Pip
01-21-2005, 03:18 AM
Bear <bastardDOTbear@gmail.com> struggled to ejaculate:
>In article <u37ut0lee9rc84vefh5n55s1r4n40bgike@4ax.com>, Christopher Des
>Clayes says...
>> Even on a sports bike. Using the back brake to initiate weight
>> transfer to the front allows you to use the front brake harder and
>> sooner.
>
>Come again?
There was a discussion here a while ago on this subject - you may have
been absent at the time(1) and somebody found a website detailing bike
braking tests. The bottom line was that a sportsbike would stop in a
shorter distance if the back brake was used first.
Looked at simplistically, the rear brake on a sportsbike is
vestigial compared to the front - but in any case I wholeheartedly
agree (not least because it's ****ing obvious) that the front brake is
the one wot stops yer. However, there are tweaks ...
The way it works is that when you want to *really* stop, you shut the
throttle, sit up(2) and *hammer* the back brake. This puts as much of
your weight over the back as possible, then squats the rear
suspension.
Only then do you get the front brake on as hard and as early as you
possibly can - as the weight transfers forward, ease off the rear to
avoid locking. This whole process should be achieved in a split
second, of course - the whole essence is to get the throttle shut
(obviously) and the brakes on as hard as absolutely possible as fast
as possible, as the maximum degree of retardation is achieved in the
first instants when the brakes are applied.
The brakes must go on hard and fast - no point in ****ing about, is
there? No time or space for fancy cadence braking or **** like that,
either - but it is a physical fact that there's more "room" for the
forks to compress if the rear suspension is compressed first and more
energy is realised and dissipated by the act of subsequently having to
raise the rear, by use of the front brake.
Think of it another way - your max braking effort is limited by the
grip that the front tyre has on the tarmac. Let's assume that isn't
an issue. Your next limit (apart from the strength of grip in your
right hand (auvache is a shoe-in, here)) is weight transfer - as the
front is applied harder, the back of the bike rises until a stoppie is
achieved.
Rear in the air, let's face it, is not going to impress an examiner.
Neither, I put to you, is it desirable in an emergency braking
situation, as the back of the bike could come round on you very
quickly - and you don't want to be worrying about that when you're
trying rather hard to avoid T-boning a Volvo. Face planting the side
of a motor is stressful enough, without the added humiliation of the
double whammy of the rear of your bike smacking you further into the
dent you just made. Capice?
So the ideal situation is that the bike is planted and stable. Rear
on the ground, giving directional stability as you stress the front
contact patch as hard as you dare.
As weight transfers forward and the forks compress, the CoG
effectively pivots around the front spindle, right? You don't want it
to pivot so far that the rear tyre comes off the tarmac. If you have
got the rear brake on hard and the rear suspension is squat ... then
you have more room to pivot before the rear tyre lifts off the road.
Therefore you have a bit more squeeze-the-front space, IYSWIM.
QE****in'D. Thanks for listening.
Having said that, if not locking the rear is essential as on the test,
I'd prolly just hammer the front on - which I did, come to think of
it.
BUT - I have practiced this braking method and on the Coke Can Test
reduced my initial distance by ~40 feet from 60mph. Just getting
ready for the next TNT van ...
1. We've still not seen a note from your Mum, you know.
2. Not just casually sit up - push up and back hard away from the
bars, squeezing the brake pedal (and prolly whipping the clutch in
merely to avoid stalling (cogging down is not an option, let's face
it)) - this puts you in a much better physical position to resist the
braking forces - sat up, pushing back hard off the bars and pegs.
--
Pip, Ex - Hairy Gfedcker. RF 900RR, Ruff and Rattly.
WS* DFWAG#0 IbW#27* DIAABTCOD#15 GP#0 EKP FUB#4 MKA+E#3
ANORAK#8 MIRTTH#15 BOTAFOT/F#47/34a BONY#13 KotMIB# <space>
UKRMRM#14 TWA#2 BOMB#0
>In article <u37ut0lee9rc84vefh5n55s1r4n40bgike@4ax.com>, Christopher Des
>Clayes says...
