• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Almost The Last Braking Discussion Thread You Will Ever Need

Im really at a loss how you measured this...Percieved distance and actual distance are 2 different things. And there is also the possibility you didn't fully use the front when you weren't using the rear

Intuitive measurement, UCB. I used to commute every day from I 280 to boulder creek. The 280 to skyline exit is a straight shot from the freeway to a stop marker, and makes a great place to stop from freeway speeds.

Over months of riding it every day, I gained a great sense of where I would stop using only my front brake and could usually hit the stop line dead on. I found that when I used the rear brake during initial braking application, braking force came on incredibly quickly, and I would generally undershoot the limit marker by a noticeable amount.

So, my observation isn't just based on where I stopped, but the way the bike reacted to my use of the brakes.
 
But is the goal to stop as quickly as possible, or to lift the rear as quickly as possible?

I think it's the same thing, since once you're doing a rolling stoppie, physics says you're at the point of maximum decceleration - it's just a force balance. If you instantly grab a handful, you might lock the front tire or you might flip the bike, so you have to ramp up the brake pressure - but this happens very quickly, and it's only during this brief moment that the rear brake is of any use. My point was just that trying to use the rear brake during this brief moment is a distraction from your main task, which is lofting that rolling stoppie as quickly as you can.

I would suspect that the faster you apply the front brakes, the less braking force it takes to lift the rear wheel. Compressing the front forks generates a forward pitching motion. I'd be interested to know if that motion might cause the rear wheel to lift off the ground earlier than it otherwise would.

It's hard to see how it would. The forks obviously compress during braking, which helps the rear end lift, but if you were magically able to instantly apply the required braking force you need to stop in the shortest distance, you'd probably lock the front.

I would argue that a stoppie limits braking, much like a wheelie limits acceleration. There's still traction available, it just can't be used without flipping the bike.

Correct, that's what limits your braking ability on a bike that can stoppie. But this extra traction can't come from the rear tire unless you're on bike that cannot stoppie (like a big cruiser) - if you are, then the limit is when you're about to push the front, and in that situation you can and should use the rear brake too.
 
Intuitive measurement, UCB. I used to commute every day from I 280 to boulder creek. The 280 to skyline exit is a straight shot from the freeway to a stop marker, and makes a great place to stop from freeway speeds.

Over months of riding it every day, I gained a great sense of where I would stop using only my front brake and could usually hit the stop line dead on. I found that when I used the rear brake during initial braking application, braking force came on incredibly quickly, and I would generally undershoot the limit marker by a noticeable amount.

So, my observation isn't just based on where I stopped, but the way the bike reacted to my use of the brakes.

Were you lofting the rear wheel every time you did this when you were using only the front brake? I find it hard to believe that you were using MAXIMUM braking force each and every time you did this, at street speeds, ON the streets. Even seasoned track vets can't fully ultilize the front brake...so I hardly doubt you can (no offense, I can't either)

And were you using a braking marker (the same marker) where you initially applied the brakes?

Like I said..slipperly slope passing off your "intuition" as training, and then coupling it with imaginary numbers to make it appear as fact
 
Last edited:
I think it's the same thing, since once you're doing a rolling stoppie, physics says you're at the point of maximum decceleration - it's just a force balance. If you instantly grab a handful, you might lock the front tire or you might flip the bike, so you have to ramp up the brake pressure - but this happens very quickly, and it's only during this brief moment that the rear brake is of any use. My point was just that trying to use the rear brake during this brief moment is a distraction from your main task, which is lofting that rolling stoppie as quickly as you can.

It's been a while since I've done stoppies, since the BMW just doesn't like to lift the rear wheel. But, back when I was playing around with them, I found that they didn't require as much of my attention as would be expected.

I think your model of motorcycle dynamics is overly simplistic. For instance: applying the brakes not only compresses the forks, but also creates downward momentum at the front of the bike. It's the job of the shocks to control this momentum, but they don't do so perfectly. It's very plausible that applying the brakes extremely quickly will cause the front suspension to compress further than it would if applying the brakes gently. I don't think I need to make a case for why greater fork compression would increase the tendency to stoppie.

