Dead mans throttle
RamRod Sword of Baal
Someone just asked me a question, and I do not know the answer.
My Kawasaki Ninja has a dead mans throttle, IE take you hand off and it goes
back to an idle speed.
Many years ago I had an AJS and the throttle on that was ajustable so you
could set it, so if you ajusted it you take your hand off and it would
maintain the same speed, IE not go back to idle speed.
The question poses to me was is it legal in Queensland to have a ajustment
on your throttle so it will maintain your speed without your hand on the
throttle.
atec77
aren't there adjustable throttle stop available ?
George W. Frost
"atec77" <atec77...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fvjln2$mt5$3...@aioe.org...
I thought that cruise controls were all about that
Knobdoodle
"RamRod Sword of Baal" <ram...@truthonly.com> wrote in message
news:tybTj.7386$ko5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
throttle-locks being illegal.
Many bikes used to have them as standard and there's many types available as
after-market accessories.
--
Clem
òlléy®
"Knobdoodle" <knobd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jkgTj.7477$ko5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
My recent acquired GSXR750 has one and it has to be manually turned off to
disconnect the lock, with this setup it recently passed a Victorian (nanny
state) RWC and was re-registered through Vic roads no worry's so cannot
really see why it would be a problem in QLD.
olley
RamRod Sword of Baal
"òlléy®" <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bBgTj.7489$ko5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Many thanks to those who replied.
cremasco
>
>
fit a throttle lock to a motorcycle in Queensland. It is not, however,
illegal to fit cruise control - which is a different kettle of fish
altogether.
Damien
Can't you just fit a throttle lock and call it 'cruise control' if
asked? Besides, doesn't it amount to being the same thing anyway?
Iain Chalmers
> My recent acquired GSXR750 has one and it has to be manually turned off to
> disconnect the lock, with this setup it recently passed a Victorian (nanny
> state) RWC and was re-registered through Vic roads no worry's so cannot
> really see why it would be a problem in QLD.
Keep in mind there's a vast gap between "the rwc guy didn't notice it",
and "a cop's not able to book me for it even if I'm being a twat".
In NSW, a rwc "inspection" on a bike is pretty much just a list of a
dozen or so things which need to be checked off as "OK" - you basically
just need all the lights to work, the horn to work, the tires to have at
least a tiny bit more than minimum tread, and no _obvious_ fluid leaks
or modifications. The $17 the RTA allows them to charge really doesn't
cover any more detailed "inspection" than that, though if you've got a
great but turbocharger or an extended swingarm you'll probably have a
little more trouble. The chances of an inspector even noticing a
throttle lock is minute, and the chance of him finding a checkbox to
mark "Not OK" even it it's pointed out to him is smaller still. That
_doesn't_ make it legal though...
I don't know whether they're legal or not, but if I was concerned I
would be relying on some random rwc inspector form another state not
declining a rego check as meaning it's "legal".
Having said that, I'd happliy fit one, and if a cop ever actually came
up with a regulation that outlawed them I'd say "are you _sure_ officer?
It was like that when I bought it, and it's been through rego half a
dozen times like that! If it's a problem, I'll remove it as soon as I
get home!"
big
--
"Everything you love, everything meaningful with depth and history,
all passionate authentic experiences will be appropriated, mishandled,
watered down, cheapened, repackaged, marketed and sold to the people
you hate." Mr Jalopy quoting Hooptyrides (on jalopyjunktown.com)
Fulliautomatix
> As far as I know - and this is by no means certain - it is illegal to
> fit a throttle lock to a motorcycle in Queensland. It is not, however,
> illegal to fit cruise control - which is a different kettle of fish
> altogether.
Yer
That was my understanding
From many years ago when I had one fitted in QLD
Fulliautomatix
> Can't you just fit a throttle lock and call it 'cruise control' if
> asked? Besides, doesn't it amount to being the same thing anyway?
NO NO NO
Cruise control is a different kettle of fish altogether.
Knobdoodle
"Damien" <os...@taliban.gov.af> wrote in message
news:fvmh4k$a5$1...@aioe.org...
enough friction to defeat the return-spring.
You can easily still move them with your hand.
--
Clem
Knobdoodle
"Fulliautomatix" <ne...@there.com> wrote in message
news:dMmdnfoN8_NzS4PVnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@internode...
Plenty of "cruise-controls" are nothing more than a friction-lock.
(You can even buy then OEM from BMW!)
http://www.motobins.com/library/61181.jpg
--
Clem
Damien
> Throttle "lock" is a misnomer anyway because they don't lock; just provide
> enough friction to defeat the return-spring.
> You can easily still move them with your hand.
Sounds suspiciously like a form of cruise control to me... :-)
Damien
Cruise control keeps the vehicle travelling at a speed set by the driver.
Throttle lock keeps the vehicle travelling at a speed set by the driver.
So why is cruise control 'a different kettle of fish altogether'? In my
book, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Knobdoodle
"The Happy Drunk" <Leon.Peac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 20:42:19 +1000, Damien <os...@taliban.gov.af>
> wrote:
>>So why is cruise control 'a different kettle of fish altogether'? In my
>>book, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
>
>
> the speed. It maintains a certain speed set by the user, as close as
> possible regardless of the load placed on the engine. And will adjust
> the throttle to maintain the speep.
>
> While a throttle lock sets the throttle in one position and the speed
> will fluctuate depending on the loading placed on the engine.
>
Sure there are "real" motorcycle cruise-controls like this but by far the
majority of cruise-controls sold for motorcycles (and the ones being
discussed here) are the simple throttle friction devices.
http://www.mcas.com.au/_products.php?subcategory=229
--
Clem
Damien
> I think he is trying to make the distinction that Cruise Control sets
> the speed. It maintains a certain speed set by the user, as close as
> possible regardless of the load placed on the engine. And will adjust
> the throttle to maintain the speep.
>
> While a throttle lock sets the throttle in one position and the speed
> will fluctuate depending on the loading placed on the engine.
(just a note to indicate that the following is in response to the issues
raised previously, and not to you specifically!)
Fair enough, but that doesn't preclude a throttle lock from still being
accurately described as a form of cruise control all the same.
The deluxe forms of cruise control may vary the revs to control speed
more precisely, whereas a throttle lock does not, but why blame the tool
because the user tried to apply it in an inappropriate situations?
