Jump to content
IGNORED

Honda self balancing motorcycle


fourteenfour

Recommended Posts

But Trials riders and bicyclists do it without varying the trail between positive and negative values. I wonder why Honda decided that was necessary. Maybe it provides a more stable balance but it adds a lot of complexity to the front end.

Link to comment
But Trials riders and bicyclists do it without varying the trail between positive and negative values. I wonder why Honda decided that was necessary. Maybe it provides a more stable balance but it adds a lot of complexity to the front end.

 

Morning Green RT

 

Bicyclists do the stationary balance by moving body weight around (mostly feet & legs), bicycles are also lighter in weight so a foot or leg makes a big difference in balance.

 

Ever ride a trail bike at 70- 80 mph? The front end geometry isn't set up for high speed riding.

 

When Honda changes the trail (rake change is mostly used to get the needed trail change) for low speed auto-balance that change is to allow the computer to get more (motorcycle) mass offset as the forks turn. The trail change also allows the front wheel turn to work that weight offset in the correct direction to prevent fall-over.

 

My guess is that unless they included the trail change that the computer couldn't keep the bike upright if it started to fall suddenly, or keep it upright if the rider moved around on the bike while it's auto balancing.

Link to comment
But Trials riders and bicyclists do it without varying the trail between positive and negative values. I wonder why Honda decided that was necessary. Maybe it provides a more stable balance but it adds a lot of complexity to the front end.

 

Morning Green RT

 

Bicyclists do the stationary balance by moving body weight around (mostly feet & legs), bicycles are also lighter in weight so a foot or leg makes a big difference in balance.

 

Ever ride a trail bike at 70- 80 mph? The front end geometry isn't set up for high speed riding.

 

When Honda changes the trail (rake change is mostly used to get the needed trail change) for low speed auto-balance that change is to allow the computer to get more (motorcycle) mass offset as the forks turn. The trail change also allows the front wheel turn to work that weight offset in the correct direction to prevent fall-over.

 

My guess is that unless they included the trail change that the computer couldn't keep the bike upright if it started to fall suddenly, or keep it upright if the rider moved around on the bike while it's auto balancing.

 

Good point. I hadn't thought about the fact that bicyclists shift their weight to maintain balance. Trials bikes are also light and the rider's body weight has a big effect.

 

It seems like adding gyros ala Lit Motors is a more robust mechanism for a self-balancing bike.

Edited by Green RT
Link to comment

Afternoon Green RT

 

Yes, I would imagine that gyros would be better for siting still or very very low crawl speeds but gyros bring on their own issues.

 

You wouldn't want to ride a motorcycle with the gyros spinning (at least I wouldn't) so they would have to be turned off & quickly stopped above a certain speed.

 

Then they would have to spooled back up very quickly to be up to speed by the time a motorcycle stopped (difficult in lower speed panic stop situations)

 

To have much effect with a loaded motorcycle & passenger, or with a heavy rider that can't sit still, the gyros would probably have to be fairly heavy so that is extra mass to carry around.

 

I guess by the time we get all those gadgets on a motorcycle might as well 2 extra wheels & air conditioning & not worry about gyros or trail changes.

 

Link to comment

D.R.

 

You are correct. I can understand the attraction of a bike that doesn't fall over at slow speeds though. I can see difficulty keeping it upright at less than 5 mph might be the factor that finally ends my riding career. In my last bike purchase, a desire for as light a bike as possible was pretty high on the list of criteria. The fact that the naked R1200R was 43 kg (95 lbs) lighter than the RT was a big element of the decision.

Link to comment
D.R.

 

In my last bike purchase, a desire for as light a bike as possible was pretty high on the list of criteria. The fact that the naked R1200R was 43 kg (95 lbs) lighter than the RT was a big element of the decision.

 

Same here. After piloting around 900lb "plus" touring bikes for decades, I now have a 812lb cruiser and a 797lb sport touring bike. Those missing 100 plus pounds are noticeable, especially two-up.

 

regards,

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...