Pages: 1
Posted by: freddie889
I agree with holyman, he makes a good point. Often times if something is new, it gets the most press and is deemed "the best". For instance, i believe that our acclaimed Dirtwheels could be guilty of some bias. In the past few months, they have repeatedly compared the raptor and the ds650. They claim the raptor is better because it is smaller and handles better in the woods due to this. That the suspension is better designed and doesn't throw you around like the long travel ds does. However, notice that all the articles they do on hopped up raptors include modifications such as +2 or greater a-arms, +4 rear axles, long-travel suspension all the way around. The only thing i haven't seen yet is a longer swingarm to lengthen the wheelbase, but i'ms sure it is coming. If the raptor is so great, why are they trying to change the so called 'better than factory' version to compare more closely to bombardier's specs? I would hate to accuse them of this, i love dirtwheels. But also in their most recent issue covering the Baja 2000, which vehicle got more press from them. The losing raptor with mechanical failures and junk trannies, or the champion of the race the DS650? And who's advertisement is on the back cover? Though i'm sure it's just a case of misunderstanding.
...Freddie
Posted by: freddie889
dbeck, how could writers not find faults with machines!!!! The banshee is 14 years old and unchanged! The suspension sucks, there's no bottom end, the turn like a tank, and they're too heavy! But when mags review machines that have been around a while, such as the blaster, warrior, or banshee, the article almost always ends with "this is still a great machine capable of tackling anything you can throw at it." my beef is mostly with yamaha because it seems they have more ads in dirtwheels, and you always see reviews of blasters, warriors, or banshees. And they never go in depth into the negative aspects, which all these quads have. I have ridden each one, and i can say that they all are terrible, when you see how manufacturers upgrade dirtbikes. The suspension on all three models sucks, and the blaster has no power! The only reason they sell is because only one is a peformance two stroke, one is cheap, and the other seems like a good quad to people who don't know any better. I would say lately the magazines have been biased to yamaha, especially since the raptor.
...freddie
Posted by: freddie889
I agree with you completely, holyman. It really makes you wonder, too. When the same manufacturers are making improvements to dirtbikes such as hydraulic clutches and electronic fuel injected carbs, why can't we see the same improvements on quads?! Dirtbikes nowadays are state of the art, compared to the old dual-shock thumpers that once ruled the tracks. And yet quads are still based on designs created in the 80's. What's the difference between say the first performance quad(85 lt250) and the 400ex? Longer travel suspension and electric start. That's about it. New technology and components are just not being used in performance quads. However, Bombardier has taken a step in the right direction, as the DS has i feel excellent equipment such as suspension and ball joints and a 530 chain and so on. But it is still the same old. Perhaps when or if Cannondale comes out with the FX400, other manufacturers will be forced to include electric fuel injection and drop out engines and trick aluminum frames just to keep up with sales. What we really need is one manufacturer to set the bar for the other companies to clear, and then maybe we will see excellent, up-to-date quads that need little improvement from the factory.
....freddie
Posted by: freddie889
Holyman....exactly. That's what i said, until somone comes along with drastic changes, quads will stay the way they are. Why spend money trying to improve a product when it sells. They have basically no competition. Everyone else is selling the same bikes when you get down to it. Why should yamaha change? We know they won't because they still continue to sell the banshees. Despite the fact they are a 13 year outdated design, they are the only two-stroke performer. They'll sell no matter what. Until we see another two stroke machine i doubt we will see any changes in the banshee.
Posted by: cstark
There is no doubt in my mind that DirtWheels magazine lives and dies off the profits of advertising. But I don't think that the ATV manufactures make or break them. It's all of the mail-order parts distributors that advertise on every-other page throughout the magazine that rake in the green stuff for DW. You can't even read an article on two consecutive pages without having too flip through all of the aftermarket parts ads. Even the last 10 pages of the magazine are all small ads.
No doubt(Honda, Yamaha, Polaris, etc)all have ads in ATV magizines. But I think companies like DG, Rocky Mountain ATV, WhiteBrother's, Golden West Cycle, etc, all have more of an effect on DW than anything else does.
Just my opinion.
Posted by: dbeck
I know all of the print magazine Editors and speaking for them, as well as for our magazine, I can tell you that IN MY PERSONAL OPINION I don't believe what you read is biased by advertising. I believe that you see varying levels of knowledge reflected in the articles in the print mags and thus you may wonder about certain reviews. Also, opinions will change as you gain more experience with a particular machine. So if you read something written three months ago and compare it with a current article the author's views may have changed.