As another argument is that, compression of the front forks creates an easily observable pitching movement around the center of gravity of the bike -- inertia. A stoppie is also a pitching movement, centered over the front wheel. It's very likely that the initial pitching momentum around the CG would reduce the amount of braking force needed to lift the rear wheel (just another motion.)

As a counter example, some riders are known to yank up on the handlebars in order to begin a wheelie. While I'm not sure this is an accepted practice, it's easy to see why it would work. Yanking on the handlebars creates a backwards pitching movement that should help lift the rear tire.

I'd argue that it's possible that rear wheel braking creates a backwards pitching motion, that would actually work against the bike's tendency to go over the front wheel. Remember that engine braking, especially when combined with rear wheel braking, creates a squatting effect.

So, there's three good arguments showing that the rider's control actions may have a noticeable influence on the motorcycle's tendency to lift the rear wheel.

Counter question... If the rider shifted his weight onto the back wheel (perhaps by sliding back on the seat,) how would that effect braking and stoppie behavior?

In my estimation, it would make bike harder to stoppie -- the rider would have to apply noticeably more front brake in order to lift that rear wheel. Would applying more front brake before the wheel lifts mean shorter stopping distances?
 
Like I said..slipperly slope passing off your "intuition" as training, and then coupling it with imaginary numbers to make it appear as fact

I think my confidence is a large part of what made those numbers appear to be statement of fact, rather than an example (as I stated in my post.) I'm sorry if my confidence is offensive.

Regardless, I think there is value in questioning common knowledge, so long as it is done in a respectful way and an open mind. If nothing else, it gets everyone thinking, and sparks some interesting discussions.
 
Counter question... If the rider shifted his weight onto the back wheel (perhaps by sliding back on the seat,) how would that effect braking and stoppie behavior?

There's usually a pretty limited amount of room in which to move foreward and aft on a sportbike seat -- about six inches. That's about 11% of a 55" wheelbase, which is a common dimension on modern bikes. If you're 200 pounds and you move 6 inches to the rear, you're moving 22 pounds off the front and onto the rear. That's greater than zero, but it's not much.

The rider can have a greater effect by simply ensuring that he keeps his weight off the bars. When a rider straight-arms the bars under heavy braking, a great deal of his weight goes up there. Our 200 pound rider could easily transfer half his weight to the front wheel this way.

The most effective way to keep the wheel on the ground under heavy braking is to clamp the tank with your knees and stay as loose as possible in your upper body.
 
The most effective way to keep the wheel on the ground under heavy braking is to clamp the tank with your knees and stay as loose as possible in your upper body.

+1..Stiff arming the bike to slide back a bit is not the way to go. Not only that, if you are emergency braking (or hard braking), THEN have to quickly turn the bike...being stiff on the bars will be detrimental
 
+1..Stiff arming the bike to slide back a bit is not the way to go. Not only that, if you are emergency braking (or hard braking), THEN have to quickly turn the bike...being stiff on the bars will be detrimental

Of course, I'm not suggesting that a rider should shift his weight backwards for braking. Doing so would increase reaction time, and possibly reduce control over the bike.

The question is, how would it effect the probability of lifting the rear, and how would that effect the rider's ability to apply the front brake, and how would that affect braking distances? I believe that if you follow the logic through to the end, it makes a pretty strong case that chasis dynamics can have a noticeable influence on braking distances, even on a bike that it stoppie limited.
 
Last edited:
Squeezing the tank with your knees also keeps you from getting 'nadded' on the tank...

zoinks! :wtf
 
Squeezing the tank with your knees also keeps you from getting 'nadded' on the tank...

zoinks! :wtf

No kidding. Squeezing the tank is huge.

