Do you use your rear brakes and when?

[Purspeed]

DO NOT RELEASE THE REAR BRAKE ONCE IT IS LOCKED.

ever...

[CC Cowboy]

Originally Posted by kazam58

lol, CC, I appreciate your humor, but I was actually looking for an honest answer. I'm well aware that you know how to ride and I respect your opinion. I certainly don't know the half of riding, and I do need to go a riding school. However, my schedule simply doesn't call for it because I have a familial or school event I need to attend whenever there's a class nearby. I've never hit redline downshifting, I'm not racing around the streets. I'm usually at 5k rpm when I downshift, so I never have to rev match higher than 6k rpm or so.
Maybe I should have sent you a pm, but might as well post it by now...

Don't take this so personal. It wasn't directed at you personally.

An honest answer is, it is up to you. With time and experience you will decide whether you want to use both or just the front brake. The only time to use the rear brake by itself is if you are on, or off, the road in dirt or gravel (the front end will wash out if you grab that front brake).

The best thing to do is ride. Ride as much as you can. The more you ride the more you will learn and the easier everything will be. Don't ride over your head but like Keith Code says, if you never push yourself, you will never know what you can do if the situation arises (or something like that).

I love to ride. I'll ride anything, anywhere. I love dirt bikes, street bikes, cruisers, Harleys, Hondas, Suzukis, everything. There is nothing to big or small that I won't ride and enjoy.

I like to do different things to see what they do. I'll lean the wrong way on a turn (dirt bike style on a street bike), I'll sit sideways (not sidesaddle), I'll do things just for fun (see how long you can ride between the two yellow lines (when no one is coming the other way). The more agile you are, the more comfortable you are, the better you'll be able to ride.

If you never freak out, you'll never crash.

[kazam58]

No worries CC, I wasn't taking it personally. Looking back at what I wrote I sound a bit more worked up than I really was. I wasn't at all, I was just wondering what your input was in terms of the rear brake. I never use the rear brake alone and I know what you mean about the confidence, if you're certain you can pull out of a sketchy situation, then chances are you will.

[Cedilla]

I have a question, Ive read that the tires howling(as in just before lockup) in a emergency stop is good, because it means you are stopping as fast as you can.
Anyways when you get to that point, do you let off slightly, or hold steady.
I said earlier that Ive locked up the front twice, well today was the third.

The first time was the first day I had the bike, riding it home from the dealer. A old lady made a left turn in front of me and I ham fisted the front brake and locked it up, did not know you had to let the weight transfer to the front, noob mistake.(I didnt even need to brake in this situation, I just freaked out)

The second time was when I was practicing emergency braking(due to lock up one). I was going about 70 and was doing good until I heard that tire howling, I was thinking ok, hold the break right there, anyways it howled for about 2 sec then locked up, I let go and grabbed it again, slowed down to a stop without incident.

The third time was today, I was going into a blind corner way too fast and the little back road I was on suddenly intersected with a busy hiway. This was the first time I ever felt like I was going to crash. I came out of the turn and braked as if my life depended on it(because it did). I heard that now somewhat familiar howling noise again, same thing happened as the second lock up. Again I let off the brakes and quickly reapplied them, and I stopped about 5 feet short of where I needed to, and about 15 to 20 feet sooner than where I thought I was going to stop.

Anyways I think I have my answer, the next time its about to lock up Im going to let off just a little bit. I just wanted to know if that was the correct way to go about it.

[muffinman]

If I remember correctly from MSF, you did the right thing by letting go and reapplying the front brakes when it locked up.

However, if your rear brakes had locked up in those situations and you did the same thing (gradually release and re-apply) you probably would've high-sided.

I started a discussion on proper ways to trailbrake in cases when you're approaching/coming into a corner a little too hot... looking forward to what the experts say there. Might save my hide someday

[muffinman]

Originally Posted by Purspeed

DO NOT RELEASE THE REAR BRAKE ONCE IT IS LOCKED.

ever...

