Do I need to install the Quick-Shifter on my R3GT?

I did amend my post because it read like I was having a go personally, which wasn't my intention. Each to their own. I have ridden with a quick-shifter and I just couldn't get on with it.
But more broadly, I'm sceptical of a lot of rider aids. Of course a QS isn't a safety aid ike ABS or TC, it's a performance feature, but the ever-increasing plethora of electronics on bikes is a mixed blessing. Certainly ABS and TC can be life-savers but these gizmos are slowly teaching people how not to ride.

I imagine, given the nature and cost of our chosen bike, that most of us on this forum are over 40, and probably over 50. Our generation cut our riding teeth on analogue bikes that didn't have any electronics at all. You had to learn how to keep the bike right side up because it wouldn't do it for you.
Nowadays I meet a lot of younger riders who are completely reliant on rider aids. Which is all when and good until they go wrong. And no system is ever 100% effective.
I have a friend who came to biking fairly late and to put it politely, he's not the most proficient rider. He has an S1000RR and regularly nails it everywhere and leaves the electronics to sort everything out for him.
I went for a ride with him one day. At the end of it we rocked up at a bike meet and he took great pride in scrolling through his telemetry screen and telling anyone who'd listen how many times his traction control had kicked in during the ride. He imagined that this demonstrated how powerful his bike was and fast he could ride. What it actually demonstrated was how many times he'd lost control. I pointed out that I had been following him and kept on his tail all the way and my TC hadn't come on once because I had it turned off. I was riding a gen 1 1290 Superduke. The MTC on those early ones was very intrusive and could be quite annoying so I had a dongle fitted to mine that allowed it to be permanently deactivated. Yet I managed to keep up with my friend without risking a high-side or losing traction. I didn't touch the brakes as often as he did either and although my bike was 20 bhp down in his, I found regularly that he was holding me up.
I tried to persuade him to do a track day where he'd learn some skills but he was convinced he didn't need it because his bike did all that for him. It's an attitude I find worrying.

I'm not suggesting you're in that category because you like your QS, or in any way an inept rider. It's just that the topic reminded me of my rider aid hobby horse.

I will probably have to get used to quick shifters because they're becoming standard equipment on performance bikes now. I quite fancy adding a 1200 Speed Triple to the stable, which has one as standard. Maybe I'll become a convert. But last time I used one it felt like I was abusing the bike. Maybe I'm just showing my age...
 
Last edited:
Extremely well stated opinion. I'm 65 yo and was raised in the dirt, heaven forbid we had TC on our dirtbikes. Spinning, wheelies and controlled sliding was half the fun so I am not a fan of overly controlled bikes. I do understand that poor riders are saved from their own lack of developed skill and i'm glad they are not injured but the guy you described will not make it for much longer relying on the nannies. It will catch up to him. At least the QS is an on demand tool and it is a choice to use it.

One more negative on these "safety" features. it is just more opportunities for electrical and mechanical failure.
 
It certainly is. It also allows for the nanny-state policing of motorcycle design and performance by politicians. All these features should be optional extras but manufacturers lobby politicians to make their latest gadget compulsory and then they can come up with more and push the purchase price up.

Some manufacturers are talking about lane correction systems on bikes. Most people I know who have them in cars hate them. Sometimes you have to deviate from a lane to avoid a hazard: debris on the road, potholes, an animal or broken glass or something. The idea that government controlled roadside monitoring systems or satellites could be paired with electronic readers on bikes and effectively override the rider's input is a recipe for disaster.
 
Ya think? %100 agree.
 
My truck has this, and it doesn't in any way prevent you from swerving suddenly to avoid a hazard.
 
65, 40 if a day
 
Had a 1200 Tiger GT Pro with quickshifter as stock...loved it!..bang, bang,bang, bang, bang and youre gone!..Havnt got one on the Rocket but i think i would love it...it brings out the Hoon in me lol!...probably best i havnt got one to be honest!
TBH I've only tried one once on a BMW S1000XR and I didn't like it at all. But that's a very high revving engine with its power concentrated in the upper range. Once it's in the power it eats gears very quickly so I can see the point of it.
The Rocket's the opposite, low-revving, high torque and holds gears for far longer. However, I'd like to see how a rocket fitted with a QS would get on against a Ducati V4 Diavel in launch control mode. I think the Diavel would win but it would be fun to have a go.
 
The up-down QS serves 2 purposes. The most useful for me is the auto blip when downshifting. This isn’t quick, per se, it’s just lazy.