version with electronic suspension. I don't believe I've ever heard anyone on here have a failure of one, but certainly there might have been. There certainly haven't been enough failures for it to become a known issue. I wonder how many trouble-free miles have been logged over the years on the FJR1300 with electronic suspension? For that matter, BMWs have an electronic suspension; I'm aware of some issuess with BMW, but I'm not aware of any issues with that (though again there could be; I'm not focused on the trials and tribulations of BMW in general). And to be honest, what is an electronic suspension aside from a stepper motor that adjusts damping and preload, with some software to control it? Maybe there are more complicated systems than that, that I'm not aware of, but that seems to be how the S10 works.

I've never had a bike with a quickshifter. Since I don't know much about them, I'll have to leave this in your court; do they have a high failure rate?

I believe that the telelever is a proprietary suspension system designed by BMW; it's certainly not in general use among motorcycle manufacturers. The fact that it had problems was an issue for BMW and their engineers, not for motorcycles in general. It's an example of what I said earlier; it doesn't matter if the tech is complicated, as long as it's reliable. This wasn't reliable.

Drive shafts are an extremely reliable form of power transmission; that's why they're used on everything from cars to bikes to tractors. The first true motorcycle came out in 1885; the first shaft driven motorcycle was in 1903. They've been putting shaft drives on bikes since the time that bikes still used leather belts for power transfer. I don't think there's any question of their reliability in general, in spite of individual instances of problems.

I don't see the issue with "too many driving modes". Is there an acceptable number of driving modes for a bike, and any more than that is excessive?

I agree with you that technology has created a whole new series of issues with distracted driving. That's been happening ever since cell phones came out, long before even smart phones were developed. It's a huge issue, which I think that only technology coupled with legislation can address. All of these devices have accelerometers and/or GPS; it would be simple to add software to them that would disable certain functions of the devices once they are moving faster than, say, 10 MPH. Like basically, you couldn't make any inputs into the device via the screen if the device was exceeding 10 MPH. That's a tech issue that tech could easily solve.

I haven't bought a new bike since 2014; are electronic centerstands becoming a common accessory installed on motorcycles? Frankly, I see a huge benefit for an electronic centerstand as I get older. If I'm still riding in my 70's, it will be nice not to have to muscle a 700 pound plus bike up onto a centerstand.

With regards to the TFT screen, I have to circle back to my original point; if the technology is reliable, then it's irrelevant if it's complicated. There's already a single device on your bike that, if it breaks, would leave you with zero control of the bike; it's called the ECU. Without that one device operating properly, you aren't going anywhere. Yet motorcyclists confidently log millions of cumulative miles every year, totally dependent on that one device in their bikes to continue operating properly. Now personally, I probably wouldn't choose a brand new bike using brand new tech in its first year of production; I'd prefer that others use their money to do the beta testing. So I do agree with your point; those screens are a new(ish) thing on bikes, and I'd probably want to hear from others who've used them for a while before I was confident in them. There seems to be more than a few reports on line of problems with KTM TFT screens, but that doesn't mean that Honda or Yamaha wouldn't take that same concept and make it stone axe reliable.

 

[WJBertrand]

If your theory is that fundamentals are being left aside for matters considered secondary, then you have to define what a motorcycle's fundamentals are. I bet you'd find a broad range of what people consider a fundamental design necessity in a bike, depending on who you were asking, and that one of those fundamentals very well might be connectivity.

I think ABS brakes on a street bike are a fundamental necessity. They represent a significant leap in safety over standard brakes, partly because of efficiency and partly because they make up for variations in the skill level of riders. Yet you'll easily find people on motorcycle forums who'll look at ABS the same way someone would look at the instrument cluster on a new KTM; that they aren't a necessity, that in my day we learned to ride the right way and didn't need them, that they're just one more techy thing to go wrong. Some people will say that fuel injection is a fundamental, and yet you'll find lots of guys who pine for the days of carbs, and say things like "wait'll that fancy fuel injection system fails you in the wilds of Patagonia".

What fundamental qualities do you think are being ignored in favor of matters that are considered secondary, and what are these secondary matters?

