Slashdot Mirror


Buy Your Own Tron Lightcycle For $35,000

ElectricSteve writes "The lightcycle scene was probably the most memorable part of an absolutely jaw-dropping movie when Tron was released in 1982. One of the first films to use the kinds of computer-generated special effects that later become commonplace, it was a glimpse into a whole new world that left an indelible impression on most who saw it. Now, as Disney prepares to release Tron Legacy, a sequel some 28 years after the original, the lightcycles are back and looking meaner than ever. Built by the same guys who did the memorable Batpod replica, the new lightcycles feature massive dual hubless wheels, carbon fiber/fiberglass bodies, and all the lashings of neon that you'd expect. And there will be five running models built — all of which are now up for sale on eBay for a cool $35,000."

170 comments

  1. Yes, but... by Pojut · · Score: 1

    ...can it be compressed down to just a handle, as seen in the (fucking amazing) Tron Legacy trailer?

    1. Re:Yes, but... by Tehrasha · · Score: 1

      I wouldnt plunk down any money without seeing one of the 'running' bikes, and not all the nice pics of hollywood mock-ups and pretty CGI renders.

  2. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...can it make an instantaneous 90-degree turn?

    1. Re:But... by boneclinkz · · Score: 0

      Sure it can!

      But not with you on it.

    2. Re:But... by Walruzoar · · Score: 0

      Never mind instantaneous, it doesn't look like it's gonna go round corners! Turning circle of what, I wonder?

      --
      Take off every 'Sig'!! You know what you doing. http://www.donline.co.uk/
    3. Re:But... by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      It sure can! In fact, it does four of them at once!

    4. Re:But... by treeves · · Score: 1

      No. Nothing with mass can do that, since F=ma and "instantaneous" means infinite acceleration, which requires infinite force. Yes, I know...whooosh.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  3. Now if this generates the wall trails... by Zantac69 · · Score: 1

    I want one.

    Now.

    ..ooOO(Imagines taking this on the downtown connector area in Atlanta)

    --
    1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
    1. Re:Now if this generates the wall trails... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the Tron Guy should be able to have dibs on one of the first ones. After that, it doesn't matter.

  4. Why bother? by whizbang77045 · · Score: 0, Troll

    The first version I remember being panned as something of a plotless dud. It was an excuse to to show off then-new special effects, including limited CGI. Even that wasn't all that impressive.

    Why anyone would remake the movie is beyond me. And why anyone would want one of those cycles boggles the imagination.

    1. Re:Why bother? by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, there are way too many movies which use CGI as a substitute for decent plot, but it sort of irks me when people (typically artsy snobs) generalize this to say that CGI alone is always insufficient to make a film. I won't pretend there aren't movies that I enjoy just for the eye candy, if it's good enough; film is a sensory experience, after all. Avatar had no plot to speak of, and was carried along just by the visuals, but I felt I got my money's worth. You're of course welcome to disagree, but try to understand that movies are entertainment, and can qualify as "entertainment" for different reasons, including looking really pretty. Tron Legacy might be like that.

      --
      Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    2. Re:Why bother? by joeflies · · Score: 1

      I think that Disney films tend to be less about plot and more about adventure in a new world. And Tron delivers on that in volumes.

    3. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would anyone want a mobile phone that does not function well at, er, taking calls?

      It is SHINY

    4. Re:Why bother? by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      I remember not being that impressed, too.

      For one thing the personification of software irked me. I also found the jargon strange, especially their frequent reference to the "user". I found the term nauseating, awkward and stupid.

      The irony that I use the term all the time now is a nagging reminder to tone down my judgmental tendencies.

      In conclusion, Disney sucks at sci-fi.

      Still, maybe someday I should watch Tron on a color tv.

    5. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, there are way too many movies which use CGI as a substitute for decent plot, but it sort of irks me when people (typically artsy snobs) generalize this to say that CGI alone is always insufficient to make a film. I won't pretend there aren't movies that I enjoy just for the eye candy, if it's good enough; film is a sensory experience, after all. Avatar had no plot to speak of, and was carried along just by the visuals, but I felt I got my money's worth. You're of course welcome to disagree, but try to understand that movies are entertainment, and can qualify as "entertainment" for different reasons, including looking really pretty. Tron Legacy might be like that.

      What are you talking about? Avatar had a plot! Sure it was a very basic and woefully familiar (as in seen it a million times and they didn't bother to try and give it any interesting interpretations or twists), but it was telling a story in a structured way. Of course just because a movie has a plot, doesn't guarantee people will feel the plot is worthwhile to pay attention to or remember.

    6. Re:Why bother? by raddan · · Score: 1

      LoTR was probably the first movie where I didn't consider the CGI to be so distracting that I couldn't concentrate on the plot. I personally don't hate CGI across the board, but I don't think it looks realistic. I prefer the old hand-painted miniatures approach, ala the original first few Star Trek movies. Their special effects have aged well, but other early CGI has not.

      I think one of the reasons that the original Tron still looks so good is because most of the effects are not CGI.

    7. Re:Why bother? by Ngarrang · · Score: 1

      I think that Disney films tend to be less about plot and more about adventure in a new world. And Tron delivers on that in volumes.

      This.

      Disney neither claimed to be high cinema, nor high drama with bullet-proof plots. It was *FUN* to watch.

      --
      Bearded Dragon
    8. Re:Why bother? by yeshuawatso · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why it's such a bad thing to re-tell an existing story. Sure Avatar was Pocahontas in 3D and on another planet, but it still does't mean the story is bad because it has been done before. I can name many movies and games that have predicted the apocalypse, but I still enjoy seeing other peoples' interpretation of that apocalypse and how one lone soul can save the world. I've never seen the original Tron so I can't comment on whether it had a good story line or not, but if it did, I don't see the problem with telling that story again for a newer generation.

    9. Re:Why bother? by yeshuawatso · · Score: 1

      Where's the -1 off-topic or -1 Troll when you need it.

