Ride-by-wire throttle - MV Agusta F3

So the new MV Agusta F3 will come with a ride-by-wire throttle technology. Gee, I better run out and buy one before their all gone! I simply do not get this technology. Andrew Trevitt’s article “Sudden Acceleration” (September 2010) was a good introduction to throttle-by-wire technology on motorcycles. At first glance ride-by wire technology for motorcycles is quite a chilling thought (i.e. my wrist is not directly opening and closing the throttle bodies, instead the ECU controls this and is making the decision for me), no thanks! I have not heard one argument defending this system that makes any sense to me. The potential lethal effect of a sudden acceleration glitch on a motorcycle is very disturbing. Hitting a turn at high speed and having the engine inadvertently rev and disconnect from the throttle means not only injury, but most likely certain death for the rider, especially with the horsepower and torque of these new bikes, not to mention the danger to other drivers or pedestrians on the road. The fact that this technology is being introduced without full disclosure of the dangers to the public is appalling. Not only are they not talking about the potential dangers, they are using throttle-by-wire as a selling point - as if it has some great benefit! I think we'd all like to know what safety features are in place. What are the risks associated with a system like this? Is it really that necessary for the bikes performance? Does the risk outweigh the benefits of having a system like this? I know cables aren’t perfect either, but give me an old fashioned cable throttle any day over electronics. I personally will not buy a motorcycle with ride by wire throttle even if it has a backup system to protect from such glitches. I don’t want to be a guinea pig for this system.

It would be nice to see Sport Rider do in-depth critique of this system explaining which bikes have this and what specific safety features are in each system.  

You're being a little overly paranoid about the "dangers" of throttle-by-wire technology, especially as it relates to motorcycles. You did read that same article where Trevitt mentioned the failsafe measures many manufacturers have taken, correct? One is that on most standard open/close dual-cable throttle setups used by ride-by-wire systems, the "close" cable is still directly attached to the throttle barrel. This means in the event of some weird and highly unlikely glitch, the rider still has the capability of closing the throttle manually.

There is a lot of redundancy built into the software, so that no electrical glitches or other failure would cause the throttle motor to suddenly go wide open in the middle of a corner.

The latest generation Yamaha R6 has been running with this system since '06, with hundreds of thousands of units sold worldwide and raced, with no reports of any failures that were a danger to the rider or the public.

The throttle-by-wire technology allows the usage of components (large throttle body bores, cam timing and profiles, cylinder head porting, exhaust, etc.) that would normally cause major performance compromises in a production street bike due to their high performance/racing parameters. This technology also has applications that applies to traction control, an undeniable safety feature, as well as an anti-back-torque clutch system (a sort of electronic slipper clutch), another feature that could be labeled a safety benefit.

Aircraft have been flying with fly-by-wire systems since the '70s with no ill effect.  

Yes, you are correct. I did read about the failsafe measures with regard to the R6 in Andrews article, but in review, a closing throttle cable and a brake override switch are not requited by law, and that if installed, a brake override switch would eliminate the ability to blipp the throttle on a downshift, and that electronic brakes on motorcycles are not required to meet similar standards for cars. There was additional uncertainty as to whether or not the new VFR1200 or BMW S1000RR even had a physical closing cable for the butterflies. I do also recall many deaths in the last few years of people's fly-by-wire systems malfunctioning with cars crashing at over 100 mph because the throttle was stuck open.

It's interesting to learn that TBW allows for the usage of components (large throttle body bores, cam timing and profiles, cylinder head porting, exhaust, etc.). However, in response to these benefits, is this even necessary with the unimaginable power of a modern sportbike? I mean the power is so overwhelming now that the electronics are purposefully interrupting that power just to keep the bike stable and the wheels on the ground.  

With regards to traction control and safety, I do now see some benefit to this technology. However, I’m going to walk out on a politically incorrect plank here and say, personally, I don’t think I want to buy a bike with traction control or abs. I know this sounds crazy, but I was tempted to order the BMW S1000RR last year, but my main concern was I might not be able to get one without all the electronics .

So, I assume throttle-by-wire and computers driven motorcycles are the future, and maybe time will change my mind, but until then, I’ll be the paranoid old school guy who still wants his own wrist to open and close the throttle   .  

Yes, you are correct. I did read about the failsafe measures with regard to the R6 in Andrews article, but in review, a closing throttle cable and a brake override switch are not requited by law, and that if installed, a brake override switch would eliminate the ability to blipp the throttle on a downshift, and that electronic brakes on motorcycles are not required to meet similar standards for cars. There was additional uncertainty as to whether or not the new VFR1200 or BMW S1000RR even had a physical closing cable for the butterflies. I do also recall many deaths in the last few years of people's fly-by-wire systems malfunctioning with cars crashing at over 100 mph because the throttle was stuck open.

