Bob Gray, a bike tester and journalist, currently working for MSS Colchester Kawasaki, knows a thing or two about data logging. He's worked with many competing systems over the last decade, and understands better than most what makes some systems better than others. In the second part of his interview, Bob tells Datron what he believes makes the 2D system unique, and what gives it the edge over the rest of the competition.
"What I've found over the years with people who use data logging equipment, is that they tend to stick with what they know and what they're used to. If people have used a Motec system or a PI system they'll always tell you it's the best and won't be prepared to try anything else. I guess that people stick to what they're comfortable with. It might not make sense in a competitive way, but that's just how it is. It's kind of like an aversion to change."
"It's slightly different for me because I've been forced through circumstances to use different systems over the years, and I've learned to approach them all with an open mind. In all the years I've never seen any good or valid reason for me to use anything other than 2D. I've never found any other system's that's as quick or simple to use. So it's worth remembering it's not only as competitive as the other systems, and certainly no more expensive than any other data logging system, but it's also much more efficient. Efficiency really is the key to this: it delivers the information you want quicker, so you can get more work done, and that makes me happy."
"The beauty of the 2D system is that it lets you gather information in 4 or 5 different ways, rather than having to follow a rigid set procedure like you do with some other data logging systems, like Motec and PI. It's like trying to copy text on Microsoft Word: you can click copy, or you can click Control C, or you can right click. Each method produces the same result. People who like to click buttons are happy as are those who like shortcuts. They get to where they want to be in the end, but by different methods. The 2D software is the same."
"There are so many different ways to achieve the same result and get the information you want with 2D. When you first look at the list of options on the menu it can seem a bit daunting, but you soon get used to it. I guess it's like learning to drive: when you first start you don't know how to work the gears, but soon you start to drive without having the need to think consciously about it. After a week or two of using the 2D software you begin to appreciate the fact that you're not hemmed in by it, or forced to work to somebody else's rules."
"The Magneti-Marelli system I have to use at the moment is a right pain because I can't change the shortcuts: I have to click on one button to bring up a list of options and another button to open something. It's so regimented, whereas with 2D I know I can tap a couple of buttons and all the information I need is there. I don't have to work too hard to get it. The best thing is it makes me look great, when in fact it's the system, but I wouldn't tell them that! All of which brings me back to what I mentioned earlier: people who've used one system most of their working lives, don't want to try other options because as soon as you put them in front of a strange piece of software, they don't look very good."
"I haven't worked with 2D for about 18 months now because the team I currently work for (MSS Colchester Kawasaki) were given a load of ‘free' Magneti-Marelli equipment and couldn't afford to buy any other: they just hadn't got the money to pay for another 2D licence as well. Although the Magneti -Marelli equipment does its job, it just can't compete with 2D. As far as I'm concerned 2D is the best and most efficient data logging system for motor cycles that I've ever worked with, and I look forward to using it again."