    10. Re:Why bother? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      More like (-1, Offtopic)if you insist on wasting points to mod down but if posted in the iPhone discussion, (5, Insightful)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    11. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried to mod it down... but somehow my iPhone 4 won't let me...
      it keeps disconn#~€

    12. Re:Why bother? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Tron wasn't sci-fi, and wasn't trying to be. It was pure fantasy. It was based on the idea that there is a whole world inside of computers where programs interact like people and bits float around saying "yes" and "no". Worrying about things like how an accounting program can be made to compete in gladiatorial games without being modified, or how bits could be floating around individually when every program would have to be made of bits and there'd need to be more of them than existed in computers of the day is besides the point. It'd be like having a movie where you can go to a magical school for wizards after walking through the wall at the subway, then worrying about how they can make brooms fly.

      The fantasy nature of the movie really struck me when I re-watched it for the first time in 20 years. Sure I remembered liking the movie as a kid but I had very little in the way of expectations. And I found that because of its fantasy nature it worked way better than just about any sci-fi movie that tried to show computers "realistically" and utterly failed*.

      Once I accepted that it was a fantasy world, I found it fascinating. Especially the idea of the programs having a religion based on the "user" as their gods (little did they know what an unworthy god they worshiped), and even more fascinating an "atheist" movement which denied that the "user" and the world outside of the computer even existed. Also interesting was how outside of the digitizing machine, everything shown about computers in the real world was completely normal. The giant spinning vortex of the MCP inside the computer was just a simple text interface on the outside. It'd be kinda like Harry Potter if magic simply didn't exist outside of Hogwarts.

      Anyway, I say give it a another shot, and go in realizing you're watching computer-based fantasy, not sci-fi.

      * Major contemporaneous exception: Wargames!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    13. Re:Why bother? by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      I always thought that artsy snobs would actually at least tolerate films with no plot anyway (stuff like 2001: A Space Odyssey springs to mind).

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    14. Re:Why bother? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I prefer the old hand-painted miniatures approach, ala the original first few Star Trek movies. Their special effects have aged well, but other early CGI has not. I think one of the reasons that the original Tron still looks so good is because most of the effects are not CGI.

      Same thing with Star Wars. Ever notice how the "Special Souped-up versions" (Jabba in A New Hope) now look dated compared to the originals? Pretty soon, episodes 1,2,3 will look old too.

    15. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats exactly the problem. Avatar was just Pocahontas in 3D. They didn't even try to tell the story any differently.
      There was nothing new or different about it except the 3D Bullshit-o-vision.

    16. Re:Why bother? by Eudial · · Score: 1

      1,2 and 3 look old now. Where the studio floor ends and the green-screen begins is quite easily identified if you pay attention to the background.

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    17. Re:Why bother? by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      It was science fiction. Science fiction is merely fantasy enabled by a fantastic scientific invention. Think about it. Even the most technologically mundane of the science fiction genre is a nerds' fantasy of what might happen given a specific fantastic advance in technology.

      Entire human-replica societies inside computers and other dimensions is nothing new to science fiction.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    18. Re:Why bother? by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Tron was a Disney film, which somehow still went out on a bit of a political limb and made a statement about whether 'religious' experiences (in the cyberworld), might have a rational underlying explanation, and how many generations of time (at cyberworld speeds) might imbue mundane physical and pragmatic events with a religious symbolic venier. Still Disney left it as a rather complex and multi-leveled theme rather than dumb it down to Rah-Rah "Flynn is Jesus" total oblivion. They too the time to introduce a few sympathetic characters and get the audience to identify them as good guys, then bring up spirituality in a way that didn't autoconfirm they were the good side, but instead made you wonder if they were a little skewed or misinterpreting what Tron was trying to do. John Warner's character isn't just nasty, he's specifically Miltonic. The question of whether his pride is his greatest flaw isn't just raised, but it's addressed by both visual and verbal references to Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno. Yeah, those points whizzed right over my head at that age too.
            And I would only want one of the five production light cycles if they steer better than they look to do, and with the electric engine option if it actually gets good range, so I suspect the actual experience would be disappointing.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    19. Re:Why bother? by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      And young man goes on journey, sees many exotic things, meets new people who think differently than his native tribe, and experiences some maturing specifically because of travel is a whole type of story in itself, one that traditionally stops about when the young man puts down roots back home and doesn't traditionally try to answer the questions of how he will use his newfound knowledge after he resolves the conflict that drove him to travel in the first place.
        There's probably plenty of valid criticisms of Tron, but expecting some things of it is like criticising Huckleberry Finn for not describing what Huck does as an adult after the raft ride ends.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    20. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure why it's such a bad thing to re-tell an existing story.

      My point was not to suggest that it is a bad thing to re-tell an existing story. After all, depending on how deep you go into structural similarity it perhaps is impossible to have more than a few archetypal forms for story-telling, at most. Instead, my point was that Avatar clearly had a plot (regardless if how well the film implemented that plot) despite what some posters were saying. Or in other words:

      unfulfilling plot != no plot at all

    21. Re:Why bother? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      Absolutely spot-on. The ending, with a time-lapse view of the streets from the Encom building as night falls and you see the cars flowing through these circuits, really affected me as a kid. Sometimes, complexity is all about perspective.

      In retrospect, it's even more funny that the big cash-cow and policy maker, at a company with a functioning matter digitizer/teleporter, is a vector-art video game. :)

      Sneakers was pretty good too apart from the encryption hand-waving that was necessary for the story (but even there they at least got the basic words right, and made mostly accurate reference to the real concepts).

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    22. Re:Why bother? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between a virtual world implemented as software and possibly populated by software AIs (Neuromancer, Snow Crash, Matrix), and postulating that non-AI software and even bits themselves are sentient entities that roam about in a world that isn't simulated on a computer, but is the computer.