No, those failsafes are not required by law, but for the comparatively tiny financial assets of a motorcycle manufacturer (other than Honda, and even that is suspect), the liability aspect means it would behoove them to make sure there is no possibility of something going terribly wrong. For instance, the C-ABS brakes on the Honda CBRs have the electronic braking system built inline with the conventional system, with a series of solenoid valves ensuring that if there was indeed a failure of some sort, the braking system is operated manually as usual. And not to absolve Toyota of any blame for the drive-by-wire throttle controversy, but it should be noted that never at any time was it proven the design of the drive-by-wire throttle system itself was to blame (there were plenty of wild theories and heresay, but no actual proof despite the systems being open to everyone to analyze and test-- and many of the crashes were later determined to either be driver error or other extenuating circumstance). As stated before, there are a myriad number of aircraft and automobiles (plus many motorcycles) that have been running the electronic throttle systems for years now with no problems.

It's interesting to learn that TBW allows for the usage of components (large throttle body bores, cam timing and profiles, cylinder head porting, exhaust, etc.). However, in response to these benefits, is this even necessary with the unimaginable power of a modern sportbike? I mean the power is so overwhelming now that the electronics are purposefully interrupting that power just to keep the bike stable and the wheels on the ground.

Those systems are not there "just to keep the bike stable and the wheels on the ground." The bikes are perfectly capable of running like pussycats, or carving corners in anger while remaining perfectly stable with their wheels on the ground, without those systems. Those systems are there as a rider aid, not a requirement in order to function.

You are free to make your own choice. Don't forget that your bike's ignition and fueling are also controlled by electronics.  

You stated that these systems are there as “rider aid, and not required in order to function”. I’ve been thinking about this for a few days and I think I can pinpoint what it is about all these electronics that bothers me.

When you talk about electronic fuel injection or electronic ignition, you are talking about making the engine on a motorcycle more efficient or more powerful. This is a good thing as it increases the motorcycle’s potential. Additionally, like the technical advancements made in road tires, better tires produce better grip thus produce the potential for better cornering on higher speeds. Even steering dampers create stability while allowing increased steering geometry, which of course provides the potential for more aggressive steering. All of these elements have one thing in common. All are part of increasing the potential of the motorcycle itself.

However, with antilock brakes and traction control technologies, we cross the boundary of motorcycle potential, and start to interfere with the rider’s ability and skill. With all the benefits that have come with these new technologies, such as safety, there have also been some costs. For example, look at all the electronics on the Moto GP bikes today. Although I would never suggest that Moto GP rider aren’t the most talented in the world, the electronics have closed the gap between them and made them more equal to each other. I think this has taken something very important away from the sport.

So yes, for rider aid these electronics are a good thing. And maybe if you’re cruising across the country on a Goldwing, antilock brakes just make sense. The question in the future will be just how much rider aid (interference) do we want?  

However, with antilock brakes and traction control technologies, we cross the boundary of motorcycle potential, and start to interfere with the rider’s ability and skill.

ABS is hardly "interfering with the rider's ability and skill". Would you be able to stop quicker in the wet in a panic situation than ABS? Also, I take it you haven't sampled some of the latest ABS systems, which have such a high threshold and are so transparent that 95% of the riding public will never notice. The only interference they and everyone else will get is an added safety net that may save their bacon in an unforeseen situation. That is increased performance potential.

Using the TC/MotoGP and WSBK conundrum as an analogy about the evils of TC as it applies to the latest production traction control systems is also an empty debate. The MotoGP/WSBK traction control question is purely a racing argument. Production traction control systems however are progressing rapidly (much of it due to MotoGP technology trickle-down), and nearly all of the latest systems allow a surprising amount of wheelspin that can still put a less-skilled rider on his head. There's still a vast amount of room to permit rider skill to make the difference; again, 95% of the riding public won't even go beyond the TC threshold to activate it. All it does is give everyone an added safety net. And all of the TC systems can be shut off if desired.

There will obviously be a point when the riding public will reject how much riding responsibility is taken away from them. But they certainly aren't doing it yet.  

It’s hard for me to understand the argument that technologies like traction control that make corrections for rider mistakes, are not somehow “interfering” with their skill level. This seems obvious to me. Essentially, if a rider can complete a turn without crashing because of traction control, how does this translate to not interfering with his current skill level?

