Aprilia RSV4 Factory APRC SE

Kento - how I envy you!

Nice write up.  Electronic rider aids are finally here - and they will only get better.  You admit to gushing over the bike, so it must be really good.

Enjoyed the reading.  

Thanx! Bikes like the Aprilia remind me of why I not only love riding motorcycles, but technology as well.

Although it should be pointed out that the RSV4 Factory APRC is the one to have. The standard RSV4 - even with the APRC electronics - is a lot heavier, and the lack of the variable-length intake stacks definitely shows in its powerband. If you're a good enough rider, you'll definitely notice the lack of Ohlins suspension and Brembo monobloc calipers as well.  

Your reference to "pivoting" the APRC caught my attention, I've thought of it as "rotating," but anyway, that reference clued me to the fact that this bike's electronics package is really special, enabling the possibility of the common man to oversteer on asphalt.  

It can, but it should be remembered that the system is not a failsafe. You still need to have the correct body position and control over steering inputs with the right timing (as in picking up the bike onto the fat part of the tire) especially in slower corners in order to avoid a highside when the system is set in the higher levels (less intervention) that let the bike pivot...err, I mean, rotate more.    

Kent, I've been reading your stuff for many years, and really appreciate you  putting your riding impressions to words for us.  I'd been riding an '09 R1 that I wasn't completely satisfied with (finally got it to turn in, but it was too soft up front and wasn't providing enough feedback), and was considering upgrading it vs. trading it towards something else.  After gathering info on the RSV4 SE, and reading your comments with regard to the variable intake tracts, I made the trade for the RSV4 APRC SE.

I am quite pleased with the Aprilia on the track.  I'd wanted a bike that would meet my needs without having to bother with making drastic changes or significant mods, and I think this bike is it.  The bike is a true joy to ride, and in stock configuration.  The APRC is bonus.

Thanks again, Kent!!!  

No worries, glad I could help and that you're happy with the Aprilia! Once you get the electronics set to what you're happy with, the RSV4 Factory APRC SE is an absolute joy to ride.

The R1 is a great bike, but it needs the proper setup and riding to get the most out of it. The engine has great midrange, but it's flat up top. Reflashing the ECU does wonders for it, however.  

While technological advances are nice one shouldn't forget about advancing your riding skills. I know that Kent is a big proponent of traction control based on how he gushes about it in his articles but I would rather riders improve their riding skill. If that means using traction control that's fine. But let's not loose sight on what makes bikes fun to ride. And maybe I'm old school hence why I like bikes without TC or ABS but I appreciate improving my skill level without the aid of a computer chip. However, it's great to have a variety of bikes or bike technology to choose from. Good luck with your Aprilia it's a sweet bike.  

I would consider myself "Old School". I've been riding for 38 years (and raced for 15 of them), and have seen the numerous performance transitions through the years, and the changes in riding that has gone on through that time. I remember when radial tires were poo-pooed by many "older school" riders, because the first examples were primitive in design and application. Now, riders wouldn't be caught dead on a bike with bias ply tires. Same with fuel injection; old schoolers decried the "complicated electronics" that would "be impossible for anyone but a dealer to fix when they failed." The performance that has been made possible by fuel injection hasn't seen any downside of complication-- in fact, it's made tuning simpler for the most part.

The same advancement of basic systems applies here, but on a larger scale. The first ABS and TC systems were relatively primitive, and were more of an electronic nanny than any rider aid. But today's systems have reached a level of advancement that they are truly a rider aid. Their thresholds are so high that they are never activated unless you are in an emergency situation (or an expert rider riding aggressively on the racetrack with TC), so you can't use them as a "computer chip" crutch to "learn" anything. And they don't suddenly create expert riders out of mediocre ones (and never will unless the rider makes attempts to improve his/her riding skill).

The truth that some seem to be overlooking is that today's systems still require and reward rider skill...and they allow you to improve that skill level, because they are only a safety net with definite limitations. The TC systems require a very high amount of skill to use properly, meaning you need the throttle and steering input timing absolutely spot-on to get the desired results; as I said earlier in this thread, you don't just twist the throttle more and start sliding like Casey Stoner or Nicky Hayden. And simply running in the lower settings will make you go slower, because they pull back so much throttle response and power that even an intermediate rider notices the difference.

My analogy is this: the rider aid systems are like letting more people attempt to learn how to walk a tightrope, but with a safety net below that will catch them if they make a major mistake, instead of falling 100 feet or whatever to certain death. Note that I said "attempt to learn how"; just because there's a safety net below doesn't mean anyone can learn how to walk a tightrope.

The reason I'm a "big proponent of traction control" is I have the skill to actually use it properly, and the systems are actually a lot of fun to utilize. Yes, I have just as much fun on bikes without any rider aids, but that really doesn't matter because TC (and on many bikes, ABS) can be turned off if desired. But to ignore or denounce these safety enhancements that can help out our sport simply out of elitist or egocentric beliefs would be completely irresponsible journalism.  