      It's no more fantasy than Hellraiser is because of the mechanical puzzle box, or Her Majesty's Wizard is sci-fi because the protagonist creates a monofilament blade with poetry. The mere presence of technology in some form doesn't make it sci-fi.

      Unless we just want to erase all distinction, in which case, fine, it's sci-fi, but which should be approached in a materially different way than most.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    23. Re:Why bother? by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "Tron wasn't sci-fi, and wasn't trying to be. It was pure fantasy."

      When I was a kid, those fuzzy, black-light posters were real popular. I had several in my bedroom, all of them some sort of D&Dish, Boris Vallejo-type, fantasy scene.

      I actually had a few dreams that were visually very close to the posters, dreams in a world of solid blacks and heavily contrasting colors, almost neon in their purity.

      I was totally flabbergasted when I saw Tron for the first time. It looked very much like my dreams.

    24. Re:Why bother? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Why anyone would remake the movie is beyond me.

      They're not remaking it, they're making a sequel.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    25. Re:Why bother? by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      No, the presence of present or future technology in some form makes it a mixed genre when added to magical or deity driven powers.

      Perhaps it's the absence of religious, deistic, or otherwise magical, non technological elements that would satisfy your definition? Tron had none of these. The cult of the user didn't qualify, because there were no actual powers or effects given to the "clerics." It was more of a legend than a religion.

      Hellraiser's box was no invention of man, but a magical demonic construct. Maybe there's a better example.

      Why don't you give me a counter-example of what you consider sci-fi.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
  5. Lets hope by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

    Lets hope Tron will be better as the A-team remake...

    --
    I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    1. Re:Lets hope by raddan · · Score: 1

      Great idea! They *should* remake Tron as the A-Team! What do you mean de-rez, sucka?

      I think you meant 'than'.

    2. Re:Lets hope by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? The A-Team movie was great. They fly a TANK by using the recoil of the main gun rounds. They play a shell game with cargo containers. They break Murdoch out while the looney ward is watching the A-Team. What is there NOT to like?

  6. I want one, but... by Jarnin · · Score: 3, Funny

    I want one, but I don't want the hospital bills from doing 90 degree turns at 200 mph.

    1. Re:I want one, but... by Captain+Spam · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not to mention the littering tickets you'd rack up from the walls of solid light you'd keep leaving behind you...

      --
      Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
    2. Re:I want one, but... by IflyRC · · Score: 2, Funny

      You wouldn't have to only worry about the hospital bill. There's the EMT that declares you dead at the scene. You'd have to pay the ambulance service. Lawsuits for those you injured in which your insurance didn't cover completely. Also there is the funeral cost.

    3. Re:I want one, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately the walls of light disappear as soon as you hit something.

    4. Re:I want one, but... by Lennie · · Score: 1

      If you are dead, it is not your problem, is it ?

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    5. Re:I want one, but... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't have to only worry about the hospital bill. There's the EMT that declares you dead at the scene.

      So, hospital bill problem solved?

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    6. Re:I want one, but... by Target+Practice · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This isn't something to ride, even though it is apparently street legal. This is to park next to your limited edition Batman car, guarded over by your life-size Alien replica, as the focal points of the tasting room of your climate controlled wine cellar... Also, there are strippers nearby.

      At least, that's what I'm doing with mine, just as soon as I gather up my loose change...

      --
      There's a 68.71% chance you're right.
    7. Re:I want one, but... by IflyRC · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not really, they'll probably charge you morgue rent until you're transferred out.

    8. Re:I want one, but... by Mitsoid · · Score: 1

      Well, following in the "Title" of the "Tron Yamaha Honda Kawasaki Harley Suzuki Motorcycle," technically this bike would go next to your "Toyota Audi Ford Sony Harmen-Carmen Motorola bat mobile"

      As soon as I saw the 'false advertising' I stopped caring about the cool factor, someone who needs to claim they have 7 manufacturers for their bike isn't getting my money, even if this was a scale 3-inch tall model for $50!

      Sides, warranty claims on that would be horrible!

    9. Re:I want one, but... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Not really, they'll probably charge you morgue rent until you're transferred out.

      As someone who worked as a cemetary caretaker (Now, THAT's an interview icebreaker for your resume), I know of some places that did effectively charge for that.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    10. Re:I want one, but... by jaymzter · · Score: 1

      This isn't something to ride, even though it is apparently street legal. This is to park next to your limited edition Batman car, guarded over by your life-size Alien replica, as the focal points of the tasting room of your climate controlled wine cellar... Also, there are strippers nearby.

      You know what, now that you mention it, forget the cycle, car, replica and wine. I think I'll just go with the strippers.

      --
      If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
    11. Re:I want one, but... by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How are they going to catch you to give you a ticket when you have a bike that can make 90 degree turns at two hundred miles per hour? Pull the ambulance over?

    12. Re:I want one, but... by evilbessie · · Score: 1

      And blackjack?

    13. Re:I want one, but... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Also there is the funeral cost.

      There's no funeral, but I wonder what they charge to derez you?

    14. Re:I want one, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would the ambulance help? Anyway nowadays they don't need to "catch" you anymore, all they need is some evidence and your license plate number. For an example, search "speed camera".

  7. It'll look cool by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am trying hard not to picture it being ridden by a fat middle aged geek wearing a skin tight spandex body suit.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    1. Re:It'll look cool by Baron_Yam · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm a middle-aged geek, but luckily I'm not fat. However, I can't ride a motorcycle.

      Just how cool would I look sliding sideways down the freeway on this thing with bits of melted Spandex and skin trailing behind me?

    2. Re:It'll look cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very.


      Please post hires pictures and upload the event to youtube.

    3. Re:It'll look cool by natehoy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just how cool would I look sliding sideways down the freeway on this thing with bits of melted Spandex and skin trailing behind me?

      Cool enough that the resulting YouTube video might help fund my retirement. Please let me know where and when, and I'll make sure to have my video camera. Thanks.

