Adventure Bike Rider Forum

ooops sorry - just realised this is a long way off stream now....... the art of conversation from an original question/statement.....

chrisuk wrote:Stop press: CHER now CEO of KTM

[video width=425 height=344 type=youtube]BsKbwR7WXN4[/video]

:laugh: :dry: :dry: :woohoo:

-Ralph- wrote:

bowser wrote:like the jump from KTM and all that bollocks about KTM not thinking they would make it!! they could and should have just come out and said that "BMW offered the bikes the spares back up and sponsor money to use their bikes, where as KTM would only offer the bikes and some spares", so we have decided to go on BMW's, everybody knows it now, the whole industry knew it at the time, its now no secret so why treat the viewer like an idiot at the time?

Can you expand on this? Is there any proof?



LWR made comments on camera such as 'they don't wanna give any of the bikes? Correct', and 'they think that we might fail', then they broadcast it on TV presented as fact, in a documentary, not a fictional programme.

Now, this was negative publicity for KTM, BMW came out looking like the shining stars, and have profited massively from LWR and undoubtedly KTM took some reputational damage from it at the time. If what was said in the programme about KTM was not true, and Euan, Charley, Russ knew it was not true (ie: they made up a big act), then that is corporate defamation (a kind of organisational equivalent of libel against a person).

Why haven't KTM sued?

a rough guess,
A) not easy to defame a company, and level off damages not normally high, I am sure someone will come along to correct me but I believe that you have to prove that it was done maliciously, and that Special damage has directly and naturally resulted.
B) they probably agreed to something as a get out for the TV company,
C) discovery channel last year annual profit 4.4 Billion KTM profit last year 615 million.

And your comment about what was said on the program and it being a non fictional program? I don't wish to be rude but what planet do you live on? it was not a documentary it was docutainment or infotainment either is accurate, basically factual but altered to make it entertaining, if you think that all of the "we just happened to find or happened upon" found nice Russian to take us back to his house etc etc just happened you are sadly wrong, even if you give them the benefit of the doubt with some, there is just too much, with a TV crew you have deadlines, budget, footage to be backed up edited etc etc etc way to much to be all chance, I have spent some time in front of the camera and behind it as well, even "honest" programs fek about with time the order things happen, when they happen all in the name of making it interesting in the edit.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the LWR, got the T shirt the whole nine yards, but its a TV programme, it was made as a TV programme it might have started out as two blokes riding round the world but as soon as discovery channel get involved with a crew etc it stopped being that and became a TV production it doesn't matter what production it happened to be there will have been researchers/runners doing this and that behind the scenes sorting out the paperwork that's required and there will be a schedule that HAS to be kept to as much as possible its just the way TV works so chance encounters are carefully staged.
As a general rule if the "camera" was there to catch something then it was planned, if you don't see an incident but only the aftermath such as you don't see a frame break but only being fixed after then it was unplanned (although that is a rough guide) and its applicable to all infotainment. LWR/Wheeler Dealers/Top gear/Scrapheap Challenge - cant remember the number of times we had to retake the same thing to get that "spontaneous" look what we have just done/found/broken etc because the camera missed it the first time round, or watching a TV crew doing some filming "fix" a car so that it didn't start to "add" drama (it just happened to be filmed at a place I go to on a regular basis)

Bernard Smith wrote:

bowser wrote:....and a shit load of cash to pay for hotels etc.

disagree with the bike point he made as I did it on an 18 year old bike. Agree in some ways re. the hotels. The minute you stop ANYWHERE you will be surrounded and constantly harassed - even in the middle of 'nowhere' people will suddenly appear. It's a innocent harassment in many ways born out of pure curiosity but you will have not a minutes peace in my experience. Plus, the 'understandable' facilities and hotels will cost far more than most people realise......... it's a polarised society in many ways between the haves and the have nots......

Just a thought......

Quite agree with that, but the point is you don't HAVE to, you can do it in a tent/rough camping. Ok not in the same league but I have two mates who went to the bike rally in Faro a couple of years ago, and had just enough money for petrol and not much else, so they rough camped every night from UK to Southern Portugal and back, not even tents but Bivi bags (alright they were both REME, so naturaly dim , it does depend on who you are but the point is that its not essential or not to me anyway, but the guy I was speaking to at the weekend was convinced that it just could not be done without, and that's sad.

they rough camped in India? Or am I reading it wrong........?

Bernard Smith wrote:ooops sorry - just realised this is a long way off stream now.....

after FIFTEEN pages of AV vs LWR ranting a change is as good as a rest mate!! :laugh:

Bernard Smith wrote:they rough camped in India? Or am I reading it wrong........?

No I didn't make myself clear, my trip is for india.

My mates did a trip trough Europe down to Faro, rough camping I did say its not quite the same thing but its the only actual example I have first hand knowledge off, just using it as an example of what some people are happy to do, and manage without issue.

bowser wrote:I don't wish to be rude but what planet do you live on?

Well, you don't wish to be rude, but you succeeded nonetheless. Next time you don't wish to be rude try a little harder to rephrase.

Suggesting an intelligent person can't tell the difference between what has been a bit staged and what hasn't is a little bit insulting too.

Still, whatever type of programme you want to call LWR, it doesn't change the fact that the youtube video I posted publicly presented the KTM refusal as a fact, not fiction.

I asked if there was any evidence that the contents of the youtube video were untrue. Well is there? Is what Dancanovas has posted about the KTM CEO's comments untrue?

Personally I suspect there was no grounds to sue, as the truth was told, and KTM did indeed refuse the bikes, until of course somebody presents evidence to the contrary that may change my mind.

Gimmie a nine cylinder knobblied, hubless, 1200 pound, big trailie chopper led down a red carpet lined with nymphs throwing bushels of cash for rip up the Stelvio....

Or...

Gimmie a clapped out CT90, two fish tacos and a hand drawn map on the back of my arm for a solo run to Tuktayuktuk in February.

Either way I'm in!

I haven't read the article but I do understand Vince's resentment towards the industry as a whole and it's something I really agree with. When I first started to be interested by bikes, I was inspired by the Long Way Round series and that made me think it was possible, but then when I started to research it, the staggering cost of a trip made me think that it wouldn't be possible and therefore, I stopped thinking about it for a while. You're told that you need a disgustingly overpriced pair of aluminium panniers when in reality, an old, 30 year old ex-military heavy rucksack will do the job for £5. Companies will tell you that unless you have the best gore-tex, 4 season, cold-when-hot, hot-when-cold suit for £1000, you can't do a trip like this whereas with a basic waterproof jacket, a fleece, a scarf and a few other cheap items, you can get by.

It's very easy to throw money at any problem, and I wouldn't argue that it's a better alternative, but I can't see any justification for spending money on those things. I'd rather have ex-army panniers and a basic waterproof jacket whilst riding around in South America, than spend trip money on buying all the recommended gear and getting as far as Birmingham.

I don't resent people who have the things I don't either! If they're lucky enough to have those things, great, but I do have an issue with the companies who tell you that they are essential because it simply isn't and had it not been for people like Austin Vince who tell it like it is, I may not have been where I am now.