ok, WTF!!! no engine braking in emergency situations???

[Fred]

engine braking > rear brake

Nope, wrong. It's less effective. It's more complex to do and thus eats into your reaction time. It doesn't provide a predictable braking force. As the bike lurches forward in your scenario, you're upsetting the chassis of the bike and adding to your danger.

I don't wish to be rude here, but the fact is, you are totally wrong about this. I can only recommend that you find an empty parking lot and practice some emergency stops from 30mph. Use engine breaking, use just the front brake, use just the rear brake, and finally pull in the clutch and use both brakes. Practice each method a few times to get a feel for it. Once you learn how your brakes behave in that situation, I promise you that clutch in, both brakes will give you the shortest stopping distance.

Fred

 

[Fred]

Speaking only for the 2005 model, the rear brake has a high propensity to lock the tire in an emergency stop. I've found this true even when I'm using both brakes at the same time. Yes the MSF course teaches using both brakes. However, my rear will lock in a hearbeat when using more than a hair of rear brake in an emergency stop.

Jake,

This is secondhand info that I have never tried, so I'm not personally endorsing this method. But I've heard of people doing it.

If you don't like how firm your rear brake is, you can alter it. Simply let some air into the brake lines. Not a lot, a small bubble should do the trick. That air bubble will compress whenever you hit the brake pedal, leading to softer rear brakes. You'll have to play around with it, bleeding the brakes and re-admitting air until you have the right amount of air in the system to make the pedal comfortable for you.

Again, I don't personally recommend this. I'm in favor of practicing more with the rear brakes until their safe use becomes second nature. However, some people do this and like the results.

Fred

 

[shaggystyle]

I guess I should add my two cents on this one.

I've previously been a big proponent on this forum of engine braking (even in emergency situations). However, recently I've been doing a lot more reading on the topic (actually busted out the old physics textbooks at one point) and I've decided that it isn't such a good idea to use the engine as a decelerating force in a quick stop situation. Fred hit all of the points above: the braking power curve of the engine is NOT linear (this can be compensated for by applying rear brake but then you are adding another distraction to an already hectic situation); The bike geometry is significantly affected by engine braking decreasing the overall braking power, particularly the front wheel which should be doing ~95% of the braking in a true emergency stop; Additionally, below a certain point on the powercurve, the engine actually resists deceleration robbing further stopping mojo from the wheels.

In general engine braking is still a very useful tool, and I use it in almost all situations, just not in an emergency.....at least not anymore. Live and learn.

 

[GastonJ]

Emergency braking is just that - stop as soon as you can, as safely as you can, by all means at your disposal.

In the UK riders are taught to carry out an emergency stop using the engine and brakes, pulling the clutch at the last second. If you remove engine braking from the equation, by pulling the clutch before you even start to brake, then you're removing a vital aid in shortening your stopping distance. You also increase your chances of locking up the rear wheel.

In the UK you'd also fail your motorcycle test if during your emergency stop you pulled the clutch before you'd even started to brake.