Rigging bikes Options

[_Pax._]

Firstly, I find it strange that you, Pax, demand that physics need to be obeyed, then stating that RL doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand. But that's beside the point.

Don't forget the context. How a RL motorcycle not operated via RAS-override-enabled Virtual Reality is controlled, has little to do with how a rigged cycle in ShadowRun works.

IOW, whatsisname's "25 years of experience" operating manual-only motorcycles, are not 1:1 relevant to operating VR rigged motorcycles.

About the only commonality involved, is the number and arrangement of of wheels, the ability to carry one or more passengers, and the general lack of an enclosed space for said passengers.

All else is pure fiction.

[bannockburn]

IOW, whatsisname's "25 years of experience" operating manual-only motorcycles, are not 1:1 relevant to operating VR rigged motorcycles.

Completely uncalled for aggressive wording not withstanding, _Whatsyourface._, Cochise never claimed a 1:1 relevance. However, it's worth noting that a bike does not, in fact, just tip over as soon as no person sits on it. Which is very relevant to the discussion at hand. So, your dismissing his experience after citing physics is neither helpful, nor does it make you look smarter.

Any comment on the other points?

[WhiskeyJohnny]

Also, while I'm thinking about it, the rigger will know the location of his own meat body because he'll be aware of his body pressing down on the vehicle. So he'll be able to figure out how to shift his body weight based off the sensors of the bike.

Not to nitpick, but, when riding at speed, you don't so much shift your weight around as you hang off the bike. Take a look at Marc Marquez (rider number 93). That he's practically hanging off the bike is more clear from the second photo. This sort of action is necessary to make the tires work at that sort of speed.

Don't forget the context. How a RL motorcycle not operated via RAS-override-enabled Virtual Reality is controlled, has little to do with how a rigged cycle in ShadowRun works.

IOW, whatsisname's "25 years of experience" operating manual-only motorcycles, are not 1:1 relevant to operating VR rigged motorcycles.

About the only commonality involved, is the number and arrangement of of wheels, the ability to carry one or more passengers, and the general lack of an enclosed space for said passengers.

All else is pure fiction.

While it's true that none of us (I presume) have had experience with an RAS-overide-enabled Virtual Reality Rigged Motorcycle, it doesn't change the physics of motorcycle dynamics. Moving around on the bike, in concert with moving the controls, gets the bike to work. That will not change, even if you're steering or using the brakes via skinlink or datajack straight to the brain, because the physics of motorcycle dynamics still demand it.

[DeathStrobe]

Not to nitpick, but, when riding at speed, you don't so much shift your weight around as you hang off the bike. Take a look at Marc Marquez (rider number 93). That he's practically hanging off the bike is more clear from the second photo. This sort of action is necessary to make the tires work at that sort of speed.

No reason you can't do that while rigging. Sensores are suppose to be pretty advance in the future.

[WhiskeyJohnny]

No reason you can't do that while rigging. Sensores are suppose to be pretty advance in the future.

I think whether you can do that or not is the source of _Pax._ and Cochise's disagreement, as it were.

[Shadoweyes]

This becomes the question: whats the skill test to use the motion required by the situation? reaction+pilot vehicle, as normal, agility+vehicle, for performing a complicated action related to that vehicle, strength+vehicle, to just hold the fuck on, or just a stat or skill. it also begs the question of, whats the threshold? same as encounter?

because with 4 stat and 4 skill, you only have 2 dice to throw at a test. chance of a glitch; 1/3. weapon-type geko tape adds +4 (i think) on any test to hold onto something, not counting that driving a bike at high speeds requires you to move around on the bike, and gyro stabilization adds 2, so lets assume you're taped or similarly secured to the bike, with a test threshold of one, you're throwing 8 dice, more if you count handling. you should be able to roll one hit with 8 dice. if not, well a nice GM will let you make a vehicle test to avoid dumping the bike. (dont forget to set your geko tape to turn off if you crash.)

[DMiller]

@Cochise I think you have made some compelling arguments, I like the idea of "rule-of-cool" here, however without additional modification a rigger will fall off of his bike while in full VR. (sorry for the outdated book reference, please correct me if SR4a changed this)

As a safety precaution, sim mods override your motor functions while you are fully immersed in VR/simsense, so that you don’t blindly thrash around in the real world and potentially injure yourself or break things. This means that your physical body is limp while you’re online, as if you were sleeping. This reticular activation system (RAS) override can also be disabled with a Hardware + Logic (5, 1 hour) Extended Test, at the user’s own risk.