+1, unless you're a fan of tasting pavement / high-siding

[Alex]

Sounds about right Chris, but if you have the front tires actually making enough noise that you can hear them, they are right on the edge of lockup if they aren't locked up already. That noise is them losing traction with the pavement and skidding along, even if only slightly, and once they are at that point things are already getting dicey. When using the front brake, even for the hardest of stops, it's important to squeeze it gently then progress to harder and harder over a period of a second or two. If you grab them too quickly, the front wheel may lock up sooner than it would have otherwise, and then you're right, you have no option other than to let off to allow it to start rolling again and regain directional stability.

[Cedilla]

Thanks for the replys, tomorrow im gonna experiment with bringing the tire close to lockup and see how I can come to a stop as quick as possible without locking it up and reapplying brakes. Im sure thats costing me several feet in a emergency situation.

[Nickds7]

Originally Posted by Cedilla

Anyways I think I have my answer, the next time its about to lock up Im going to let off just a little bit. I just wanted to know if that was the correct way to go about it.

I'm pretty sure letting off a little bit if you come to that point is the way to go... as the bike slows from that point the front will lock with the same amount of braking force.

[inbox526]

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?

[Rayme]

Originally Posted by inbox526

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?

I think you need to re-formulate your question(s)! To me it's like your answered your own question in your statement

[Alex]

Originally Posted by inbox526

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)

Degreed engineer here, but as my wife says it's fake engineering instead of real engineering like her degree. Nevertheless, I think the question you ask can be answered pretty concisely. The bike weighs X, and the weight is relatively equal on front and rear wheels when bike is rolling along at a constant speed. In a max braking situation, the bike is going to be thrown forward. The front suspension compresses, much, almost all, of the weight is now focused on the front tire. I think the question was, if there was a way to keep the weight more balanced, wouldn't the total amount of traction be the same. And as I see it, the answer is no, only because the question assumes parameters that aren't available. The braking itself, whether front or rear, will shift the weight to the front tire, and that weight shift will then allow greater braking with that tire, no matter how much one would try and keep as much weight as possible as far back as possible.

Another interesting point is that the traction available between a tire and the pavement is not necessarily simple and linear either. For example, if 600 lbs on the front tire may not provide only 50% more traction than 400 lbs. Squashing that tire down may turn that into a 60% or even 70% improvement in traction for only a 50% weight difference. But perhaps if the surface is quite slippery (water, or even a little oil), that same amount of increased weight may result in much less of a traction improvement. 50% more weight may result in only 20% more traction. Or even less.

[CC Cowboy]

Originally Posted by kazam58

lol, CC, I appreciate your humor, but I was actually looking for an honest answer. I'm well aware that you know how to ride and I respect your opinion. I certainly don't know the half of riding, and I do need to go a riding school. However, my schedule simply doesn't call for it because I have a familial or school event I need to attend whenever there's a class nearby. I've never hit redline downshifting, I'm not racing around the streets. I'm usually at 5k rpm when I downshift, so I never have to rev match higher than 6k rpm or so.
Maybe I should have sent you a pm, but might as well post it by now...

I noticed Tonys TrackDays does Loudon;

http://www.tonystrackdays.com/

Looks affordable.

[CC Cowboy]

Just when we were having a great discussion on braking techniques the US Government (who must have been easedropping on this forum) makes the decision for us.

USA to consider compulsory anti-lock brakes
By Visordown News
US study shows a 28% reduction in motorcycle-related deaths for bikes equipped with ABS

AUTHORITIES responsible for traffic safety in the United States of America are taking a serious look at making anti-lock brakes compulsory, following a recent study.
An article in today's Detroit News suggest the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are concerned about the rising rate of motorcycle deaths in the US.

Part of the article reads:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) also is considering requiring new safety features on motorcycles, which accounted for a growing percentage of road deaths.

The agency plans to decide by next year whether to require anti-lock brakes on motorcycles.

An insurance institute study showed that the rate of fatal crashes was 28 percent lower for motorcycles equipped with optional anti-lock brakes than for those same motorcycles without them.

Motorcycle deaths have more than doubled since 1997, from 2,116 to 5,154 in 2007. The motorcycle fatality rate has also nearly doubled from 21 per million miles traveled in 1997 to 39 in 2007. Injuries also have doubled.

Should ABS become compulsory if it can contribute to reducing road deaths?