Our only bias in regards to advertising is related to product reviews. If we are reviewing a PRODUCT (not the quad) such as, for example, a pull-behind plow, we would choose to pull the plow with a Honda over a Yamaha if Yamaha is not an advertiser. Since in this situation the ATV is NOT the focus of the story, we can help our advertisers without sacrificing our journalistic integrity.
When we review an ATV, we print honest opinions (not influenced by advertising) of the machine. I would hope, and would like to assume, that the print rags do the same.
Posted by: dbeck
One addendum in regards to why you may not often read a bad review of an ATV. The quality of all ATVs has gotten to the point where it is sometimes difficult to find something bad to say about an ATV. And we look for bad things to report!
We try to do non-typical things to find out weaknesses in a machine. For example, wind the quad out at full speed in third gear then slam the shifter into second and see if the tranny does anything weird. Most people won't downshift that hard, but it is generally the non-typical stresses that permit weaknesses to surface.
Also, when you own an ATV and you ride it day in and day out, you'll find some of the things you don't like just because of the amount of seat time you have with the machine. If we're at an intro and have, say, 7 hours to test a machine, we may not have enough time to really discover problems. Or, if the ride location doesn't offer a good testing ground we may not find some things. Our best reviews are the in-depth reviews where we have a machine for a month to put it through it's paces.
Anyway, the above is my personal opinion for what it's worth.
Posted by: dbeck
That's interesting. Our research says that the primary source of ATV information for most people is now the Internet. So apparently you're not alone in cancelling your subscriptions! I do believe that our forums are the best source of ATV information anywhere. Because the combined experience and knowledge of the 15,000 people who use the forums is significant. It's all of you who use the forums that really contribute a lot of information to the general pool of ATV knowledge.
I can't speak to the other magazine's policies. All I can relate is my personal experience with the other editors and that's what I based my comments upon.
Posted by: CaptNemo
ABSOLUTELY !!!!
In one article, they will complain that the Polaris Scrambler is too wide, too long of wheelbase, etc. and on the next page, another article by the same author, telling about how the Banshee or TRX 400ex wasn't stable enough.
GUESS WHAT THEY DID !!! They put longer A-Arms and swingarms on the quad !!! and made it just as long and wide as the Scrambler !!! ATV Sport magazine seems about the best of the other rags when it comes to being impartial. The worst case in ATV Sport of putting the screws to Polaris was on their Glamis shootout article they took a Banshee, a TRX 400ex, a DS650 and a 500 Scrambler 4X4 !!! What's the matter guys, couldn't you find a 500 Sportsman to drag out to the dunes. The SC 500 4X4 is an outstanding woods quad when mud and poor conditions are expected. The Scrambler 400 2X4 would have been a much better choice for the dunes.
It's nice to see responsable reporting in the media....
Posted by: snowshark
Most successful magazines make there money off of adverisers. The subscribers is just bonus money.
You KNOW that money DOES bias these magazines. Then again what does money NOT bias? NOTHING
:O
Posted by: DrRod
Greetings,
Cstark makes an interesting point -- there really aren't that many ads for quads in the magazines. If you look at Successful Farming or Progressive Farmer magazine, you'll find a full page ad from each major manufacturer nearly every month. DirtWheels et al actually have a lot fewer such ads. And Honda usually runs an ad for "Stupid Hurts" instead of using the space for an ATV.
Posted by: ttaylor
I would have to say that the riders are more biased than the magazine itself. Remember it is the riders that are doing the testing. I don't think the magazine tells them how to rate the bikes. (I could be wrong).
It just blows my mind that all the other companies come out with big improvements to their machines (listening to the consumer) and yet Honda doesn't change a thing and they still win the shootout???? Go figure...
You take a look at the Honda machines they are all air cooled while other manufactures have gone to either an oil or liquid cooled machine. Honda has drum brakes. Others have gone to disc brakes which are much better at stopping you and require less maintenance. Polaris even put stainless steel braided brake lines on their 2001 models. This is a $200 upgrade to any other machine. Honda has the shortest suspension travel of almost any machine out there. Honda has done nothing to improve on their 4 wheel drive system while other manufactures have come out with a selectable system. Honda has some of the smallest gas tanks while others have installed a 5 gallon tank. Honda has only one automatic transmission while other manufactures offer an automatic in several sizes. Oher manufactures machines are wider and longer than Honda's offering a safer ride for the consumer. The only thing testers brag about on the Honda is its erganomics.