Emphasis mine.

[KarmaInferno]

While it's true that none of us (I presume) have had experience with an RAS-overide-enabled Virtual Reality Rigged Motorcycle, it doesn't change the physics of motorcycle dynamics. Moving around on the bike, in concert with moving the controls, gets the bike to work. That will not change, even if you're steering or using the brakes via skinlink or datajack straight to the brain, because the physics of motorcycle dynamics still demand it.

I would point out that the VR rigging rules operate the same even if the driver isn't actually on the bike.

As for the "limp/not-limp" RAS arguement, you take a sharp turn, without any straps/gecko pads or other means of tying your body down, with the constraints the RAS imposes on your meat actions, you're gonna go flying off the bike, limp or no.



-k

[Cochise]

@Cochise I think you have made some compelling arguments, I like the idea of "rule-of-cool" here, however without additional modification a rigger will fall off of his bike while in full VR. (sorry for the outdated book reference, please correct me if SR4a changed this)

As a safety precaution, sim mods override your motor functions while you are fully immersed in VR/simsense, so that you don’t blindly thrash around in the real world and potentially injure yourself or break things. This means that your physical body is limp while you’re online, as if you were sleeping. This reticular activation system (RAS) override can also be disabled with a Hardware + Logic (5, 1 hour) Extended Test, at the user’s own risk.
Emphasis mine.

See, that's the point that I adressed with my question about the insistance of RAW wording vs. general intention behind RAS and the general willingness to make use of the "rule of cool". The bolded, underlined part in your quote to me is the important part: RAS is meant as a safety precaution against unwanted movement that could injure yourself or break stuff. The simplest way of achieving that goal is letting the body go "limp" without specific explaination of the degree of limpness. I guess that you'll agree e.g. that if you fall asleep (sleep being a reference in your quote) on a chair, your body will go "limp" but not necessarily to a degree that you automatically fall of said chair?

Now let's have look at the bike situation again: under normal conditions a motorcyclist's body is integral part of both steering and keeping the machine in balance (both by moving the center mass of the overall system with his body movement). So it stands to reason that any "safety precaution" created with RAS in that situation would not totally shut down the physical body and thus prevent wanted (and even required) movement on the driver's behalf, since that would be harmful to the intention and thus would directly work towards breaking both the bike and its driver when a crash occurs.

But to give even more perspective (since bannockburn already showed that most of the rest of RAW heavily contradicts most of the claims so far), lets dwelve a bit further into the real world physics of motorcycling and the fictional technology that is present within the SR universe:

1. motorcycles are in fact quite stable when moving forward (mentioned before)
2. (reasonable) acceleration creates an automatic tendancy of getting the machine upright. In order to steer, the driver actually has to work against this tendency at times
3. deceleration leads to the contrary, it destablizes the system .. usually leading to "wobbling" of the handlebar, that the driver has to compensate.
4. whether or not a bike crashes is dependant on current speed, tilt angle and path obstruction. Path obstruction can be ignored as out-side factor here. Tilt angle is heavily influenced by positioning (thus moving) of the driver's body and is dependant on speed yet again.
5. steering of a motorcycle comes in two flavours: Movement of the handlebar and center mass movement. The angles that can be safely used on the handlebar are heavily limited by speed and current tilt angle. The higher either one of these parameters gets, the less steering angle can be given via handlebar without causing a crash. So this kind of steering is actually restricted to low speed turns and is usally used in order to get around exptremely tight curves or u-turns and otherwise remains just for the fine-tuning of current movement. Everything else (including stuff like switching the driving lane) is usually done via moving the center mass of the whole system.
6. The center mass steering itself also comes in two desctinct flavours:
   
   1. Leaning towards the intended direction, while trying to maintain an upright or even more tilted position in relation to the bike. In this case center mass is heavily pushed to the side and lowered towards the street. This is mainly used for high speed turns curves, but good drivers will try to use this technique in narrow curves as well
   2. Physically pushing the bike into the wanted direction while trying to maintain an upright torso in relation to the ground. This technique is only useful at moderate speeds, but allows faster directions switches and tighter turns. Center mass doesn't move that far out and thus hasn't to go that low in relation to the ground, but the tilt angle of the bike is still rather high.