>>I would consider myself "Old School". I've been riding for 38 years (and raced for 15 of them), and have seen the numerous performance transitions through the years, and the changes in riding that has gone on through that time. I remember when radial tires were poo-pooed by many "older school" riders, because the first examples were primitive in design and application. Now, riders wouldn't be caught dead on a bike with bias ply tires. Same with fuel injection; old schoolers decried the "complicated electronics" that would "be impossible for anyone but a dealer to fix when they failed." The performance that has been made possible by fuel injection hasn't seen any downside of complication-- in fact, it's made tuning simpler for the most part.<<

Just because one considers themselves “Old School” doesn’t mean they’re a technophobe. I always look forward to improvements in suspension, frames, tires, brakes (non-abs but appreciate ABS if they help others), and tuning capabilities allowed by fuel injection.  


>>The same advancement of basic systems applies here, but on a larger scale. The first ABS and TC systems were relatively primitive, and were more of an electronic nanny than any rider aid. But today's systems have reached a level of advancement that they are truly a rider aid. Their thresholds are so high that they are never activated unless you are in an emergency situation (or an expert rider riding aggressively on the racetrack with TC), so you can't use them as a "computer chip" crutch to "learn" anything. And they don't suddenly create expert riders out of mediocre ones (and never will unless the rider makes attempts to improve his/her riding skill).<<

However, in your advancement of basic systems related to ABS and TC you contradict yourself when you say on the one hand that rider aids are not a crutch when you then say the rider aids are activated only in an emergency situation. Isn’t that a “crutch” because if you didn’t have the system you’d crash it that situation? It’s either a rider aid which implies assistance or a crutch or it isn’t you can’t have it both ways. From what I’ve read from you, manufacturers and other magazines I give manufacturers a lot of credit for creating and improving these systems that are less intrusive to help improve safety especially for those with less skill or for those that may be able to exploit the technology as we’ve seen in MotoGP. And, I give credit to manufacturers that allow you to adjust the levels of rider aids or to turn off these systems if you wish.


>>The truth that some seem to be overlooking is that today's systems still require and reward rider skill...and they allow you to improve that skill level, because they are only a safety net with definite limitations. The TC systems require a very high amount of skill to use properly, meaning you need the throttle and steering input timing absolutely spot-on to get the desired results; as I said earlier in this thread, you don't just twist the throttle more and start sliding like Casey Stoner or Nicky Hayden. And simply running in the lower settings will make you go slower, because they pull back so much throttle response and power that even an intermediate rider notices the difference.<<


It’s untrue that “some” seem to be overlooking today’s systems rewards to riders, because these technologies provide a larger margin of error and actually less rider skill.  But I do agree as with any technology there are limitations. You also don’t make sense when you say that you need a “very high amount of skill to use (rider aids) properly. If that were true then only top level racers would be given these systems to use and they wouldn’t be pawned off as safety technology for the average rider.


>>My analogy is this: the rider aid systems are like letting more people attempt to learn how to walk a tightrope, but with a safety net below that will catch them if they make a major mistake, instead of falling 100 feet or whatever to certain death. Note that I said "attempt to learn how"; just because there's a safety net below doesn't mean anyone can learn how to walk a tightrope. <<

With a safety net then more are willing to take the risk hence more will try to tightrope.


>>The reason I'm a "big proponent of traction control" is I have the skill to actually use it properly, and the systems are actually a lot of fun to utilize. Yes, I have just as much fun on bikes without any rider aids, but that really doesn't matter because TC (and on many bikes, ABS) can be turned off if desired. But to ignore or denounce these safety enhancements that can help out our sport simply out of elitist or egocentric beliefs would be completely irresponsible journalism.  <<

So are you saying that because you have all this “skill” that those riders without your level experience and ability shouldn’t try or use bikes with TC? If we were ignoring it then we wouldn’t be talking (texting) about it on this forum. While you may not like someone questioning your opinion on your feelings of a technology in my opinion it’s healthy to question any new technology until it proves itself and not just take one journalist’s take on it. This isn’t an “elitist” or “egocentric belief”. However, I appreciate the concepts of ABS and TC for the sake of safety and further appreciate that manufacturers are aware that riders want the ability to adjust or turn these systems off if they wish.  

However, in your advancement of basic systems related to ABS and TC you contradict yourself when you say on the one hand that rider aids are not a crutch when you then say the rider aids are activated only in an emergency situation. Isn’t that a “crutch” because if you didn’t have the system you’d crash it that situation? It’s either a rider aid which implies assistance or a crutch or it isn’t you can’t have it both ways.

A "crutch" is an aid that someone becomes dependent upon in order to function in a normal sense (i.e., a rider can't depend upon TC to make him a better rider).