With all the better quality stuff the other manufactures offer on their machines for a lower price than Honda. Honda still wins the shootout. You can sit there and tell me that, that isn't being biased!!! Well, tell me what is!!!! What makes a machine great!!! certainly not the things that I have mentioned because Honda is lacking in all the above categories, yet they still are on top when it comes to shootouts.
I guess ergonomics is what makes an ATV. Well not for me.
Every manufacture makes a quality machine. I just feel the other companies offer a bigger bang for your buck!!! With the Honda you are buying a name, Everyone else your buying the goods!!!
Just my two cents worth!!
Posted by: ttaylor
I would like to say that I have been in the ATV industry since 1985. My first quad was a Suzuki 185 Quadrunner.
Now, how can you sit there and tell me that ATV's don't get any R&D. This ATV had a solid rear axle/swingarms. So, there was no rear suspension. It had about 3" of travel in the front. It was an air cooled motor. It ran about an 8" front tire and an 22" rear. This thing had terrible understeering. But I loved every minute on it. Look what we ride today compared to that. 500cc Liquid cooled auto tranny, 8" of suspension travel, fully independent suspension, selectable 2wd/4wd, and electric start. If that isn't R&D then what is???
The Utility ATV Market has out sold the motorcycle industry for many years now. That's where the R&D money is spent. Todays utility ATV is light years ahead compared to my first quad.
The reasons you still haven't seen the improvements in the sport side is not because of the manufactures. It was because of us!! It was an agreement between the manufactures and the CPSC (consumer protection safety council). This agreement came about from all of the lame asses that went out and bought a sport quad. On there way to the dunes they picked up a few 12 packs and left their riding gear home. When they were killed or severly maimed because of their lack of intellegence. They turned to their trusty lawyer to make them feel better with lots of money from the ATV manufacture, land owner, or who ever else they could blame.
In addition to this we had the news media trying to keep their ratings. So they sent out very uninformed news reporters (Barbara Walters, and others like her) to do a story about the dangers of ATV's. Her highly edited and highly biased films hit the national primetime tv screen. Many people paniced and refused to allow their children ride on such dangerous machines, called their senator and congressman and demanded action.
From the sharp increase in accidents, news coverage, and elected officials seeking another term. The CPSC came out and banned the sale of three wheelers and put a moritorium on the production of new sport ATV's. It has only been recently that this moritorium has been lifted. That's why you see the increase in new sport quads today.
Trust me, big brother is watching to see if we can handle ourselves with these new machines adorned with all the red and yellow warning stickers, reminding us of the days of old!!!!
Like dave said they have tested and retested the same sport quads over and over. Why keep bashing the "old news", it doesn't sell. To sale things they have to come up with new things to say about an old bike. Thats why Dave said they have to be creative in their testing!!! Finding ways to keep the reader interested and their subscriptions numbers up.
The thing I was dissappointed to see dave say was that these test riders didn't know much about ATV's and because of their lack of experience and knowledge couldn't truely test a machine with only a few hours of seat time. So, the reason we get crappy unenlightening reviews is from lack of knowledge and experience by the test rider!!!! maybe they ought to find someone more experienced in riding to do the reviews???
Whoever mentioned the fact the dirt bike mags tell it like it is and ATV mags don't. Well, to burst your bubble they are owned by the same company!!!!! So, are you saying that the company would try and increase it sales in one division and not another???? That makes a lot of business sense there!!!! (sarcasim intended)
You are right about the manufacture has recouped its R&D costs from the old sport bikes they just haven't recouped the money from all the law suits filed against them!!! BR>
Well, thats my two cents!!!
Posted by: ttaylor
Holyman,
you need to seperate sport ATV's from Utility ATV's because of the different reasons production was stopped or not. Remember the moritorium I mentioned thats why you haven't seen any improvements in the sport market.
Utility market has come a long way in what is being offered to the consumer. Granted it isn't the latest technology. My comparison with the 185 was a generalization of what was offered back then to what is being offered today. you have asked me to take a look over the last 15 years to see the vast improvements in engine technoloy. That was one point I was trying to make. Today we have liquid cooled 4 stroke motors that are so realiable they last for years.
