I don't think I am, I'm looking at it from the perspective of actual sales versus engineering cost, which is exactly how the product manufacturer would look at it, IMO.
I am as well.
You could sell the TC system easily as a sales point that other bikes dont have.. Meanwhile its very very inexpensive to install (no hardware) and the only RD for each bike is tuning.
I understand, however, it's not as accurate as the wheel sensor-based system, and actually costs more in engineering hours than the wheel-sensor based system because there's more testing and more programming (software engineers' time is very expensive; the ABS components are basically off-the-shelf at this point).
and its not nearly as accurate as a laser range finding system either.
there is a point where "accurate enough" is fine. considering that every race bike, car and boat with aftermarket traction control (prop control in the case of the boat) and some OEM car TC systems do not read ABS reluctor rings, I think we're ok on that. we have a very accurate output of the engine sprocket. that is directly connected to the wheel anyway.
as for engineering hours... hardware will ALWAYS cost more then software. and programmer/engineer time is NOT expensive. its fairly cheap in comparison to hardware design. I should know. Its my job. lol.
btw, while some car ABS is off the shelf.. no motorcycle ABS is and they're all made for the specific model.
Same thing with the ABS-based system. In fact, that's easier, because all you're looking for is wheel speed versus engine RPM, which is completely static and easily table-based.
uhh. no. thats a oversimplification.
for starters, rear wheel speed (the one you care about) is ALWAYS in proportion to engine speed, as they're mechanically connected. what you described is only helpful for the ECU to know if the chain broke.
if you're describing the front wheel, you should realize that when turning and when accelerating (not just wheelie but including that) the front wheel may be turning faster or slower.
while the whole system is easily table based.. like you said.. what im describing is only writing software and making tables.
what you're saying is writing software, making tables, and adding hardware.. hardly more cost effective. especially since the hardware is limited on what bikes it can move to, while the software could remain static and be moved across multiple bikes with only table changes.
meaning the R/D work done once.... is across more models.
Makes sense. Unfortunately, the ABS module, TC module, whatever modules are usually sourced from different manufacturers to lower costs and integrated by the bike/auto manufacturer to save money. Why engineer a completely new ABS system when you can just buy something off-the-shelf (again, engineer hours are a lot more costly than component costs)?
while ECUs are somewhat off the shelf... there are no off the shelf ABS systems for motorcycles.
that said... I am not even talking about ABS systems. so you may want to re-read what I have said. We're talking about TC systems with or without ABS.
Yeah, I'm not too sure about that. As I mentioned, most of the individual modules are purchased from other companies like Bosch, etc. and integrated by the manufacturer.
I am sure about that.
Thats why nice programs like HPtuners and EFI live work so well.
Thats why I can take a PCM from a chevy truck/car from the correct generation and swap it into a totally different vehicle of the same generation with only a PCM flash.. they have different part numbers, because of the software, but the hardware is the same... so you can just flash them.
While that is a great idea, I'm not too sure how feasible it is given the variability in bike size, weight, purpose, etc. that would affect the individual modules, and therefore their global applicability across a manufacturer's product line.
one box the size of a pack of smokes, could work for ANY bike
think about what you said.
bike size? doesnt matter. ECU control works the same.
bike weight? doesnt matter. ECU control works the same.
bike purpose? doesnt matter. ECU control works the same.
really, unless the bike had some other computer controlled add-on, like real time adjustable variable length throttle stacks... or a exhaust servo... and the ECU didnt have outputs for it... THEN it would be a change.. and even then it could be a minor one.
While that's great for the end-customer, the OEM couldn't care less about that.
agreed. just a plus for us.
The method by which the ABS sensors and software communicate with the ECU (if at all, which is what CANbus is for) is not really relevant.
no. but its nice to have a standard.
All? The only bike I know of that sports a CANbus is the BMW K1600GT/GTL and the new GS. Perhaps there are others. Again, though, the CANbus is only for communicating with the main ECU, the ABS system doesn't need it.
well.. your 08+ CBR does.
the CBR600 does.
the GSXR does.
the new ninja does.
almost all of them do, thats how they get the data from the ECU to the gauge cluster with only 1 wire.... keeps them from needing another tach wire. another speedo wire... etc... thats all CAN bus. its also how the factory flashes the ECU and how they can update it at dealers if needed.
I don't disagree. Some MV Agusta or perhaps the Aprilia RSV4 have software-only TC, IIRC.
Yup, I understand how it works: the software monitors the derivative of the engine RPM. As accurate as it may be, the software-only solution can NEVER be as accurate as the wheel-speed sensor-based solution, there is still guess-work involved, whereas with the sensor, there is no guesswork. Because of this, there's a bit of a fudge-factor with a software-only solution (I guess it would be more appropriate to say there is a bigger fudge factor, as there's some buffer in the sensor-based solution as well, and the buffer gets bigger or smaller depending on the mode for multi-mode TC), which means that the sensor-based solution can actually detect wheelspin and therefore intervene faster.
So, the sensor-based solution is technologically and practically superior, costs less to engineer if you're going to also provide ABS as an option, can be bought off-the-shelf lowering costs further, and hardly any customer is going to buy a bike with TC but not ABS (meaning the OEM is not losing sales). Given these data, any reasonable manufacturer is going to go with an sensor-based TC system, IMO. Not that the software-based TC isn't good, it just doesn't make economic sense. It may make sense in very specific, niche customer bases/boutique marques.
well.. lets just say you're wrong.... but only from a combination of overthinking it and lack of knowledge on the subject.
sensor isnt more accurate then software.. because they both have the same data input... that is, the rate of change of the engine output vs time.
faster doesnt happen with then sensor.. both systems rely on a almost identical sensor resolution and the computer is faster then the hardware anyway.. you can only cut power as fast as the engine is running.