Ducati Monster Forum

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/06/AR2010050605718.html?hpid=topnews (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/06/AR2010050605718.html?hpid=topnews)



"Insurance institute researchers found that motorcycles with anti-lock brakes were 37 percent less likely to be involved in fatal crashes"

I suspect the statistics may not accurately reflect the situation. Anyone know who else makes a lot of ABS bikes besides BMW? Anyone?

i saw this video on you tube and apparently you can fist make the beast with two backs the brake lever and it wont flip over.
Ducati Monster 1100 ABS - brake tested (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6sTbgJgA0E#lq-lq2-hq-vhq)

But ABS= no fata accidents? eh. Maybe accidents in general where the bike cant stop quick enough or the front washes out.

Honda. I believe the new cbr's have an option for them.

I suspect within 5 years almost all bikes will have ABS standard...just a matter of time. Can you even buy a car anymore without ABS?

Any cheap american car will offer it as an option.

I think ABS is optional for all the CBRs and VFR.  I am recalling a test done by RiDE or one of the other Brit mags, comparing stopping distances between ABS and non- in the same model.  Their conclusion:  stopping distances are not much different under a variety of conditions by a skilled rider, but for panic braking it makes a big difference.  I interpret this to mean that an unskilled rider with ABS can panic brake as well as a skilled rider without.  The video appears to paint a more dramatic picture - maybe a difference in rider skill, bike or system?  But, this is a good idea in my book... as long as it doesn't add too much weight :)

In cars, a trained driver can stop in a slightly shorter distance without ABS using threshold braking than just stomping on ABS. It's a fairly small difference. It gets much less in turns or under other non-ideal conditions.

Remove training in and practice with threshold braking and stopping distances are much shorter with ABS than without.

i think it's more a function of the type of bikes that ABS has been delivered on.

i don't think many sport bikes have them.  mostly tourers.

which are ridden far less aggressively overall.

One of the cycle magazines did a test of the CBR1000 w/ABS vs non-ABS. A skilled rider with practice could stop in a shorter distance on dry pavement in a non-ABS bike, but on wet or compromised traction, the ABS was able to stop in a much shorter distance.

It's not a question of is it better or not.


My point is their statistics are skewed. Suppose the majority of ABS bikes are BMWs. The vast majority of their line are not cheap, glamorous, or high performance. You end up with older, experienced riders who probably aren't pushing it. This does not mean ABS results in less accidents anymore than the hardbags on the same bikes do.

I wonder if there are even enough of  a percentage of ABS equipped bikes on the road yet to come to this conclusion.  Add to this rider and risk factor of a kick ass sport bike as compared to a Gold Wing I think we are looking at a non valid conclusion.

I remember a few years ago insurance companies wanted to end discounts for cars with ABS claiming no statistical difference. 

23 meters sooner.... no way

seriously, i could see 23 feet, but this guy really pooched his non-ABS braking.

I've never ridden a bike with ABS so I can not comment on the affectivness of the system, but I can say I do not want it to become standard.  Most bikes that have ABS as an option it costs around $1000 to add.  Making ABS standard would only raise the price of the bike by $1000.  I have read that something like 40% of the cost of a new car comes from government madated equipment, that will only ge worse with stability control becoming manditory in 2012.  I would much rather have a manditory rider training programs and a european style tierd licence then making companies put expensive equipment on the bikes that not everyone wants.

Funny how the preponderance of this forum can be categorized as ATGATT but ABS has a less friendly reception.

To the original question, it would depend on how they calculated the statistics. By and large, if you only look at the accident rate of ABS equipped biked, then the stat is probably skewed a bit since you correctly calculated that the larger population of ABS equipped bikes are at the higher end of the spectrum, however if you break it down by segment first and look at he accident rate of sport bikes with ABS compared to sport bikes without the statistic would have more significance.

I believe them being mandatory is what irks people.

Gear is a choice.

It will probably happen just like airbags, tps, and catalytic converters, all of which add cost

I would welcome the addition of more ABS bikes, and wish my Monster was equipped with it. Maybe if insurance companies would offer a 30% discount to bikes equipped with ABS we would see more demand for them.