Great videos by the way! The camera work, editing, and dubbing are a step above a lot of what I've seen on youtube.
 
No kidding. Squeezing the tank is huge.

Great videos by the way! The camera work, editing, and dubbing are a step above a lot of what I've seen on youtube.

Thanks. We try to stay really simple and look good.

I'm also surprised by the amount of folks who DON'T give the tank a squeeze when they brake--it really helps because you don't feel like you're getting pitched over the nose.
 
Of course, I'm not suggesting that a rider should shift his weight backwards for braking. Doing so would increase reaction time, and possibly reduce control over the bike.

The question is, how would it effect the probability of lifting the rear, and how would that effect the rider's ability to apply the front brake, and how would that affect braking distances? I believe that if you follow the logic through to the end, it makes a pretty strong case that chasis dynamics can have a noticeable influence on braking distances, even on a bike that it stoppie limited.

You know, your posts are getting pretty confusing. In the first paragraph above, you say you're not advocating sliding back in the seat. In the second paragraph, you ask about what effect it would have. If you're not going to shift backward in the seat, what does it matter?

Are we talking about practical matters, or is this just a thread for theoretical wanking?
 
I agree, like I said before Burning1, you are really on a slippery slope, between what works best in practice (overall, for all riders), and what you think works well in theory. Trying to prove theory on the street in a real life situation could end in an ill manner.

I'm really no expert, so I go on what has been working well, for the experts, racers, etc.

Enchanter made a good point earlier, about relative novices regurgitating what they read and hear and passing it off as fact. Well I have been guilty of this, as I am no expert and still have a ton to learn, which is why I'm not trying to pass what I post as gospel. If it makes sense to me, I have practiced it with success, then I will post my opnion on the matter, but in the end, I know its just that, opinion. When you come in here, and then start manifesting numbers and "real world observations" that are purely subjective, well you can really confuse folks. This confusion compounds when you start making up theoretical situations that never occur, in an attempt to win over folks onto your side of the fence, even when you are no longer comparing apples to apples.
 
I guess it's only okay to state observations and opinions as fact when they agree with what's commonly accepted. I wonder how much shit Kieth got when he suggested counter-steering might be the most effective way to steer...

I offered something that's new, and different. It's a fact that it's worked well for me. I've already conceded that a newbie thread was the wrong place to bring it up.

The general disagreement with the technique would be stronger if someone either had past experience, or a good theoretical argument against it. I've seen a good responses, considered them, and offered counter arguments. I've posted example data and clearly stated the data's limitations, and the reasoning behind it. What more do you want?

Listen: I put a lot of time, energy, and thought into what I do on a motorcycle. I believe I have something of value to offer, and I must admit that it's frustrating to support a controversial idea, especially given that everyone else still participating in this discussion clearly has a great deal of passion, and have likewise invested a lot of time and energy into this as well.

Remember: I'm not supporting something that's been proven over and over again to be incorrect. I'm supporting something that is merely unproven.
 
Last edited:
You know, your posts are getting pretty confusing. In the first paragraph above, you say you're not advocating sliding back in the seat. In the second paragraph, you ask about what effect it would have. If you're not going to shift backward in the seat, what does it matter?

Are we talking about practical matters, or is this just a thread for theoretical wanking?

Sorry. I was trying to prove a point using an approach that probably wasted a lot of time and energy. I do appreciate your response.
 
Listen: I put a lot of time, energy, and thought into what I do on a motorcycle. I believe I have something of value to offer, and I must admit that it's frustrating to support a controversial idea, especially given that everyone else still participating in this discussion clearly has a great deal of passion, and have likewise invested a lot of time and energy into this as well.

Remember: I'm not supporting something that's been proven over and over again to be incorrect. I'm supporting something that is merely unproven.

Nothing wrong with that, but the way your posts come across (especially when you start adding numbers, which are manifested by no one but yourself), then you give the impressions that you are trying to pass off your THOUGHTS as fact, and that is a folly.
 
Back
Top