|
|
|
Junior Member
 
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/27/2008 10:22:03 PM
Posts: 331,
Visits: 598
|
|
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=541301
Never thought I'd see this. CR has always resisted two wheel evals as they felt they were too dangerous. I guess enough of the mainstream are now riding, well sort of , due to the gas prices. It will be interesting to see what criteria they use. I suspect this might impact motorcycling in other ways.
Phil
Phil
Moriarty, NM
07 BMW K1200R
MOA# 13006
Hummer H3
http://motokoffee.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:18:45 AM
Posts: 405,
Visits: 971
|
|
| It has been many years since they did it, but I can recall two different evaluations of two-wheelers in the pages of Consumer Reports. Remember I am going off memory and do not have the articles on hand. They have also done some limited evaluation of bicycles. One was on mopeds. They tested several, and as I recall they ended up with real-world fuel mileages around 80 mpg. There may have been a four-stroke moped in the lot, but most were two-strokers. They also threw in a Honda 70 cc stepthrough, which got better mileage and went faster than any of the mopeds. Unfortunately, 70 cc makes it a motorcycle, not a moped, so a motorcycle license is needed. The other article reviewed several motorcycles. It wasn't a direct comparison of equivalent-sized similar machines, but more an overlook of what might be expected with different sized machines. The only comment I can recall from it was something to the effect that a good deal of self-discipline was required to keep from hot-rodding motorcycles. Their testers apparently found motorcycles more, ah, "invigorating" than automobiles. Of course none of us have noticed that effect.
Predictions are very difficult, especially about the future.
|
|
|
|
|
Average Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:09:10 PM
Posts: 982,
Visits: 963
|
|
Interesting link Phil. One thing I wonder about when confronted with statistics on motorcycle accidents, especially when percentages are used is this: I have never read any statistic showing accident involvement based on the amount of experience or the amount of training a rider has.
I suspect that a statement like "37% more likely to be involved in an accident than a car" includes all motorcyclists - the untrained newbies, the drinkers, the extremely stupid, etc. If there was a way to eliminate those riders from the statistics I bet the safety percentage would change more favorably for the biker.
Hopefully, if CR does continue with motorcycle reports, they will stress proper training and defensive riding techniques even more than reliability and gas mileage reports.
Now, let me get this right - is it one down, four up?
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/27/2008 10:22:03 PM
Posts: 331,
Visits: 598
|
|
I have absolutely no recollection of CR covering two wheelers. Sorry about that bad info. It would be interesting to see how they approached their evaluations and what they were evaluating.
Rootie, I have to agree, statistics can be as clear as mud. The boneheads that apply the numbers and some of the boneheads that are the numbers make for a really skewed scenario.
The wave of newbies I view with apprehension as they will be making numbers as well.
Phil
Phil
Moriarty, NM
07 BMW K1200R
MOA# 13006
Hummer H3
http://motokoffee.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 6:40:29 AM
Posts: 253,
Visits: 731
|
|
| Several things about CR or any other rating or review publication: 1. How current is their information? By the time CR publishes reviews of particular products, the mftrs have either ceased production of that product or have "improved" it. This is not too big a problem with cars or motorcycles, but should be kept in mind. 2. The other problem with CR or any reviewing publication--"What are it's inherent biases? CR has a set of criteria (possibly unspoken and unacknowledged, but present nonetheless) that determine excellence or a good car or something. Car and Driver and Road and Track have criteria that are markedly different. Car and Driver will give a stunning review to the Mitsubishi Evo while CR may call it an over-priced, over-powered, uncomfortable device designed to fill up vacant Emergency Rooms with with 20-something men. 3. Different outfits even measure things differently: seat height, length, legroom, total volume. Take any review with a grain of salt and apply it to your circumstances. ,
|
|
|
|
|
Average Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 9:59:41 AM
Posts: 880,
Visits: 1,019
|
|
| I had a gift subscription to CR, then I read their mags...and I wanted that subscription to just end real quick. I think I even posted here on something the editor said in that mag. I think it had to do with ATV's and trails, and how they stated something like 5 kids died in NC one year so thus ATV's are bad and should be banned. 5 kids out of how many in NC that ride??? Stuff happens, but the editor seems to hate things like ATV's and motorcycles. Their reviews seem biased. Today in the Internet world I like to read real reviews from everyday people before I buy something. You can usually weed out the "haters" and the people at the company that post over glorified reviews of a product. You get the real down to earth truth about a product. Even at MCN's I bet they are biased too on somethings. Everyone is to a certain extent.
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/26/2008 6:22:03 PM
Posts: 249,
Visits: 85
|
|
I would worry about how knowledgeable CR would be in rating motorcycles. I see their computer reviews (I've been a network engineer buying and supporting lots of pcs, servers and laptops for many years) and they do not impress me.
Even if an MCN reviewer had some bias, at least they would know the subject matter enough to get my respect.
T.L. Wisner
AMA#768367
'05 Suzuki Boulevard C50
|
|
|
| | |