      PS: This is in no way an endorsement for you to do it. There won't be enough income from the YouTube video to even begin covering your medical costs, so I don't want any share of the liability. But if you happen to do it, just let me know when and where, OK?

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    4. Re:It'll look cool by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I am trying hard not to picture it being ridden by a fat middle aged geek wearing a skin tight spandex body suit.

      You mean like this guy?

      --
      This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
    5. Re:It'll look cool by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      Hah! I'm Canadian, so the medical costs are irrelevant.

      Of course, I'm also A) a coward and B) don't have $35K hanging around doing nothing.

    6. Re:It'll look cool by yeshuawatso · · Score: 1

      Tosh redeemed him already, so he doesn't count.

    7. Re:It'll look cool by Peet42 · · Score: 1

      Is that Jerry Pournelle?

    8. Re:It'll look cool by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      No... I forget the guy's name, but he also did a "General Xinchub" costume that was really good, complete with a decent stab at Schlock Mercenary's floating epaulets. (He has closer to the right build for that character - though in this case, he's a little to trim for a proper General Xinchub.)

    9. Re:It'll look cool by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      How's about an elderly Geek wearing a bathrobe and sweatpants?

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    10. Re:It'll look cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am trying hard not to picture it being ridden by a fat middle aged geek wearing a skin tight spandex body suit.

      Thanks for that mental picture! Some mental images just can't be unseen!

    11. Re:It'll look cool by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "How's about an elderly Geek wearing a bathrobe and sweatpants?"

      Wrong show...that's more of the basic Tony Soprano look.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    12. Re:It'll look cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. It still costs money. That is the problem with the Canadian medical system (and most Canadian's unrealistic understanding of it). People think it is free. Or that it only requires the money you pay in your monthly premium (yes we pay up to $100 per month for individuals in most provinces). In 2009, spending for health care in Canada was over $180B for the year, or around $5400 per person. That is not free. Maybe we wouldn't be raped blind by high taxes if people got their heads out of their asses and realized this and allowed the system to be changed to a two tiered system like many European countries (which have far better systems than ours).

    13. Re:It'll look cool by PPH · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to picture Paul Teutul riding it.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    14. Re:It'll look cool by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      Oh shut up. Why are you preaching about medicare in a Tron thread?

      It was a joke.

    15. Re:It'll look cool by evilbessie · · Score: 1

      At 70 miles an hour, bone on tarmac (asphalt) wears away at 1cm per second. I would suggest racing leathers rather than Spandex, this ensures that all the soft organ tissue is saved for transplants, kept in a nice leather bag.

    16. Re:It'll look cool by retchdog · · Score: 1

      at least he finally listened to his critics and started wearing a cup. (shudder)

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    17. Re:It'll look cool by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      I have nothing to add to this conversation, but God I love Schlock.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    18. Re:It'll look cool by laejoh · · Score: 1

      When you are a man, sometimes you wear stretchy pants in your room. It's for fun.

    19. Re:It'll look cool by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I saw a film once of a (real) motorcycle race. They were showing wipe outs. One guy lost it at about 180 mph down the straight away... can't remember what exactly happened. Anyway, he hit the pavement about halfway down the maybe 3/4 mile straight away. He slid all the way to the corner and hit the hay bails like a ton of bricks. There was a pause and then he scrawled out of what was by then a hay stack, walked to grass on the inside side of the corner and threw his helmet at the ground as hard as he could. i.e. he was really pissed off. Then he walked away. Skin tight leathers. A very good idea. Almost as good as wearing a helmet. I never understood some people in the states that allow it who never wore a helmet, never mind at least a proper motorcycle jacket. :)

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  8. the day time photo is less impressive by fantomas · · Score: 0

    The day time photo of the country boy with reversed baseball cap and ill fitting jeans is slightly less impressive....

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Custom-Built-Motorcycles-Pro-Street-LightCycle-Tron-Lightcycle-Light-Cycle-Bike-Full-Size-Running-/220627957724?cmd=ViewItem&pt=US_motorcycles&hash=item335e7377dc#v4-39

    I'm quite impressed by the fact that it's a "Tron Lightcycle Honda Yamaha Kawasaki Suzuki Harley" though!

    1. Re:the day time photo is less impressive by b0bby · · Score: 1

      That's their Batpod, I don''t think they've actually built the Tron bikes yet.

    2. Re:the day time photo is less impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the BatPod bike they built last year, not the Light Cycle. How anyone is going to actually ride either of these contraptions remains to be seen though. Apparently the stuntmen on The Dark Knight hated the BatPod bike due to all the near death experiences they were having on in, I doubt a Tron Light Cycle is going to be any better.

      I'd prefer one of these anyway:

      http://www.confederate.com/cm4/b120wraith.php

    3. Re:the day time photo is less impressive by Pete+Venkman · · Score: 1

      The "Honda Yamaha Kawasaki Suzuki Harley" part is so that this item is listed for anyone who searches those terms.

    4. Re:the day time photo is less impressive by eyrieowl · · Score: 1

      The bike looks cool. Their marketing blurb beneath the pic is a bunch of buzzword laden hooey.

  9. Whippersnapper! by Cerberus7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your UID suggests you should get off my lawn. :D

    Those of us who were kids when it came out loved it, and the sequel (not a remake) seems well timed, to me. The movie was not a plotless dud, it was a kinda-confusing people-didn't-get-it (and a couple of plot holes didn't help) dud in the box office. TRON was redeemed by cable TV, VHS, and DVD.

    And the cycles kick ass. So, get off my lawn :D

    --
    I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
    1. Re:Whippersnapper! by Sporkinum · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I'm old too. My first computer work was in the Air Force, as a computer operator on a Burroughs mainframe running MCP. (trivia bit, MCP was the bad guy, and the GFX were rendered on a Burroughs mainframe)

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    2. Re:Whippersnapper! by hcpxvi · · Score: 1

      The jargon file (http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/F/Foonly.html) states that the graphics in Tron were rendered not by a Burroughs mainframe, but by the F-1 (a.k.a. Super Foonly), a prototype for a future generation of the PDP-10. Wikipedia agrees.

