manual/auto bikes?

Is there a big difference between a manual trans bike and an automatic? I'm looking in to biking and I'm curious if a manual is going to be as much of a hassle on a bike as it is on a car. Lemme know!

max

i didn't know you could get a bike automatic. seems like a waste of a performance vehicle to me. if you can't learn to drive a stick-shift, i can't imagine you being able to ride a motorcycle.
in a car you're told not to ride the clutch but on a bike you have more leeway since it's a wet clutch and is meant to be ridden to a degree.

What's a wet clutch?

Here's a lil read-up on Clutches (in general) http://auto.howstuffworks.com/clutch.htm

I think it does a GREAT job explaining what a clutch is/does and how it works.

As for auto bikes... there are VERY few automatic bikes... the few that exist are OLD or are on scooters rather than motorcycles. Take a course and learn how to use the clutch... otherwise, motorcycles may not be a good choice of transportation for you.

The new FJR1300 has a push button shifter and no clutch.

Who would want a bike that isn't a manual? Thats a big part of the bike that makes them fun. I love rowing through the gears. I actually find it easier to use the clutch on a bike than in a car. This is mostly due to the fact that you may be doing other things in an automobile in which you may find using the clutch more of a chore than a pleasure. On a bike you really can't be doing anything else other than riding it so using the clutch is almost an automatic act in my mind.

I agree with everybody about having a standard motorcycle is much better. In the case of hte FJR, my father likes not having a clutch because after riding for 35 years and being older, it is starting to hurt his hand. Plus its not fully auto, you still tell it when to shift.

Is there a big difference between a manual trans bike and an automatic? I'm looking in to biking and I'm curious if a manual is going to be as much of a hassle on a bike as it is on a car. Lemme know!

max
I learned to ride a manual transmission bike at 10 years old, and it was easy, much easier to use than a car.

In fact, when I learned to drive a manual trans car, I has appaled at how clumsy, difficult and imprecise it was, compared to a bike.

IMO for this reason, there are almost no auto trans bikes made; it simply is not necessary because the manual transmission on a bike is so easy to use.
As far as I know, has only been two recent auto transmission bikes that I know of. Honda make an auto transmission CB 400 and CB 750 back in the late 70's and early 80's.

http://www.cvmg-gpr.ca/hondamatic/

http://www.vintagebike.co.uk/Bike%20Directories/Honda%20Bikes/pages/Honda%20CB400A%20Hondamatic.htm

http://www.vintagebike.co.uk/Bike%20Directories/Honda%20Bikes/pages/Honda%20CB750A%20Hondamatic.htm

There have been many Honda dual purpose lightweight little bikes with automatic clutches and manual transmissions that are easy to use.

These days, most of those are tiny bikes intended for kids; I am not sure if adult-size models are still sold in North America, but they are still popuar in overseas markets.

http://www.oldhonda.com/collect.htm

Other auto trans bikes:

http://www.ridleymotorcycle.com/Dynamic/main.htm

I was just reading up on that FJR. It's pretty cool!

Unlike some other designs that used a centrifugal clutch or torque convertor, the bike does have a typical clutch design (but no clutch lever), it just uses a computer controlled actuator to operate it.

Clutch operation is as fast or faster than a good rider could work it, and on downshifts the ECM blips the throttle to match RPMs to the next gear range, and "floats" the shift without the clutch, like an Indy car.

There is a foot shifter on it, although it is just a switch, rather than a mechanical link to the gearbox. It still gives the rider the option to use that method rather than the up/down buttons on the handlebar if they want to.

There is no full-auto operation, you still have to do the shifting, unlike a car where it shifts at preset points and conditions.

Kinda suprised they didn't have that as a selectable feature, it'd be easy enough to do with the level of computer control on that bike...

You know..I just put a little thought into it, and I think I know why they don't offer a full auto shift option.

Since shifts affect rear wheel traction, the first time someone went down on a wet curve because the bike self-shifted at a bad moment, they'd get sued into the stone age...

Using the clutch isn't even necessary. The only time I clutch is when I have to come to a complete stop, or when I'm riding aggressively and am downshifting in preperation for a corner. When I commute, most of my downshifts are clutchless. It takes a bit more precision to do clutchless shifts, but it's not difficult at all when just cruising around. No matter how you choose to do it, it all becomes second nature fairly quickly. It becomes an art when you get into the realm of racing, however.

Floating upshifts is very easy to learn, floating a downshift takes a little more practice.

As a semi driver, floating gears (no clutch) is second nature. I do use the clutch when I ride, but it is more of a quick, shallow grab to break torque on the driveline slightly than an all-out disengagement.

I find the consequences of blowing a floated shift on a bike too costly. They are only so forgiving before something chips or breaks, then you have a bike that pops outta gear under throttle or gets stuck in a certain gear...

You know..I just put a little thought into it, and I think I know why they don't offer a full auto shift option.

Since shifts affect rear wheel traction, the first time someone went down on a wet curve because the bike self-shifted at a bad moment, they'd get sued into the stone age...


Good point never though of that. But another thought that the bike could have a sensor incorporated to know the lean angle and whether the bike should be shifter or not.

Floating upshifts is very easy to learn, floating a downshift takes a little more practice.

As a semi driver, floating gears (no clutch) is second nature. I do use the clutch when I ride, but it is more of a quick, shallow grab to break torque on the driveline slightly than an all-out disengagement.