After all, if the user is out west somewhere on a road that is dead
flat, there will be zero difference between a throttle lock or 'genuine'
cruise control! On the other hand, the throttle lock will obviously
cause issues if you're traversing variable terrain. So let it be your
cruise control when it's appropriate, and let it just sit there and look
pretty when it isn't. We do that with every other tool we own, so why
not with this one? Seems a bit silly to write it off for all uses just
because it doesn't work for some - that's the way I look at it, at least.
> Either way I have a Throttle lock on the Beemer and I love it. It has
> been set with just enough restriction to overcome the the throttle
> return spring. So I can take relax my grip (of the throttle).
I wouldn't mind one myself. How much do they usually go for, and what's
involved in fitting them?
Knobdoodle
"Damien" <os...@taliban.gov.af> wrote:
> The Happy Drunk wrote:
>> Either way I have a Throttle lock on the Beemer and I love it. It has
>> been set with just enough restriction to overcome the the throttle
>> return spring. So I can take relax my grip (of the throttle).
>
> I wouldn't mind one myself. How much do they usually go for, and what's
> involved in fitting them?
>
Step 1) have a BMW
Step 2) fit the appropriate throttle lock
Piece of piss!
--
Clem
cremasco
Not the same thing at all. A throttle lock 'clamps' the throttle open,
with the aid of an additional switch/lever/action which must be
activated in order to stop it 'locking' the throttle.
A cruise control automatically stops working when any of the following
occurs: activating brakes, activating clutch, significantly increased
engine revs, or gear changes. None of these actions is separate from
what one does in the normal course of riding the machine.
cremasco
Plenty of confusion in the nomencalture. Things like Vista Cruise imply
cruise control, whereas they are nothing more than a throttle (friction)
lock. They are not cruise control - at least according to my definition.
MildThing
A car allows a person to cover vast distances in relatively short times.
A motorcycle allows a person to cover vast distances in relatively short
times.
Is a car then the same as a motorcycle? :)
Seriously, though. Cruise control works by varying revs with the
intention of keeping to a set speed. Throttle lock works by maintaining
engine revs, and the speed varies depending upon the load placed on the
engine.
With cruise control, when things turn pear-shaped the CC is
de-activated. This is not the case with a Throttle Lock, unless the
rider makes a specific action whose sole purpose is to release the
throttle lock.
MildThing
Yes. The throttle locks are the subject of the original post. I think
the reference to the other things - defined as cruise controls - has
been made in order to draw the distinction between the throttle locks
which are sometimes called cruise controls (colloquially) and the
real-deal cruise control (as most people know then in a car)
I've always been under the impression that throttle locks are illegal in
Queensland, but a quick google doesn't show anything up.
CrazyCam
<snip>
> I think he is trying to make the distinction that Cruise Control sets
> the speed. It maintains a certain speed set by the user, as close as
> possible regardless of the load placed on the engine. And will adjust
> the throttle to maintain the speep.
Actually, most of the cruise controls I have tried in cars have been
very disappointing in that they don't actually keep to a set speed on a
down hill.
> While a throttle lock sets the throttle in one position and the speed
> will fluctuate depending on the loading placed on the engine.
>
> Either way I have a Throttle lock on the Beemer and I love it. It has
> been set with just enough restriction to overcome the the throttle
> return spring. So I can take relax my grip (of the throttle).
Well, the word "lock" is a bit inappropriate.
When I had my K100RS, I had found that there was a throttle possie at
which, it would just sit at that possie without effort.
It equated to a cruise speed of 115 kph by the speedo.
I always thought it was just a sticky point in the throttle mechanism,
which just happened to be useful.
Maybe it was a bit of deliberate engineering...
regards,
CrazyCam
George W. Frost
I have had throttle locks on a lot of bikes, the earliest ones I cam
remember is the Matchless G9 and the G12
makes me think that they were sort of standard for those days
George W. Frost
"MildThing" <Peter.C...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:689d28F...@mid.individual.net...
> Damien wrote:
>> Fulliautomatix wrote:
>>> Damien wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can't you just fit a throttle lock and call it 'cruise control' if
>>>> asked? Besides, doesn't it amount to being the same thing anyway?
>>>
>>> NO NO NO
>>>
>>> Cruise control is a different kettle of fish altogether.
>>
>> Cruise control keeps the vehicle travelling at a speed set by the driver.
>>
>> Throttle lock keeps the vehicle travelling at a speed set by the driver.
>>
>> So why is cruise control 'a different kettle of fish altogether'? In my
>> book, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a
>> duck...
>
> A car allows a person to cover vast distances in relatively short times.
>
> A motorcycle allows a person to cover vast distances in relatively short
> times.
>
> Is a car then the same as a motorcycle? :)
>
> Seriously, though. Cruise control works by varying revs with the intention
> of keeping to a set speed. Throttle lock works by maintaining engine revs,
> and the speed varies depending upon the load placed on the engine.
Throttle lock maintains the position of the throttle and wont maintain the
revs.
especially up pretty sally
MildThing
>> of keeping to a set speed. Throttle lock works by maintaining engine revs,
>> and the speed varies depending upon the load placed on the engine.
>
> Throttle lock maintains the position of the throttle and wont maintain the
> revs.
Oops. Yes. You are correct.
Peter
>> I think he is trying to make the distinction that Cruise Control sets
>> the speed. It maintains a certain speed set by the user, as close as
>> possible regardless of the load placed on the engine. And will adjust
>> the throttle to maintain the speep.
>>
>> While a throttle lock sets the throttle in one position and the speed
>> will fluctuate depending on the loading placed on the engine.
>
> (just a note to indicate that the following is in response to the issues
> raised previously, and not to you specifically!)
>
> Fair enough, but that doesn't preclude a throttle lock from still being
> accurately described as a form of cruise control all the same.
Like a rubber band.
>
> The deluxe forms of cruise control may vary the revs to control speed more
> precisely, whereas a throttle lock does not, but why
> blame the tool because the user tried to apply it in an inappropriate
> situations?
>
Sorry.
;-)
> After all, if the user is out west somewhere on a road that is dead flat,
> there will be zero difference between a throttle lock or 'genuine' cruise
> control!
Wind.
> On the other hand, the throttle lock will obviously cause issues if you're
> traversing variable terrain. So let it be your cruise control when it's
> appropriate, and let it just sit there and look pretty when it isn't. We
> do that with every other tool we own, so why not with this one? Seems a
> bit silly to write it off for all uses just because it doesn't work for
> some - that's the way I look at it, at least.
>
There are throttle locks that disengage when brakes are applied.
This could be another distinction between throttle locks and cruise
controls?