With the 185 comparison I was trying to show the vast improvements over the last 15 years. We have so many great improvements to the ATV's since their introdcution back then. Why they weren't introduced with all the suspenion goodies, I don't know. Cost of production back then could have eliminated the quads from the market. Would you have paid $6,000 for a quad back then? I doubt it. They probably wanted to introduce them to the market at a reasonable price that people could afford. $1,800 was the price back then. If I remember correctly
I didn't say that many of these ideas were invented with the ATV's I know we had snowmobiles, and variable speed trannies.
You are right it is taking a while for these ideas to be incorporated into the ATV market.
Look at fuel injection, how long has it been around? Why did it take a bicycle company to bring it to the motorcycle and ATV market? I don't know. There is probably a hundred different reasons why the manufacturers haven't brought that technology to the market. The competition is getting stronger and that usually will drive the companies to offer better products at a cheaper price.
Brand loyalty probably plays a big part too. Look at Honda. They haven't done a bloody thing to improve their machines and yet they still hold about 40% of the market share of total sales.
Posted by: ttaylor
Holyman,
The biggest size motor was a 250cc. But it still had no rear suspension. It wasn't until 86 or 87 that the utility quads started coming out with a rear suspension. but still the shock travel was limited to about 3-4 inches. Liquid cooled motors appeared in 85 on ATV's but they were two strokes. All the utility ATV's had four stroke motors. I could be wrong but I don't think the first liquid cooled 4 stroke motors started until around the early 90's.
I agree with you totally that the technology has been extremely slow in coming to the ATV markets. All I am saying is that it has progressed. It may not be at the speed that we want but it has improved greatly since the introduction of ATV's.
Posted by: ttaylor
Bob,
Oaky,
1) How many years has other manufactures been producing water cooled motors, It has taken Honda until the 2001 model release to figure it out?
2)Disc brakes aren't always better? when? Why do all cars have them on the front? The front has atleast 60% of the stopping power, Disc brakes get the job done more efficiently, keep cooler, and cost less.
3)suspension travel is not in the length? I guess you have never ridden a machine with aftermarket shocks!!! The difference is night and day. I ought to find that old suzuki we owned and let you take it for a spin. I bet you will be saying shocks make a lot of difference. If they don't make a difference then why do all the off-road enthusiasts run longer than stock shocks? It's to soak up the bumps!!! ATV's are the same.
4) I guess increasing market share is not a good sign what consumers want?
5)gee, we agree on something hehehehe LOL isn't it a pain to have to haul extra fuel on all day rides? :)
6)Again same point as number 1 why has it taken so long. Polaris has been doing since 1986.
7) I wasn't comparing Honda with Honda. I was comparing Honda with everyone else.
8) I think this comes down to personal preception. I have ridden other machines and been around enough to see that other manufacutres are just as dependable and have just as good of quality as the Honda. I think we agree on this point too!!!! :)
9)I agree with you on the price issue, but its not necessarily a lower price you are paying. it's what you are getting for the same dollars. Other machines are offering newer technology and many additional features and accessories for the same price as the Honda. Again personal preference. I would prefer to buy another machine and feel like I am getting more of a machine than just a sticker on the side that says a certain name.
Posted by: ttaylor
Okay, I agree to your exagerated point about the shock travel. However The length of the shock does play an important role in either softening the landings from a jump or just keeping the wheels on the ground in rough terrain. If I had a quad with only 5" of shock travel vs. one with 7" going over a curb at a 45 degree angle the one with 5" of travel is going to lift the other wheel off the ground causing the bike to be tipsy. On the other hand a quad with 7" of travel in the same situation will allow both wheels to remain in contact with the ground.
So, shock length does play an important role. I also understand that there is more to a shock than just length that helps it perform its duties.
I also understand that increasing shock travel does raise the center of gravity of the machine. This would be the only reason I can see as to why a shock with less travel would be better.
Posted by: MNT
"That's interesting. Our research says that the primary source of ATV information for most people is now the Internet."
Well of course it is, when you ask an Internet guy.
Posted by: MNT
"Since in this situation the ATV is NOT the focus of the story, we can help our advertisers without sacrificing our journalistic integrity."
True, the ATV is not the focus but, you are biased in what machines are used and seen on this site?
