Amazing New Thread on Brake Performance!

[Hibs]

admin edit

[Aaron]

I'd buy a 2015 BMW, do the same mods, and walk your Kawi. With warm hands.

[Hibs]

...

[Gramps]

I'll let both of you guys go down the straight and I'll pass you both on the inside of the first turn. :lol: Horsepower only gets you so far boys. Several of those other bikes have better brakes than the Kawi and the bimmer.

[UglyDogRacing]

I'll let both of you guys go down the straight and I'll pass you both on the inside of the first turn. :lol: Horsepower only gets you so far boys. Several of those other bikes have better brakes than the Kawi and the bimmer.

Actually, the 2016 Kawi comes with same Brembo M50 calipers, rotors and master cylinder that the Ducati, Aprilia and MV Agusta have.

[Aaron]

Actually, the 2016 Kawi comes with same Brembo M50 calipers, rotors and master cylinder that the Ducati, Aprilia and MV Agusta have.
Which all have essentially nothing to do with stopping distances.

Just like in cars, the bike's brakes have reached a level where the stopping distances are not determined by any one braking component or the combination thereof, they are determined by weight, traction, ABS programming, and aero.

I'd be willing to bet the stopping distances of every WSBK bike are nearly identical. Like others have said, none of these bikes are any better than the others (Excluding the ones who haven't updated of course). It's all about what clicks with the rider. For me, it's the BMW for now (Their cars too!)

[~Barn~]

Just to recap where we're at, Hibs is nothing, if not linear. Brake components have nothing to do with stopping distances. And guns have nothing to do with gun violence. Carry on.

[Gramps]

Actually, the 2016 Kawi comes with same Brembo M50 calipers, rotors and master cylinder that the Ducati, Aprilia and MV Agusta have.

Well you got me on that one. I go back to my previous post. Why is that bike not the most popular? It has the biggest bang for the buck if you look at the spec sheet. Crazy!


Just to recap where we're at, Hibs is nothing, if not linear. Brake components have nothing to do with stopping distances. And guns have nothing to do with gun violence. Carry on.


Thanks for the recap Barn:up:

[UglyDogRacing]

Which all have essentially nothing to do with stopping distances.



Your assumption is not necessarily valid...



Well you got me on that one. I go back to my previous post. Why is that bike not the most popular? It has the biggest bang for the buck if you look at the spec sheet. Crazy!



The audience for this poll, the CSC, is a minute section of sport bike community. You're not going to get results that fairly represent the popularity of these bikes. Plus the ZX10 just arrived in the dealers this week. I doubt anyone has seen it firsthand yet. It looks to be the best race platform for 2016, just as the R1 was for 2015.

[Aaron]

Brake components have nothing to do with stopping distances.

On today's sportbikes, that's correct. I'd argue this is the case in just about every motor vehicle made right now. You will be hard pressed to find yourself in a situation where the brakes lack sufficient power and cooling to overwhelm your vehicle's available traction. Even a Honda Civic has enough braking power and cooling to engage ABS from max speed to 0, repeatedly. And if you're engaging ABS, then there is not a single braking component that will shorten your stopping distance. Just like my bike will not get faster in the 1/4 mile, even if you added 100hp. Because it already engages traction and wheelie control for every inch of the 1320ft.

Now better braking components will aid in cooling, and overheated brakes won't provide enough stopping power of course, but most superbikes aren't gong to have this issue. The S1000RR does for me, after about the 6th lap, but a simple fluid swap and I never had another problem with that.

Want your bike to stop faster? Lose weight, or increase aero drag. Because the bike already has more traction and braking force than it can use.

[~Barn~]

:lol: I like how that got quoted, to appears as if it was my original thought!

Well yeah... I get your point, but to say that "the components have nothing to do with the stopping distances" is putting is wholly ineloquent at best and outright poorly at worst. Parity amongst the components (which is what you're really tying to convey) is not the same as saying the components themselves have no impact on the result. I'm just sayin'...