>> Either way I have a Throttle lock on the Beemer and I love it. It has
>> been set with just enough restriction to overcome the the throttle
>> return spring. So I can take relax my grip (of the throttle).
>
> I wouldn't mind one myself. How much do they usually go for, and what's
> involved in fitting them?
:-P
Damien
> A car allows a person to cover vast distances in relatively short times.
>
> A motorcycle allows a person to cover vast distances in relatively short
> times.
>
> Is a car then the same as a motorcycle? :)
I certainly do hope that you don't think that qualifies as an argument! :-)
> Seriously, though. Cruise control works by varying revs with the
> intention of keeping to a set speed. Throttle lock works by maintaining
> engine revs, and the speed varies depending upon the load placed on the
> engine.
That doesn't mean that a "throttle lock" can't still qualify as "cruise
control" - it might be a very basic version, without any of the bells
and whistles (such as rev control), but other than the level of
sophistication and features they are still essentially the same type of
device.
Unlike the car/bike analogy you used, in which despite serving a similar
function in *some* areas, they remain very distinctly different devices
altogether. :-)
> With cruise control, when things turn pear-shaped the CC is
> de-activated. This is not the case with a Throttle Lock, unless the
> rider makes a specific action whose sole purpose is to release the
> throttle lock.
Wouldn't that depend on the design of the throttle lock? Much the same
as it depends on the design of the cruise control as well - they are not
all created equal, after all.
Knobdoodle
"cremasco" <Peter.C...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Damien wrote:
>> Can't you just fit a throttle lock and call it 'cruise control' if asked?
>> Besides, doesn't it amount to being the same thing anyway?
>
> Not the same thing at all. A throttle lock 'clamps' the throttle open,
> with the aid of an additional switch/lever/action which must be activated
> in order to stop it 'locking' the throttle.
>
> A cruise control automatically stops working when any of the following
> occurs: activating brakes, activating clutch, significantly increased
> engine revs, or gear changes. None of these actions is separate from what
> one does in the normal course of riding the machine.
>
definition and refusing to accept bike-type friction cruise-control are you?
Even though the friction ones are about 200 times more common on bikes than
the electronic ones? (and have been around about 80 years longer?)
--
Clem
Knobdoodle
"cremasco" <Peter.C...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:689cl0F...@mid.individual.net...
motorcycle world?
--
Clem
Nev..
> The Happy Drunk wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I think he is trying to make the distinction that Cruise Control sets
>> the speed. It maintains a certain speed set by the user, as close as
>> possible regardless of the load placed on the engine. And will adjust
>> the throttle to maintain the speep.
>
> Actually, most of the cruise controls I have tried in cars have been
> very disappointing in that they don't actually keep to a set speed on a
> down hill.
Petrol must still be too cheap if people don't want a free push from
gravity.
Nev..
'07 XB12X
Nev..
> With cruise control, when things turn pear-shaped the CC is
> de-activated. This is not the case with a Throttle Lock, unless the
> rider makes a specific action whose sole purpose is to release the
> throttle lock.
What a lot of woohaa and hair splitting is going on in this thread.
A driver/rider holds the throttle steady using input from their
hand/foot. An electronic cruise control emulates this action. A
throttle lock emulates this action. Some drivers maintain speed
manually over undulating terrain and vary revs, other drivers maintain
revs over undulating terrain and vary speed. A cruise control maintains
speed, a throttle lock maintains revs. For all intents an purposes they
are performing the same task in a different way and any variance in
outcome is no different to the variance in outcome of actual driver
behaviour.
Nev..
'07 XB12X
Knobdoodle
"CrazyCam" <Craz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Actually, most of the cruise controls I have tried in cars have been very
> disappointing in that they don't actually keep to a set speed on a down
> hill.
>
A manual will provide some drag down hills when the CC backs off. (Maybe not
ENOUGH drag but some.......)
--
Clem
òlléy®
"Nev.." <id...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:48200f16$0$31676$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
That is correct Nev. Different: my Suzuki's "throttle lock" will not
maintain my set speed downhill or up and to disengage it I need to flick it
off with my hand whilst my Statesman's CRS adjusts by means of electronics
and will maintain set speed uphill and down however, to disengage it either
brake slightly (puts it into a standby for resume type mode) or touch the
CRS button .
Same: remove the rider/driver from the seat of either while in motion with
crs/throttle lock engaged on either will obviously result in very bad
things, the car will still try to drive with no driver, the bike will fall
over and be revving it's head off at what the lock was last set at.
regards
olley
Damien
Precisely the point I've been arguing. I've just been waiting from those
on the other side of this argument to actually explain their position,
rather than just continually asserting "a throttle lock is not cruise
control". It seems as clear-cut to me as it is to you, but they think
differently for some as-yet unknown reason.
Fulliautomatix
> May I suggest that your definition is not very widely accepted in the
> motorcycle world?
Spose...won't do you any good tho
Would you accept a brick on the accelerator as a cruise control in your car?
Fulliautomatix
> Would you accept a brick on the accelerator as a cruise control in your
> car?
Ahhh...I see it's been done already
Damien
You still haven't said just what does qualify as cruise control, in your
opinion. Or how your opinion compares to 'official' definitions of same.
It might help. :-)
Fulliautomatix
> the bike will fall over and be revving it's head off at what the lock was last
> set at.
Whearas if it had a cruise control fitted it would fall over, rev its
head off once and return to idle until it flooded or ran out of fuel
Fulliautomatix
> Sheesh Peter; you're taking car-type electronic-cruise-control as your
> definition
Yes...cruise control
> and refusing to accept bike-type friction cruise-control are you?
Yes...throttle locks
Like a hand throttle in a diesel cruiser is a 'cruise control'!!!
> Even though the friction ones are about 200 times more common on bikes than
> the electronic ones? (and have been around about 80 years longer?)
Yes...pretty much all Harleys have a friction screw on the throttle
Goldwings don't...they have a cruise control
òlléy®
"Knobdoodle" <knobd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7AUTj.8082$ko5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
My everyday car (automatic 1990 Staty) maintains it up and down hills much
better than my foot can and being electronic does it much smoother thus more
economically than my right foot also.
My other car, (believe it or not, a automatic 1994 VRSS 5.0L with same
engine as my older Statesman) has the same CRS but is slightly more refined,
I can actually drive the car (had much practice, owned the car for 8 years
not 1 dent) using the CRS buttons up/down alone(slightly more responsive in
electronic area than the 90 model) in all conditions with no accelerator
pedal needed at all, hard to believe maybe however,very easy and quite safe
:)
olley
òlléy®
I believe if it had electronic cruise control, yes it would.
regards
olley.