In the front 2001 Traxter article the writer states:
"We're not renouncing our basic view that the Traxter remains one of the best (if not the best) 4x4 on the market."
"if not THE best", really?!
Sounds like a little advertising bias if you ask me. Or, your writer has no idea what "the best" is. There's no doubt that most would pick a Ruby or Sportsman as THE best out right now. Haven't even seen or heard a mention from your writers on Polaris machines - like test or product articles we've read in the past on here. Maybe some bias here just like most places in the world.
Posted by: Holyman
It could be that they WANT Honda advertising and that's why the Honda got top billing. Check next months issue and see if Honda isn't on every page. You might also notice that in general the quad of the day gets good reports. If it's new it's the best. When people go out and buy hundreds of them then the truth comes out that the quad is a newer version of something old and isn't really faster or better than what you got rid of to get it. All of us like to get new things and to some, the fact that something is new is worth a certain amount of money. However the manufacturers have not made the awesome improvements that they are capable of making and the prices for "new" quads is rediculous compared to other machines and the improvements that have been made in those machines. I think if the quad riding public boycotted the magazines for 1 months worth of issues the message would come across that we are tired of status quo.
Posted by: Holyman
I think the magazines would love to blame the over zealous reviews on the riders but then again the riders work for the magazines! There's an old saying "you don't mess where you eat". None of these guys are gonna...A- overly critisize their meal ticket and ...B- overly critisize the advertisers small or large. If the manufacturers made a decent product a person would not need the pipes, reeds, heads, radiators, tires, suspension etc to make it worth riding.
We keep buying the inadequate stock quads and then we pour thousands of dollars into them to make them into what we want. The only ones getting the dirty end of the stick is US, the consumer, not the mags, not the aftermarket products makers. The magazines run a business namely to sell magazines. They get paid from advertisers. The advertisers get charged per the market they appeal to. If we buy the quads and the mags we perpetuate our own victimization.
Posted by: Holyman
dbeck...this is one dance you may have been better sitting out. You almost had me convinced then you added your addendum. I will take you at your word that the writers you are familiar with have the utmost integrity, but I cannot see anywhere that any writer even with as little as an hour on a machine cannot find blazing examples of vehicle flaw. Even when writers say something like "I didn't like the exact position of the highbeam switch on this quad" they are really not getting to the meat of the issue. As a whole the performance, fit and finish of the "modern" quad is stagnant at best! I am only going to speak to the quad I have; a 99 Banshee. I have been back into quadding for not even a year after 15 years out of the sport. The quads are esentially unchanged. Are they more durable, faster, cheaper [same old machines been pumping the same quads out for over a decade, the machines gotta be paid for by now]? The answer is NO! I'm sure that there is significant competition between magazines and therefore magazine A is not gonna put up a stink that the Banshee still has a lousy frame, the same motor, and the worlds most rediculous chain tightener ever imagined; while magazine B says the grips on the Banshee aren't the greatest but the rest of it kicks all other quads butts! What manufacturer is gonna spend their money on a mag that rips them for having done nothing for the consumer? I can't think of one.
Just to give you an idea how starved the public is for a new, reliable, attractive quad think of this... why would someone spend 35 bucks on a shiney brake reservoir cover? because everyone else has the same cookie cutter quad as everyone else. Why would someone spend 600+ dollars for new A arms? because Yamaha is still putting the same old tinfoil ones on the new quads they had on 'em when they first came out. Why haven't the magazines made it a point to show that this stuff isn't worth that kind of money? Because they take money from the guys that sell this overpriced aftermarket stuff too. And the accessories sell mags as much as the full page manufacturers ads do.
I guess the readers should know better. When they talk about a new quad that's coming out, they call it a "review". In a few more years I will be able to walk into a dealer and buy a new Banshee for my kid that is just like mine that is just like the one my dad had and his father and his father and his father...and I'm sure the magazines will say it's the kick buttnest thing out, until the next issue.
Posted by: Holyman
I guess it's a matter of preaching to the choir. If you've already got people that are gonna buy your goods why tell them again to buy your goods? This even adds to the suspicion that alot of the rediculuosly good reviews are from under the table arrangements. A quad magazine is not gonna be picked up by some middle aged housewife in the burbs just so she can check it out. A person that buys the mag is either hoping against hope that something new is really coming out [like they make you think on the cover]or is looking for an aftermarket suppliers address to make a purchase.