    3. Re:Whippersnapper! by yeshuawatso · · Score: 1

      What's funny is the graphics of that movie then can be rendered on mobile phones now. I wonder if 20 years from now we'll be able to render the new Tron movie on mobile phones as well?

    4. Re:Whippersnapper! by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      20 years?

      Doesn't the EVO have a 1Ghz processor on it and runs Android, a flavor of Linux? Sounds to me like we could render CG on a phone NOW. (Albeit slowly)

      Heck, my Palm Pre with a 500Mhz Processor can play 3D games, I'd bet good money it could render CG given enough time and the properly optimized software.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    5. Re:Whippersnapper! by yeshuawatso · · Score: 1

      I should have been more specific, the quality of textures and realism can be rendered in real-time with mobile phones. I was referring o he video games graphics when compared to CG.

    6. Re:Whippersnapper! by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt that I was wrong, but I do remember reading that fact when Tron came out in 1982. They probably had it mixed up since they used it's OS, MCP, as a character.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    7. Re:Whippersnapper! by Pablopelos · · Score: 1

      I liked it too, and my UID says get off MY lawn....

  10. Does it include... by damn_registrars · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... lessons on how to ride it? This doesn't look like it would work quite the same as a typical street bike.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Does it include... by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      Why??? Counter steering is counter steering. The body position would take some getting used to, and the fat tires might make it less than nimble in the curves depending on how they are shaped. My 'guess' is the wheelbase is around 60-70", based on the the rider sitting on it, so it might be reasonably quick around the corners. I'd say anyone that rides rides a bike more than 5,000 miles/year would be up and ready to go after about a couple of minutes in a parking lot getting used to it. Those that only ride a bike to bars in the evening ... maybe a lesson or two might be good for them.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    2. Re:Does it include... by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A lot of motorcycle drivers will never "get" counter-steering - to them it's counter-intuitive. That it's actually safer in a curve (because you can lay the bike down really low, and if it slips, you can recover better because it straightens out the line between your center of gravity and where the rubber meets the road - I know, not a great explanation - just do it!) than the conventional method is lost on them.

    3. Re:Does it include... by BoberFett · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except that counter steering is not counter steering when you're trying to counter steer something where the wheels are 300mm (or whatever those monstrosities are) and your center of gravity appears to be about 8 inches off the ground. Not to mention, the riding position appears to have the riders arms almost at full extension. Looks like a death trap to me.

    4. Re:Does it include... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHY?! Because look at it! You have to ride piggy-back on that molded "guy" body section. How gay would you feel?

      Now on the other hand, if you assume the place of the "guy" then look again, you have to brake with your HANDS! That's crazy!

  11. Please explain the appeal of Tron to me by Shimmer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was a 16 year old geek when Tron came out. It bored me to tears and I forgot about it as soon as I walked out of the theater. The new Tron Legacy trailer looks every bit as dumb. What am I missing here?

    --
    The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
    1. Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me by Kozz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now, I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, but be grateful the mods don't have at their disposal an option for "-1, Heresy". [aforementioned option would also likely be liberally applied within comments on stories about Linux]

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    2. Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1
      Remember back then - everyone was making a big deal how there was 15 minutes (IIRC) of computer generated animation? And what a big deal it was back then?

      The hype was over the "special" effects and I guess the current filmmakers are trying to capitalize on that.

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    3. Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Imagination?

    4. Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I was a 16 year old geek when Tron came out. It bored me to tears and I forgot about it as soon as I walked out of the theater. The new Tron Legacy trailer looks every bit as dumb. What am I missing here?

      Probably some portion of your frontal lobe. Maybe it's a congenital defect, or the result of some early trauma. It's ok, don't worry about it. You can still lead a fulfilling life despite your disability. Really, we shouldn't even consider it a disability; let's just call it neurodiversity.

    5. Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me by Cerberus7 · · Score: 1

      You might've been too old. My middle brother and I loved it, but our older brother was not much of a fan. To my little mind, the story was profound and world-shaking. To you, I can see it just being kinda *meh*.

      --
      I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
    6. Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What am I missing here?

      Youth.

    7. Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was a 16 year old geek when Tron came out. It bored me to tears and I forgot about it as soon as I walked out of the theater. The new Tron Legacy trailer looks every bit as dumb. What am I missing here?

      Simple: You're too old.

      Tron was a kids' movie by Disney. It wasn't meant to appeal to 16 year olds, and no doubt it rarely did. If you were ten at the time, as I was, you'd have thought Tron was awesome.

    8. Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      you don't like tron? then you can't call yourself a geek

    9. Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me by binary+paladin · · Score: 1

      They really need a -1, Heresy mod. Or maybe even a -2 or -3.

      "It bored me to tears..."

      No geek card for the grandparent!

    10. Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me by raddan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For me, a big part of it was that it was a movie about computers, back when computers didn't really enter most people's consciousnesses. As someone who was totally obsessed with them (I'm about a decade younger than you), I was completely captivated by it. It also didn't hurt that frisbee was my favorite sport at the time.

    11. Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      You might've been too old.

      No, he was 16; the age when lack of explosions, blood, or boobs meant any movie was "meh". My father was in his late thirties at the time and liked it. My brother and I were obsessed with it, but weren't allowed to buy the light-cycle toys. :(

    12. Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me by jddj · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Me too - I was just out of college at the time.

      I thought it was very "fake geekery" at the time, Disnified bullshit, like everything else Disney puts out.

      When the movie came out, I'd already been doing optical special effects for a while, and thought the "everything on black" opticals looked cheap and lame - not up to the high standard set by Doug Trumbull with 2001, Silent Running, etc. over a decade before. The work didn't even look as good as Star Wars.

      There were maybe a half-dozen CGI scenes, which looked pretty cool to me, but that's about all I could say for the movie.