As a authority on evolution and Darwinism I feel that nature takes the weak and leaves the strong. It is the thinning of the herd, natural selection, survival of the fitist. Motorcyclists live by the rule, crashing is only a matter of time (it's the code of the biker). If the government tries to change the life order there will be too many bikers (then what will motorists say?). Although anti-lock brakes, traction control, and various other advances make motorcycles safer I believe we need a commitee to do a study to find more findings to the savings in the death rate and hospitalization costs associated with these technical devices applied on motorcycles.

That's my 3 cents (yes, it cost more to listen to BS these days).

[OldGuy]

Maybe we should just skip all the hi-tech solutions to "safe motorcycle riding" and go straight to training wheels for everybody.

Yea I know that will give a certain member of our forum a leg up because she already has a three wheeled road vehicle but hey . . .

[OldGuy]

Originally Posted by Alex

Degreed engineer here, but as my wife says it's fake engineering instead of real engineering like her degree.

And as I see it, the answer is no, only because the question assumes parameters that aren't available. The braking itself, whether front or rear, will shift the weight to the front tire, and that weight shift will then allow greater braking with that tire, no matter how much one would try and keep as much weight as possible as far back as possible.

Alex,

It has been way too many years and way too many scotch hi-balls before dinner for me to attempt it, but wouldn't a force vector answer the question of how much the application of the rear brake before the front brake would keep weight on the back wheel?

[Rayme]

ahhww.. the age old ABS question...

I almost feel like the people against ABS are somewhat offended that they got a computer and being told "that is better at braking than you"...because their answer is always related to that!

Seriously..ABS would be worth it cost in an emergency stop, especially with a passenger or in the rain.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by OldGuy

Alex,

It has been way too many years and way too many scotch hi-balls before dinner for me to attempt it, but wouldn't a force vector answer the question of how much the application of the rear brake before the front brake would keep weight on the back wheel?

I don't think so. Because even the slightest bit of touch on the rear brake still shifts weight off the back wheel and toward the front wheel. As the bike slows, that weight is going forward no matter what. Initiating it with the back brake may help slow the initial weight transfer as in doing so it is lowering the back end of the bike, but it doesn't stop or prevent that weight transfer. What an application of rear brake will do is in effect try and stretch the wheelbase slightly, which pushes the swingarm up, compresses the rear shock a slight bit, and lowers the back end of the bike slightly. But all of that effect is minor. It can be helpful if you're trying to stop smoothly without having the bike dive forward as much, but in any max braking situation, that small effect won't keep the bike from standing on its nose; those forces are much, much greater.

[Flashmonkey]

Originally Posted by inbox526

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!

Mechanical Engineer here. Putting it simply, you wouldn't be rotating into the ground, as much as you'd be rotating around the front axle. However, this isn't a simple scenario. Breaking it down as you would in your basic dynamics class, you're pretty much taking the front suspension out of the equation and nullifying the whole thought experiment. If you take into account every single facet of information, this scenario gets much more complicated, and begins to creep into the realm of computer modeled finite element analysis (which was my thesis). I'm not gonna get into it....mostly because I still have nightmares about those gotdamn computer models...but essentially using your rear brake helps keep "tension" on the chassis of the bike by allowing more of the weight to stay at the rear of the bike.

With this in mind, theoretically, the friction created by the rear wheel (under rear braking) acts as a counter-force to the friction created by the front wheel (assuming that the centre of gravity of the bike is somewhere between the two wheels). Granted, its not an equal force, but it does reduce the moment created by the increased friction of the front wheel as the weight of the bike is pushed forward and onto the front suspension (Friction = fN, where f is the coefficient of friction and N is the normal force acting downwards at the contact point between tire and pavement).

If you were to do a force balance on this system, using the rear brake would reduce the total amount of moment forces acting around the centre of gravity, thus reducing the tendency of the bike to want to rotate around the front axle, slamming your head into the ground. Of course this all goes out the window if you get grabby with EITHER brake and end up skidding the wheels....when that happens all bets are off.

So ya....be careful . Now if you'll excuse me i'm gonna go find a drink....

