ABS, or lack therof....

[Clive]

Sorry to disagree.  But the lack of ABS on the Uly drops it off my list.  Nice bike, just what I want but lack of ABS makes it a show stopper.  That leaves the Tiger and GS.

KTM Adventure 990 comes standard with ABS.

Which brings us to the inverse question: would the presence of ABS (as standard equipment, not deletable) cause you to cross that bike off your list?

[atadaskew]

Which brings us to the inverse question: would the presence of ABS (as standard equipment, not deletable) cause you to cross that bike off your list?

You can turn it off on the KTM so the point is moot.

[SteelD]

I recently got a VFR and I chose the one without ABS.  I just don't think it's something that I NEED on a motorcycle.  If I wanted additioanl safety, I would either buy a car or wear full leathers all the time.  It wouldn't stop me from choosing a particular bike.  

For decades bikes have been available without ABS and they were just fine.  Now all of a sudden it's a must have?  I'm failing to comprehend the reasons why.  If safety is that much of a concern, a car would be a better choice.  

For decades, bikers have been far more vulnerable in accident situations and things like ABS and leathers give us a better chance of staying around with our loved ones. It's your choice and your neck.

[Thor]

If you are going to ride a short wheelbased bike at "spirited" speeds, ABS is dangerous to your survival.  When I rode fast on sportbikes situations would arise when the front brake would lock while bouncing over pavement.  If I had ABS, I would have eaten a tree.  I have also locked the rear from engine braking/rear braking while coming in hard for a turn.  If I had ABS, I would have been fucked and never would have been able to keep the rear locked until it came back in line.

ABS and me are completely dependent on the bike.  A Buell?  No freakin' way.  A Road King, sign me up.

[SteelD]

Here's my take on ABS.

ABS on the rear brake would be a good thing for most riders most of the time.

A rear wheel lock up is far more controllable than a front - good to have ABS on both wheels for most riders most of the time.

The "better" ABS works under slippery conditions, the worse it will work under dry conditions, assuming a rider who can competently apply the bike's brakes to maximum. In other words, what safety margin you gain for slippery conditions, you trade off longer stopping distances in when traction is good; most riding is done in under near optimum traction circumstances.

I'm afraid that this is ABS (All Bull Shit). A good ABS bike will stop just as quick as a non-ABS bike in all conditions but will stop quicker and more safely under the rider's control in situations where the wheels lose grip. As for "most riding is done in under near optimum traction circumstances" that probably applies in sunny California where motorcycling is more a recreational activity but in other parts of the world, people use their bikes for daily commuting in all weather conditions.

ABS is not going to be a factor, pro or con, in the overwhelming majority of motorcycle accidents any more than it has been for automobiles. In  motorcycle single vehicle accidents, rider error (excluding poor braking) is the most frequent cause. In multi-vehicle accidents, the error is most likely on the part of an auto driver.

It usually isn't since the purpose of ABS is to avoid getting into an accident situation. I agree that rider error (or rider over-confidence) is a major cause of accidents but wouldn't you classify the failure to notice a loose surface, ice or oil on the road as rider error - conditions that ABS can handle?

[Snowbird]

A rear wheel lock up is far more controllable than a front - good to have ABS on both wheels for most riders most of the time.


I'm afraid that this is ABS (All Bull Shit). A good ABS bike will stop just as quick as a non-ABS bike in all conditions but will stop quicker and more safely under the rider's control in situations where the wheels lose grip. As for "most riding is done in under near optimum traction circumstances" that probably applies in sunny California where motorcycling is more a recreational activity but in other parts of the world, people use their bikes for daily commuting in all weather conditions.


It usually isn't since the purpose of ABS is to avoid getting into an accident situation. I agree that rider error (or rider over-confidence) is a major cause of accidents but wouldn't you classify the failure to notice a loose surface, ice or oil on the road as rider error - conditions that ABS can handle?

Oh, good. We need someone who knows everything.

[Clive]

Good thing we're sticking to topic and rising above debating (yet again) the merits of ABS.

 

[Snowbird]

Good thing we're sticking to topic and rising above debating (yet again) the merits of ABS.

 

SteelD registered just so's he could tell me I'm wrong.  

http://www.sport-touring.net/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=8988;sa=showPosts

[Clive]

SteelD registered just so's he could tell me I'm wrong.  

He can't be the only one.
 

 

[Snowbird]

Building membership, one post at a time.