Knobdoodle
for MOTORCYCLES"
So there's *one* of that type is there?
Wow!
Heaps of the common friction type:
http://www.mcas.com.au/_products.php?subcategory=229
--
Clem
Knobdoodle
Are there other common concepts you want to redefine too or is
"cruise-control" the only one wanna' be Robinson Crusoe on?
--
Clem
Fulliautomatix
> You still haven't said just what does qualify as cruise control, in your
> opinion. Or how your opinion compares to 'official' definitions of same.
>
> It might help. :-)
Naaah
It wouldn't matter two whits of grittle in a snowstorm in the grand
scheme of things
Fulliautomatix
> [shrug] So you and Peter are the only TWO marching in step.
> Are there other common concepts you want to redefine too or is
> "cruise-control" the only one wanna' be Robinson Crusoe on?
Dunno
What else you got??
Damien
In my experience, every single person who has ever said "you're wrong,
but I'm not going to say why" was in fact the person who was wrong. If
we're really all so mistaken, it should be an easy matter to provide the
evidence and reasons that could correct our misunderstandings - but if
we are right, then I can understand your reluctance to do so.
JL
> "Knobdoodle" <knobd...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:7AUTj.8082$ko5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>> A manual will provide some drag down hills when the CC backs off.
>> (Maybe not ENOUGH drag but some.......)
>
> to manuals. My manual Pulsar has all the brackets and
> doo-daas for cruise control, but it was not offered as
> an option on that model.
>
My (ex) Audi A4 Quattro manual had cruise control from the factory (and
all the other bells and whistles in the options list).
I think the key difference is for the lower end of the cost spectrum in
Oz, manual is seen as the cost cutting option, so why would someone
buying a manual want options like cruise control - if they had the money
for that they buy an auto like god intended you to drive ( I swear there
are far too many yanks in the marketing depts of car importers in Oz).
The germans are far more sensible, they realise that some people
actually like manuals more than slush boxes, 'cos they give better
performance. Jaguar do in the UK but not here :-( I'd have traded the A4
in on an Xtype 3.0 sports but of course they don't sell the manual
sports here do they - auto only for aussies and yanks - hmmmph
JL
Fulliautomatix
> In my experience, every single person who has ever said "you're wrong,
> but I'm not going to say why" was in fact the person who was wrong. If
> we're really all so mistaken, it should be an easy matter to provide the
> evidence and reasons that could correct our misunderstandings - but if
> we are right, then I can understand your reluctance to do so.
I'm sure you are right.
Anyway...I was going to be sleeping but there I was thinking about
'cruise controls'...
'Control' is used in a variety of contexts to express "mastery" or
"proficiency"
'Mastery' infers that the 'controlled' thing is prevented from exceeding
some bound
In this case the 'controlled thing' is 'cruise'...or probably more
precisely 'cruise speed'
To 'control' the controlled thing some action must be applied to it when
the boundary of desired state is exceeded
Commonly a 'control system' is used, ie. a device to manage, command,
direct or regulate the behavior of other devices or systems
The variable that most affects the cruise speed of a vehicle is the
force exerted by acceleration due to gravity, if the vehicle goes
downhill it is accelerated...and vice versa
This force can be expressed as F=m*g*sin(angle of road from horizontal)
The input force to the system (engine power) needs to vary by this
amount to control the speed of the vehicle over varying terrain
(assuming vehicle mass, rolling friction, and drag are constant)
In the case of a manual vehicle, the engine revolutions are
proportionally related to the speed of the vehicle by the selected gear
For an automatic vehicle the torque converter effects must be accounted
for in order to relate engine speed to road speed
There are generally two types of control system...open loop ('controlled
thing' is *not* checked to see if it is where it should be)...and closed
loop ('controlled thing' *is* checked to see if it is where it should be)
Therefore, a manual vehicle may use an open loop controller to vary the
engine revolutions and control the cruise speed...mechanical devices
such as a pendulum (varies force according to attitude of vehicle) or
centrifugal governor (varies force according to engine load) are
examples of open loop controllers that could be used
Whereas an automatic vehicle must use a closed loop controller to
achieve the desired 'control of cruise' so that 'cruise' is checked to
see if it is where it should be and 'system input' is adjusted
accordingly...closed loop controllers are commonly electronic
So in order to achieve 'cruise control' some form of 'controller' is
required...an effective controller must capable of varying the
'controlled thing' by some control action or the 'controlled thing'
(cruise) will exceed the boundary of desired state (too fast, too slow)
A throttle lock is not an active thing...it is not capable of exerting
any control action
Ergo, a throttle lock is not a cruise 'control'
If (as has been stated elsewhere) the result for the vehicle *operator*
of a throttle lock, hand throttle, or brick on the accelerator is
compared with a cruise control...rider rests hand, driver rests
foot...then it is quite clear that any form of 'keeping the throttle
open' can be termed a 'cruise control'
If the effect on the *vehicle* is considered, it can be demonstrated by
the variation in vehicle speed (cruise) over varying terrain that no
control action is occurring when the throttle lock, hand throttle, or
brick on the accelerator is used
Ergo, a throttle lock is not a cruise 'control'
Nev..
> "Knobdoodle" <knobd...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:7AUTj.8082$ko5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>> A manual will provide some drag down hills when the CC backs off.
>> (Maybe not ENOUGH drag but some.......)
>
> to manuals. My manual Pulsar has all the brackets and
> doo-daas for cruise control, but it was not offered as
> an option on that model.
Don't they? You better tell the people at Holden who build my cars
that, because when I ordered my past two Commodores I had to select the
manual transmission but the cruise control was a standard features.
Nev..
'07 XB12X
G-S
>
> I think the key difference is for the lower end of the cost spectrum in
> Oz, manual is seen as the cost cutting option, so why would someone
> buying a manual want options like cruise control -
>
I have a Mitusubishi 380 manual with cruise control. Cruise control
works fine with manuals as long as the manual engine is torquey enough
to maintain speed up reasonable slopes.
G-S
G-S
Err no... a driver/rider holds the speed steady using a variable
throttle input.
If I'm cruising at 110 then that's the speed I'm cruising at, and that
requires more throttle up hill and less throttle on the flat and less
still (or brakes) down hill.
A throttle lock on the bike doesn't do that, which means they only
function as a 'cruise control' on substantially flat roads.
