Servo-assisted brakes. Why?

I am looking to buy a used oilhead. I managed to get a demo ride on an '04 when they were first introduced. Of course, I had a hard time getting a feel for the brakes. I guess in time I would adapt.

However, I am wondering why BMW thought this was a necessary feature. I have ridden other oilheads that did not have the servo-assisted & linked brake system. The braking was just fine. It looks to me as if the servo-assisted system is just another hi-tech feature that will be expensive to maintain.

Can anybody tell me why I should get a bike with the servo brake system instead of an older model with the normal unassisted, unlinked brakes?

Also, the dual plug model did not surge. I rode two single plug oilheads and both surged badly. Maybe the throttles were not synched properly. And, the '04 vibrated more than my airhead. Could be that it was also not synched properly. It was a demo with very few miles.

I do not know much about oilheads. I have been riding airheads for over 20 years but I would like to get something with better performance. I have a chance to get an '04 with very low miles at a very good price. At least, I think it is a good price.

Help me out here. Thanks.

I'm sure they did it just to aggrevate me....

An airhead with servo-assist, integrated drum brakes...now that would be super

Having owned and R1100RS ABS (non servo) for several years and currently owning an R1150RS with servos and partially linked brakes, I can say all other things being equal in terms of how the bikes run I'd take the non servo bike first. It's user servicable and the braking is easier to modulate. I also think the R1100 gear ratios are better spaced than the R1150 6 speed overdrive g/b, but that can be somewhat easily fixed with a change in the final drive ratio. I love my 1150 and I have adjusted to the brakes and altered the final drive to suit my tastes but out of the box, the 1100 is a better bike in my opinion, especially a late 1100. And as far as surging goes, most single spark bikes if carefully adjusted will not surge.

saab93driver said:

Having owned and R1100RS ABS (non servo) for several years and currently owning an R1150RS with servos and partially linked brakes, I can say all other things being equal in terms of how the bikes run I'd take the non servo bike first. It's user servicable and the braking is easier to modulate. I also think the R1100 gear ratios are better spaced than the R1150 6 speed overdrive g/b, but that can be somewhat easily fixed with a change in the final drive ratio. I love my 1150 and I have adjusted to the brakes and altered the final drive to suit my tastes but out of the box, the 1100 is a better bike in my opinion, especially a late 1100. And as far as surging goes, most single spark bikes if carefully adjusted will not surge.

Click to expand...

Did you make the final drive higher? I was considering doing that for bigger tank radius.

I put a shorter geared final drive on so that 6th is not as tall. I bought a final drive that would normally fit an R1100R ABS - it's a bolt in swap. I found myself hunting between 5 and 6 on the highway (in the US) and that first was too tall for smooth starts, especially uphill or 2 up. Now 6th is more like 5th on an R1100RS instead of an overdrive. It sounds as if you want to go the other direction.

I don't know if there is a taller FD available. I couldn't imagine having it geared taller for US highways, maybe autobahn might be OK that way.

Because when 8 out of 10 people are surprised and have to make a panic stop, they hit the rear brake pedal first. And most BMW rear brakes are weak, so linking them with the front probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

If most rear brakes are weak, it would seem far more logical to just improve the rear brake rather than add a bunch of stuff to complicate it. The more you add "stuff" for the gremlins to work on the more things will fail. The bike (or car) can't compensate for lack of skill or common sense.

Motorman said:

If most rear brakes are weak, it would seem far more logical to just improve the rear brake rather than add a bunch of stuff to complicate it. The more you add "stuff" for the gremlins to work on the more things will fail. The bike (or car) can't compensate for lack of skill or common sense.

Click to expand...

But if your demographic says that riders primarily over the age of 40 buy your bikes, you want to give them every opportunity to stay alive, right? Especially if they might be re-entry riders who haven't touched a bike for 20 years.

I've only ridden a couple of the linked servo bikes, and I thought they were terrific. There was nothing during my test rides that would have kept me from buying the technology.

Motorman said:

If most rear brakes are weak, it would seem far more logical to just improve the rear brake rather than add a bunch of stuff to complicate it. The more you add "stuff" for the gremlins to work on the more things will fail. The bike (or car) can't compensate for lack of skill or common sense.

Click to expand...

Actually I grab the front brake first...and I'm pleased that it links to the rear as well.
But, as far as complications go...we never would have made it to the moon with thinking that more stuff makes it fail. And we would never buy BMWs in the first place if it weren't the kind of a company it is. The "old farts" are riding the advanced technology of the year of manufacture of their bikes which is still quite advanced for the time. It's just that sometimes it takes some folks 20 years to get comfortable with the complications.

saab93driver said:

I put a shorter geared final drive on so that 6th is not as tall. I bought a final drive that would normally fit an R1100R ABS - it's a bolt in swap. I found myself hunting between 5 and 6 on the highway (in the US) and that first was too tall for smooth starts, especially uphill or 2 up. Now 6th is more like 5th on an R1100RS instead of an overdrive. It sounds as if you want to go the other direction.