[OldGuy]

Originally Posted by Alex

It can be helpful if you're trying to stop smoothly without having the bike dive forward as much,

I think that initial "dive" is what unnerved me the most when I was first working in the parking lot with the '01 - not that I'm "fearless" with the front brake at this point. Watching some GP races and seeing how the front end behaves when the are braking for a corner got me to realize that front end squat is part of learning how to ride a bike.

[kazam58]

Originally Posted by CC Cowboy

I noticed Tonys TrackDays does Loudon;

http://www.tonystrackdays.com/

Looks affordable.

I've looked at them too I get back from my family trip in Czech on August 3rd though. I'm leaving this tuesday, which means I'm gone for all of their trackdays and I'll have serious jet lag along with little sleep for that trackday on August 4th. Along with no time to actually ride over there.
There is hope for me however. Once I'm in New York, in September, I'll be able to attend trackdays on a regular basis in at Toronto Motorsports Park.

[noche_caliente]

throwing my into the ABS mandate.... I think it's kind of ridiculous that they're going to sit there and try to and claim that the death rate on those bikes is lower and attribute it only to the ABS. granted I got annoyed and quit reading the article part of the way through, but really, come on... most of the bikes that have ABS are not entry-level bikes, and many of the fatal crashes come down to rider error and wouldn't be influenced by ABS anyway....
sorry, but ridiculous study - apples and oranges

[Purspeed]

Originally Posted by inbox526

Does the overall stored up energy in frame strain contribute to absorbing some of your forward momentum?

Depends on the path the load is traveling. The modern perimeter motorcycle frame is structurally design to be rigid against some loads and flex upon others.

Oscillations are created only when a force inputs energy into a chassis that flexes within specific degrees of motion faster than the energy can be transformed via internal friction.

The inherent material (steel, aluminum, titanium, chromium-molybdenum, carbon fiber, polymer, etc.) as well as structural design such as twin-spar chassis or, my personal favorite, steel trellis (oh, the name alone gets me excited...) determines how quickly the oscillations get out of the system. You'll see this in motoGP when the bikes come out of a turn and the rear end of the tail wiggles (can also be caused application of plenty of throttle upon corner exit).

By the way, it should be said that motorcycle dynamics are some of the most enigmatic Newtonian physics out there. It is not clearly understood why stuff happens the way it does and it still a bit controversial (think counter-steering and gyroscopic force or precession)...

[minuslars]

I use the rear brake on every stop, unless I'm obviously just power walking or crawling in traffic, and for light speed adjustments while turning. I keep a real light touch on it.

[demp]

Both, unless I'm in stop and go traffic... then I tend to get lazy, but I've found the bike does stop much faster/shorter distance when both brakes are used, I'm learning not to lock up the rear =P

[Alex]

Originally Posted by noche_caliente

I think it's kind of ridiculous that they're going to sit there and try to and claim that the death rate on those bikes is lower and attribute it only to the ABS. granted I got annoyed and quit reading the article part of the way through, but really, come on... most of the bikes that have ABS are not entry-level bikes, and many of the fatal crashes come down to rider error and wouldn't be influenced by ABS anyway....
sorry, but ridiculous study - apples and oranges

The study compared bikes that were available with or without ABS, and found that those that had the optional ABS (on those identical bikes) were 28% safer. They weren't comparing GSX-R's and Gold Wings and determining that Gold Wings are safer due to ABS; as you mention that would be a little silly. I've had it on my BMW bikes and have become quite a fan; it's pretty compelling to be on an iffy surface yet still know you can brake as hard as you like and the bike is not going to lose directional stability. It's not magic, and if the surface is slippery enough you're still going to take awhile to scrub off the speed; but you will be able to scrub that speed much, much faster than if you were trying to modulate that pressure yourself. In dry and clean conditions, it has much less of an advantage, if any at all.

[Purspeed]

Originally Posted by Alex

The study compared bikes that were available with or without ABS, and found that those that had the optional ABS (on those identical bikes) were 28% safer.

Interesting info, but without more data, this stat can be quite misleading. Right off of the bat, those who would opt for ABS are more safety-conscious; ergo, they will ride more carefully than those without. But, again, without more data...

