"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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.