On any road with hills I disengage my throttle lock and don't use it.
G-S
G-S
> "Fulliautomatix" <ne...@there.com> wrote in message
> news:7IednedMioh3sb3VnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@internode...
>> Knobdoodle wrote:
>>
>>> May I suggest that your definition is not very widely accepted in the
>>> motorcycle world?
>> Spose...won't do you any good tho
>>
>> Would you accept a brick on the accelerator as a cruise control in your
>> car?
>>
>> http://www.motorcycle-cruise-control.com/
>>
> "World's ONLY after-market, model-specific, fully electronic cruise control
> for MOTORCYCLES"
> So there's *one* of that type is there?
> Wow!
One aftermarket cruise control, lots of factory fitted ones.
> Heaps of the common friction type:
> http://www.mcas.com.au/_products.php?subcategory=229
Heaps of throttle friction locks yup :)
G-S
Nigel Allen
I'm with 'im.
If it ain't got electronics in it's guts it's not a cruise control.
Otherwise you'd have to accept my old Series II Land Rover's hand
throttle as a "Cruise Control". (and that's just a load of bollocks).
Back under the bridge with you now!
N/
Nick "sharkey" Moore
>
> What a lot of woohaa and hair splitting is going on in this thread.
I haven't even started!
> A cruise control maintains speed, a throttle lock maintains revs.
A throttle lock maintains throttle.
Go up a hill and the revs & speed will drop. Go down a hill and the
revs & speed will rise. There's no "control" feedback loop.
Never seen much point in throttle locks, myself --- if I want to stretch
the right hand, I just pull in the clutch and coast along for a bit.
I might put one of those cheap-arse cruise controls in the Smurf though,
keeping it at 100 is a bit tedious.
-----sharks
Nick "sharkey" Moore
>
> If it ain't got electronics in it's guts it's not a cruise control.
It's the feedback loop that matters, not the technology used to produce
the feedback loop.
-----sharks
Nev..
There are plenty of drivers out there who slow down when they encounter
hills because they maintain a steady throttle input. Your "everything
is either black or white" position on most matters is highly flawed in a
discussion on something as variable as driver behaviour.. see my post as
quoted above.
Nev..
'07 XB12X
Kevin Gleeson
^ 'wot 'e said.
I was going to fit a cruise control to one of my cars in the late
70s/early 80s. Problem was it was one of the first after market turbo
cars in the state. The cruise control was an active control that
operated off vacuum pressure to control the throttle. However, as
turbos go into positive manifold pressure, it wouldn't have worked, so
we didn't bother trying. Electronics in the engine? What? Never heard
of 'em.
</rocking chair>
Damien
> If I'm cruising at 110 then that's the speed I'm cruising at, and that
> requires more throttle up hill and less throttle on the flat and less
> still (or brakes) down hill.
>
> A throttle lock on the bike doesn't do that, which means they only
> function as a 'cruise control' on substantially flat roads.
So what's the problem then? You've just agreed with the essential
premise of my argument, and then said it was wrong anyway! Can't you
just make up your mind?
You're trying to argue that it can only be called 'cruise control' if it
controls speed in ALL possible situations that a rider may encounter.
But you fail to see the fundamental fallacy of this position. A throttle
lock might not maintain my speed up a hill if I was just on a flat a
moment earlier (or vice versa) but it will still maintain my speed for
as long as the terrain remains the same as when it was set. It might not
be as fully functional as more advanced models, but it's still cruise
control all the same.
Think of a throttle lock as being the cruise control equivalent of a
manual transmission - it may well require frequent user intervention in
order to work in all conditions, but it still transmits drive from the
engine to the wheels in accordance with user inputs, doesn't it? A
throttle lock might require frequent user intervention in order to work
in all conditions, but it still maintains the set speed in accordance
with user inputs, doesn't it?
You can like it or not, but a throttle lock still qualifies as cruise
control even so.
Yeebers
Look, Damien. I'll break it to you gently. You, yourself, call one
device a "throttle lock" and the other device "cruise control". Now
*why* is that if they're both cruise control ? The name isn't a
trademark, otherwise only one company could make cruise control.
I personally expect "cruise control" to at least :
Turn off / enter standby at application of brakes
Have some method of entering a desired speed
Have the vehicle maintain *that* *speed*
As a result by my definition, what you call a throttle lock, but espouse
as being cruise control .. isn't cruise control. Either way it meets 0
of the 3 criteria I have above.
I could find that cruise control as I expect it doesn't exist on
motorcycles. I don't know. People may be having their expectations
defined by 'car cruise control' sure (as I do). With a throttle lock
you're setting the engine's revs, not setting a speed. Indirectly you
set the speed but if you set the lock, changed gears and re-enabled the
lock in the same position your set speed would change. In a car it'd
probably change into the right gear for the set speed even however that
could be argued as being part of the auto transmission's job rather than
the cruise control's. Either way, I digress.
The fact remains that cruise control has no "non cruise control"
functionality. ie it's not a mobile phone that can also browse the web,
it *just* does cruise control. If the basic device has no extras on it,
how can something with less features be the same thing? At least a
mobile with no browsing capability still does calls and SMS messages,
and is therefore a mobile phone.
Damien
> Just reading this thread is an exercise in pedantry..
>
> Look, Damien. I'll break it to you gently. You, yourself, call one
> device a "throttle lock" and the other device "cruise control". Now
> *why* is that if they're both cruise control ? The name isn't a
> trademark, otherwise only one company could make cruise control.
I've used those terms because they're the ones people are familiar with.
But just as a duck is still a bird even if you call it a duck, so a
throttle lock is still a form of cruise control even if you call it a
throttle lock. It's not that hard to understand. :-)
> I personally expect "cruise control" to at least :
> Turn off / enter standby at application of brakes
> Have some method of entering a desired speed
> Have the vehicle maintain *that* *speed*
So if I expect a mobile phone to:
have a camera
play MP3s
send email
but all it does it make phone calls, then it's not a mobile phone? Bullshit.
Likewise the assertions you're making re cruise control. A throttle lock
may not have all the bells and whistles of an electronically operated
'cruise control', but it's still a form of cruise control all the same.
In any given situation, you apply the throttle lock and it maintains
your speed - sounds awfully like cruise control, doesn't it? So what if
the device lacks the sophistication to automatically adjust for changes
in terrain? The user resets it accordingly, and we're back in cruise
control land once again.
The pedant is you, my friend. :-)
G-S
This is true, but why should we worry about drivers who have bad driving
habits?