In summary, the driver in vast parts acts as both a gyroscope and steering mechanism with his body weight.

So now let's again look into the availible technology within the SR universe: Simsense in general and RAS plus rigger adaption in particular:

1. The various simsense related systems are capable of
   
   1. reading and
   2. on-the fly interpretation of sensory input
   3. influencing motor reactions.
2. While the conciousness of a person in VR is blocked from is normal physical sensory input in order to prevent over stimulation, the sensation as such still exists and thus can be interpretated and acted upon by simsense technology.
3. In fact the RAS technology by design takes control of motor reactions once the conciousness leaves the physical body, but it does so, in order to prevent damage not in order to generally shut you down (otherwise real world movement would generally be prohibited). Completely turning someone limp in case of a motorcycle would be counter-productive towards the goal of securing against unwanted movement. You'd actually have to completely fixate a driver under such a condition ... otherwise the limp body's uncontrollable movement would constantly work against the steering mechanisms of the bike (and against a gyro, if one actually had to be present, which we now know is not the case)
4. The existance of biodrone capabilities (which also includes forms of rigger adaption) clearly shows that this particular simsense technology can control basic motor reactions without the need of skill wires.

So I'm kinda lost at the claim that it isn't (technically) feasible / believable / logical to assume that the rigger adaption of a motorcycle not only assumes control over the motor reflexes by simply shutting down all movement, but instead makes the physical body (again) part of the overall system (motorbike) and uses the body for the very same purpose it has when physically driving: steering and balance? That way you'd get a seamless switch between rigged and non-rigged state. No mechanically unnecessary, unbalacing dice pool modifications in comparison to other rigged vehicles. No need for secondary skill tests or additional technical installations (that RAW in fact doesn't require, despite certain claims to the contrarary) and overall no pending balance issues.

So my final question remains pretty much the same as before: Is that overly literal interpretation of RAW when it comes to RAS (by focusing on that second sentence in your quote) really that strong, that a "non-limp" rigging biker suddenly becomes of serious threat to the game or its plausibility instead of simply going by the "rule of cool"?

[DMiller]

If you ignore the part that I underlined and only use the part that you bolded you are completly correct and that is how it would be. As with most discussions, if you take parts of topics and use them out of context they can fit any argument, however when placed within context the arguments tend to fall apart. RAS Override in earlier editions did not make you into a limp noodle (sleeping corpse), in 4th edition it does. If you want to rig your bike and not fall off make a Hardware + Logic (5, 1hour) test and turn off the RAS Override. Problem solved.

[e] To answer your final question it's not so much a matter of game balance IMO, it's a matter of following the rules rather than tossing them out. If your group wants to go with rule-of-cool, then house rule that RAS works the way it did in earlier editions and done.

[Cochise]

If you ignore the part that I underlined and only use the part that you bolded you are completly correct and that is how it would be.

See, my point there is, that the underlined part is contradictory to the bolded part, thus creating an inconstistancy within RAW. That automatically leaves me (or any other player group) with the need of making a decision which part of the description has priority over the other.

RAS Override in earlier editions did not make you into a limp noodle (sleeping corpse), in 4th edition it does.

And I still doubt that this claim can be made as an absolute, simply because of the involved contradiction. Previous editions are just icing on the cake there.

[e] To answer your final question it's not so much a matter of game balance IMO, it's a matter of following the rules rather than tossing them out. If your group wants to go with rule-of-cool, then house rule that RAS works the way it did in earlier editions and done.

It's save to assume that I (and any group that I'm willing to play in) will certainly come to an agreement on how we're playing. I usually prefer going by "the rules" myself (just because of transportability between groups both as player and gm), but my question here actually doesn't aim for (or against) following "the rules". It rather indicates that "the rules" are in fact not as clear cut as people claim them to be, since they are inconsistant, even contradictory between two sentences. So with regards of the OP's question I'm merely pointing out the aspects that would be of importance to me, once someone wants an explaination of "how it works" and a decission on how to handle it from there on has to be made.

So this is the point where I have to say: I rest my case. Further decissons based on the content of this thread are up to the recepients of this broadcast.

[DMiller]

See, my point there is, that the underlined part is contradictory to the bolded part, thus creating an inconstistancy within RAW. That automatically leaves me (or any other player group) with the need of making a decision which part of the description has priority over the other.

