Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Buy Your Own Tron Lightcycle For $35,000

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the now-there's-a-bargain dept.

Movies 170

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."

cancel ×

170 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

rar (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757422)

first post!

also,

Before we judge, et's not forget the TV knockoff.. (1)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758096)

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

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

Re:Before we judge, et's not forget the TV knockof (1)

AshtangiMan (684031) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758238)

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.

Yes, but... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757458)

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

But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757470)

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

Re:But... (1)

boneclinkz (1284458) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757498)

Sure it can!

But not with you on it.

Re:But...not with you on it (2, Interesting)

rossdee (243626) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757996)

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...

Re:But... (1)

Walruzoar (514362) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757926)

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

Now if this generates the wall trails... (1)

Zantac69 (1331461) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757500)

I want one.

Now.

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

Why bother? (0, Troll)

whizbang77045 (1342005) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757512)

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.

Re:Why bother? (5, Insightful)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757670)

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.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32758208)

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 [wikipedia.org] ! 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 [wikipedia.org] . 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.

Re:Why bother? (1)

yeshuawatso (1774190) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758644)

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.

Re:Why bother? (1)

raddan (519638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758524)

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.

Whippersnapper! (5, Insightful)

Cerberus7 (66071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757768)

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

Re:Lawn! (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757880)

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?

Re:Whippersnapper! (1, Offtopic)

Sporkinum (655143) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757962)

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)

Re:Whippersnapper! (1)

hcpxvi (773888) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758350)

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.

Re:Whippersnapper! (1)

yeshuawatso (1774190) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758728)

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?

Re:Whippersnapper! (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758960)

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.

Re:Why bother? (1)

joeflies (529536) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757786)

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.

Re:Why bother? (1)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758590)

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.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757824)

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

It is SHINY

Re:Why bother? (1)

yeshuawatso (1774190) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758744)

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

Re:Why bother? (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758916)

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

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32759002)

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

Re:Why bother? (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757900)

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.

Re:Why bother? (3, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32759208)

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!

space paranoids 2000 (2, Funny)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757954)

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

Awful Original/Great Remake: Battlestar Galactica! (-1, Offtopic)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758762)

The original series was so bad that ANYTHING would have been an improvement.

The remake was ... if you haven't seen it, just go watch it. You won't be disappointed.

Re:Awful Original/Great Remake: Battlestar Galacti (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32759266)

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

Lets hope (1)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757562)

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

Re:Lets hope (1)

raddan (519638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758564)

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

I think you meant 'than'.

I want one, but... (3, Funny)

Jarnin (925269) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757582)

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

Re:I want one, but... (3, Funny)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757744)

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

Re:I want one, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757856)

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

Re:I want one, but... (2, Funny)

IflyRC (956454) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757832)

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.

Re:I want one, but... (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758156)

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

Re:I want one, but... (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758214)

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?

Re:I want one, but... (2, Funny)

IflyRC (956454) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758526)

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

Re:I want one, but... (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32759336)

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.

Re:I want one, but... (2, Insightful)

Target Practice (79470) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758448)

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...

Re:I want one, but... (1)

Mitsoid (837831) | more than 4 years ago | (#32759152)

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!

It'll look cool (5, Funny)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757682)

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

Re:It'll look cool (5, Funny)

Baron_Yam (643147) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757730)

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?

Re:It'll look cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757882)

Very.


Please post hires pictures and upload the event to youtube.

Re:It'll look cool (2, Funny)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758186)

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?

Re:It'll look cool (1)

Baron_Yam (643147) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758394)

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.

Re:It'll look cool (4, Funny)

Monkey-Man2000 (603495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758298)

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 [wordpress.com] ?

Re:It'll look cool (1)

yeshuawatso (1774190) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758800)

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

Re:It'll look cool (1)

Peet42 (904274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32759018)

Is that Jerry Pournelle?

Re:It'll look cool (1)

Mike Van Pelt (32582) | more than 4 years ago | (#32759298)

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.)

Re:It'll look cool (1)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 4 years ago | (#32759328)

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

the day time photo is less impressive (0)

fantomas (94850) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757710)

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 [ebay.com]

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

Re:the day time photo is less impressive (1)

b0bby (201198) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757792)

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

Re:the day time photo is less impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757820)

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

Re:the day time photo is less impressive (1)

eyrieowl (881195) | more than 4 years ago | (#32759160)

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

Re:the day time photo is less impressive (1)

Pete Venkman (1659965) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757826)

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

Does it include... (2, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757800)

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

Re:Does it include... (1)

johnlcallaway (165670) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758496)

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.

Re:Does it include... (2, Interesting)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758900)

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.

Please explain the appeal of Tron to me (3, Interesting)

Shimmer (3036) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757806)

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?

Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me (3, Insightful)

Kozz (7764) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758064)

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]

Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me (1)

binary paladin (684759) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758422)

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!

Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758098)

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.

Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32758114)

Imagination?

Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32758132)

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.

Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 4 years ago | (#32759404)

"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.

Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me (1)

Cerberus7 (66071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758158)

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*.

Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32759008)

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. :(

Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32758174)

What am I missing here?

Youth.

Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32758242)

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.

Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32758254)

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

Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me (3, Insightful)

raddan (519638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758622)

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.

Re:Please explain the appeal of Tron to me (0, Flamebait)

jddj (1085169) | more than 4 years ago | (#32759012)

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.

Not made for the movie (2, Informative)

s.d. (33767) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757844)

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.

Re:Not made for the movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32758546)

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

Sounds like a good deal to me.

great timing (1)

virtualXTC (609488) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757906)

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!

Re:great timing (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32759054)

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

Akira Please (2, Insightful)

Dalroth (85450) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757930)

The only bike I want is Kaneda's bike.

Re:Akira Please (3, Informative)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757974)

here you go [bbakira.co.uk]

With a Tron cycle and suit, babes will love you (2, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758008)

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

Daft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32758178)

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

Tron had very little CGI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32758210)

Tron had very little computer generated graphics.

Everyday street use. Really? (1)

d474 (695126) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758218)

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?

Re:Everyday street use. Really? (1)

Kaleidoscopio (1271290) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758416)

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.

Re:Everyday street use. Really? (1)

BrianRoach (614397) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758610)

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

Re:Everyday street use. Really? (1)

pintpusher (854001) | more than 4 years ago | (#32759360)

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.

Re:Everyday street use. Really? (4, Interesting)

RapmasterT (787426) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758482)

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.

Re:Everyday street use. Really? (1)

johnlcallaway (165670) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758680)

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. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Everyday street use. Really? (1)

BrianRoach (614397) | more than 4 years ago | (#32759078)

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.

Re:Everyday street use. Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32759306)

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.

That was 28 years ago ? (2, Funny)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758224)

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

A good investment (1)

ChristianMc (1627201) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758314)

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?

Driving? (1)

Traxton1 (154182) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758614)

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.

Re:Driving? (1)

toxonix (1793960) | more than 4 years ago | (#32759178)

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/ [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.

Light Cycles (1)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758678)

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. >_>

The pilot; part of the frame? (2, Interesting)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32758880)

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.

ni6ga (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32759090)

lesson and Driven out by the Bad for *BSD. As racist? How is a conscious stand EFNe7 servers. Win out; either the abysmal sales and
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?