Originally Posted By Keith_J:
Cruisers have shallower head angles and more trail, making them less twitchy or prone to headshake. This also puts more weight on the back wheel which is why we have this thread going on for 4+ pages...
Getting back to that braking moment...this torque must be in balance with the force couple from the weight and braking deceleration. And naturally a longer wheelbase ride will have greater moment arms from the CG to each wheel. So sport bikes with their short wheelbase are more prone to weight transfer during braking. For the ultimate, see a unicycle. Then try a 70 passenger bus.
I've just skimmed this thread, funny how no one mentions what to do when you eventually lock up the rear, have they? If you find yourself in this condition, ride out the locked up wheel is the best solution because releasing the rear brake can cause a high side slide. Meaning the rear end slides out from the locked up condition, then when you release the brake, the rear wheel now grabs with the bike sliding sideways. Which because you are not fastened to the bike, your body goes airborne in front of the bike. Riding it down by keeping the rear locked up means a low side slide in which the bike slides in front of you. And not being pitched in the air is a better thing.
Keep it rubber side down folks.
Trail, not travel. I misremembered.
Most of those old bikes had some extension going on upfront and were very heavy at the back. A panhead engine and transmission setup, even with an open belt and jockey shift is a heavy bitch.
They also tended to be slow, at least compared to todays bikes. 74 ci just didn't have a whole lot of snort. Whole lot a cool though. I should look through my moms pictures the next time I go see her, wonder what she has left. That was a looong time ago.
Originally Posted By Flashman:
No thoughts on my ABS post a few pages back?
Can’t say where it is since mobile pages are different that full site pages.
I think motorcycle ABS is the greatest increase in motorcycle safety in years.
Having said that I’ll admit that my dealer ordered 5 CB1100s of which only one was a ABS model. The four non ABS bikes sold first.
I wanted a ABS model and paid the extra grand to get it.
I’ve been riding for 40 years.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
I agree ABS would be nice.
Originally Posted By substandard:
Originally Posted By Aimless:
Oh come on
Originally Posted By substandard:
Reading the thread about the woman killed when she ht the front brakes on her bike, now I am wondering why is there front brakes on a motorcycle?
Wouldn't rear brakes be enough to stop a bike?
I have no idea
I'll save you some money and pain go get a mountain bike and try to stop with just rear brakes. Now consider a motorcycle is about 50x heavier and going 4x as fast on avg.
[Last Edit: 10/25/2013 7:08:17 PM EDT by ILoveGauge]
Basically you want to just use the front brake and pretend the rear brake doesn't exist. Unless you are highly skilled on a motorcycle, using the rear at all will just get you in trouble. And, of course, if you were highly skilled then you wouldn't be asking this question in the first place.
A lot of things with motorcycles are counter-intuitive - like braking and counter steering. The trouble comes in when fucktards with absolutely no motorcycling experience think they know what's going on and start trying to make rules and laws. One of the weirdest chapters in motorcycling history had to be Joan Claybrook:
In the 1960s, Claybrook was one of "Nader's Raiders" - a group headed by Ralph Nader who, among other things, constantly tried to sue General Motors out of business and wrote the book "Unsafe At Any Speed." So in the 1970s when Jimmy Carter was elected President, who better to head up the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration than Joan Claybrook? Finally she could do some real damage!
Of course she spent most of her time trying to drive car companies into the ground. But she also tried her hand at improving motorcycle safety. For instance, she figured out why bikers get hurt. It's because they fall off their motorcycles. Obviously the solution is seat belts on motorcycles. And she almost succeeded. She also figured out why motorcyclists crash. It had nothing to do with that car turning left in front of them. Instead she reasoned that bikers were grabbing a handful of front brake and skidding, so now they couldn't steer around that car turning left in front of them. That's when she got a brainstorm - motorcycles need to steer from the back wheel!!!
So she spent government resources and taxpayer money building the famous "Backwards Bike " -
Of course to protect the rider it needed a roll cage and seat belts. And once they actually tried to ride this abortion they discovered it was so unstable that they needed to add outrigger wheels to keep it upright. Seriously, all these automotive engineering geniuses never heard of "trail" or wondered why shopping cart casters point the way they do. And no one on the "rear wheel steering committee" ever tried to take a quick turn in a forklift.
When looking at this image keep in mind that the wheel on the left side of the picture is the rear. See it now? The handle bars are just above the engine, behind the front wheel which is in the right-hand background of the picture. The motorcycle would be traveling away from you here from left to right.
The only reason none of this ever became required by law was the Backwards Bike such an outstanding failure. But she kept working on it. And had Carter been elected to a second term there is a very good chance that the motorcycle you were riding today looked something like that picture.
After Carter lost to Reagan, Claybrook got the boot and some semblance of sanity started to return to the NHTSA and heinously stupid shit like the famous Backwards Bike was discarded and forgotten. After NHTSA, Claybrook went back to Nader and served as the president of "Public Citizen" for the next 26 years. Sadly, today she is still alive. But she's still a cunt.