|
In all honesty I'd love to hear from a mechanical engineer. I'm not sure which of you are, but if you are, please please please share your thoughts!
From what I know after taking a basic dynamics class (i failed, but I plan to take it again), there are of course, a few basic things that happen to a rigid moving body similar to a motorcycle (we actually used a motorcycle as an example to show the concepts behind this). There is a transfer of weight to the front, resulting in more traction in the front tire, and at the same time, the loss of weight in the rear tire, resulting in less traction in the rear. What I'd like to see is some of the basic work comparing the two situations.
From a pure simplistic point of view, traction is more or less, how much work your tires can do. You get more traction when you put more weight on something, which actually increases the normal force acting on your tires, resulting in a higher frictional force (or traction). What I'm almost seeming to understand here is that, no matter what, your rear brakes + your front brakes can only share so much traction between the both of them. Your weight distribution can only go two places. Split up, or in the front. But in both situations, its the same, which would seem to hint that either scenario is going to result in the same amount of available traction anyway.
MY question is, does this rotation of the motorcycle forward, actually incur a larger normal force? Are you rotating INTO the ground which would give you an overall larger braking force than using both? (I would personally think no, but my experience only goes so far)
And thats a good point put up by purspeed as well in the contraction of the frame.. Does the overall stored up energy in frame strain contribute to absorbing some of your forward momentum?
|