Some things to consider, re; rear brakes

[retiredgentleman]

Stopping, standing or parking prohibited.

300.440. 1. Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or official traffic control device, no person shall:

(1) Stop, stand or park a vehicle:


RG are you inventing rules/laws/practices to fit your truth?

WER......................I don't know the laws in your state, but in Canada, a vehicle operator must be in control of his vehicle at all times.
He/she is not allowed to drive into the back of a stopped vehicle. For the motorcycle in this thread, it was necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, but he failed to do that.
Maybe you could ask a policeman or a lawyer in your area and see what they have to say.

 

[TimeMachine]

Confusion ? I didn't hit the dually, I wasn't speeding. I stated my fault already and the circumstances which lead to my rear wheel lock up. I was late to react to an unexpected panic stop scenario. The road was not level so I slid out & high sided. It was that reaction I used as an example to show how common it is to react that way.. I only hurt my own precious motorcycle, and my own bank account. I was pleasant as I could be as usual.. there was no citation, investigation, or accusations. The truck driver actually felt bad and gave me a ride home..He stopped out of confusion about road rules, the railroad arms were up of course. No train ! True, I didn't accept the fault much. But I sure did in my post ! I am a very nice person to all kinds of people as well, but will stand my ground anyday.. Now this was suppose to pertain to braking ! And it does.. And how easily people react improperly.. -RT

 

[Bob Kelly III]

Actually this is not a fair survay of the ways to stop the bike .... there is not enough options, there should be one for apply the back brake and feather the front.... when trying to stop Fast I try extreamily hard NOT to lock up either brake.... I can't tell which has more pressure on the wheel's brake system but logic tells me it's the front...... it's instintive.... I can stop a bike very fast even from 70mph ....allot harder to do than you think !!!!! .... I have also been known to adjust my brakes so they can't lock up.... but I don't do that any more.... it's unwise.
.... on a loany streach of highway straight as an arrow I did some experiments one time... got it up to 60mph and from the marker on the side of the road I hit the binders and brought it to as fast a stop as I could..... I put a rock by the side of the road where I stopped
switched bikes and repeated the experiment no 2 were equal ..... then I did it in the car we had.... not sliding the wheels but almost...
it stopped not far from the the worst bike.... ( who'd front brake would Not lock up even if you begged it.) the results were suprising
I compaired my results with the results in the california drivers handbook.... and None of my stops were that short.....
those are perfect conditions with expert riders ..... about a month later after pondering the diference between my results and those of the Hand book... I tried again and locked up the rear wheel and feathered the front..... that was the shortest of all my tests by almost 10 to 15 feet..... so that is what I do sense then when I want to stop as fast as phisically possable.
....... the problem with this idea is when your not on a straight flat road the back of the bike can drift off to one side so Locking it up completely can easily cause you to go down...... so I initially lock it up then feather the rear and keep it turning a small amount....
just like you do for your car on icey roads...... that I have found will stop you far faster than a car can even hope of stopping so if you are playing around practicing ...don't do it in trafic ! LOL
when avoiding obsticals like Deer this method works wonders ... because I hardly ever exceed the speed I can stop at if a deer hops out on the road in front of me. I usually have a speed at which I can stop at about 500ft...... in curvy areas.... faster, if it's straight and I can see good.... granted this slower speed isn't near as fun as hainging the corners real good, but it does keep the bike under you better !
..... my 4 coppers ! LOL
Bob........

 

[weekendrider]

WER......................I don't know the laws in your state, but in Canada, a vehicle operator must be in control of his vehicle at all times.
He/she is not allowed to drive into the back of a stopped vehicle. For the motorcycle in this thread, it was necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, but he failed to do that.
Maybe you could ask a policeman or a lawyer in your area and see what they have to say.

That was the state statute for MO, USA. I posted in response to your comment.

Any vehicle has the right to stop on our highways, and the vehicle behind is required to stop safely.