The two statements are not in contradiction. They support each other. The first says that RAS Override is a safety measure, the second states the effect that RAS Override has on the body. The last line of the quote tells you how to turn off the RAS Override.

Breaking apart the quote from the BBB:
As a safety precaution, sim mods override your motor functions while you are fully immersed in VR/simsense, so that you don’t blindly thrash around in the real world and potentially injure yourself or break things.

* This line simply states that it is a safety system (like air bags and seat belts), it is there for your safety.

This means that your physical body is limp while you’re online, as if you were sleeping.

* This line says that it places your body into a state similar to sleep.

This reticular activation system (RAS) override can also be disabled with a Hardware + Logic (5, 1 hour) Extended Test, at the user’s own risk.

* This line tells you how to disable the safety if you choose to.

I understand if you choose not to respond as it seems you are done with this thread. But for the OP, this is why those of us who have been arguing against the sleeping bike rider, have been arguing that way, at least in my opinion (I really don't want to speak of those who may not agree with me). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Cochise]

I would have prefered if this answer weren't made "necessary".

The two statements are not in contradiction.

Yes they are, at least when it comes to rigged motorcycles ...

Breaking apart the quote from the BBB:
As a safety precaution, sim mods override your motor functions while you are fully immersed in VR/simsense, so that you don’t blindly thrash around in the real world and potentially injure yourself or break things.

* This line simply states that it is a safety system (like air bags and seat belts), it is there for your safety.

Actually you're directly neglecting the second part of this sentence that clearly relates to the purpose of the safety system. There is a very clear intention of what this safety system is supposed to achieve in general: Not injuring yourself or breaking things (up to and including whatever you're currently using).

This means that your physical body is limp while you’re online, as if you were sleeping.

* This line says that it places your body into a state similar to sleep.

This is a description of how the safety system tries to achieve said goal- again on a (very) general basis - with the very destinct problem that in case of a motorcycle that general description directly leads to a contradictory situation, since using the general approach in this case directly leads to the driver "blindly" (or rather limply) "trashing" around on his bike, resulting in "breaking" both himself and the bike in the process.

[bannockburn]

To wit, the part under the sim modules description is still there, described on p. 220, SR4a, and in the equipment chapter again.
It is the only thing in the way of rigging a bike, and at this point, I'll happily throw RAW overboard, since bikes have their very own disadvantages compared to a car. This is much less rule of cool and more RAI, in my opinion.

However, one can still argue, that it is an RAS override, not an RAS shutdown. Involuntary movement is restricted, but the software running on your VCR could actually make you move in a required way, without your conscious participation, even. A true meld of man and machine, if you will (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Kiirnodel]

What about that third sentence that isn't underlined or bolded? You can override the system so that the body doesn't simply go limp.

Make it so that the metaphor while jumped into the motorcycle is complementary to how one would normally hold on to a motorcycle and help steer it. Doesn't impose a -6 penalty because you are still inherently rigging the bike, you're just also taking advantage of a way to continue holding onto the bike.

Also, what is keeping a person from having safety straps (or whatever) to help make sure they stay attached to the bike?

[Cochise]

Also, what is keeping a person from having safety straps (or whatever) to help make sure they stay attached to the bike?

The desire to actually be able to fully control the vehicles movement, since you simply cannot be fully or partially attached to a bike (the former particularly not without it also being very uncomfortable) while still retaining enough movement and movement space to successfully steer the machine.

And trust me you don't want to be fixed with your lower legs, inner thighs, buttocks or hands onto a motorcycle in case of an accident, while your upper body and head are more or less free to move around. The expected injuries (including the likelyhood of being killed) in such a situation are by far greater than the danger of being catapulted off the bike during a crash.
Fixated legs also pose the problem that you're very likely to drop your bike when coming to standstill (without gyro), simply because it either totally prevents you from putting a foot down or at least will be a significant hinderance to doing that. The more fixation point (as in the proposed gecko tape solution) you have, the more of a problem it will become, even if the fixation is not near absolute.

[Kiirnodel]

Assuming it is possible to modify a bike such that it does not need a rider at all (Rigger Adaptation), why couldn't you also modify said bike to factor in a rider that does not move to aid steering?

Heck, make the whole situation lumped into the cost of Rigger Adapting a bike (you already need to add the Gyroscopic Stabilization) so why can't all of that take into account factoring in the "unconscious" driver for both steering and keeping them safe/on the bike?