I find the consequences of blowing a floated shift on a bike too costly. They are only so forgiving before something chips or breaks, then you have a bike that pops outta gear under throttle or gets stuck in a certain gear...

On bikes, bent shift fork, doesn't that only happen when the shifting is careless? And I think it would be a slightly immune to smooth upshifts.

Just a question though, do you guys follow the traiditional method for clutch-shifting? As in close the throttle all the way to idle and then open it up again after shift and engaging the clutch? Or do you just keep holding the throttle, decrease it a little, pull in the clutch and shift and release?

I just let the RPMs drop slightly and shift. Ideally, you should be matching your engine's RPM at the next gear for the road speed you are carrying, and it will drop in effortlessly (float). It's a little tricky at the speeds bike engines turn and how fast they wind up/down. That's why I give the clutch a quick grab to break the stress on the driveline slightly as I shift, so any discrepancy between RPM and road speed as the next gear meshes isn't a sudden hard shock directly to the gear.

It's real easy on a big truck, the cogs are so huge and the engine turns so slowly, you can actually feel the individual teeth going by as you push the shifter toward the next gear if they aren't exactly synched. With a redline of 2000 RPM and a useable range of just over 1000, it's pretty easy to feel your way through it without the clutch. After a while you get an ear for the correct sound for your speed, and it meshes like butter.

You can do it with a bike too, but it takes more practice and you have to be a lot more precise to get it to mesh smoothly. I do it by just listening to the motor as I let off the throttle, and imagining what it's gonna sound like when I hit the next gear and roll on the throttle (if I were using the clutch), and drop the shift when the motor sounds like it's right where it would pick up on the next gear...does that make any sense?

Ya it does make sense. I just shift it and match the revs intuitively, and it works. But I close the throttle all the way (except when clutchless upshifts), because to me, the motor still keeping high rpms as I pull in clutch to shift sounded abnormal. Referring to above 9k btw. But now looking back, it takes away reaction time. Same goes for downshift to pass a vehicle, it's a lot faster to simply up the rpms while the clutch pulled in than just close the throttle and reopen again.

Good point never though of that. But another thought that the bike could have a sensor incorporated to know the lean angle and whether the bike should be shifter or not.
Yeah that flashed through my head too right after I posted that...

You could concieveably do it with a combination of bank angle sensing, throttle position, lateral g-force sensor and wheel speed info from an ABS sensor, but mapping the control program for that could prove tricky, as it would send the engine management system into a tizzy because the motor would then be out of optimal RPM range and wanting a shift, but being denied because of the situation, so it'd have to either lug, or cut the throttle back, which would also be unexpected and unwanted in a curve...and if it delayed a shift until the bike was not pulling any hard lateral g, you'd have to match the engine speed to the appropriate gear, since now you might be out of optimal range for the next gear, which involves a couple of gear changes to skip over one or two....Just gets more and more complicated.

See what I mean? More complex than a simple go/no go decision from the tranny control, and the benefit vs. the potential liability just doesn't warrant even trying....

This is an interesting topic so I searched automatic bikes. The first one that came up was "Honda Previews 680cc Automatic-Transmission Motorcycle at Tokyo Motor Show."
This is how the article addressed the shifting during cornering. "Honda says the automatic shifts smoothly enough to avoid possible traction problems while cornering." Not nearly enough infor but theres another easy way to fix the traction problem. Not really high perormance shifting for a fast sport bike im guessing.

This is an interesting topic so I searched automatic bikes. The first one that came up was "Honda Previews 680cc Automatic-Transmission Motorcycle at Tokyo Motor Show."
This is how the article addressed the shifting during cornering. "Honda says the automatic shifts smoothly enough to avoid possible traction problems while cornering." Not nearly enough infor but theres another easy way to fix the traction problem. Not really high perormance shifting for a fast sport bike im guessing.

Interesting...my guess would be that the Honda uses some kind of torque convertor more like a car's tranny, that doesn't require a drop in throttle and torque on the driveline to shift, where that FJR is just the same as a normal bike, just uses an actuator to work the clutch for you.

I remember reading something about Honda's early auto shifts, I don't remember the model it was offered on, but they had some quarter mile and 40 mph throttle roll-on data, and the auto was just dismal...something like 13 seconds for the standard and 17.5 for the auto, if I remember right.

But I bet that FJR is as fast or faster than the standard.

I remember reading something about Honda's early auto shifts, I don't remember the model it was offered on, but they had some quarter mile and 40 mph throttle roll-on data, and the auto was just dismal...something like 13 seconds for the standard and 17.5 for the auto, if I remember right.
.
I posted some links for the auto transmission CB450A and CB750A on page 1 of this thread.

They were really slow, and were tuned to be very smooth and pretty mushy.
They had an automotive-style torque converter and no clutch.
They actually did not even shift gears on their own. The rider would shift between a 'low' and 'high' range manually, so they actually only had 2 gears.
If you did not like to shift, you could just leave it in high all the time and let the converter slip to give you low speed opeation, but this would just make it slower.

(BTW it's not the first time this was done. General Motors used the same set up in their 1958 - only 'Turboglide' automatic transmission. It was a dog and was dropped after that year.)

I suspect they made it this way for simplicity and to provide easy surprise-free operation for beginner and novice riders, including no unepected shifts on the corners. I'm sure an experienced rider would never choose a transmission like this unless they had a physical disability.