How often to they do product by product comparisons on quads in the farming mags? I would think not often if ever. So a manufacturer has to get their name out there or get buried by the competition.
The quad mags have the manufacturers on each cover! How could you ask for better advertising?! And each issue tells how much better than last issue the quads are getting.
I'd really like to know about the test riders too. What kind of quads do they actually personally own? If they don't actually own their own quad then they can't be trusted to give an accurate assessment of a quad any more than a parking lot car jockey can evaluate cars.
I have another challenge for the powers that be of this forum...
If you really want to know what we think about our quads then add another page that will allow us to post our problems that we have with our own quads so that manufacturers [that supposedly read these from time to time] can see in detail what's going on.
To avoid overlap and brand bashing a person would have to indicate a certain amount of the VIN of their vehicle [ie last 5 digits] when posting. And you could add a page that lists product recalls [as if] showing the great integrity of the manufacturers.
This, I think, would help us all get some of the real world problems with our quads out in the open, all listed concisely in one place, and help the manufacturers live up to the promise that they imply, namely, concern for their beloved customers. This way when I go to buy a quad I can look at the problems page and do a search for Banshees, read all the problems, then look to the recall page and see what Yamaha has done about it BEFORE I make a purchase!
What do you say dbeck?
Posted by: Holyman
ttaylor...can we compare apples to apples for a moment? Hopefully you were joking when compared your old Suzuki 185 to your 500 you drive now. The atc 250R I had back then became the trx 250R with the addition of another wheel and a radiator. I'm not going to get into the whole mine is better than yours thing but I gotta say if quads are that much better today than they were back then we should be saying "what is a 250R ?".
As far as displacement goes when was the Quadzilla introduced?
And when did snowmobiles come out with automatics? I had a 1972 Skidoo that had one.
And as far as automatic transmissions go I had a 1954 Pontiac Chieftain with an automatic transmission. It shouldn't take 40 years to migrate that technology. Oh and Model T's had reverse and really they had some sort of a 2 speed automatic. Now we're going back 80+ years.
Look at engine technology over the years between any 15 year period and you will see VAST improvements in power, durability, and or price. As I've said before, even my riding mower has improved by leaps and bounds in 15 years. Ask yourself what kept the manufacturers from improving the machines they made even then i.e. no suspension on the quads?
I think lack of sales and brand loyalty. I think what keeps quads in the dark ages is booming sales and brand loyalty. The only ATV I've seen that is actually impressive is the Drakart and you can see they are just now coming into the American market. Hopefully they will begin making quads that are more like the ones you sit on instead of in. Then watch the big companies scramble to make changes. They'll be pulling technology from every drawer and closet to make up for what they're losing out on.
Posted by: Holyman
ttaylor...again I don't think we are comparing apples to apples. Was the top of the line utility quad back then the 185? I don't think so. Although I was not shopping for a utility at the time so I defer to you. And again when was the first liquid cooled quad made? Maybe 1986? It can't be said that suspension was not on off road vehicles since dirt bikes had 'em for years before 1985 and the 250R was fully suspended by then. I'm sure at the time the prevailing thought was that utility quads were to get to and from the back 80 without taking the truck or tractor, thus more convenience and maneuverability. Most of the sales wasn't directed to people rock climbing and jumping them I would imagine. I also understand that the advent of reverse was right around then too.
So all in all I'm not impressed with the so-called progress of quads over the last decade and a half.
Posted by: Holyman
I guess from what you're saying utility quads have made steady, yet slow, upward progress from the dark ages of the mid 80's. I on the other hand feel that the sport quad has not made significant upgrades to either performance or design in that same time period. I also believe that the magazines now available not only do not consistantly point out the stagnant progress of the sport quad but instead manipulate the consumer into thinking that progress is being made. I also feel the manufacturers care only about the sales of the same old sport machines and are only motivated to change design when the impending banning of the sale of those machines is inevitable. As has been pointed out, Honda has not made significant changes to their 4 stroke sport quads in the last 15 years [with the exception of liquid cooling] and neither has Yamaha to their 2 stroke quads. I feel the only reason Yamaha has brought the Raptor out is because it is a 4 stroke and the environmental noose is slowly but surely closing on the 2 stroke engine. The arguement can be made that the government and others are carefully watching the ATV industry to make sure they don't make quads that are too powerful. That may or may not be true. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the quality/ durability of the machines is lacking. This to me shows that neither the manufacturers of these quads nor the magazines that promote them care about the consumer.