I'm not going to take the time to look up your statutes.
But this case precedent leads me to believe you are mistaken.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/12/17/canada-ducklings-highway-fatal-court/20513845/

 

[David Toll]

Surely, regardless of the "statute", one avoids colliding with anything at all, whether it be stopped in front or closing in from the side. If I've become a boot decoration on a Honda Civic I just tailgated, the letter of the law won't matter a rat's arse to me. The topic of this thread deals with survival and, IMO, the greatest killer of motorcyclists on our Australian roads is inattention and the inability to foresee a potential hazard, (and the atrocious state of many of our road surfaces). I find the experienced opinions of many of posters to this thread to be an invaluable insight into the variance of braking procedure - everything from Skulls controlled slide for fun to 5Twins "grab a handful and stomp it" in panic. We've probably all done both and experimented with everything in between. The ABS system on our cars prevents lock up and virtually "feathers " the brakes in a computer controlled fashion. The object of our discussion here is to promote a human reproduction of this application. Practice and, as Wingedwheel suggests, attendance at a good advanced rider course would appear to be the most sensible conclusions and, of course, a correctly functioning set of brakes. I feel that such variables as rider weight, seating position, road conditions, tyre type and condition, speed, distance, use of engine braking, experience and courage add up to make correct braking procedure an individual idiosyncrasy. I kind of like riding conservatively unless I encounter a stretch of good straight well surfaced road. I do not ride in the blind spot of the car front of me. I approach all intersections with caution. If I'm on a late yellow light I go through even if I can see the intersection traffic cameras. I am practicing the power of the mind so that I can observe the mannerisms of the bird in the Lexus who is about to change lanes without indicating and, as a rule of thumb, I do not trust indicators as a genuine indication of the driver's intentions. I avoid men who drive their cars wearing a hat and am particularly vigilant in shopping centre carparks and school zones. At 62 I am fond of a gliding stop that leaves my pacemaker unfazed and impresses the observing women of my age with my sensibility and control. My SE has single discs front and rear and, in the light of the above mentioned mannerisms, they seem to stop me fine. Lucky I guess.

 

[MaxPete]

Holy cow folks - a fella takes a long ride one day and comes back to find everyone barking at each other and calling each other names.

I am an automotive engineer and while I haven't studied everything that has been said in this thread, I have seen a few clangers and a couple of missed points which I will comment upon (without attribution and YES I know that I am paraphrasing here - so handle it):

• "rear brakes are totally useless" - WRONG. As long as there is weight on a wheel, having a brake on it means that it can contribute both to slowing the vehicle and to helping maintain directional control;

• "drum brakes fade and discs do not and that is why drums aren't used anymore" - WRONG - all mechanical brakes can fade - drum, or disc - and drums are still used in certain applications by reputable companies on modern vehicle designs.

The reason why modern brakes (of either kind) do not fade as much as older brakes is due to better metallurgy, more sophisticated hydraulic systems, better hydraulic fluids and better friction materials. BELIEVE me - older disc brakes were crummy too.

Many folks may know this - but what the hell, I am going to say it anyway....the thing to understand about brake fade is that it is really a matter of heat rejection rate.

A brake is a device for converting kinetic energy (the energy of motion) into heat and their good operation depends on being able to get rid of that heat quickly (i.e. at the highest rate). Most drum brakes have more thermal mass than most discs - and so they while they may heat up more slowly than a disc, they also cool down more slowly and so drum brakes often have difficulty rejecting the heat as quickly. However, there were drum designs that worked really well and there were discs that did not. It just isn't quite that simple.

The other issues about drums and discs are not related directly to braking performance. Disc systems are generally lighter, have few parts and are easier to service than comparable drums - and THOSE are also key reasons why they have largely replaced drum brakes.
LIGHTER: Reducing the mass (i.e. weight) of the parts of a vehicle which are attached directly to the wheel assembly and which are "downstream" of the suspension, is called reducing the "unsprung mass" of the vehicle. I won't go into the math, but in terms of vehicle handling and ride, you want less unsprung mass and not more. Another strike in favour of discs - but not directly related to braking performance.
PARTS COUNT: The auto industry constantly strives to reduce the parts count of every on-board system to reduce overall weight and reduce cost. Disc brakes win again - but not because they're better brakes - because they are cheaper.
SERVICEABILITY: car companies care about serviceability (obviously, some more than others....), and there is no question that disc systems are much easier to service than drum systems.