I don't know if there is a taller FD available. I couldn't imagine having it geared taller for US highways, maybe autobahn might be OK that way.

Click to expand...

The KXXXRS has a 2.75 FD vs a 2.91 for the RXXXRS. I ride solo, so I don't think it would be an operational problem.

Motorman said:

If most rear brakes are weak, it would seem far more logical to just improve the rear brake rather than add a bunch of stuff to complicate it. The more you add "stuff" for the gremlins to work on the more things will fail. The bike (or car) can't compensate for lack of skill or common sense.

Click to expand...

Can't change the laws of physics.

Rear brakes are useless because of weight transfer to front.

Linking the pedal to the front brake is a VERY good idea, as many folks don't understand motorcycle riding and favor their rear brake. The bike designer can indeed compensate.

Nothing wrong with BMW rear brakes.

Reading pmdaves books, every third word is use the front brake with reason as to why following. I am happy with the brake system on my '04 RT but the bottom word is it is the system between the riders ears that matters the most in stopping, right Mr. Hough?

jdiaz said:

Because when 8 out of 10 people are surprised and have to make a panic stop, they hit the rear brake pedal first.

Click to expand...

Charles Darwin had some kinda theory about such creatures....

Why I likes my servo-assisted partially linked brakes - (2004 Rockster SE). This is the third BMW roadster I have owned, the first two just had regular Old Skool brakes. I have big feet and the one on the brake side is heavy (okay, so maybe it is/was my fault for not using MORE front brake) so I was alla time wearing out the rear brake pad out of proportion to the front. This is not a problem any longer - this is the best braking bike I have ever ridden. I love just squeezing the brake lever and letting the electronic brain do the 60/40 split for me.
Just so you know that old dawgs can learn some new things, I do use my back brake to scrub off a little speed going into corners.

lkchris said:

Can't change the laws of physics.

Rear brakes are useless because of weight transfer to front.

Linking the pedal to the front brake is a VERY good idea, as many folks don't understand motorcycle riding and favor their rear brake. The bike designer can indeed compensate.

Nothing wrong with BMW rear brakes.

Click to expand...

I had to respond to this. If you think rear brakes are useless I don't want to ride anywhere near you unless you are always in front of me.

I've gone through quite a bit of advanced training in riding bikes and never have I heard from an instructor or found through personal experiance that rear brakes are useless. The rear brake is quite usefull in maintaining the rear of the bike in a trail position in relation to the front of the bike in heavy braking. It's also usefull to maintain positive control in low speed maneuvering, particularly in close quarters. Your comment reminds me of some of the old harley riders that wouldn't use a front brake as they were afraid it would dump the bike or lock the front tire.

If folks don't understand braking it's because they have neglected to get proper training. Even the MSF course spends time talking about that rather basic issue.

As to the other comments regarding the moon. I find it rather hard to consider the capsules that went to the moon as particularly advanced. They were pretty much the tried and true technology that could be counted on rather than a lot of bells and whistles. The latter technology, like the shuttle, hasn't put up too good a record.

My point on this is the over complication of the vehicle adds more to go wrong. I find it rather hard to believe that riders need power assistence to be able to use brakes. To my way of thinking its a solution to a non existent problem. The R that I rode that had the wizzy brakes didn't brake any differently for me than the R I tried just before it without them.

+1 !

Dang! I'd like to stay out of this for reasons of sanity, but I can't resist jumping in.

As someone branded a curmudgeon for dissing the integrated power assisted brakes (aka "whizzy brakes" on another string) I second the motion that simple is good and complex is bad. Complex brake systems are especially a bad idea because brakes are relatively important, and they need to be serviced. I'd rather not have brake failures, and I'd rather not have to spend big bucks to keep them operational. As it happens, I'm far enough from a BMW dealer that I do all my own maintenance. Having to transport a bike to a dealer just to bleed the whizzy brakes would be a big problem for me.

And that's assuming the brakes as delivered work the way I expect. Like Motorman, I'd like to be able to trail brake on the rear during tight maneuvers, or brake on the rear to the maximum available traction in the rain or on a downhill gravel road. I want to be able to brake on the front independently while in a corner. I want to be able to start the bike on a hill while holding the brakes on. I want to be able to squeeze another year or two out of a battery that's only lost a half volt of surface charge. I'd prefer a machine that's not carrying a heavy brake controller under the tank.

