Why do busses ride so badly?
Discussion
I've had the misfortune of using a replacement bus service this week, provided by either "executive" coaches or regular city busses. It's been years since I used a bus, and I've been surprised by how poorly they ride. The coach is quite uncomfortable, but the city bus absolutely crashes around the place with spine jangling shocks over bumps in the road I didn't even know were there. They obviously know how awful this is because the driver has a seat on springs.
We're not talking about "a bit jiggly" here either, the city buses in particular are absolutely shattering over what I consider to be excellent road surfaces. I won't even get into the seats upholstered in carpet and with back rests at a right angle, I'd merrily sit on an upturned bucket if it didn't ride as if it had concrete pillars for suspension.
I can't help but wonder why they are so dreadful. From my limited understanding of suspension dynamics a bus has a high sprung to unsprung mass ratio, very long wheelbase, and foot high sidewalls on the tyres. These are all good things. It doesn't seem to make any difference if the bus is empty or full either, so it's not a case of being optimised for a certain load.
Anyone know why they have to be quite so awful? It takes something truly dreadful to make me think fondly of the Pacer trains I get to use on a regular day.
We're not talking about "a bit jiggly" here either, the city buses in particular are absolutely shattering over what I consider to be excellent road surfaces. I won't even get into the seats upholstered in carpet and with back rests at a right angle, I'd merrily sit on an upturned bucket if it didn't ride as if it had concrete pillars for suspension.
I can't help but wonder why they are so dreadful. From my limited understanding of suspension dynamics a bus has a high sprung to unsprung mass ratio, very long wheelbase, and foot high sidewalls on the tyres. These are all good things. It doesn't seem to make any difference if the bus is empty or full either, so it's not a case of being optimised for a certain load.
Anyone know why they have to be quite so awful? It takes something truly dreadful to make me think fondly of the Pacer trains I get to use on a regular day.
I've often wondered this myself. I've never been on one that wasn't unbearable.
In London the Mercedes extendable things also have signs in the window that start screeching and chattering until that's all you can hear. You would've thought someone would've tested it just the once.
Probably something to do with coping with vast differences in weight.
In London the Mercedes extendable things also have signs in the window that start screeching and chattering until that's all you can hear. You would've thought someone would've tested it just the once.
Probably something to do with coping with vast differences in weight.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Funnily enough now you mention it the crashing awfulness of the city bus had that odd "stiff" feeling that cars with air suspension can have a hint of, just a dozen orders of magnitude worse.I also didn't mention the appalling engine vibrations in both coaches and ordinary busses too. Truly a cacophony of rattles, crashes, shudders, vibrations, and engine roar for the entire trip. Having the coach badged as "executive" is as absurd as labelling them "luxury" Findus Crispy Pancakes.
Maybe it is possible to make them ride properly but all bus companies want is the cheapest, hardest wearing vehicle because they know their current customers have little or no choice and they are too grasping and greedy to think beyond that. Bus travel certainly has a well earned image problem.
dme123 said:
. Bus travel certainly has a well earned image problem.
Absolutely. Vibrating smelly vomit boxes. Everything you described plus nearly lurching around at Mach 1. The interiors smell rank and I always feel queasy in them. The seats never really have any leg room so once you get Mr or Mrs “make a point” wedging their BO emitting fat backsides next to you if you’re over 6 foot you’re forced to dismember your kneecaps on the plasterboard seat back in front of you. Better hope it doesn’t hit something.Nasty experience all round.
Hey, as someone who has the pleasure of using a bus for an hour every morning, and an hour every evening, give me a clattery bus any day. The times they put the long distance coaches on my route are the worst, really wallowy ride, and it still manages to hit the bump stops every dip, an accelerator that is an on off switch, as is the brake. A bus driver who thinks that that the 2 second gap is actually a 0.2 second gap, treats all stops like Alonso pulling into the pits, but with no pit lane speed limits. Travel sickness bands on all the time, tried every type of travel sickness pill, just accept you will be wolly headed when you get there.
But, my daughter has space to play, all is good.
End rant, sorry!