Well... unless that bad driving habit means they are a danger to us :)
Your "everything
> is either black or white" position on most matters is highly flawed in a
> discussion on something as variable as driver behaviour.. see my post as
> quoted above.
Seriosuly... I don't have a black or white position on everything,
Collingwood are both black *and white... and they have no position in my
life at all! :-)
G-S
Nev..
> Just reading this thread is an exercise in pedantry..
>
> Look, Damien. I'll break it to you gently. You, yourself, call one
> device a "throttle lock" and the other device "cruise control". Now
> *why* is that if they're both cruise control ? The name isn't a
> trademark, otherwise only one company could make cruise control.
>
> I personally expect "cruise control" to at least :
> Turn off / enter standby at application of brakes
We're talking about motorcycles, not a car, so the throttle and brake
are not independently controlled as in a car... have you noticed that
your right hand operates both the brake and the throttle. I suggest
that you close the throttle while activating the brake. In fact.. it's
not just me who suggests it. Its the way you should always ride. Your
definition is flawed. Try again.
> Have some method of entering a desired speed
A throttle lock clamp is activated at the desired speed, or activated
and then the desired speed is set. Actually.. that's exactly how the
electronic cruise control in my car works. First I activate it, then I
set it when I'm at the desired speed. In fact it behaves exactly in the
way that a throttle lock would behave. Your definition is flawed. Try
again.
> Have the vehicle maintain *that* *speed*
So last Saturday I'm driving from Canberra to Bungendore along some
winding road which was quite undulating, and as usual I had the car in
the very tall top gear with the cruise control set at the speed limit
and every time I came to an uphill climb the car slowed down and I had
to deactivate the cruise control, select a lower gear and reactivate the
cruise control. When I came to downhill sections with the cruise
control set in top gear the car invariably accelerated to a speed in
excess of that which the cruise control was set at, due to the very tall
top gear and weight of the car.
In those circumstances, it behaves exactly in the way that a throttle
lock would behave. Your definition is flawed. Try again.
Nev..
'07 XB12X
G-S
> G-S wrote:
>> If I'm cruising at 110 then that's the speed I'm cruising at, and that
>> requires more throttle up hill and less throttle on the flat and less
>> still (or brakes) down hill.
>>
>> A throttle lock on the bike doesn't do that, which means they only
>> function as a 'cruise control' on substantially flat roads.
>
> So what's the problem then? You've just agreed with the essential
> premise of my argument, and then said it was wrong anyway! Can't you
> just make up your mind?
I have made up my mind... based upon the normal (most common) usage of
the term 'cruise control' and the normal (most common) usage of the term
'throttle lock'.
The term cruise control (when said term is used by individuals) in most
cases refers to the electronic devices fitted to cars.
The term throttle lock (when said term is used by individuals) in most
cases refers to a mechanical throttle restriction device (like the vista
cruise).
If you're suggesting that I should embrace a minority position then
ok... sure... but you'd have to convince me that the majority usage is
incorrect first.
G-S
Knobdoodle
fits your and Peter's "definition") not enough for you?
--
Clem
Yeebers
control.. you said it's a form of it.
As for the mobile comment .. no they're not features of a standard
mobile phone. When the first portable bricks came out all they did was
make calls but they were still mobiles. That makes your point below
irrelevant. If all it does is make phone calls, and it's mobile, it's a
mobile phone. That to get 'wow factor' useless crap like simulating an
MP3 and camera etc have been added also negates it .. mainly due to the
word "added". The features I listed are part of the standard set of a
basic device. The ones you listed are extras not required for the
functionality which the device is named. After all a car is NOT a
cigarette lighter nor an air conditioner, but most modern cars contain them.
Yes I'm a pedant and proud of it ! W00t me!
Damien
No, you've made up your mind based on a highly flawed understanding of
the operating principles of cruise control, and have not yet realised
this. As Nev pointed out also, there is in fact no difference at all
between a throttle lock and cruise control other than the use of
different names - in terms of principle function they are identical, and
differ only in the specifications of particular model variants.
Yeebers
Nev.. wrote:
Knobdoodle
"GB" <gb0...@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote:
> That said, it comes nowhere near the schoolyard story that
> did the rounds when a particular Honda Prelude with ABS, 4WS,
> OMG, BBQ came out. It was in the days when radar detectors
> and KR11/KR10 radars were about, and the claim was that you
> could set the cruise control on the Prelude to 99Km/h, turn
> it off, and trundle along at a great rate of knots. If the
> radar detector beeped, you hit the 'resume' button on the
> cruise control, and the ABS cut in and brought you back to
> the limit faster than the police radar could cope with.
>
> Well, it was a great story anyway!
>
[chortle] Better still; feed the output of the radar-detector into the
"resume" cct .......
--
Clem
Knobdoodle
"Nigel Allen" <"dna at edrs dot remove this com dot au"> wrote:
>
> If it ain't got electronics in it's guts it's not a cruise control.
>
> Otherwise you'd have to accept my old Series II Land Rover's hand throttle
> as a "Cruise Control". (and that's just a load of bollocks).
>
> Back under the bridge with you now!
>
Plenty of mechanical cruise controls out there though (and I seriously doubt
they're gonna' magically disappear just 'cause you screw up your eyes and
say "I don't believe in them....")
http://www.google.com/search?q=mechanical+cruise+control
--
Clem
Damien
> At no point in your reply did you actually say a throttle lock IS cruise
> control.. you said it's a form of it.
>
> As for the mobile comment .. no they're not features of a standard
> mobile phone. When the first portable bricks came out all they did was
> make calls but they were still mobiles. That makes your point below
> irrelevant. If all it does is make phone calls, and it's mobile, it's a
> mobile phone. That to get 'wow factor' useless crap like simulating an
> MP3 and camera etc have been added also negates it .. mainly due to the
> word "added". The features I listed are part of the standard set of a
> basic device. The ones you listed are extras not required for the
> functionality which the device is named. After all a car is NOT a
> cigarette lighter nor an air conditioner, but most modern cars contain
> them.
As was pointed out elsewhere in this thread, neither is electronic
circuitry a necessary component for cruise control - as evidenced by the
fact that the system referred to in that post was a 1970s mechanical
implementation. And yet you're basing the entire substance of your
argument on the need for such circuitry to exist!
A throttle lock is just a form of cruise control that requires manual
engagement and adjustment, due to the absence of the aforementioned
electronic circuitry. It may lack the capacity to vary its performance
automatically, but otherwise it still performs exactly the same function
as any device that you'd be happy to call cruise control - because
that's exactly what it is.
