No Comment required

(Thanks to Ian for this link)

"Body of blog too short needs at least ten words".

OK. BMW, Honda (Specifically), . I accuse you of corporate cowadice for ignoring FFs. OK?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Some familiar points in that

Some familiar points in that linked video...

"Feet Forward Motorcycles are Technically Better" Ryan@FortNine

I think the most staggering thing about this video is that it's had no fewer than 726,184 views in FOUR DAYS!
I did feel the need to comment in several places. This was my comment giving the link to the 1988 Top Gear FF item that I wrote and presented:
"Well, I'm delighted to see this, but I'm a bit miffed that you nicked all that archive FF footage without giving any of us any credit or namechecks, starting with Tig Cross and his Electrom! I recommend anyone interested in the FF concept to watch the full 12 minutes of my Top Gear Feet First item, from April 1988, here:
In another comment, in reply to someone saying how long the wheelbase of the Electrom was, I pointed out that it's an electric bicycle and the need to pedal in a recumbent position is why it is so long. I also mentioned that plenty of FFs have been built with wheelbases no longer than that of the motorcycles on which they were based. PNB

I need footpegs, man....

A good number of positive comments there.

The negative comments say far more about the commenters and their tenuous grasp of steering, suspension, ergonomics, etc...

Never mind the bollocks...

While the exraordinary level of comment on this piece is remarkable for it's quantity, as Rohorn notes much of it merely repeats the 'brainjerk' reaction any FF proponents will be familiar with - although there is also a high level of interest. But what intrigues me is the complete absence of any information about FFs in general or the work done in the last thirty-odd years. Many respondants reference the fantasy FF featured in the film Akira, the Quasar gets a few mentions along with BMW's C.1 and I even spotted a reference to the 'flying Banana and Voaygers in the hundreds of comments I scrolled through (not a lot of work around just now..). but they were all seen as 'historic, something that happened long ago, rather then part of an ongoing process.

What can we learn from this? Easy. Not one of these thousands of commenters have ever encountered this site - where the answers to the many stupid questions and unsupported assumptions can be found. If Bikeweb had never existed it would have made no difference to these comments.

Why is this? Perhaps a user with journalistic experience can unpack this for us? The British motorcycle media worked out where thier advertising revenues (wages) were coming from a long time ago and I've done my best to make clear my opinion of their workings, but that can't be it? Surely there's some more basic failure to communicate? I think I've run out of shit to give on this subject but hopefully someone who understands what we've done wrong can explain - so the next generation of inovators can do better.