In contrast, I think the fundamentals have been so well covered and solidly reliable (particularly by the Japanese manufactures), that we mostly take the for granted these days. To compete the manufacturers tout their additional features. Can’t really compete on the fundamentals anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[RCinNC]

Like I said in an earlier post, I don't think there's even a universal definition of what a motorcycle's "fundamentals" are. I think that talking about motorcycle fundamentals is sometimes a symptom of nostalgia. It comes down to something like this: "Bikes aren't like they were when I was younger. I grew up being able to adjust my carburetor myself, and replace the points, and it was air cooled and didn't have things like radiators and water pumps. I was comfortable with that tech. I was younger, and learning things was easier. Now I'm older, and bikes are more complicated, and I'm not comfortable with things like fuel injection and fuel pumps and VVT and ABS and TFT etc. And because my comfort level with this newer technology has been exceeded, I long for the days when I had a better understanding of the technology I was using, and felt more in control of it".

Alvin Toffler called it "Future Shock", and wrote a book about it. It basically says that modern changes in society and technology occur at such an accelerated rate that it leaves people in a state of unease and disorientation. And he wrote that book back in 1970, well before the dawn of personal computers, smart phones, and worldwide connectivity.

I certainly feel it myself, probably more in the social framework than the technological, but the tech can be intimidating to someone like me that was born in the mid 60's. And nostalgia is a very pretty powerful drug, and it's pretty normal to long for the days when you were younger, and felt more like you had a handle on things. So eyeing newer technologies with suspicion and distrust is a normal reaction to future shock, and it comes out in ways like "all that newfangled tech is just something that'll break and leave you stranded". That is, at least in some people, a defense mechanism against the unease people feel about change.

 

[Fennellg]

I think technology has improved cars and motorcycles. We use to use points and have to set the timing. We also had to change plugs before 50k. A car now is usually not tuned up till it reaches 120k. Some credit also has to be given to advances in oil and additives that they put in.

When I was a kid, a car with 100k on it was done. It was obtained by kids for a couple hundred bucks. Now a car with 100k on it is usually worth half of what was paid, 200k has become the norm. Good cars or trucks will go 300 - to 500 k. Cars have at least Doubled the old benchmark of 100k. I believe this also holds true for bikes.

Too bad the medical advances have not gone as far. .

 

[Purificator81]

I think that there's a fundamental difference in our opinions regarding technology. Yours seems to be "complicated=unreliable", and I don't agree with that. I do agree that "unreliable=unreliable". I don't think anyone would dispute that the old 1960's Lucas electrical systems on motorcycles weren't that complex, but they are certainly legendary for being temperamental, with that "leave you stranded by the roadside" quality.

A lost keyfob is no different than a lost regular type key: either way, you aren't starting your bike without it.

Our Super Teneres have a version with electronic suspension. I don't believe I've ever heard anyone on here have a failure of one, but certainly there might have been. There certainly haven't been enough failures for it to become a known issue. I wonder how many trouble-free miles have been logged over the years on the FJR1300 with electronic suspension? For that matter, BMWs have an electronic suspension; I'm aware of some issuess with BMW, but I'm not aware of any issues with that (though again there could be; I'm not focused on the trials and tribulations of BMW in general). And to be honest, what is an electronic suspension aside from a stepper motor that adjusts damping and preload, with some software to control it? Maybe there are more complicated systems than that, that I'm not aware of, but that seems to be how the S10 works.

I've never had a bike with a quickshifter. Since I don't know much about them, I'll have to leave this in your court; do they have a high failure rate?

I believe that the telelever is a proprietary suspension system designed by BMW; it's certainly not in general use among motorcycle manufacturers. The fact that it had problems was an issue for BMW and their engineers, not for motorcycles in general. It's an example of what I said earlier; it doesn't matter if the tech is complicated, as long as it's reliable. This wasn't reliable.

Drive shafts are an extremely reliable form of power transmission; that's why they're used on everything from cars to bikes to tractors. The first true motorcycle came out in 1885; the first shaft driven motorcycle was in 1903. They've been putting shaft drives on bikes since the time that bikes still used leather belts for power transfer. I don't think there's any question of their reliability in general, in spite of individual instances of problems.

I don't see the issue with "too many driving modes". Is there an acceptable number of driving modes for a bike, and any more than that is excessive?