Knobdoodle
"Fulliautomatix" <ne...@there.com> wrote:
> 'Control' is used in a variety of contexts to express "mastery" or
> "proficiency"
>
> 'Mastery' infers that the 'controlled' thing is prevented from exceeding
> some bound
>
> In this case the 'controlled thing' is 'cruise'...or probably more
> precisely 'cruise speed'
>
then we argue against it do we?
Yep you win; motorcycle cruise-controls are not generally motorcycle
speed-controllers and you have my permission to call anyone who say they are
a stupid-head.
So we'll just agree to only call them "cruise controls" then eh?
Cheers.... Clem
Yeebers
"> A throttle lock is just a form of cruise control"
Form. of.
Johno
Tractor boy is going to slap you for that!
Johno
Beer?
Nigel Allen
Nah - they're "throttle locks" - not "cruise controls".
Jeez - If I called you "good looking" it doesn't mean it's so :)
N/
Fulliautomatix
Sorry, I thought you were offering to present a choice of common
concepts for redefinition
Fulliautomatix
My involvement in this started 'cos Peter said a cruise control was a
kettle of fish...albeit a bit different
Now...somewhere in the world someone will look at a Clem and conclude
that he is the horniest thing alive
Thus nature balances itself
Nev..
> I think it's your cruise control that's flawed, Nev.. :)
so you still call it a cruise control, even though it fails to meet the
minimum standards for a cruise control which you listed yourself...
Thanks for coming.
Nev..
'07 XB12X
Damien
> Here we go again :
>
> "> A throttle lock is just a form of cruise control"
>
> Form. of.
So. Fucking. What.
A car is a form of vehicle. A motorcycle is a form of vehicle. Does it
make either one any less of a vehicle to refer to them as either a car
or a motorcycle? Certainly not. So why does it (in your strange mind)
make a throttle lock less of a cruise control in exactly the same context?
I say "form of" because it is a very specific type of cruise control,
and all you're doing by focusing on that choice of words is
demonstrating just how weak your position is. If you actually had a
case, you'd be able to get me on more than just a point that relies
solely on your misunderstanding of the usage of the English language!
You haven't got a leg to stand on with this one. The only real question
here is just how long it's going to take you to realise this?
Yeebers
I think that demonstrates that I give up. Let's go back to abuse,
dickhead. :)
Yeebers
Happy now ? ;)
Nev.. wrote:
> Yeebers wrote:
>
>> I think it's your cruise control [sic] that's flawed, Nev.. :)
Yeebers
CrazyCam
<snip>
> I personally expect "cruise control" to at least :
> Turn off / enter standby at application of brakes
> Have some method of entering a desired speed
> Have the vehicle maintain *that* *speed*
>
> As a result by my definition, what you call a throttle lock, but espouse
> as being cruise control .. isn't cruise control. Either way it meets 0
> of the 3 criteria I have above.
Actually, a sticky throttle (I don't like the word lock, 'cos it
doesn't) actually complies with your first test for a cruise control.
Assuming, of course, correct operation of motorcycle brakes.... think
about it.
regards,
CrazyCam
Knobdoodle
"Nigel Allen" <"dna at edrs dot remove this com dot au"> wrote:
> On 7/05/2008 6:09 PM, Knobdoodle wrote:
>> Plenty of mechanical cruise controls out there though (and I seriously
>> doubt they're gonna' magically disappear just 'cause you screw up your
>> eyes and say "I don't believe in them....")
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=mechanical+cruise+control
>
> Nah - they're "throttle locks" - not "cruise controls".
>
--
Clem
Snapper
> Can't you just fit a throttle lock and call it 'cruise control' if
> asked? Besides, doesn't it amount to being the same thing anyway?
Well, if you write "Crooze Control" in crayon on the side of it, that
should suffice, shouldn't it?
MildThing
> MildThing wrote:
>> Seriously, though. Cruise control works by varying revs with the
>> intention of keeping to a set speed. Throttle lock works by
>> maintaining engine revs, and the speed varies depending upon the load
>> placed on the engine.
As George pointed out, the lock maintaining engine revs was wrong on my
part. It locks the throttle at a set position. However, I digress.
> That doesn't mean that a "throttle lock" can't still qualify as "cruise
> control" - it might be a very basic version, without any of the bells
> and whistles (such as rev control), but other than the level of
> sophistication and features they are still essentially the same type of
> device.
No. Cruise control CONTROLS the throttle, but throttle lock LOCKS the
throttle.
>> With cruise control, when things turn pear-shaped the CC is
>> de-activated. This is not the case with a Throttle Lock, unless the
>> rider makes a specific action whose sole purpose is to release the
>> throttle lock.
>
> Wouldn't that depend on the design of the throttle lock? Much the same
> as it depends on the design of the cruise control as well - they are not
> all created equal, after all.
Is there a throttle lock that is deactivated when the brakes are applied?
MildThing
> "cremasco" <Peter.C...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> Damien wrote:
>>> Can't you just fit a throttle lock and call it 'cruise control' if asked?
>>> Besides, doesn't it amount to being the same thing anyway?
>> with the aid of an additional switch/lever/action which must be activated
>> in order to stop it 'locking' the throttle.
>>
>> A cruise control automatically stops working when any of the following
>> occurs: activating brakes, activating clutch, significantly increased
>> engine revs, or gear changes. None of these actions is separate from what
>> one does in the normal course of riding the machine.
>>
> Sheesh Peter; you're taking car-type electronic-cruise-control as your
> definition and refusing to accept bike-type friction cruise-control are you?
Yes and no. I AM talking about car-type electronic cruise control, when
I use the term "cruise control". And any type of friction 'cruise
control' I don't define as 'cruise control' but rather as a form of
throttle lock.
> Even though the friction ones are about 200 times more common on bikes than
> the electronic ones? (and have been around about 80 years longer?)
Hey! I didn't say they don't have their place. But I DID say that I
suspected (only suspect, mind you) that they are illegal in Qld. Whereas
the electronic cruise control is NOT illegal in Qld.
I think we're bogging down on terminology here.
MildThing
>> Knobdoodle wrote:
>>
>>> Sheesh Peter; you're taking car-type electronic-cruise-control as your
>>> definition
>>
>>> and refusing to accept bike-type friction cruise-control are you?
>>
>> Like a hand throttle in a diesel cruiser is a 'cruise control'!!!