[Cochise]

Assuming it is possible to modify a bike such that it does not need a rider at all (Rigger Adaptation), why couldn't you also modify said bike to factor in a rider that does not move to aid steering?

In that particular scenario we're talking a totally immobilized and more importantly "stiff" passenger. He's virtually just strapped on as "dead weight", with practically no whiggling room (that would interfere with the steering done by machine). This would equate to the previously mentioned gyro stabilization and possibly a rigger cocoon. While such solutions surely are possible, that's simply nothing that is required for a rigger adapted bike under the rules.

(you already need to add the Gyroscopic Stabilization)

See, that's the thing: You don't need gyro stab for rigging the bike, you only need it in order to use the bike as unmanned drone.

[bannockburn]

See, that's the thing: You don't need gyro stab for rigging the bike, you only need it in order to use the bike as unmanned drone.

And technically not even then, if someone kicks the stand for you and catches the bike when you want it to stop (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
But yeah, that equates to 'needing' it.

[Kiirnodel]

Yeah, I say just require the Gyro Stabilization and call it a day... I thought it was required, guess that explains a bit of my confusion...

[_Pax._]

See, that's the point that I adressed with my question about the insistance of RAW wording vs. general intention behind RAS and the general willingness to make use of the "rule of cool". The bolded, underlined part in your quote to me is the important part: RAS is meant as a safety precaution against unwanted movement that could injure yourself or break stuff.

No, the word "unwanted" is not part of the cited passage. By RAW, all motions are suppressed - with no exceptions given or even hinted at.

I guess that you'll agree e.g. that if you fall asleep (sleep being a reference in your quote) on a chair, your body will go "limp" but not necessarily to a degree that you automatically fall of said chair?

The chair rarely travels at 40mph+, possibly over uneven terrain.

Now let's have look at the bike situation again: under normal conditions a motorcyclist's body is integral part of both steering and keeping the machine in balance (both by moving the center mass of the overall system with his body movement).

Under normal, not VR conditions.

When piloting that machine via VR, it makes precisely zero difference if there's a body on it at all, or even (as I said before) if the operator of that motorcycle is even on the same continent.

That means, a motorcycle piloted by VR does not need a metahuman body shifting around on it; further, having one makes no difference in the handling profile of the bike. Body, no body, VR is the same.

Or, are you going to now suggest that we should "gimp" remote-piloted motorcycles, which have no passenger at all? ::smirk::

...

Seriously. Occam's razor: a rigger-adapted motorcycle has means available to secure it's rider(s) to the vehicle, in the event they opt to pilot it via full VR (switchable gecko surfaces on the seat and controls would be the easiest route for this IMO) ... and rider-body-movement is not necessary for piloting said vehicle via VR.

...

Let's turn the question thing around: why is it so world-crushingly important that the RAS override have a special "out", only for piloting a motorcycle via VR while actually sitting on said motorcycle? What difference does it really make?

[bannockburn]

No, the word "unwanted" is not part of the cited passage. By RAW, all motions are suppressed - with no exceptions given or even hinted at.

Wrong.

As a safety precaution, sim mods override your motor functions while you are fully immersed in VR/simsense, so that you don’t blindly thrash around in the real world and potentially injure yourself or break things. This means that your physical body is limp while you’re online, as if you were sleeping.

Again: It say's 'override', not 'shut down'.
Also note that 'as if you were sleeping' isn't a complete shutdown either. People move in their sleep all the time. Admittedly, sometimes people thrash and hurt themselves in their sleep, too, but these are events when something went wrong in the motor cortex. A normal person could even sleep on a branch without falling down, thanks to a few evolutionary holdovers. This is the reason why most people don't roll out of their beds.

Under normal, not VR conditions.

When piloting that machine via VR, it makes precisely ze4ro difference if there's a body on it at all, or even (as I said before) if the operator of that motorcycle is even on the same continent.

Or so you claim. You cited physics. Physics mean that there is a very distinct difference between a bike without a driver, a bike with an active driver and a bike with a dead weight bolted on. As has been demonstrated by someone with a lot of experience in the field. The driver being in VR does not suddenly make him inconsequential to the performance (or the ability to stay upright) of the machine.

That means, a motorcycle piloted by VR does not need a metahuman body shifting around on it; further, having one makes no difference in the handling profile of the bike. Body, no body, VR is the same.