>> Even on a sports bike. Using the back brake to initiate weight
>> transfer to the front allows you to use the front brake harder and
>> sooner.
>
>Come again?
There was a discussion here a while ago on this subject - you may have
been absent at the time(1) and somebody found a website detailing bike
braking tests. The bottom line was that a sportsbike would stop in a
shorter distance if the back brake was used first.
Looked at simplistically, the rear brake on a sportsbike is
vestigial compared to the front - but in any case I wholeheartedly
agree (not least because it's ****ing obvious) that the front brake is
the one wot stops yer. However, there are tweaks ...
The way it works is that when you want to *really* stop, you shut the
throttle, sit up(2) and *hammer* the back brake. This puts as much of
your weight over the back as possible, then squats the rear
suspension.
Only then do you get the front brake on as hard and as early as you
possibly can - as the weight transfers forward, ease off the rear to
avoid locking. This whole process should be achieved in a split
second, of course - the whole essence is to get the throttle shut
(obviously) and the brakes on as hard as absolutely possible as fast
as possible, as the maximum degree of retardation is achieved in the
first instants when the brakes are applied.
The brakes must go on hard and fast - no point in ****ing about, is
there? No time or space for fancy cadence braking or **** like that,
either - but it is a physical fact that there's more "room" for the
forks to compress if the rear suspension is compressed first and more
energy is realised and dissipated by the act of subsequently having to
raise the rear, by use of the front brake.
Think of it another way - your max braking effort is limited by the
grip that the front tyre has on the tarmac. Let's assume that isn't
an issue. Your next limit (apart from the strength of grip in your
right hand (auvache is a shoe-in, here)) is weight transfer - as the
front is applied harder, the back of the bike rises until a stoppie is
achieved.
Rear in the air, let's face it, is not going to impress an examiner.
Neither, I put to you, is it desirable in an emergency braking
situation, as the back of the bike could come round on you very
quickly - and you don't want to be worrying about that when you're
trying rather hard to avoid T-boning a Volvo. Face planting the side
of a motor is stressful enough, without the added humiliation of the
double whammy of the rear of your bike smacking you further into the
dent you just made. Capice?
So the ideal situation is that the bike is planted and stable. Rear
on the ground, giving directional stability as you stress the front
contact patch as hard as you dare.
As weight transfers forward and the forks compress, the CoG
effectively pivots around the front spindle, right? You don't want it
to pivot so far that the rear tyre comes off the tarmac. If you have
got the rear brake on hard and the rear suspension is squat ... then
you have more room to pivot before the rear tyre lifts off the road.
Therefore you have a bit more squeeze-the-front space, IYSWIM.
QE****in'D. Thanks for listening.
Having said that, if not locking the rear is essential as on the test,
I'd prolly just hammer the front on - which I did, come to think of
it.
BUT - I have practiced this braking method and on the Coke Can Test
reduced my initial distance by ~40 feet from 60mph. Just getting
ready for the next TNT van ...
1. We've still not seen a note from your Mum, you know.
2. Not just casually sit up - push up and back hard away from the
bars, squeezing the brake pedal (and prolly whipping the clutch in
merely to avoid stalling (cogging down is not an option, let's face
it)) - this puts you in a much better physical position to resist the
braking forces - sat up, pushing back hard off the bars and pegs.
--
Pip, Ex - Hairy Gfedcker. RF 900RR, Ruff and Rattly.
WS* DFWAG#0 IbW#27* DIAABTCOD#15 GP#0 EKP FUB#4 MKA+E#3
ANORAK#8 MIRTTH#15 BOTAFOT/F#47/34a BONY#13 KotMIB# <space>
UKRMRM#14 TWA#2 BOMB#0