Posted by: Holyman
freddie...I don't think we'll see vast improvements in quads unless and until someone big makes a big dent in the quad market as we know it. I think it will be like the auto market of the 70's. The American automobile evolved into an expensive, rust prone, gas guzzling, unreliable, Colossus that people got tired of fixing and filling. The Japanese came along with reliable, inexpensive cars that people bought by the thousands. They weren't the huge cars that people were used to but they did what they wanted them to do.
I feel the quad manufacturers have taken the place of those unconcerned manufacturers and now just give people what they [the manufacturers] want to make. Just like with the American car makers it will take a huge influx of cheap, well built quads to make the main manufacturers change. If Cannondales quad goes about as fast as what's out there now and is reliable and cheaper, then the rest will take notice. So far I don't think they have the infrastructure in this country to do it. If they were to offer people dealerships at affordable costs then they would spring up all over but I'm sure they would have to stipulate that they wouldn't be existing dealerships otherwise the dealers would just jack up the price to meet everything else. The Koreans could make a quad that would compete since they are already getting into it a little with their mom and pop sales locations. To me it still looks like we have another 10 years before quads make any serious improvements like we've seen in dirt and street bikes.
Some more food for thought...
I've heard of guys taking the RZ350 top end from a street bike and basically bolting it to the Banshee bottom. Why hasn't Yamaha offered an "upgrade" Banshee with the RZ top on it? They already have [or had] the machines to turn out the top ends? My answer is they had no reason to. They still sold the Banshees without them.
Posted by: hiofcer
I for one believe they are not…. My proof is based solely upon the February issue of 4-wheel ATV action. I recall reading a thread not too long ago about the shootout where the Rubicon won and a ton of people said that's only because Honda spent more advertising dollars in the publication.
Guess what folks? There is not one Honda advertisement in the entire issue and the Rubicon still won. How do you imagine that happened?
My intent for posting this is not to bash anyone's ride. I like all quads not just Honda. It's only to disprove peoples that complain about the articles in the "rags" as someone put it.
If these magazines are truly biased, it seems to me that the losing manufacture would not advertise in that particular publication again. And the publication would not receive any quads from that manufactures for testing.
Posted by: joey1
dbeck,,,what a load of crap,,,I dont believe the magazines are biased,,,they kiss butt to everyone equally,,,,if any of you have ever read a bike review in Motocross action (dirtbike mag) you would see what honest jounalism is,,,,they tell it like it is,,,no matter if it offends a manufacturer or not,,,,Dirt Wheels are the biggest wimps in the industry, they never say anything bad or derogatory,,even if said product or bike sucks,,,and dont tell me there are not crappy quads out,,cause there are,,,,modern quads are a joke,,,we get no real R&D (especiall compared to dirt bikes) bikes from the 80's are as good and better than brand new bikes,,,,,nothing against the Raptor, 400ex, or DS but those bikes are crap compared to a 426, RC 450, or any KTM 4 stroke,,,,the mags need to start telling it like it is instead of sugar coating everything,,,,reach down, grab hold, and take a stand,,,I did ,,,I cancelled all my subsciptions
Posted by: WildTurkey
Of course they're biased. All media is.
Posted by: juggalo
i think they are biased... i mean whens the last time you heard an BAD atv review? the worst one i ever heard was in dirtwheels and it was for the kasea skyhawk 150. it even that wasn't that bad of a review.
Posted by: RubiconBob
ttaylor, ya got me! You stated that it's the riders, not the magazine, that may be biased. So I thought, Good point! Then you lost me with the rest of your points.
I guess you're talking about the Utility shooutout in your comments. Honda doesn't make any improvements to their ATV's? Let's look at your comments:
1). Air-cooled - The Ruby is water-cooled, and the first Honda utility to be water-cooled, but Honda doesn't make improvements.
2). Brakes - Disc brakes aren't always better. There are a lot of cars still sold today with drums on the rear. But I'll give you a maybe on this one.
3). Shortest suspension travel - Again, numbers don't mean better. The Ruby has a very good suspension, but apparently only stats matter, not whether they actually work well.
4). Honda hasn't upgraded their 4-wheel drive system: Funny, but I thought they just upgraded their limited-slip front end, including the one on the Ruby. They haven't made it switchable, but consumers will determine whether that's a good or bad thing.