The whizzy brakes don't meet my above likes and dislikes. IMHO, the best ABS system is mounted between a rider's ears. There are just too many variables in real world riding to be able to create a braking controller that works better than the rider's brain under all conditions. I'm not opposed to ABS, if you're skill limited, but I am opposed to power assisted brakes on a motorcycle when the brakes (such as the EVO on the oilheads) is able to stand the bike on it's nose with two fingers on the lever.

I believe BMW designed the whizzy brakes as a sales gimmick. BMW drastically needs some reasons for customers to spend the bigger bucks for the roundel in a world of excellent motorcycles that are considerably cheaper. "If power assisted brakes activate quicker and more powerfully than unassisted brakes, doesn't it stand to reason that the whizzy brakes will stop the bike quicker?" or "American motorcyclists are so unskilled that they need brakes that will correct the error when a rider does the wrong thing."

Uhh---let me suggest that it does NOT stand to reason. As noted by others, the bike needs to pitch forward and load the front tire before full braking can be applied. Progressive activation of the front brake is required, not instant grabbing of the discs--whether the ABS controller does the modulating, or the rider does it. Let's also note that ABS lengthens the stop if it activates. Yeh, I've seen that bogus BMW study that showed ABS could stop a bike quicker. It was the fox watching the henhouse. Braking is only one skill, and there are many situations that don't fit a standard program. Would you want a system that controls throttle application in corners, say? I'd rather give the responsibility to the rider, but expect all motorcyclists to gain the required skill and knowledge to control the bike as needed.

It may be that some major percentage of riders fail to use the front brake in a crisis, but the only study that offers any numbers (the "Hurt" report) was done in 1978-1979 and the world has changed a lot since then. We might also note that the very popular HD brand seems to be overinvolved in fatal accidents. It could be true that a majority of HD riders can't find the front brake lever, but if that's true, why would it help to put integrated brakes on BMWs?

I was getting concerned several years ago that BMW was not building machines I would want to purchase. (and I'm both a Friend of the Marque and an MOA ambassador, yadda yadda.) When I found that I could buy an 1150GS sport with standard brakes, I bought one. If the same model came with a lightweight independent ABS system, I would have considered it. But I refused to buy anything with power brakes or fully-integrated brakes. I would have accepted a linked system like Honda has been using, but BMW apparently must be different and display a higher zoot technology than simple hydraulics. Unfortunately, the track record of German designed electro-mechanical devices in motor vehicles is not four stars.

I'm very pleased to see that BMW has apparently reconsidered it's approach to braking, and will offer future models with a lightweight independent ABS as an option. Apparently they still feel that a heavy bike (LT) needs power assist (although we might note that other giant bikes (Trident, GL, VTX etc) don't seem to need it) I really hope that BMW AG will come to realize that USA BMW riders are reasonably skilled, and relatively intelligent enough to decide what options they want on a motorcycle.

Now, to the point of the string: last year I was surprised to see a new 1200GS with standard EVO brakes (just like my R1150GS Sport). The owner explained that he asked several dealers about furnishing a 1200GS without power assist. Most just said it was not possible. He finally found one who made it happen. So, the whizzy brakes may be as much a result of dealers making decisions for us as the factory engineers.

I believe we should have choices. If you want whizzy brakes, or saddlebags with giant internal latches, or a refrigerated saddle, or a complex alarm system that occasionally sets itself so no one can start the bike (including you) you should be able to order it that way. And if you want a simple bike without all the whizzy stuff, you should be able to order it THAT way.

over...

pmdave

torags said:

The KXXXRS has a 2.75 FD vs a 2.91 for the RXXXRS. I ride solo, so I don't think it would be an operational problem.

Click to expand...

The R1100RS and R1150RS has a 2.82 as standard unless you got a non standard one.
The R1100RT and 1150RT have 2.91 standard.

I swapped my RS for the 3.0, the average fuel mileage is same as with the 2.82, probably due to fact I use 6th more.

Going with the 3.0 is a popular swap with the R1150GS crowd as well as a few of us on the R1150RS over on the RRS board but if you think you need to gear it taller then I say go ahead, it's an easy swap out if it doesn't work for you.

saab93driver said:

The R1100RS and R1150RS has a 2.82 as standard unless you got a non standard one.
The R1100RT and 1150RT have 2.91 standard.

I swapped my RS for the 3.0, the average fuel mileage is same as with the 2.82, probably due to fact I use 6th more.

Going with the 3.0 is a popular swap with the R1150GS crowd as well as a few of us on the R1150RS over on the RRS board but if you think you need to gear it taller then I say go ahead, it's an easy swap out if it doesn't work for you.

Click to expand...

I took the FD numbers off my 04 brochure. It looks like they changed the ratios. If I have to go into the rear drive for any reason, I'll get taller. Thanks for the info.