      The plot insulted my intelligence, even then.

      The first "all-CGI space footage" movie was, AFAIK, "The Last Starfighter", which featured another insulting plot, though the very cool Robert Preston appears in a key role.

      So many of the films of the next 30 years would be weak exercises in filmmaking as excuses to get time on a supercomputer or grid. We shouldn't be celebrating this low-water-mark.

    13. Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me by JockTroll · · Score: 1

      "Neurodiversity", I like that. This is a masterpiece of wit. You are a true linebacker of the word. With a mighty shove of your superior sense of humor you shoved the original poster loserboy into the ground among the cheers of the crowd, and rightfully so. You deserve the Jock Salute.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    14. Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about a +-0 Heresy mod - it doesn't affect karma, but we get to vent.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    15. Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      You're not alone. I was 19 when it came out and I practically fell asleep while watching it.

    16. Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Tron was a kids' movie by Disney. It wasn't meant to appeal to 16 year olds, and no doubt it rarely did. If you were ten at the time, as I was, you'd have thought Tron was awesome.

      I was 9 at the time and found it boring. I was just learning VIC-20 assembly, so I didn't know what most of the terminology meant (MCP, users, etc.)

      I think you needed to be a 15-year old geek with some exposure to a university lab, and then it was awesome. Fortunately for selection bias, those guys are all here.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  12. Not made for the movie by s.d. · · Score: 2, Informative

    The summary was a unclear to me -- these weren't built for or affiliated with the movie in any way, these were simply built based on the specs of the models built for the movie.

    1. Re:Not made for the movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's also why they are 35k and not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

      Sounds like a good deal to me.

    2. Re:Not made for the movie by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      $35k seems like a steal to me.

      (Assuming they can deliver, which I"m not too sure about...)

      --
      No sig today...
  13. Re:Lawn! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Can we get some custom mowers that short when they're not mowing every second, and try to box each other into mowed lines on your lawn?

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  14. great timing by virtualXTC · · Score: 1

    Just got my class M license last weekend and CEO asked me what kind of bike I was getting; time to discuss a pay raise!

    1. Re:great timing by Amouth · · Score: 1

      It's on par or cheaper than the nicer Harley's

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  15. Akira Please by Dalroth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The only bike I want is Kaneda's bike.

    1. Re:Akira Please by vadim_t · · Score: 3, Informative
    2. Re:Akira Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only bike I want is Kaneda's bike.

      TETSUO!!!!!!

  16. space paranoids 2000 by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The more important question is will they leave in the sex scene this time?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:space paranoids 2000 by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      You mean they too it out where you saw it?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  17. Re:But...not with you on it by rossdee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anybody remember a TV show called Automan. He had a car that did 90 degree turns "like pacman" but it was hard on the human occupant...

  18. With a Tron cycle and suit, babes will love you by noidentity · · Score: 2, Funny

    After getting one of these cycles, pick up a Tron suit and you'll be really hot with the babes, honest.

    1. Re:With a Tron cycle and suit, babes will love you by macshit · · Score: 1

      Is that guy carrying a lunchbox?

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    2. Re:With a Tron cycle and suit, babes will love you by ShadowDragoonFTW · · Score: 1

      Wait, ROFL Con?

  19. Before we judge, et's not forget the TV knockoff.. by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automan

    Seriously, with all the plot issues of Tron, it was still light years ahead of that...

    --
    0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
  20. Daft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awesome.. This is the must-have motorcycle for the Daft Punk set.. Do Want

  21. Tron had very little CGI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tron had very little computer generated graphics.

  22. Everyday street use. Really? by d474 · · Score: 1

    From the Ebay listing it says these bikes are designed for everyday street use. If that's the case, how the hell is that bike supposed to turn? There appears to be no way for the front wheel to steer. Anyone have any idea how the hell this would work?

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  23. That was 28 years ago ? by bugs2squash · · Score: 2, Funny

    You fuckers; why did you have to point that out and make me feel so old.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  24. Re:Before we judge, et's not forget the TV knockof by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

    Automan. A terrible show, but I watched it. I was just getting into programming and found the representations to be laughable (esp. cursor). But the 90 degree full speed corners in his car were a lot of fun.

  25. A good investment by ChristianMc · · Score: 0

    If only five of these bikes are ever going to be sold, it sounds like a good investment. There's always the chance that Tron: Legacy is a terrible movie and you end up with a replica of something from a terrible movie no one cares about, but hey, investments are gambles, right?

  26. Re:Everyday street use. Really? by Kaleidoscopio · · Score: 1

    Actually on a real bike you dont "steer" that much, you turn by tilting your body.
    Steering a bike like you would a car equals a bad crash.
    Most racing bikes have a very limited steering angle.

  27. Re:Everyday street use. Really? by RapmasterT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the Ebay listing it says these bikes are designed for everyday street use. If that's the case, how the hell is that bike supposed to turn? There appears to be no way for the front wheel to steer. Anyone have any idea how the hell this would work?

    The Ebay listing is a testament to one part wishful thinking, one part overconfidence, and two parts willful fraud.

    The photos is the listing are of the non-functional movie promo prop, not anything these guys are selling, or even OWN.

    For the bikes to be street legal, then by definition can't look anything like the movie bikes because they need things like headlights, turn signals, etc.

    The best part is the claim that the bikes will be ready in 6-8 weeks...RIGHT!!

    I'll believe these guys aren't trying to outright steal from gullible people as soon as they can show a photo of something they didn't just scrape from Tron movie promotions.

  28. Re:Everyday street use. Really? by BrianRoach · · Score: 1

    Close.

    Motorcycles are counter steered at speed. You turn the bars opposite to the direction you wish to turn, then lean into the corner. Keith Code (Keith Code superbike school) had to take a bike and weld the steering head in place to prove this to people who kept insisting your statement was true.

    You are correct in that racing bikes have a limited steering angle, but it's in the neighborhood of 35 degrees in either direction (depending on the bike, my Ducati 900ss was notorious for needing 3-point turns in parking lots, the 1098 I have now has more but the stops are adjustable).

