There are more to the electronic aids than just tc and launch control.
MotoGP still is about rider skill. If the bikes are so much easier to ride like you're trying to make them out to be, there would be more competitive riders since the bike would make up for their shortcomings, right? I mean, they just have to twist the grip and line up the bike in the corner, right? The bike does everything else, right? Rider just has to hold on...
These bikes are only easier to ride up to a certain limit, which isn't fast enough to be truly competitive. To go as fast as the bikes can go is not at all easy, regardless of what you and other electronics naysayers think about rider aids, or there would be more riders challenging for the podium, and it's not just because a decrease in the number of real competitive bikes.
We're not going to agree so I'm done with this topic.
The rest of the electronics suite aren't rider aids. Launch/wheelie/traction control and a quick shifter are all they have to help them ride the bike. Now I'm not certain you even know what constitutes a rider aid. Fuel injection is not a rider aid. On the fly mapping changes are not rider aids. Data logging systems are not rider aids. So, no, there are not more to the rider aids than traction/launch/wheelie control. Yes there are obviously more electronics on the bike, but just because they're electrical components with black boxes doesn't make them rider aids.
And yes, clearly that's what I was saying. No, wait, no it's not what I was saying.
As for them only being easier to ride up to a point, traction control still makes the bike easier to ride throughout their entire performance envelope. Even Stoner has said it makes them too easy
to ride. Though I suppose you still know more about the issue than Stoner, Rossi, KR, KR Jr., and every other GP rider that thinks rider aids should be eliminated or dialed back.
I wouldn't expect you to continue with the topic when you had no basis for your opinions at all. No logic, no references, nothing. FYI, you're the one who tried to change the issue from whether or not traction control is NECESSARY(there's that word again, you know, it means something is a necessity, as in cannot be gone without(required)) to whether or not it makes the bike easier to ride. I didn't even enter into that argument. Clearly it is not something that is required to ride the bike, but apparently you still don't understand what that truly means. Ask yourself one question. 'Can a GP bike be ridden without traction control?" I'll help you out, the answer is yes, yes they can be ridden without traction control. "But wait," you might say to yourself, "if you can ride a GP bike without traction control, why did I think it was required?"