It's like those with more and better quality gear are XX% safer...is that the gear or the mindset?

[Alex]

Yup! Both of those points may affect the results a bit. You can certainly normalize the groups as much as possible by trying to match years of riding experience, type of riding, miles per year, and perhaps a few more variables to try and make a little more sense of the data, but doing all that may still leave some leanings in the data that can be interpreted a few different ways.

[Purspeed]

Originally Posted by Alex

Yup! Both of those points may affect the results a bit. You can certainly normalize the groups as much as possible by trying to match years of riding experience, type of riding, miles per year, and perhaps a few more variables to try and make a little more sense of the data, but doing all that may still leave some leanings in the data that can be interpreted a few different ways.

Agreed. Get one of those statsticians to really get the proper variates and pull a good standard deviation to see what conclusions we can really draw.

My (developed) instinct is to always questions statistics. Most stats and science is incorrect. In other words, given more time and new information, the original conclusions of the observed data will be proved false.

Those who buy safety oriented stuff tend to be...uh...safer. So, attribution gets very tricky...

[Alex]

Motorcycle ABS discussion kicking off a new thread right here...

[Anthony_marr]

Originally Posted by ally99

Hey guys. I did a search and didn't find a past thread on this topic.
I'm wondering how many of you:
a) use your rear brake at all (and if so, in which situations?)

In normal urban riding, I use the rear brake quite a bit. I use the front brake only in hard slowing and stopping - WHEN GOING STRAIGHT. It is not a good idea to use too much front brake in conditions where the front wheel is NOT pointed straight ahead, i.e. in curves or slow-speed parking lot maneuvers. For curves, the braking should be done before the curve, not during, but if braking is needed during a curve, do so in such a way as to avoid losing traction in either wheel; I would depend more on riding through it with counter steering and weigh transfer than on braking to the point of losing traction. But if traction has to be lost, I'd rather lose the rear than the front. So I've learned and usually practice.

[Talonne]

I use rear brake the majority of the time. If I need to change my line in a curve, I lightly apply rear brake. I only ever use front brake when I'm coming to a complete stop (and that will be in combination with the rear brake). My small hand cannot deal with both the throttle and the brake lever simultaneously. :P

[ninjaman93]

i use my rear brake, front brake, and downshift almost every time i slow down or stop. i use my rear brake lightly if i come into a corner a little too hot. the rear brake in combination with fanning the clutch makes low speed maneuvers (u-turns, parking lots etc.) a little more stable too.

[ninja250]

I don't like abs brakes on any of my vehicles. Please don't put them on motorcycles.

I need to be able to stop when I brake, otherwise I wouldn't have applied the brakes.

ABS has almost cause me more accidents in cars than it's prevented.

If the front ABS would have kicked in last time I locked my rear bike tire, I'd be dead right now. The front would have cut out on the brake power and I would have rolled right into my target.

[miks]

When I began riding not so long ago, I used to never touch the rear brake, but recently I've been using it for the same reasons as stated above, slowing down and coming to a stop, entering a corner too fast. Feels good, especially when having to do a quick (emergency) stop, using the rear brake helps stop my body from lunging forward and squishing my family jewels

[bdavison]

Both brakes will ALWAYS stop you faster than using just one. Any argument otherwise is just inexperience or internet myth.

[kkim]

Originally Posted by ninja250

I don't like abs brakes on any of my vehicles. Please don't put them on motorcycles.

I need to be able to stop when I brake, otherwise I wouldn't have applied the brakes.

ABS has almost cause me more accidents in cars than it's prevented.

If the front ABS would have kicked in last time I locked my rear bike tire, I'd be dead right now. The front would have cut out on the brake power and I would have rolled right into my target.

I highly doubt that, but believe what you want.

[Troobs]

i use mine quite a lot, i have it down when im at a stop so my brake light in on, also sometimes riding in slow traffic, even if just to put the light on and not actually slow down,

[Yoda]

Ever since my MSF course I use the rear brakes all the time. Have found it makes things feel smoother and more comfortable.

[iceman.kcmo]

Take a read through this.
http://www.sportrider.com/riding_tip...ake/index.html