>>
>>> Even though the friction ones are about 200 times more common on bikes
>>> than the electronic ones? (and have been around about 80 years longer?)
>>
>> Goldwings don't...they have a cruise control
>>
> [shrug] So you and Peter are the only TWO marching in step.
> Are there other common concepts you want to redefine too or is
> "cruise-control" the only one wanna' be Robinson Crusoe on?
[looks around]
Is it really just two?
Bugga. I've ALWAYS called one cruise-control and the other a throttle
lock - and don't confuse them. But you're right. It IS a terminology issue.
So, if the original question was "Are throttle locks illegal in Qld"
then the answer is YES.
MildThing
Ahhh. Now I see the problem. MCA has got it wrong. Someone should tell 'em.
MildThing
> If it ain't got electronics it's not an ELECTRONIC cruise control.
> Plenty of mechanical cruise controls out there though (and I seriously doubt
> they're gonna' magically disappear just 'cause you screw up your eyes and
> say "I don't believe in them....")
> http://www.google.com/search?q=mechanical+cruise+control
Most of 'em appear to be what I would term "Throttle locks", although
one does seem to blur the boundaries a bit. Still not cruise control,
though (in my extremely humble opinion).
"Although most devices on the market today are effective in the relief
of hand and wrist cramps, deactivating them requires a conscious and
sometimes awkward effort. This can leave the rider feeling uneasy or
even unsafe during use.
The BrakeAway Motorcycle Cruise Control is specifically designed to give
the rider relief, while maintaining a feeling of control. Easy push
button engagement and instant push lever disengagement eliminates any
fumbling around during manual operation. While the unit is engaged,
throttle adjustment is easy and smooth, allowing speed to be adjusted
full range up or down with a slight turn of the throttle. These features
alone would make our cruise control a nice addition to the devices on
the market today, but we didn't stop there.
This quality crafted motorcycle accessory is the first and only
mechanical cruise control offering instant disengagement activated by
the front brake lever. Normal throttle function is returned to the rider
in a split second without ever having to think about it. Imagine what
that could mean in an emergency situation!"
MildThing
> "cremasco" <Peter.C...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:689cl0F...@mid.individual.net...>>> news:dMmdnfoN8_NzS4PVnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@internode...
>>>> Damien wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Can't you just fit a throttle lock and call it 'cruise control' if
>>>>> asked? Besides, doesn't it amount to being the same thing anyway?
>>>>
>>>> Cruise control is a different kettle of fish altogether.
>>>>
>>> Care to elaborate?
>>> Plenty of "cruise-controls" are nothing more than a friction-lock.
>>> (You can even buy then OEM from BMW!)
>>> http://www.motobins.com/library/61181.jpg
>> Plenty of confusion in the nomencalture. Things like Vista Cruise imply
>> cruise control, whereas they are nothing more than a throttle (friction)
>> lock. They are not cruise control - at least according to my definition.
>>
> May I suggest that your definition is not very widely accepted in the
> motorcycle world?
You may indeed.
MildThing
> Fulliautomatix wrote:
>> Fulliautomatix wrote:
>>
>>> Would you accept a brick on the accelerator as a cruise control in
>>> your car?
>>
>>
>> Ahhh...I see it's been done already
>
> You still haven't said just what does qualify as cruise control, in your
> opinion. Or how your opinion compares to 'official' definitions of same.
>
> It might help. :-)
I doubt it. In the end, it's the official definition that will hold
sway. If the cop/inspector calls your Vista Cruise Control a 'throttle
lock (which it is), and you're in Qld, then you're probably doing
something illegal. (Which is what the original question was about)
MildThing
> Fulliautomatix wrote:
>> Fulliautomatix wrote:
>>
>>> Would you accept a brick on the accelerator as a cruise control in
>>> your car?
>>
>>
>> Ahhh...I see it's been done already
>
> You still haven't said just what does qualify as cruise control, in your
> opinion. Or how your opinion compares to 'official' definitions of same.
>
> It might help. :-)
Sharkey's definition comes close to the mark. Cruise control is
something that maintains a vehicles speed via some kind of feedback
mechanism.
YOU are a cruise control; a throttle lock is not.
MildThing
>> The Happy Drunk wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I think he is trying to make the distinction that Cruise Control sets
>>> the speed. It maintains a certain speed set by the user, as close as
>>> possible regardless of the load placed on the engine. And will adjust
>>> the throttle to maintain the speep.
>>
> Actually, most of the cruise controls I have tried in cars have been
> very disappointing in that they don't actually keep to a set speed on
> a down hill.
They seem to work within the limits of engine braking capacity.
The one in the work Rodeo tends to keep plus/minus 1 kph over most
undulations. Occasional, on a steep incline, it will drop by about 5 kph
and then 'overshoot' as it crests the hill by about the same margin -
maybe a little more - before adjusting back to the set speed.
MildThing
> MildThing wrote:
>
>> With cruise control, when things turn pear-shaped the CC is
>> de-activated. This is not the case with a Throttle Lock, unless the
>> rider makes a specific action whose sole purpose is to release the
>> throttle lock.
>
> A driver/rider holds the throttle steady using input from their
> hand/foot. An electronic cruise control emulates this action. A
> throttle lock emulates this action. Some drivers maintain speed
> manually over undulating terrain and vary revs, other drivers maintain
> revs over undulating terrain and vary speed. A cruise control maintains
> speed, a throttle lock maintains revs. For all intents an purposes they
> are performing the same task in a different way and any variance in
> outcome is no different to the variance in outcome of actual driver
> behaviour.
I disagree. But you already knew that.
None of what you just typed has any relevance to my quoted sentence
(although I see it may have relevance the topic discussion in general)
MildThing
>
> "Nev.." <id...@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:48200f16$0$31676$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> That is correct Nev. Different: my Suzuki's "throttle lock" will not
> maintain my set speed downhill or up and to disengage it I need to flick
> it off with my hand whilst my Statesman's CRS adjusts by means of
> electronics and will maintain set speed uphill and down however, to
> disengage it either brake slightly (puts it into a standby for resume
> type mode) or touch the CRS button .
>
> Same: remove the rider/driver from the seat of either while in motion
> with crs/throttle lock engaged on either will obviously result in very
> bad things, the car will still try to drive with no driver, the bike
> will fall over and be revving it's head off at what the lock was last
> set at.
Not so. With cruise control, the cruise control will cut out when the
bike falls over and the engine starts free reving. That won't happen
with throttle lock.
Actually, with the FJR, the engine will cut out once the lean angle gets
too big.