It’s untrue that “some” seem to be overlooking today’s systems rewards to riders, because these technologies provide a larger margin of error and actually less rider skill.
If these systems will allow more people to enjoy motorcycles who otherwise wouldn't after their first crash, that is a plus in my book. I'm not about to exclude someone from the sport just because we don't think they're skilled enough to handle tire traction loss (which is really the only time these systems come into play). The vast majority of street riders who think they can handle traction loss are most likely kidding themselves; and while I'd like for everyone to have that skill, that is obviously an unfeasible situation. We can't expect every single rider out there to go somewhere reasonably safe and continually practice losing grip with the front and rear tire. Once again: the systems are advanced enough that riders still can improve their skills up the point of tire traction loss (and beyond if they set the TC to lower intervention). Where they go from there is entirely up to them; they can choose to turn off the system or purchase a bike that doesn't have it.

You also don’t make sense when you say that you need a “very high amount of skill to use (rider aids) properly. If that were true then only top level racers would be given these systems to use and they wouldn’t be pawned off as safety technology for the average rider.

I said "use TC systems properly", in that to realize any benefits in the lower intervention levels (i.e., actually enable you slide like a MotoGP hero), you still need to have significant riding skill. Otherwise, all it really does is provide a barrier that slows you down (other than saving a ham-fisted rider from crashing).

With a safety net then more are willing to take the risk hence more will try to tightrope.

Doesn't that sound a bit elitist?   So more will want to try riding sportbikes (or just motorcycles in general) instead of being scared off by "how dangerous they are"? (not quoting you here, only using it as a general public perception) I look at that as a positive aspect, wouldn't you?

So are you saying that because you have all this “skill” that those riders without your level experience and ability shouldn’t try or use bikes with TC?

You need to go back to the paragraph before where I stated that "today's systems still require and reward rider skill" when you run them in the lower intervention levels. I was stating I appreciate TC because I have the skill to exploit its potential. That doesn't mean that everyone is required to exploit it, because again, it's not there unless they either choose to or actually need it. You state that you "appreciate improving my skill level without the aid of a computer chip". What I'm stating is that in order to use these systems to actually go faster (i.e., they won't magically improve anyone's skill level), you need both fundamental and advanced skills to make those improvements. The computer chip physically isn't going to aid you in anything with regard to improving riding skill.

If we were ignoring it then we wouldn’t be talking (texting) about it on this forum.

I'm talking about some people continually ignoring the fact that rider aid systems such as TC won't magically allow anyone to improve their skill level, and that to go any faster, some skills are needed in the first place.

While you may not like someone questioning your opinion on your feelings of a technology in my opinion it’s healthy to question any new technology until it proves itself and not just take one journalist’s take on it. This isn’t an “elitist” or “egocentric belief”.

Who's saying I don't like it?   This is a healthy discussion, isn't it?

I look at it as elitist or egocentric when some people continue to mistakenly take the position that that they are somehow better riders than these electronic aids, or that these rider aids are some sort of crutch that will magically allow riders to improve their riding skills (versus learning without). As I've explained ad nauseum, they are not; they are a safety net that can (not always) save mistakes as they attempt to learn and improve. While I think that everyone should have to right to say, "I don't need that safety net", it does sound just a bit elitist and egocentric, don't you think? Please note that I'm not excluding myself from that group; I've made that choice myself many times, and probably will continue to do so.  

Kento how can you say with a straight face that TC/rider aids aren't a "crutch" when the term even implies it. The whole idea behind rider aids is for riders to depend on it for added safety or to stretch the limit of what they'd be normally capable of achieving. You can sugar coat it however you'd like but it is what it is.

I don't believe it's in elitist or egocentric attitude to be skeptical or not want to use TC/rider aids it's a choice just like the type of bike you buy, gear you wear or tires you chose to spoon on your bike.

We can go on but I grow tired of the thread lets just agree to disagree.  

A crutch is a "device used to support or sustain walking or other normal activity" (Webster's). You wouldn't depend on it to ride in a normal everyday sense, would you? Yes, you'd depend on it to aid you in an emergency, but I'd hope you wouldn't get into emergency situations every minute you ride your bike...

The only "stretch the limit of what they'd normally be capable of achieving" that TC and ABS permit is it allows them to basically to avoid losing tire grip in an emergency situation. Whether they want to admit it or not, 99% of the riders out there don't have the riding skill to handle a loss of traction on their own, and to think that this skill is something every rider out there can learn on their own is unrealistic.

As I stated in the "Rider Aid Systems - Fear of Technology" editorial (you did read that, didn't you?), the vast majority of riders out there will never go beyond the activation threshold except in an emergency. Any rider that attempts to constantly "depend" on them (as you would a "crutch") as any sort of substitute for riding skill will either just go slower, or simply crash in a scenario that the rider aid won't be able to save them from.

I never stated that being skeptical is elitist/egocentric. Questioning the application of electronic rider aids on today's bikes is certainly valid. But questioning them based on simplistic assumptions for the wrong reasons isn't.

Please read the final part of my last post about choice.