    Obligatory Cred to back up my statement:
    WERA 2000 Lightweight Superbike regional champion
    USGPRU and FUSA Pro racer 2000 - 2005

  29. Driving? by Traxton1 · · Score: 1

    How the hell does this thing drive? Also,I can't imagine the astronomical tire replacement costs, but it looks like getting a new tire on there would be even worse.

    1. Re:Driving? by toxonix · · Score: 1

      Nah, hoosier tires has been around for decades I think. I guess you can ask them to hang on to the original mold for a while.. http://www.hoosiertire.com/ But seriously, are you really going to wear those tires out? Look at the size of those things. Even if you rode this really really hard as a daily commuter, it will probably take 5 years. I also would like to know the engine/trans and steering details. It looks like they are offering either a Honda 893cc I4 from the Fireblade or some kind of electric hair dryer motor. I'll take the 150 bhp Fireblade engine please. Also this thing lacks suspension, which is OK for low speed cruising around the parking lot. I want to see one driving at 100+ mph with the LEDs on at night.

  30. Light Cycles by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

    The appeal to me has been being behind the screen and the view from there. Having them in the real world takes the appeal of the bikes away. Besides there is no real way they can build them to let me turn on the walls when someone is tailgating me good. >_>

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
  31. Re:Everyday street use. Really? by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

    Ummm.....they probably turn like all motorcycles ... using the handlebars. I don't think they could turn very tightly when parking since your hands are next to the wheels, but at speeds above 25mph you don't really turn the handlebars anyway. Google 'motorcycle countersteer' for more information, or visit Wikipedia.

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  32. The pilot; part of the frame? by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The concept drawings make the "pilot" look like part of the frame. This would make the real pilot appear to be in the bitch seat, although the head would at least be higher than two feet off the ground.

  33. Re:Everyday street use. Really? by BrianRoach · · Score: 1

    If you don't think you turn the handlebars, I encourage you to take Keith Code's superbike school and attempt to turn the motorcycle he created to disprove this notion (the steering head is welded in place).

    You actually counter steer quite a bit, especially at full lean at high speed.

  34. Re:Awful Original/Great Remake: Battlestar Galacti by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    I thought the Battlestar Galactica movie (which I saw for the first time only a couple years ago) is actually pretty good.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  35. Re:Everyday street use. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't use the front wheel to steer, except when going very slow, or backing up. You lean a bike. The object is to not use the steering wheel at all, but lean the bike around the corner, much like how it's shown in the previews for the movie.

  36. Re:Everyday street use. Really? by pintpusher · · Score: 1

    In my experience (not as credible as yours, but 20yrs on the street including a stint as a messenger in DC), the amount of counter-steer needed is minimal. Often just a whisper of pressure on the inside hand will induce a turn. I totally believe, though haven't tried, the welded headset trick works fine, but probably requires more pressure to actually force the lean..

    From my observations, the counter steering is just to move the front wheel out from under the center of gravity thus inducing lean and subsequent turning where the CG moves back over the wheel. The inside pressure makes the front wheel move slightly in the opposite direction, unbalancing the system and allowing the lean.

    very much my anecdotal observations... but it's fun to play with little tiny countersteer pressures and see the results.

    --
    man, I feel like mold.
  37. TRON was lame, is lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TRON was completely lame when it debuted. That was not only my opinion but the opinion of many contemporary, professional movie reviewers. In part it's because of a lame plot, slow pace, and the effects being largely cartooned, not extensively CGI. I don't understand the modern day resurgence, unless people now promoting it were too young at the time to understand just how lame it was.

  38. Re:But...not with you on it by Gruuk · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I remember the show. My geeky teenage self liked it and was disappointed when it got quickly canceled.

    --
    De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum
  39. Blech... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    ...Is it me, or whenever Hollywood artists try to 'reinvent' some feature of a story or movie in a sequel, they overdo it and fail? This bike looks like ASS compared to the original tron bikes. What was so wrong with the original design that they had to re-do it?

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  40. Re:But...not with you on it by Insightfill · · Score: 1

    Anybody remember a TV show called Automan. He had a car that did 90 degree turns "like pacman" but it was hard on the human occupant...

    Wiki even has an article on it. I loved it, and was about 14 at the time.

  41. Re:Everyday street use. Really? by BrianRoach · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The point of the welded steering head at his school is that you can't turn the motorcycle without turning the front wheel. The only way it turns is if you decrease speed enough that it's basically trying to fall over.

    As you lean, the position of the front wheel in relation to the frame is not constant - you're still counter-steering, but in a less efficient manor.

    The reason he created the exercise was to show people that focusing on putting input into the handlebars is the way to turn a motorcycle - everything else takes more of your time, energy, and attention which at high speed, is limited.

    His books are really about the physics of riding a motorcycle, and quite interesting to read. I took all four levels of his school when I first started racing in the '90s.

  42. Advertisement? by flipper9 · · Score: 0

    While this is cool, this article just looks like a simple advertisement to sell their bikes. How is this newsworthy? It's not like this is a website with designs on how to make your own, or how to pimp your existing bike, or even about the cool technology put into the bike. It's a simple like to buy one on Ebay.

  43. Fakes by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Those images look shopped!

    Seriously, are these images of actual hardware, or 3D models?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  44. Umm, $35k? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who thinks that $35k for a custom built, dual hubless wheel, running, riding motorcycle is an absolute bargain? If I were a potential customer, I would be worried that these guys could actually deliver the finished product at that price.

    1. Re:Umm, $35k? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's $35k for a nice Harley, so if they can actually get these on the road for that I'd be more than impressed.

  45. Re:Awful Original/Great Remake: Battlestar Galacti by swilver · · Score: 1

    Remake with shakey cam? No thanks.