It also wouldn't bother me if ABS was mandatory, and if all bikes had them then maybe the cost would come down a bit as well. I do think there should be an over ride switch to enable people to turn it off though.

That's the problem.  I don't know if my ins co offers a discount for abs.  If they do I would consider it.  Of course I'd prob remove it and ebay it

issue with all these safety features also, is that the more unique and sofisticated these things get, the less likely you'll be able to mod the bikes, putting a lot of people out of business in the aftermarket arena.

just think about steering wheels for instance. years ago, you could buy momo and tons of other sport wheels for your cars, now if they are available they are super expensive, and not something you can do at home. yeah lets unhook and rehook up a 200mph airgun... no thanks.

Why? Do you pull the seat belts and airbags out of your cars and sell them?

If I could, I might.  But it is a federal crime to do so and operate the car on the road.

Probably not on a car, but then again, you throw 700 lbs of stuff onto a car (airbags, catalytic system, heavy mufflers, etc) and gas mileage goes down.

I don't like the way ABS operates on a bike -- i've ridden for 25 years and it would mess with me -- esp given i own a bunch of vintage bikes.

Interesting. I said the same thing about ABS in cars 20 years ago, but now I welcome it. I'm perfectly capable of threshold braking in most situations, but there are just too many variables on the street for me to think I could confidently handle all of them.

I'm also of the opinion, based on what the auto industry did to guys like Tucker, that without mandatory regulations to install safety equipment they wouldn't install any and the cars would cost the same with bigger profit margins.

Given that safety is a selling feature, I doubt it. It's one of the reasons people buy Volvos.

It is now, but looking back I don't see where it would have gained hold historically given automakers tried to pass padded dash's off as safety equipment, but who knows.

I have a different view of cars and bikes. 

I can see the utility on a car -- the vast majority of car drivers are idiots.  Completely untrained and license testing is a JOKE. 

However, the idiots on bikes either end up dead or posting their bike parts on ebay.  They don't stay bike riders for ever (or they ride so rarely that they lower their risk factors for dying).

I see the real solution to "increasing safety" to be better driving training and testing (for bikes and cars).  Give me a graduated driver license system -- you score 100%, you get to drive pretty much where and however you want.  If you score 80%, you have to stick to no faster than 50 on the highway and may never enter the left lane except to exit the highway.  Score 65% or lower and you are only allowed to drive 35 max, during daylight, and no highways.

Question for those in the know. Do the current moto-ABS systems operate on both front and rear brakes? I recall seeing obvious front ABS rotors on BMW bikes but never really looked at the back. The reason I ask is that inexperience riders seem go heavy on the rear braking and lock rear wheels up pretty often. It's actually kind of silly how often I see riders around town locking the rear up trying to panic stop in traffic or at stop lights.

The ones I have seen do.  Even combine one front rotor and the back

 I have BMW K1200GT with anti-lock brakes, and yes it operates on both brakes. Unless you're in a panic situation you're never gonna know you have anti-lock brakes. Yeah, it adds weight, but other than that it's no big deal.

Now that we can agree on. I have always been a proponent for a graduated license system with reduced/eliminated fines for speeding on rural Interstates for someone who has had advanced training.

I believe the CBR1000RR is the only sportbike where ABS is currently available...maybe the S1000RR as well? I'm also pretty sure all major race organizations have banned ABS...maybe why it hasn't been showing up on sportbikes yet (I'm sure Derby will clarify the rules for us  [cheeky]).

It's pretty hard to argue that not having ABS is superior to having it. Sure...a very experienced rider may stop quicker without it in ideal conditions. ABS isn't designed for that though...it's designed for panic situations and less then ideal road conditions..

My only complaint with modern ABS on bikes is that it makes bleeding the brakes more difficult.

Interesting, it just makes me afraid that like car conveniences have done, it will make things worse as riders get lazy.

In the old days nothing turned your lights on\off and if you couldn't drive in wet you died.

However bikes are not as forgiving as cars.  Get lazy on a bike and you die.

Could happen I guess, but I doubt it. A moto has a lot of different ways to kill an inexperienced/lazy rider where ABS will be of no value. To me, ABS is useful for panic stops...and worse, panic stops in the rain...when even the best of riders can be startled and lock things up.