But, my daughter has space to play, all is good.
End rant, sorry!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
O/T a little but I pulled into the local garage to check my tyre pressures today and a taxi was just finishing using the air line. I noticed the PSI when I pulled forward after he left; 80psi!! Feel for whichever poor sod it getting in that taxi next.RE buses, I have to say the london buses seem to ride ok but I think that's more due to the relatively smooth surfaces. The shuttle buses from T5 onsite parking to the terminal are shocking though, although I believe that stretch of perimeter road has now been resurfaced.
king atrocious, they make an S-line Audi on 21" rims seem like a magic carpet ride.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Ours look pretty new (firstbus essex) and they ride really badly. Transmission is really noisy too. Not to mention the vibration. The weird thing is they seem much worse than the ones I used to get to school 30 years ago. Or maybe the roads have just got worse!
1) Strong tyres - hard sidewalls necessary to support the heavy bus means the tyre has very little deflection to bumps. Go kick one, it's effectively solid, so no vibrations get absorbed by the tyres,
2) Very stiff suspension. In all planes, laterally, vertically and longitudinally, bus suspension is really big and solid, so again, little compliance, all vibrations are passed into the chassis
3) Very floppy chassis. Buses are long, and floppy, and the body work flimsy (to try to get cost and weight down, and because they are still designed as 'body on chassis' so the secondary ride is terrible, as oscialtions vibrate back and forth in the structure
4) Very little noise or vibration absorbing materials ie 'trim' A modern car has layers of noise and vibration absorbing material and carpets too. Buses don't for cost and durability, meaning plastic floors that echo and vibrate
5) Not much attention to NVH suppression. Often the coach work comes from a seperate supplier to the chassis, and they generally don't spend a lot of time or money on NVH, unlike the typical passenger car these days
6) Stiff antiroll bars - Because the CofG is high, especially for a double decker,a bus has a massive set of ARBs which mean even single wheel bumps get transferred into the structure really badly
7) and finally, its a proven fact, that making the ride so bad that the driver breaks before the bus does saves operators a lot of money in repairs and maintenance. A technique used successfully by generations of leaf sprung landrovers and jeeps, hit something (pothole etc) at speed without slowing down and it hurts you before the vehicle breaks! (later coil sprung LRs are notorious for wearing out various bushes and parts in their undercarriage because they are comfortably enough to drive at speed over rough terrain.
2) Very stiff suspension. In all planes, laterally, vertically and longitudinally, bus suspension is really big and solid, so again, little compliance, all vibrations are passed into the chassis
3) Very floppy chassis. Buses are long, and floppy, and the body work flimsy (to try to get cost and weight down, and because they are still designed as 'body on chassis' so the secondary ride is terrible, as oscialtions vibrate back and forth in the structure
4) Very little noise or vibration absorbing materials ie 'trim' A modern car has layers of noise and vibration absorbing material and carpets too. Buses don't for cost and durability, meaning plastic floors that echo and vibrate
5) Not much attention to NVH suppression. Often the coach work comes from a seperate supplier to the chassis, and they generally don't spend a lot of time or money on NVH, unlike the typical passenger car these days
6) Stiff antiroll bars - Because the CofG is high, especially for a double decker,a bus has a massive set of ARBs which mean even single wheel bumps get transferred into the structure really badly
7) and finally, its a proven fact, that making the ride so bad that the driver breaks before the bus does saves operators a lot of money in repairs and maintenance. A technique used successfully by generations of leaf sprung landrovers and jeeps, hit something (pothole etc) at speed without slowing down and it hurts you before the vehicle breaks! (later coil sprung LRs are notorious for wearing out various bushes and parts in their undercarriage because they are comfortably enough to drive at speed over rough terrain.
The state of the road on some bus lanes is appalling. Buses drive over drains compacted by their own heavy weight. You have gradients and drainage to deal with and bumps in tarmac caused by tree routes.
But what gets me is the cacophony of noises from the vibration of interior trim, glass and panels. Shirley in 2018 someone could put on an extra clip or a line of felt or rubber here and there or a dab more glue.