The first part is entirely correct. A motorcycle piloted by VR doesn't need a body on it. At all. But having one on it will make it unstable if the body is a dead weight, which means, body or no body VR is not the same.

Seriously. Occam's razor: a rigger-adapted motorcycle has means available to secure it's rider(s) to the vehicle, in the event they opt to pilot it via full VR (switchable gecko surfaces on the seat and controls would be the easiest route for this IMO) ... and rider-body-movement is not necessary for piloting said vehicle via VR.

Seriously. Occam's razor: No special requirements are mentioned anywhere in the RAW. Are riggers not intended to drive a bike? Or is it simply the fact that no special requirements must be met and all this is inconsequential?

[_Pax._]

Wrong.

Highlight the word "unwanted", then.

Or so you claim.

Not just me.

Show me where in the rules, it says that VR piloting a bike you're sitting on is different from VR piloting a bike that's five kilometers away (MSR not withstanding).

So, by whatever science-fiction mechanism might be involved ... a rigger-adapted bike doesn't need an active body sitting on it.

The first part is entirely correct. A motorcycle piloted by VR doesn't need a body on it. At all. But having one on it will make it unstable if the body is a dead weight, which means, body or no body VR is not the same.

Where in the rules does it state that having a metahuman body on top of a remote-piloted motorcycle, has any effect whatsoever on your ability to pilot that vehicle by VR?

Seriously. Occam's razor: No special requirements are mentioned anywhere in the RAW. Are riggers not intended to drive a bike? Or is it simply the fact that no special requirements must be met and all this is inconsequential?

I have stated, repeatedly, that I consider the Rigger Adaptation to include some means of securing the rider to a motorcycle when piloted via VR. I have even stated that I favor the use of a few strategically-placed electronic-activated gecko pads/surfaces to do so.

I accept I was mistaken about the requirement for a gyroscope. Yayy, rigged bikes are potentially cheaper than I thought. (I'll still probably get the gyroscope anyway, the bonusses are nice enough.)

But I have, I think, consistently dismissed the issue of "but the rider will fall off" - countering it by suggesting "no, the rider should be secured to the vehicle (and the means to do so are probably part of the adaptation in the first place)".

[bannockburn]

In answer to your first claim, 'unwanted', I challenge you in the same way to highlight where 'all motion is suppressed'. To repeat myself for the umpteenth time, it is an RAS override, not an RAS shutdown. Read up on the reticular activation system of the (human) body, especially the reticular formation.
An override does not mean a complete shutdown.

Show me where in the rules, it says that VR piloting a bike you're sitting on is different from VR piloting a bike that's five kilometers away (MSR not withstanding).

So, by whatever science-fiction mechanism might be involved ... a rigger-adapted bike doesn't need an active body sitting on it.

Show me where in the rules it says that it is so. This is interpretation, nothing more, on both our parts.
One side has it backed by experience and comparison to RL physics, the other just has some claims, on how it might work.

Where in the rules does it state that having a metahuman body on top of a remote-piloted motorcycle, has any effect whatsoever on your ability to pilot that vehicle by VR?

You yourself, claimed smugly that "You know, little things like physics" are necessary. It isn't mentioned in the rules.
Someone else claims physics to have an inherently unstable system (like every two-wheeled vehicle is) work like intended and suddenly it's wrong?
You brought it up. You wanted RL in this discussion, and now, at the point, where it doesn't suit you (namely, after someone who knows how bikes work has tried to enlighten you), you don't want them anymore. Make up your mind, please.

I have stated, repeatedly, that I consider the Rigger Adaptation to include some means of securing the rider to a motorcycle when piloted via VR. I have even stated that I favor the use of a few strategically-placed electronic-activated gecko pads/surfaces to do so.

And others have stated, repeatedly, that having a dead weight strapped to an unstable system will result in negative consequences, and furthermore, why it can still work with just the basic RAS override.
Yes, this is RAI territory, but again: My view is that the RAS override will actually make your body move in such a way that the bike is not negatively affected by the body on it.

Personally, I don't care if you decide that you need to strap yourself in with gecko tape, or magnetic cyberlimbs or whatever. I will not require it of any bike rigger, because I've found a satisfactory solution to the question at hand. At this point, the discussion just seems to go in circles.

[WhiskeyJohnny]

Something which occurred to me, regarding the rigger-as-biodrone idea: is there a "combining-mecha" drone modification out there? Would applying such a modification allow for normal operation of the motorcycle/rigger unit?