About the above, I sure am not the world's leading expert on brakes, but I do know some folks who are - and that is what they tell me.

Pete

 

[retiredgentleman]

Confusion ? I didn't hit the dually, I wasn't speeding. I stated my fault already and the circumstances which lead to my rear wheel lock up. I was late to react to an unexpected panic stop scenario. The road was not level so I slid out & high sided. It was that reaction I used as an example to show how common it is to react that way.. I only hurt my own precious motorcycle, and my own bank account. I was pleasant as I could be as usual.. there was no citation, investigation, or accusations. The truck driver actually felt bad and gave me a ride home..He stopped out of confusion about road rules, the railroad arms were up of course. No train ! True, I didn't accept the fault much. But I sure did in my post ! I am a very nice person to all kinds of people as well, but will stand my ground anyday.. Now this was suppose to pertain to braking ! And it does.. And how easily people react improperly.. -RT

Yes, some confusion here on my part. I must have misread your first post. It read as if you ran into a truck waiting at a railway crossing. However if you had hit the truck, you would have been at fault. It means you were travelling too fast and not in control of your vehicle. In this case, you saw that you were going to hit the truck so you jammed on the brakes, and dumped your bike on the ground. Good for the truck driver and his truck, but bad for you and your bike.

WER...................kudos to you for digging up a very unusual, sad accident. I remember when that happened. Yes, the lady was stupid for stopping on a busy highway, to save some ducks. Sadly a man and his daughter died. If the motorcyclist had been able to slow down to the point where he just crashed into the car with minor injuries, he would still have had some type of charge for failing to have his vehicle under control. In that case, both parties would have been charged with offenses.

In a normal type of accident, when one vehicle runs into the back of another vehicle, the rear most vehicle will be charged with some type of offence. That is the law in Canada and I'm sure it is in the USA also.

My wife ran into the back of another car, that was stopped at a construction zone merging into traffic. My wife was charged but the car ahead of her was not.

 

[TimeMachine]

Great RG, I feel better now ! I do not condone fast riding on public roads anymore btw.. I truly do enjoy my ol XS for its leisure riding in the country. Weak brakes are always in my thoughts.. I will improve them. I'd also throw out there that my first street bike when I was 17, was infact a low mileage 78 Special and after all other bikes I've returned to these XS's not for performance, but for pleasure ! Enjoy yours , RT

 

[retiredgentleman]

Great RG, I feel better now ! I do not condone fast riding on public roads anymore btw.. I truly do enjoy my ol XS for its leisure riding in the country. Weak brakes are always in my thoughts.. I will improve them. I'd also throw out there that my first street bike when I was 17, was infact a low mileage 78 Special and after all other bikes I've returned to these XS's not for performance, but for pleasure ! Enjoy yours , RT

I regret my misunderstanding of your first post.

 

[retiredgentleman]

MaxPete.............................very good detailed info on braking!
Yes drum brakes are still used on the rear of small economy cars. The manufacturer uses drums to save them money i.e make more profit. It would cost them extra money to retool for discs on the rear. For light weight cars and trucks, the rear drum does a mediocre job, and most buyers don't care because the vehicle stops acceptably.

Yes, its true that all brakes can fade, but lets be clear that in normal everyday operation, for the average driver, disc brakes fade is minimal to the point of being non detectable. While drum brakes may get you by on level ground, some one towing a large trailer in the mountains, may have some scary comments about brake fade.

I've driven cars and trucks with 4 wheel drum brakes, and I've driven my car with 4 wheel disc brakes. The 4 wheel disc brake car has much better braking. I do all of my own brake maintenance. Drum brakes are more difficult to service. Disc brakes are easy and simple to service.Rear drum brakes on my GM cars used to have a self adjusting mechanism. They never worked even when new. I would take then apart and clean/lubricate them, but they still did not adjust the brake shoes for wear. Put in new shoes, and they would only provide any rear braking, for a very small number of kms, before they ceased to give any braking at all. On an overall basis disc brakes are superior to drum brakes.

Getting back to the origin of this thread. I do agree that having minimal rear braking capability on a motorcycle is just fine for most folks, if that is your choice.
Personally,I prefer to have a strong rear brake available.