But what gets me is the cacophony of noises from the vibration of interior trim, glass and panels. Shirley in 2018 someone could put on an extra clip or a line of felt or rubber here and there or a dab more glue.
There is an interesting socio-political factor at work, alongside the engineering.
As other posters have said, rider comfort isn't as much of a priority for buses as it should be, because (conciously or not) the users are those with no choice, or for whom the bus - even a 'boneshaker' - is the best choice. Given the rather pathetic social stigma that still clings to using the bus, you end up in a vicious circle where buses are seen as purely functional machines designed to make the operator's, rather than the passenger's, life as easy as possible. That approach and the subtle but insistent message that buses are aimed at the lowest ranks of the travelling public drives away those who do have a choice. Someone may weigh up whether to drive in their car to work or take the bus, and given the choice between their own car with their own radio station in a comfortable leather seat and actual suspension, or a bus with nasty primary-colour moquette, Early Learning Centre plastics, linoleum floors, foggy windows and rock-hard suspension, will choose the bus even if they're lumbered with having to pay for parking for their car.
Contrast that with the design of the Routemaster. That was specifically designed to retain and attract the new car-owning public and in line with the 'New Jerusalem' ideology of the post-war era that just because something was a public service aimed at the lower orders that didn't mean that it couldn't or shouldn't be high quality. So the Routemaster deliberately used engineering from the car industry to make it, essentially, a big multi-seater double-deck car. It had independent front suspension (so it did, and does, ride very nicely even over choppy urban roads), power-hydraulic brakes, automatic transmission and other high-tech features. More importantly, very real effort was dedicated to making the interior both pleasant and practical. The moquette was subtle, dark, warm-hue fabric and the lighting was carefully designed to be bright but not glaring. The beige roof disguised tobacco smoke but also gave the inside a cosy, luxurious feel.
The NB4L was a welcome return to that sense of egalitarianism and civic pride because it was similarly designed to not just provide a bare-bones functional means of getting from A-to-B but to providing a car-like alternative in terms of amenities, comfort and ambience.
As other posters have said, rider comfort isn't as much of a priority for buses as it should be, because (conciously or not) the users are those with no choice, or for whom the bus - even a 'boneshaker' - is the best choice. Given the rather pathetic social stigma that still clings to using the bus, you end up in a vicious circle where buses are seen as purely functional machines designed to make the operator's, rather than the passenger's, life as easy as possible. That approach and the subtle but insistent message that buses are aimed at the lowest ranks of the travelling public drives away those who do have a choice. Someone may weigh up whether to drive in their car to work or take the bus, and given the choice between their own car with their own radio station in a comfortable leather seat and actual suspension, or a bus with nasty primary-colour moquette, Early Learning Centre plastics, linoleum floors, foggy windows and rock-hard suspension, will choose the bus even if they're lumbered with having to pay for parking for their car.
Contrast that with the design of the Routemaster. That was specifically designed to retain and attract the new car-owning public and in line with the 'New Jerusalem' ideology of the post-war era that just because something was a public service aimed at the lower orders that didn't mean that it couldn't or shouldn't be high quality. So the Routemaster deliberately used engineering from the car industry to make it, essentially, a big multi-seater double-deck car. It had independent front suspension (so it did, and does, ride very nicely even over choppy urban roads), power-hydraulic brakes, automatic transmission and other high-tech features. More importantly, very real effort was dedicated to making the interior both pleasant and practical. The moquette was subtle, dark, warm-hue fabric and the lighting was carefully designed to be bright but not glaring. The beige roof disguised tobacco smoke but also gave the inside a cosy, luxurious feel.
The NB4L was a welcome return to that sense of egalitarianism and civic pride because it was similarly designed to not just provide a bare-bones functional means of getting from A-to-B but to providing a car-like alternative in terms of amenities, comfort and ambience.
HustleRussell said:
I have not been in many busses over several years but I don’t recall ever travelling on one which was being driven with pride. The drivers seem to make no effort whatsoever to reduce speed for speed bumps, avoid potholes and manhole covers, anticipate stops etc etc.
