Everything you wanted to know about braking...

this is *exactly* my take on it.

 

this is the bit I disagree with. I don't think I'm particularly
skilled, but on a modern sportsbike (well, modern-ish, my '01
Fireblade) I have no problems at all doing a rolling-to-static
stoppie.

I have specifically practiced doing this on empty roads, with a view
to being able to applying this level of braking in an emergency.

In the wet is a different story, of course - I probably would use both
brakes.

 

I don't find declutching a problem. 35 years riding push bikes means
that in an emergency stop I grab a big handful of both front levers
without thinking about it at all.

 

I think you're starting fropm the premise that
a) an emergency braking response is something that demands some degree
of thought and
b) the rider in question doesn't always, automatically, use both
brakes anyway.

Now it's not often I find myself in such an emergency situation, but
I'm 99% sure that before I'd had time to _think_ about what to do, I'd
have instinctively applied both front and rear brakes. It's just what
I do.

Now in the situation of an inexperienced rider who's going to get
his/her knickers in a twist thinking about how to react, then I agree
with your point, but the question here was about the _best_ way to
brake, not just the simplest for a complete moro#W novice.

Sorry, I still think that's tosh. I remember locking up the rear on my
bike test[1], FFS. No drama, no sweat, absolutely nothing to 'deal
with'.

Well you may have a point (but shirley they're not _that_ bad?) but
ultimately, regardless of how _much_, use of the rear will always be
able to give _some_ additional braking.


[1] Christ, 29 years ago, it was.
--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

I think you're very wrong - that ability does mean you're particularly
skilled in that area.

And this is why, or how, you've aquired that skill.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

See my reply to Champ. "Thinking time" shouldn't enter into it, in my
view.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Ace wrote:
I remember locking up the rear on my

That's a fail these days.

 

yes, but it's fairly easy, that's my point. I was able to learn how to
do it quite quickly, and without any mishaps.

 

Maybe.

 

darsy wrote

Yeah, you are right, it needs thinking about dunnit?

 

I don't think so.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Ace wrote

"Under control" used to be the magic words from what I remember. A
locked rear wheel has never been considered under control and rightly
so.

 

Rubbish. Slowing down safely in a straight line is all that's
required.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Ace wrote

Is it bollox.

and that requirement is (partially?) defined as under control. If the
back wheel ain't turning then the bike ain't moving and is so out of
control it needs active input from you to keep from falling over.

 

Bollocks[1]

[1] tm Darsy

 

From the DSA's website:

"2 Controlled stop
You will need to be able to display a high level of skill in bringing
your vehicle to a stop, safely, promptly and under full control
avoiding locking the wheels. Remember that in wet weather it can take
twice as long to stop safely.
""

 

God not this old chestnut.

Basically what a load of crap. It's like everything you read, looks the
dogs bollocks on paper because you want to believe the data. It's the
stuff that is omitted and duff assumptions that you miss. It might work
OK on a bike in controlled conditions but not in real conditions. I've
seen a very good article that disputes a lot of the assumptions
mentioned in the article. Like why bother with the back brake when you
can apply the front brake and get far better deceleration. By the time
you've got to 3 you've hit the object.





Be very carefully what you read on newsgroups people. Some of it is
dangerous.

 

"eric the brave" <""simonb_at_zapik_dot_co_dot_uk\"@foo.com (eric the
brave)"> wrote in

Like so many already said, why bother reading before
posting.
The time used for getting from 100 to 0 km/h in the best
30 tests was 2.9 seconds.
The time from closing the throttle to front brake
application was 0.16 seconds and the forks were half
compressed by 0.34 seconds.

Just because actions are done in sequence does not mean
there is a long pause between them.

People who advocate the front brake only should be
pleased with the results as well. The difference in
braking distance that was mentioned from some earlier
series of tests were not at all dramatic.

 

I've read it many times. It's been on loads of mailing lists.

How far can you go in 0.34 seconds.

I don't advocate the front brake only. I'm just saying that they miss a
lot out. Wish I could find the other articles but no such luck. I'm not
saying the article is rubbish. Just stating people's technical zealotism
borders on the fanatical. Very similar to IAM etc.