Traction Control

[jps600rr]

I think it is only a matter of time before we see traction control on the production bikes, two years.

An open question, do you think this will change the way in which riders are trained, and how does

traction control compare to the throttle control we are using thru the corner?

Does traction control maintain the back tire weight bias?

[racer]

tfc600,

 

If a street rider does choose to use traction control, it will amount to a trade-off between skill and safety. Obviously, the concept of throttle control would change for that rider/student.

 

Many racers rely on being able to spin the rear tire to control their motorcycle. I think if racers were polled, we would find many who don't want it just for that reason. Regardless of the unfair cost of being "competitive".

 

My personal opinion is that it shouldn't be legal on track. I believe for the integrity of the sport, and the series, they should restore and enforce the original rules here in the USA.

 

R

[jps600rr]

Well here is a bike with the technology avaliable now

 

[i]ASC, which will be available on 2007 boxer models (except the R1200S) and the K1200GT, uses the wheel-speed sensors that are part of the ABS. The electronic control unit compares front and rear wheel speed, and if the rear tire starts to spin faster, the engine management system reduces power in a two-step process[/i]

 

It would seem to me that reducing the throttle with the rear spinning is NOT want we need to do.

[racer]

Hey tfc,

 

Forgive me. I am not up on the state of the art of all the current road going models and I tend to think in terms of racing machines. All I know of TC are the recent rules changes at the races here in the US. To comment on how the TC system(s) work, I would need to study up a bit.

 

R

[jps600rr]

I think that the traction control would be activated when a small spin is detected before it would require

a large power chnage to take place, The system on the BMW can be switched off, I found the info just after

my first post. I think the issue I am confused about is why do the racers at such a high level of expertise need to rely on traction control at all.

[MotoGB]

BMW are becoming legendary in technology for technology sake! They produce mainly large capacity machines which, I would say, are for experienced riders.

 

Traction control, servo assisted linked brakes (some of which are bloody lethal, R1150RT, I've ridden one, they're the worst bike on the planet), ABS. (I suppose ABS is useful in an emergency in slippery conditions)

 

They are making these bikes nearly uncrashable, soon very little will be left for the rider to do apart from sit there and listen to his stereo and admire the view, beyond his "heads up" display.

 

There, that's much better!

[racer]

Alan,

 

I agree that TC represents a legitimate gain for safety, especially in slippery conditions and on larger and/or more powerful motorcycles. The same could probably be said for ABS in those same circumstances.

 

And there will certainly be a market among the safety minded and those who desire every techno-wiz bell and whistle option. BMW is the perfect manufacturer to lead the way. I hesitate to refer to "Zen and the Art of MC Maintenance" here for the more philosophically minded folks among us.

 

As something of a purist myself who believes in the concept of Arete as presented in Mr Pirsig's book, I gotta go with the challenge of DIY. And, speak out against what I see as the weakening of Humanity by the unsupported reliance on modern technology to "save" or "protect" the world from itself.

 

That being said, if I were riding two up on a 1200cc machine, especially in slippery conditions, I would be grateful for ABS and traction control. Someday, when I prefer the idea of a cross country trip with my partner over a day at the races, I'll look into it.

 

 

Bill

[jrfuisz]

My $0.02 as someone who rides a 1200GS with ABS every day (12 months of the year in all weather to and from work) -

 

Whether it is TC, linked brakes, ABS, televers, paralevers and who knows what, the technology has three main effects. First, it changes the way the bike talks to you. Second, it changes the physics. Third, it changes the rider's mental state.

 

As Sir Code commented in an earlier thread, he designed something to limit the effect that throttle had on compressing the suspension. From a physics standpoint (and in reality) the bike was quicker. The rider, however, hated the way the bike spoke to him. The BMW advances are no different.

 

For example, as reported in PB last month (a worthy magazine that features Sir Code in the back each month), they did the old ABS vs standard brakes test. When then ran just fronts or just backs, standard brakes won. When they ran both (hence why some companies link th ebrakes) and ABS they found the bike porpoised back and forth which resulted in ABS beating standard. If the goal is to lock both brakes in a panic situation to let the dolphin save us, then you can understand why servo assist is a good thing. For the track, maybe not. But it does work and can help ease the concerns of those who may get called into a panic stop in rush hour on unknown pavement.

 

I like the paralever or is it telever front end, but it does not give you much notice before it lets go. Next to none in fact. Bad? In the last month, I;ve lost the rear on a corner and then the front (oil and sand)but in both cases got out of the skids sans any real drama. Well maybe it is bad, but then again what if the biggest problem with people crashing is what the rider does? Sir Code Jr. had the TT tale where the bike was going crazy until it got rid of its rider. If you keep the rider calm as long as possible, can you get them in and out of situations they otherwise would panic in? I can't tell you I enjoy hanging the rear of the GS out a foot or two in rush hour traffic or having the front start to tuck on oil when there is a car behind me. I'd like to think my Superbike training saved me, but I was also relaxed. Was it just my training or was it the bike not getting me into a snit? There is much more going on here than just giving you a new technology. There is an effect on the rider that also plays into the equation.

 

TC is just another extension of the concept. The technology has its place. On a big machine designed for the street, it may be worth it. On the tarck, it makes bikes go faster by letting rear wheel slide be programmed into the ecu. Riders get hurt less and go faster. That has to be a good thing.

 

For all those who hate TC, what is the difference between TC and mfgs programming the bike's ECU to cut power in lower gears? A la Triumph Rocket, ZX-14, GSRX-1000 (which now has various maps the rider can select) etc. Isn't that just a less sophisticated way of helping you keep the rear planted?

[racer]

jrfuisz,

 

Thanks for that infromation. I've never ridden a bike with TC or ABS or a telelever front end. I wouldn't choose traction control for myself.

 

I do have one question about a statement you attribute to Sir Code. You said, "...he designed something to limit the effect the throttle had on compressing the suspension." Can you elaborate on what that was? And can you enlighten me about how the throttle compresses the suspension?

[jrfuisz]

It was on one of these boards about 3-4 months ago. I think the thread dealt with using the rear brake and throttle on corner entry to pre-load the suspension. When the rear wheel has resistance (from the road or brake) and you dry to dirve it (throttle) you compress the rear wheel into the suspension. Long and short of it, bad idea. But Sir Code had a story about designing something that kept the rear from compressing (I think) it had something to do with pulleys and getting the forces working for you. I'm not sure if the old posts are still available. I had a post in te thread and since I have so few, you may be able to search that way.

[racer]

Hey jr,

 

I think I found by searching under "squat". There's a thread about rear rise that ends with a post by Keith about Eddie Lawson trying a set of chain rollers (sorta like they put on dirt bikes I think) to attempt to limit the effect of the chain pull making the suspension harder under acceleration. Eddie didn't like it and preferred not to use it.

 

However, I believe that the stiffer suspension is due to the chain applying a force that resists compression at the rear shock.