Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Why have active safety systems passed motorbikes by?

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' started by Toecutter, Aug 3, 2007.

  1. 4 posts down...
  2. 10 posts down :grin:
  3. if u want abs, get a bike with abs, but don't put it compulsory
  4. I thought you needed to buy something from "As Seen on TV" if you wanted abs


    :wink: :LOL:
  5. :rofl:

    good one Wazza
  6. Exactly.

    ABS is well suited to bikes used in all conditions for touring and/or commuting but it's not well suited to sports bikes or dirt bikes.

    Choice is a good thing (even BMW make ABS an option on many of their models rather than standard, although it is on some).
  7. Agree completely, but I think the point of the article is that we don't even have the choice. Try walking in to a bike shop and saying "I'll take that one, with ABS fitted please..." and see how far you get.
  8. exactly. it just isnt an option on most bikes, it seems to be limited to 'premium brands'
  9. I wrote the essay thats under ibast's post.

    Jeez some people have a thing against motorbikes :p
  10. and on those equipped with it make it easily switchable between being active and being off
  11. I dare say for ANYONE riding on teh street, whether carving up twisties or not, ABS will be better at braking than you will ever be, given the differences in road surfaces, bumps etc.
    If you are going hard in the corners, you won't be activating the ABS with your normal hard braking anyway (if you are, well, you NEED it! :shock: ), so it is not an issue. It will save your butt when you screw up though. I can think of at least two novice riders here who may have made a corner (panic braking before the corner) if ABS had been there to help.............
    Sure on a track you will do better, but on the street there is absolutely no reason not to have it.
    What I personally feel needs attention is making bikes more visible in a non fruity way (ie, no dayglo bikes please!), I think ALL bikes should have ALL LED lighting(except headlights), and right now. It is much more noticeable, and will not result in the usual failed bulbs that plague bikes.

    Regards, Andrew.
  12. No, but make it optional on all new bikes. TCS not so much, but I'm sure some people would find that useful too.

    I'd love ABS on a bike, particularly if it could be turned on and off. I know 90% of the time it could brake as-well-as or better than I can. The rest of the time it wouldn't be far behind, IMO - and if you don't need ABS, it won't activate. :p

    It's come a long way from the old on/off ABS that first appeared in cars. These days it can detect wheel lock better than we can, and apply maximum braking power far more easily.
  13. Oh yeah! Go drive an old large Merc, horrible, horrible feeling! Felt like you had square rotors on the car when the ABS was working.

    Regards, Andrew.
  14. depends if that street is gravel or not, the scariest moment I had on the BMW was trying to slow down for a corner on a gravel road and the brakes deciding it wasn't going to have a bar of it
  15. This is just a question on ABS and emergency braking (cause I dont know a whole deal in relation to bike ABS). I've seen on emergency braking courses, you'll see the back end pop up stoppie style. Would ABS mess with the balance of the rider in this situation?
  16. the quick answer is no. The more complicated one is that ABS systems usually have two (not exclusive) data inputs:

    1. time between pulses that tell you how fast the wheel is rotating
    2. ratio of independent wheel speeds (eg front vs back).

    Either one of these can work on its own, but you more often use both to account for situations where you are applying enough brake pressure to lock front and rear wheel.

    The solution to this is what has also been termed "lift off control". ie, the ABS system is setup tp stop the rear wheel from leaving the ground. It may have no load on it at all, but it won't leave the ground. This is actually the best outcome for braking (takes you a very long distance to stop when doing a stoppie).

    The sister argument is that "I can stop faster without ABS". This statement is usually bandied around by those who really can ride (stauffer et al) and those who think they can ride (habib's and his fully sik R1 et al). They both apply to the road. The other group are the off roaders who really do have a stopping problem with ABS, but if they were a little less ignorant they wouldn't have ABS activated once they got to the dirt (and proper dirt bikes aren't road registerable anyway and don't appear to rate highly in on-road deaths anyway. So, assuming you are talking about a tarred road: On a track, you get lots of practice at a particular stretch of road and damned straight, you can stop faster without ABS than with it. I will however challange anyone to pick a random piece of road, maybe at a traffic light with or without rain, and we'll run the bikes side by side while a mate of ours drives out of a sidestreet at a random time. This situation is where most people seem to come unstuck and what the point of ABS is in the article.

    Indeed, you only have to look at the number of "I crashed my bike" threads around here to find out that the majority had something to do with a mismanagement of the brakes that ABS could probably have mitigated. And this, finally, brings me to the point of the article in preserving our motorcycling lifestyle in this country by reducing the number of crashes and deaths.
  17. Thanks for the explanation! Sounds like a solid defense for ABS to me!
  18. np

    as for the "good thing (TM)", it is not unreasonable to expect that all new cars sold in various places about the world may come with ABS, either because it is cheaper for the manufacturer to put it on all vehicles if there are only 10% of the total being ordered without, OR because a goverment mandates that you can't sell a new vehicle without it.

    A logical extension to this is applying it to motorcycles.

    The systems are not particularly heavy or maintenance intensive when compared to a basic hydraulic system, with the exception of BMW's now defunct power booster concept. Another kg or two isn't going to make a real world difference anywhere, and if it became mandatory you can bet that the engineers would be on the job making it smaller and lighter! The same goes for cost.

    Certainly there are situations in the world where ABS is not good, but in the context of the linked article regarding safety for the masses on registered two wheelers it can't be faulted.

    As a small side issue, if/when the world moves to electric brake actuation instead of hydraulic, the inclusion of ABS could potentially be a zero dollar affair - few more lines of code in the ecu and another (front) wheel sensor if the rear is already being used to determine road speed.

    Traction control raelly is a zero weight and volume affair, as the ecu can control fuel and spark already.

    Stability control is another can of worms altogether. While it is unreasonable to say that it 'can't be done', the dynamics of the interaction between a rider and bike mean that an equivalent of car "dynamic stability control" for bikes is a long long way off.
  19. I think we'd have a hard time getting it into place here in Australia. While the japanse market have had things like ABS, airbags, power everything, etc standard in vehicles, Australian manufactured cars are still spouting on about features such as "air conditioning", whoopdeefrickendoo!