Seems interesting


An interesting test

Very interesting read. Any views from more experienced riders?

my puter don't read it

i had nowt better to do, so i trawlled through it.

in general i would still advocate the use of the recognised "system" of throttle off, front brake, back brake, clutch in at the last moment before a stall.
that said no two bikes are the same & every emergerncy stop is different.
its down to your knowledge of your bike, road conditions etc.
i would say though,

if you had been paying attention in the first place, you shouldnt need to do an E stop or take evasive action.
the only emergency stops i've done in the 30 years of riding are demonstration stops for students.

I'd have thought that having the two (fairly hefty-looking) outriggers and the "full-size Macintosh G4/867 computer" (et al) on the back of the bike would change its braking characteristics compared with a normally loaded (1-up) bike, so because of this I'm not sure of the validity of their tests.

The bit I cannot understand at all is this: "pulling in the clutch lever all the way leads to the shortest braking distances".

So, removing the engine brake makes the bike slow down faster? No comprendo, senor. Lets say you didn't use the brakes at all, then - a machine which had its clutch pulled in would roll quite some way before eventually stopping, but a bike with the clutch engaged would stop relatively quickly. I find it annoying that they offer this "advice" with no explanation.

I personally find the sensation of braking with the clutch lever pulled in pretty disturbing! I don't do this personally, but have experienced the equivalent sometimes by hitting a false neutral when braking/downshifting - it's 'orrid!

I was somewhat surprised that the cruiser managed to stop in about the same distance as the CBR though

Well I had to do an emergency stop on the second day of my DAS because some idiot pulled out right in front of me (after looking right at me) .

When I did my CBT, the first couple of emergency stops I did, I automatically pulled in the clutch and ever since then (and when I did it for real) I've used the engine breaking and pulled in the clutch at the last moment before it stalls. I know I haven't got much experiance but it definatly stops quicker that way.

yes , sorry , that came across as me being a bit up my own arris.

the point i was trying to make was, if you had ridden thinking the clot MIGHT pull out on you, you just MIGHT be ready for it, & not have to take evasive action.

Counterparts, i know what you mean regarding the clutchg thing-perhaps its lost in the translation ?
i cant see how pulling the clutch in can help, in fact to me it would only increase the chances of locking up the back end.

I may have understood it wrong, but my take on it was this

if you dont pull the clutch in you have 3 braking factors, front brake on front wheel, engine brake + rear brake on rear wheel

Now, with rear brake alone it is possible to lock the rear, so you can compensate for a "lack" of engine braking by braking harder with the rear brake, so the engine braking force is "unnessessary".

My guess is that the "distraction" of having to remember to pull the clutch in before coming to a halt, and having to apply the rear brake more to compensate for the lack of engine braking and the changing effect of engine braking meant that pulling in the clutch initially and then ignoring that control for the rest of the manouver - so only having to modulate 2 controls - meant that the test subjects were able to better moderate those brakes for maximum braking.

But I may have got that completely wrong, they didnt explain it very well.

It is interesting reading tho, I would always get the engine out of the braking loop, I hope, and the braking balance would be on me, as engine braking in emergencys is variable depending on your gear. That's unless
i was in a Landrover going down a steep hill.

Keeping the clutch until the last minute keeps the back wheel from locking with the braking, stands to reason that the engine is working against the brakes.

Slamming on the brake with the clutch in locks the wheel, that's gotta be stronger than the brakes + engine braking, which doesn't lock the wheels. (when I say stronger I mean the force stopping the wheel, obviously a skid doesn't help you stop)

There's probably an ammount of brake that you could apply which is stronger than the force of brakes with engine countering them, which wasn't enough to lock the wheels, but I wouldn't want to try and find the correct force at any time you might need it.

If you can use back brake without locking the wheel then it's gotta stop quicker. I can't see it being recommended ever though, as people will either brake too little or send themselves into an emergeny skid.


Damn, I just noticed finns post which summed it up with a single line....
"Now, with rear brake alone it is possible to lock the rear, so you can compensate for a "lack" of engine braking by braking harder with the rear brake, so the engine braking force is "unnessessary"."

- Anthony

i'm starting to worry about the way this thread is going.
unless you are a VERY experienced rider, i wouldnt recomend pulling in the clutch & relying only on the brakes.
some degree of engine braking is desirable, if only to help stabilise the bike.

i have ALWAYS used engine braking in the equation, whenever i have needed to scrub off speed.
in over 30 years of riding i've only had 2 "offs" one of which was down to a learner driver & one down to oil on the road surface.

Please, if you're going to take ANY notice of this thread, heed my advice

Already did that DP - just because its in print is not neccessarily so - I will go with what Tony Winder and TC taught me - which is exactly as you say

What he said!

My earlier post was simply how I understood the article to mean, however I was careful to say that was how the test subjects responded to the conditions, not your average rider.

I think something that should be noted is that those tests the riders were "mentally prepared" to do an emergency stop, something that is unlikely in real circumstances (if you were prepared why is it an emergency stop?).

They also didnt have the fear of falling off, I'm sure with bloomin great big stablizers on the side I could brake far harder than I would normally, simply cos that fear would no longer be holding me back.

I also was saying it wouldn't be recommended, though I could see how it worked. It's better to do it the "tried and trusted method" which can be done a lot easier when the pressure is on.

- Anthony

Think I'll stick to the way I was taught..... clutch in at last minute to avoid stalling. I feel I have more control (I know it's in the mind) when I use engine braking too.

Listen to dp . the clutch in technique is simply a nicety. if youre genuinely trying to stop in an emergency what does it matter if you stall the bike? your only concern is stopping the bike.

Fwiw i did the ec2 test recently, still in its infancy but here for yall in 2008, and i found the e stop fairly difficult with the clutch in, with clutch left and the bike stalling i had no skids at all. With thte clutch pulled in at the last minute i had no skid either and passed.

Just to encourage anyone thinking of taking their bike test i found the 50 kph ''avoidance '' test fairly challenging also.

The u turn, the 30 kph bend , the 50 kph bend, the twin figure of eights , the slalom, the wheeling the bike backwards using a space-defined coned area, the slow ride of not less than twelve seconds to cover a length of about twenty feet and the rest werent that bad.