  46. Yep. Waaaaay too cheap by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    $350k would be more believable (as a reference, West Coast Choppers charges well over $100,000 for one of their bikes and they've got a production line going for most of the parts).

    Either they're doing it at a massive loss just to get famous or the thing you end up with will look nothing like the pics (more likely).

    --
    No sig today...
  47. Won't be good for Europe. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    In the US you have this rd/st system with roads crisscrossing at right angles.

    In Europe, most cities grew as defensive fortresses, with new layers of city walls, and later beltways added as more rings around the center, with roads to/from the old city market and in circle around it.

    So unless someone's gonna upgrade the light cycle firmware to run on polar coordinates vs cartesian, they won't do much good in Europe.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  48. Re:Everyday street use. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the Ebay listing it says these bikes are designed for everyday street use. If that's the case, how the hell is that bike supposed to turn? There appears to be no way for the front wheel to steer. Anyone have any idea how the hell this would work?

    It's hard to tell from the photos but my guess would be that the bike has an articulated frame (not a new concept in bike building). Someone previously mentioned the size of the tires affecting handling. This is not entirely correct, a MUCH more important factor is the trail of the bike (a mathematical relationship between the rake of the steering neck and triple trees and the location of the front axle). Too much trail and your bike "flops", imagine one of those modern choppers with the very long front ends. They don't steer well unless the builder has monkeyed with the rake of the front trees, and even then turning a bike with geometry like that can be a chore. Too little trail and your bike get's "squirrely" at high speeds (can be remediated with steering dampeners but those are generally considered hacks for street bikes. On bikes with articulated frames dialing in the right trail can be tricky but again, I'm assuming a certain frame design.

    BTW, those bikes as pictured are NOT street legal in all 50 states. Certainly not legal in Illinois.

  49. Re:Everyday street use. Really? by jjbenz · · Score: 1

    Brian, have you ever raced at Road America? If so I've probably seen you race.

  50. Are these the actual photos? by Slutticus · · Score: 1

    From the looks of the wheels, they don't appear to have a very good turn radius. There isn't much clearance between the bottom of the wheel and the outer shell. There will be no taking to the twisties on these guys....

    1. Re:Are these the actual photos? by ShadowDragoonFTW · · Score: 1

      UGH! Read the other posts. Sheesh. The photos are from the NON-FUNCTIONING PROMOTIONAL BIKE that was produced for the movie. They have no pictures of the product yet, because it does not exist yet. They haven't built any yet. They want the money first, which ain't happenin'.

  51. Whoa, Nellie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    back when computers didn't really enter most people's consciousnesses.

    1982? Sorry, but that's not true at all. Not just computers but personal computers were a hugely hyped consumer product in 1982, and had been for years. The first portables were already out and turning obsolete. DOS was out. Commodore 64 was out. Apple ][e was announced for release next year; the Apple][ was already well established.

    Computer movie effects had been massively hyped in the mainstream media since the 1977 smash hit of Star Wars. The big new genre of Music Video was nearly trademarked by gratuitous use of computer effects and editing.

    In 1982 Tron was riding the end of the /second/ generation of computer game consoles. Donkey Kong was out already. The Atari 2600 was huge.

    No offense intended; you're remembering through the eyes of a 6 year old. I was twenty. Tron was just Disney milking a well-established cow.

  52. Why science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Science Fiction in keeping with the science part is confined to scientific rules. Were is the science to fantasy?

  53. Re:Everyday street use. Really? by BrianRoach · · Score: 1

    Only once, about 10 years ago ... I think it was a combined CCS and FUSA event.

    We were based out of DE, so that was a long haul for us. I've raced just about everywhere else East of the Mississippi.

  54. I'm willing to be even more pedantic by SpaceToast · · Score: 1

    Tron did indeed showcase "the kinds of computer-generated special effects that later become commonplace," but in a sense the light cycles did not. As sequence designer Ken Perlin, now of NYU, has remarked, after Tron polygon-based 3d graphics became the new hotness, with the light cycle sequence as its acme. The trouble was, they didn't use polygons. The light cycles were actually constructed out of volumetric primitives using boolean operations (AND, OR, NOT). True curves like NURBs and Hash patches wouldn't have really been practical on the systems they were working with. (Nor had they -- you know -- been invented yet.) Most of what you seen on movie screens to this day are approximated hollow polygon shells that immitate curved solids. CAD makes common use of boolean primitives, but the light cycle sequence was less the ancestor of modern film CGI than an all but extinct evolutionary branch. Tron was the Burgess Shale of computer animation.

  55. Re:Everyday street use. Really? by BrianRoach · · Score: 1

    I know reading the article and doing a couple google searches is challenging, but these are the same guys who built a working facsimile of the Dark Knight 'Bat Pod'.

    This isn't their first rodeo. They also build custom "normal" motorcycles.

    As for your assessment on what makes it road legal, laws vary by State and custom manufacture has different rules than mass-produced. For example, all states I've lived in have required a headlight and taillight on motorcycles, but not turn signals. VA has a bizarre law that says signals are not required, but if present they much be functional.

    But yes, feel free to believe what you want.

  56. Your sig by coaxial · · Score: 1

    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory

    You have a very novel definition for "proven".

  57. Re:Everyday street use. Really? by RapmasterT · · Score: 1

    I know reading the article and doing a couple google searches is challenging

    agreed, but I suggest you try it anyway. Find a state where a motorcycle fitted as the movie lightcycles would be "street legal", I will hold my breath while you do so.

    This isn't their first rodeo. They also build custom "normal" motorcycles.

    If you knew anything about the custom motorcycle business, you'd know that it's almost synonymous with mismanagement, fraud, overconfidence, overpromising and underdelivering. And by all accounts, this IS their "first time at the rodeo" building anything remotely like this.

    Tell you what, I'll come back to this thread in 8 weeks, the amount of time they claim to be shipping 5 of these bikes in. If anything that will even ROLL exists, I will take it all back. Otherwise, we'll just consider you a bit gullible.