I agree with you that technology has created a whole new series of issues with distracted driving. That's been happening ever since cell phones came out, long before even smart phones were developed. It's a huge issue, which I think that only technology coupled with legislation can address. All of these devices have accelerometers and/or GPS; it would be simple to add software to them that would disable certain functions of the devices once they are moving faster than, say, 10 MPH. Like basically, you couldn't make any inputs into the device via the screen if the device was exceeding 10 MPH. That's a tech issue that tech could easily solve.

I haven't bought a new bike since 2014; are electronic centerstands becoming a common accessory installed on motorcycles? Frankly, I see a huge benefit for an electronic centerstand as I get older. If I'm still riding in my 70's, it will be nice not to have to muscle a 700 pound plus bike up onto a centerstand.

With regards to the TFT screen, I have to circle back to my original point; if the technology is reliable, then it's irrelevant if it's complicated. There's already a single device on your bike that, if it breaks, would leave you with zero control of the bike; it's called the ECU. Without that one device operating properly, you aren't going anywhere. Yet motorcyclists confidently log millions of cumulative miles every year, totally dependent on that one device in their bikes to continue operating properly. Now personally, I probably wouldn't choose a brand new bike using brand new tech in its first year of production; I'd prefer that others use their money to do the beta testing. So I do agree with your point; those screens are a new(ish) thing on bikes, and I'd probably want to hear from others who've used them for a while before I was confident in them. There seems to be more than a few reports on line of problems with KTM TFT screens, but that doesn't mean that Honda or Yamaha wouldn't take that same concept and make it stone axe reliable.

I think we both agree, it is just that we express it differently. Before my supertenere I had a versys 650 with no abs, no TC, no center stand, no drive shaft, yet it did not prevent me from enjoying riding though I went down 4 times due to sudden brake and ABS would have been useful...a supertenere looks like a big upgrade for me.

You are correct when you assumed that I was focusing on BMW when listing features with potential issues, probably because the whole post was about a bmw recall and the subsequent videos were demonstrating the issues...other manufacturers have figured it out and indeed developed reliable shaft drives, reliable electronic suspensions and so on...again I had in mind the case of BMW because people were buying it without focusing the primary objectives of doing adventures with a reliable bike..

Each piece of technology has its own development curve and I would certainly not try it at an early stage on an adventure in a remote area...so I also agree with you that I would let someone else pay the expensive price of being a beta tester..

For the Fob key I think I was referring to making some issues with detection or a copy in case you lost one...it is a serious endeavors technically and financially...for my supertenere a locksmith can do the job quickly at about 10 usd...my key does not depend on a battery which means I have to carry an extra battery all the time just in case, or if the key faces any issues in its electronics (detection range issues or if you have a tank bag: see for instance https://www.r1200gs.info/threads/key-fob-in-range-but-not.53611/ )

Quickshifter may not be a big deal in terms of reliability but it requires a certain method of shifting and accelerating in order for it to work....but again, not against it but when I travel I am in no rush...not looking at a finish line and my clock to save few seconds...and I think it is more suitable for sport bikes and spirited driving..

In a nut shell, I think my point is not about complexity but rather reliability that should be driving technology adoption for adventure riding and there is always room to improve our riding experience with features. Yes Yamaha, honda and generally Japanese bikes have been successful in this exercise....at often at a reasonable price point...

 

[Boris]

I thought that in the UK and probably Europe (I’m aware Morocco isn’t in Europe), a replacement key isn’t simple, doesn’t it need to connect with the immobiliser? Is this not the case with Moroccan bikes?

 

[Purificator81]

I thought that in the UK and probably Europe (I’m aware Morocco isn’t in Europe), a replacement key isn’t simple, doesn’t it need to connect with the immobiliser? Is this not the case with Moroccan bikes?

They are the same as the local yamaha dealer imports them from France.
There are different scenarios for handling the key:
1- copy the code with the locksmith so that in future if you need a copy you don't go through the hassle
2- Flash the immobiliser so that it does not require a code to start and you just need a copy of the key (5 $ key cost and 20$ flash cost)
3- make a copy of the key which is 5$ for the key and around 15$ for the chip + code