ABS does interfere with the rider’s ability as well, whether or not it is seen as an enhancement to his safety, or something that ultimately undermines the development of his skill. With ABS, unless I am mistaken, you can not lock up the brakes, and I’m pretty sure you can’t turn it off as well. The fact that 95% of the public can not tell if the computer is now doing the braking for them further demonstrates that the rider is most certainly disconnected from the skill of braking. I am not arguing as to whether or not it is advantageous to have a safety feature like ABS, only that rider skill is diminished through the growth of these technologies - neither am I saying that they are “evil”, only that they are worth examination as to how far we want the computer to work for us, or how much skill we want to personally develop.

As far as the debate as to whether or not these technologies should be used in MotoGP, I would suggest that it is far from “empty debate”. Many people feel that electronic aids for road racing should be removed completely.  

It’s hard for me to understand the argument that technologies like traction control that make corrections for rider mistakes, are not somehow “interfering” with their skill level. This seems obvious to me. Essentially, if a rider can complete a turn without crashing because of traction control, how does this translate to not interfering with his current skill level?

Because it allows riders to gain confidence, which gives them the potential to learn more about how a bike reacts as it gets to that limit, instead of their fear forcing them to often chop the throttle and possibly ending up on their head and then being deathly afraid of approaching that envelope from then on. This is the premise behind the "slide bike" and "braking bike" at the California Superbike School; it allows the students to approach that limit without the danger (and thus fear) of stepping over the limit and suffering catastrophic consequences. Getting past a human's natural survival responses is the key to improving their skill level.

An analogy to this would be attempting to learn to walk a tightrope over a 15-foot drop (not a chasm where death would be imminent) with or without a safety net. How much more potential for learning would there be with each choice?

ABS does interfere with the rider’s ability as well, whether or not it is seen as an enhancement to his safety, or something that ultimately undermines the development of his skill. With ABS, unless I am mistaken, you can not lock up the brakes, and I’m pretty sure you can’t turn it off as well. The fact that 95% of the public can not tell if the computer is now doing the braking for them further demonstrates that the rider is most certainly disconnected from the skill of braking. I am not arguing as to whether or not it is advantageous to have a safety feature like ABS, only that rider skill is diminished through the growth of these technologies - neither am I saying that they are “evil”, only that they are worth examination as to how far we want the computer to work for us, or how much skill we want to personally develop.

Many of the latest ABS systems' thresholds are high enough (they actually let the wheel slow down enough toward the point of lockup) that riders will still learn about weight transfer, suspension reaction, and their own reactions before the system activates. What I meant by "transparency" is the systems' cycling rates have improved dramatically, meaning that their ability to return control to the rider is far quicker. This leads to the same potential for learning I mentioned previously; by approaching the point of lockup without the disastrous consequences of the mistake of staying on the brakes a moment too long, more riders will be given the ability to learn more about getting to that point. As I stated previously, 95% of riders will never approach the braking limits of these bikes and activate the ABS except in a panic situation. While we'd love for every single rider out there to practice panic braking at the limit, you and I know that will never happen. "Rider skill is diminished through the growth of these technologies" only if they intrude much too early in the performance envelope; but they have progressed far beyond that stage.

The fact that all of the systems on sportbikes have such high thresholds (and the fact that they are an option, with many allowing the option of shutting off the ABS) shows that the manufacturers are very cognizant of how far the public wants a computer to do the thinking for them.

As far as the debate as to whether or not these technologies should be used in MotoGP, I would suggest that it is far from “empty debate”. Many people feel that electronic aids for road racing should be removed completely.

I stated that using the conundrum of electronic rider aids in racing as a comparative to the utilization of these aids in production bikes on the street is an empty debate. The MotoGP/WSBK traction control debate is purely a racing argument.

I had the same concerns as you 15 years ago as ABS systems were first making their way into motorcycles. Looking back now, the issue was that the systems back then were very primitive, so it was easy to question their usefulness on a motorcycle. The systems now are so advanced that the issue is becoming less and less relevant when you look at the positive effects it will have for the sport. I want rider skill to be developed and play the leading role in riding a motorcycle as much as you do. But the fact of the matter is that our sport will continue to be just a sport (and a very small one, especially in this country) unless we have the ability to make it at least a little less intimidating to the general public.

The same can be said for your concern about ride-by-wire throttle systems. The dangers you cited have not been an issue yet after many years with such systems on bikes ridden and raced, and we've found their response to be so transparent that you'd never be able to tell whether you were riding a bike with ride-by-wire throttle or standard. But the systems' ability to allow the usage of components that normally would be unusable on the street is a plus in my mind.