5). Small gas tank: Yup, that's true. No argument from me on that one.
6). Automatic tranny: I think they're just getting the biggest bang for their (R&D) buck. Bring it out on their biggest bike, get it accepted, then roll it out to the smaller vehicles. Standard tactics in notorcycles and car/trucks. I agree they need to offer it to the other ATV's, but give them so time.
7). Hondas are small, other are wider and longer. Again, I thought the Ruby was longer and wider than the previous big Honda (450S/450ES). The Rancher and Recon are small, but ehy're supposed to be. They're intended for smaller riders.
8). Better quality - Debateable. Different, yes, better - depends on the reviewer
9). Lower price - Again, the market determines if it's too expensive. A lot of people buy Mercedes and BMW, rather than Kia's and Hyundia. Better value doesn't always mean cheaper. There are some items where I've learned the more expensive purchase price is a better value than buying the cheaper item, but replacing it multiple times.
So, to some up, Honda has made improvements, thye just haven't made enough to satisfy you. There are a lot of companies now bankrupt who made changes just for change's sake.
Posted by: RubiconBob
1). It didn't take them this long to figure it out. They weren't having any problems with the air/oil cooled motors in the other bikes. While water-cooling has it's benefits, it also adds weight, complexity, and additional items to fail. Why fix if it ain't broke?
2). Why aren't all brakes disc brakes? Because they aren't always the best solution. Most times, maybe, but not always. How many folks complaining about the Honda's not having disc's are also complaining about wear and grit causing braking problems. Kawasaki probably now has the best solution, but let's see if the Rubicon has brake problems. Regardless if past Honda may have had problems, just like we're trying not to judge new bikes on how other models may have fared in the past.
3). Nope, not what I said. But length alone does not mean better. A quad does not need 24 inches of shock travel. And a quad with 7" of shock travel may work better than one with a shock travel of 9". Bigger numbers don't always mean better performance. And I have ridden bikes and ATV's with aftermarket shocks. However, I never mentioned aftermarket shocks in my reply. We were talking about new quads, I thought.
4). Well, Honda has been holding the #1 position. When they start to lose it, they'll figure out why. They have before.
5). We probably agree on more than just this.
6). So, that doesn't mean Honda had to do it! Good for Polaris, but that doesn't mean all the others must jump in line and do it too. I didn't want an automatic, till I tried on. There are a lot of folks that prefer to shift themselves. Plus, Polaris has standard shifts now as well, right. So automatic aren't the end-all, be-all.
7). I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about Honda improving their quads. But so what if others are wider and longer. That by itself is not better and longer. A mine or coal) truck is begger, wider, has longer shocks, and a more powerful engine that a normal pickup, but that doesn't mean it's better for what the normal user needs.
8). Sorry, I was disagreeing with the words from your original statement "Better quality at lower price". I agree with "equal quality at lower price" maybe, but it's all subjective.
9). Again, value is subjective. More stuff for the same money, better stuff for the same money. And folks do put value on reputation. Honda's reputation is earned. And it can be lost. And I also own a Polaris, and believe that they are gaining a reputation for dependability. They are impressing me on a daily basis. But the Ruby is not all just name recognition.
Posted by: RubiconBob
We're slowly working toward agreement. I am totally with you, that a long-travel shock is usually better than a short-travel shock. But don't judge them on travel alone. Without seeming like we're fighting about something else, I was trying (unsuccessfully) to make the point that one manufactor's 7-inch travel shock set-up can perform poorly, and much worse than a competitor's 5 inch travel set-up. Equal quality, the longer travel should be better. But that's the rub. So I was trying to say "try 'em, before declaring them a winner", and don't just go by who has the better stats. Anyway, ttaylor, good discussion, see ya on the trails!
Posted by: greencon
I agree with holyman. Why has there been so little development in quads? 20 years ago I raced motocross and if you didn't have a new bike every year you were getting passed by. The manufacturers keep giving us the same old stuff year after year. Blasters and Banshees have been unchanged since Reagan was in office, thats a long time folks. How much more are we paying now than then? Not to just pick on Yamaha because all the big companies have been slow to improve our rides. When I started looking for a quad I expected some major advancements over 10 to 15 year old machines, not just in the prices. As you can see by my sig. I didn't get a technological barnstormer because I couldn't see paying 6 grand for a toy.
