We've come a long way, Baby.

Far from the heady days of side valves and Earles forks, grip-mounted spark advances and solid frames, the modern Superbike is on the verge of becoming a machine of fully integrated systems controlled by a computer. This off-season has been notable for the introduction of computer-controlled gearboxes and traction control systems. It seems as if we are on the verge of new breakthroughs in the motorcycle racing world.

Is this good or bad? That's impossible to say. If you're a hot-rodder, gaining 5 horses simply from a new fuel injection map, it's good. Then again, it's impossible to rig up a computer system with duct tape and J.B. Weld. When you have software problems, you are in deep doo-doo.

What is certain is that one can't stand in the way of progress. Computers inundated first the aerospace industry, then the automotive realm, and have now come to knock on the door of the motorcycle world.

You can't unlearn what you already know, and technologies that already exist are on the verge of being adapted for the race bikes we love. First, fuel injection paved the way to manipulate the horsepower to make racing machines more rider friendly. The next logical step was an integration of the fuel injection computers to the ignition system that fires the all-important spark at just the right moment. Now, Ducati Corse's semi-auto transmission and Suzuki's traction control go one step beyond the current status quo.

Motorcycles have been, to this point, what sociologist Alvin Toffler would call "second wave" machines, borne out of the Industrial revolution, products of metallurgy and craftsmanship. Now they are headed kicking and screaming into the "third wave" of computer hardware and software.

Sure, race bikes will always have second wave elements to them, the same as F-14 fighter planes do. But jet fighters and Formula 1 cars are dominated by their computers. Soon, race bikes may be as well.

This is not unlike the rest of the world, including the consumer electronics industry. Microsoft is trying to make their niche in the home interior market with their Windows CE operating system. Before too long, all of our everyday devices will be controlled by computer chips. As someone who doesn't throw anything away until it's been Super-Glued, Kryloned, and re-soldered at least twice, I can't see myself throwing out my toaster just because it has an "outdated" operating system.

Traction control is a big deal in the car racing world. Race cars need grippy tires to the all-important cornering speeds. Anything that makes tires last will translate to better lap times, especially for long runs in between pit stops.

The application is pretty straight forward as well. Cars basically run parallel to the ground, and when the rear wheel or wheels start turning a lot faster than the front wheels, the computer assumes the wheels are spinning and cuts the spark to a cylinder or two until the tires can catch up.

Bikes, on the other hand, operate in a 3-D world, since they lean, wheelie, and even stand on their noses under hard braking on occasion. Any traction control system is much more complicated than just comparing the wheel speeds.

Besides, sometimes the riders want to spin the rear tire to turn the bike. The perfect examples are the turns exiting the infield and entering the banking at Daytona. The rider and bike are pointed directly at the outside wall as the accelerate up the banking, but the rear tire skips along the tarmac and paints a black line under heavy throttle. The rear bucks and slides out toward the wall, and all of the sudden the bike is pointed exactly where it needs to be.

If traction control is going to work, it has to be able to distinguish good spinning from bad spinning. That's a tall order.

If we can put a man on the moon with less computing power than that old 286 in the bottom of your closet, there's no doubt a traction control system that lowers lap times will can be developed. The only question remains if traction control is worth the effort? Could the resources required to make a viable traction control system be used better elsewhere? Or would the tremendous benefits of traction control on street machines keep the manufacturers interested? The last time I rode in the rain, I certainly would have liked a traction control switch to activate.

Software is almost impossible to police by technical stewards. While it is difficult to disguise illegal parts, you can hide almost anything in the code. F1 banned traction control in the mid 90s, but the cheaters have become so sophisticated they are impossible to detect. The stewards could go to a slow corner and hear the tell-tale stuttering as the traction control kicked in under heavy acceleration. The same stewards watched the top drivers get perfect starts race after race. They knew the teams were cheating, but they could never catch them. F1 is on the verge of allowing traction control again, because they can't stop the teams from using it.Many think that the programs that run these systems disapeer from the code once the ignition is turned off.

It's almost better not to ban any computer technologies. It isn't like running an over-size engine or illegal cylinder head. Engineers can insert the dubious code via a laptop computer on the grid, and as soon as the engine is switched off, the evidence disappears.

In the future, the new racer's lament won't disparage his engine, tires of suspension. It will be, 'We had a software problem,' or perhaps, 'The manufacturer won't give us the good computer program or code like they gave the other guy.'

Maybe the more things change, the more they stay the same.