It wouldn't surprise me if they actively want to wreck the bus so they get a break from driving it, they're horrible to ride on even for an hour, sitting on one for 8 hours inside a perspex cupboard would not be pleasant!2xChevrons said:
There is an interesting socio-political factor at work, alongside the engineering.
As other posters have said, rider comfort isn't as much of a priority for buses as it should be, because (conciously or not) the users are those with no choice, or for whom the bus - even a 'boneshaker' - is the best choice. Given the rather pathetic social stigma that still clings to using the bus, you end up in a vicious circle where buses are seen as purely functional machines designed to make the operator's, rather than the passenger's, life as easy as possible. That approach and the subtle but insistent message that buses are aimed at the lowest ranks of the travelling public drives away those who do have a choice. Someone may weigh up whether to drive in their car to work or take the bus, and given the choice between their own car with their own radio station in a comfortable leather seat and actual suspension, or a bus with nasty primary-colour moquette, Early Learning Centre plastics, linoleum floors, foggy windows and rock-hard suspension, will choose the bus even if they're lumbered with having to pay for parking for their car.
Contrast that with the design of the Routemaster. That was specifically designed to retain and attract the new car-owning public and in line with the 'New Jerusalem' ideology of the post-war era that just because something was a public service aimed at the lower orders that didn't mean that it couldn't or shouldn't be high quality. So the Routemaster deliberately used engineering from the car industry to make it, essentially, a big multi-seater double-deck car. It had independent front suspension (so it did, and does, ride very nicely even over choppy urban roads), power-hydraulic brakes, automatic transmission and other high-tech features. More importantly, very real effort was dedicated to making the interior both pleasant and practical. The moquette was subtle, dark, warm-hue fabric and the lighting was carefully designed to be bright but not glaring. The beige roof disguised tobacco smoke but also gave the inside a cosy, luxurious feel.
The NB4L was a welcome return to that sense of egalitarianism and civic pride because it was similarly designed to not just provide a bare-bones functional means of getting from A-to-B but to providing a car-like alternative in terms of amenities, comfort and ambience.
Enjoyed reading that. Interesting. My Grandfather was a bus driver in the 50s around Herts and London. He’s got little model buses of the route master.As other posters have said, rider comfort isn't as much of a priority for buses as it should be, because (conciously or not) the users are those with no choice, or for whom the bus - even a 'boneshaker' - is the best choice. Given the rather pathetic social stigma that still clings to using the bus, you end up in a vicious circle where buses are seen as purely functional machines designed to make the operator's, rather than the passenger's, life as easy as possible. That approach and the subtle but insistent message that buses are aimed at the lowest ranks of the travelling public drives away those who do have a choice. Someone may weigh up whether to drive in their car to work or take the bus, and given the choice between their own car with their own radio station in a comfortable leather seat and actual suspension, or a bus with nasty primary-colour moquette, Early Learning Centre plastics, linoleum floors, foggy windows and rock-hard suspension, will choose the bus even if they're lumbered with having to pay for parking for their car.
Contrast that with the design of the Routemaster. That was specifically designed to retain and attract the new car-owning public and in line with the 'New Jerusalem' ideology of the post-war era that just because something was a public service aimed at the lower orders that didn't mean that it couldn't or shouldn't be high quality. So the Routemaster deliberately used engineering from the car industry to make it, essentially, a big multi-seater double-deck car. It had independent front suspension (so it did, and does, ride very nicely even over choppy urban roads), power-hydraulic brakes, automatic transmission and other high-tech features. More importantly, very real effort was dedicated to making the interior both pleasant and practical. The moquette was subtle, dark, warm-hue fabric and the lighting was carefully designed to be bright but not glaring. The beige roof disguised tobacco smoke but also gave the inside a cosy, luxurious feel.
The NB4L was a welcome return to that sense of egalitarianism and civic pride because it was similarly designed to not just provide a bare-bones functional means of getting from A-to-B but to providing a car-like alternative in terms of amenities, comfort and ambience.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff