Motorcycles don't yet offer full stability control, but with the introduction this year of Honda's sophisticated sportbike anti-lock braking and Ducati's second-generation traction control, they're getting close. Conceptually, anti-lock braking and traction control work the same way: Sensors compare wheel speeds and indicate when one is speeding up (traction control) or slowing down (anti-lock) too much, and then adjust driving or braking power to prevent loss of traction. In effect, those functions are being adjusted by an intelligence independent of the rider-a "robot"-which works to prevent rider errors from becoming crashes. Nothing wrong with that.
So I agree that traction control and anti-lock braking-or a combination that we might call stability control-will have an increasingly important place on the street. The situation in racing is very different, as there is a clear movement away from electronic aids. Anti-lock braking has never caught on in high-level motorsports, while traction control has been allowed in many series. Since the technologies are somewhat similar, why the difference in attitude? It's really a technical question having to do with the hardware.
Anti-lock braking requires hardware that is clearly identifiable and is thus easy for technical inspectors to spot. If it's banned, you're not going to get it through tech.
Traction control is another matter altogether. If your vehicle has an integrated electronic fuel injection and ignition system-a.k.a. "engine management"-controlled by an ECU, it's impossible for someone inspecting the system from the outside to tell exactly what functions it controls and how it does it. The AMA Superbike series thought it had effectively banned traction control years ago by outlawing wheel-speed sensors, but there are other ways to establish traction requirements, and as a result there were bikes that followed the letter-but not the intent-of the rule.
There have been several other attempts in various motorsports series to prevent the use of traction control. The simplest strategy is NASCAR's, in that stock cars don't have electronic engine controls. They run big four-barrel carburetors, and thus there's no "black box" controlling all engine functions. No ECU, no traction control. Other series require a standard ECU supplied by the organizers. Another approach is to have all the series runners use the same engine package with an ECU provided by the manufacturer.
It's clear that it can be difficult to keep traction control off the racetrack, and the MotoGP and World Superbike series have both allowed the technology to flourish. There are indications, however, that that's going to change. The economic downturn has caused Kawasaki to quit MotoGP, and the organizers are under pressure to reduce the cost of racing so they won't continue to lose entrants. World Superbike has very strong fields with the addition this year of Aprilia and BMW, but they too are looking at a leaner future. Carmelo Ezpeleta of MotoGP has specifically mentioned eliminating traction control as one option on his cost-cutting agenda.
If traction control and anti-lock braking are already on streetbikes, the technology can't be that expensive? The problem here is that developing the ever more complex and sophisticated software for racing can take up huge amounts of time and money. Limiting these technologies can involve trying to "see into" a black box, which is difficult, if not impossible. It's either free use or no use, and the trend seems to be toward the latter.
Thus the irony that as it becomes more likely your streetbike will have traction control and/or ABS, it will be increasingly less likely that the technology will continue in racing. Formula 1 has now abandoned traction control, and has never considered anti-lock braking. Valentino Rossi himself has weighed in on the issue, and he's said, essentially, that his preference would be no robots.