CBR1100xx Blackbird - Linked Brakes
Dave Hodgkisson
Has anyone had any bad experiences using the combined braking system on
the CBR1100xx Blackbird under extreme conditions?
I expected the linked system to cause the rear to skip out, but it
doesn't. With the CBR1100xx, the imposed use of the rear brake by the
combined system prevents the all essential weight transfer to the front
wheel, without which the front wheel is pushed forward, not downward.
The front wheel locks up resulting loss of control of the front end.
On a dry level road, try braking very hard from around 100mph. You will
find that the front will start to slide, which will correct when you
release, then repeat until you stop. In effect you will need to cadence
brake, which defeats the point of linked brakes. It would work with ABS,
but then you would not need the linking :-( The penalty is increased
stopping distance, extra weight, unnecessary complexity, which all has
to be covered by a hike in the purchase price.
On my ZZR1100, I just squeezed the brakes until it stood on its nose and
stopped, in about 2/3rd of the distance of the CBR!
If you've experienced unexpected front wheel lock up, please let me
know.
Ride Hard, Ride Carefully
-.. .- ...- . .... --- -.. --. -.- .. ... ... --- -.
_ dave.hod...@xxvirgin.net
/ | _ _ /_/ _ _/ _ /_ . _ _ _ _ (remove xx's to email)
/_.'/_||//_' / / /_//_/ /_//\ / _\ _\ /_// /
_/ CBR1100xx Super
Blackbird --. -.... -.. .-. --- --. -.... -.. .-. ---
--. -.... -.. .-. ---
andy the pugh
Dave Hodgkisson <dave.hod...@xxvirgin.net> wrote:
> I expected the linked system to cause the rear to skip out, but it
> doesn't. With the CBR1100xx, the imposed use of the rear brake by the
> combined system prevents the all essential weight transfer to the front
> wheel,
Tosh, rubbish and erroneousness. Forward weight transfer is a function
of decelleration, it matters not which brake brings about the
decelleration. If you have experienced the symptoms you describe (whoich
I don't doubt) the reason is something other than what you believe.
Oh, and I don't think combined brakes are a good idea either.
--
ap
Dave Hodgkisson
andy the pugh wrote:
>
> Dave Hodgkisson <dave.hod...@xxvirgin.net> wrote:
>
> > I expected the linked system to cause the rear to skip out, but it
> > doesn't. With the CBR1100xx, the imposed use of the rear brake by the
> > combined system prevents the all essential weight transfer to the
> > front wheel,
>
> Tosh, rubbish and erroneousness.
> Forward weight transfer is a function of decelleration
Quite correct!
> it matters not which brake brings about the decelleration.
Cobblers! For *MAXIMUM* braking, the absolute limit regardless of
conditions is when *ALL* the weight is on the front, ie *ZERO* on the
rear. What is the point of applying pressure to the rear when it is not
in contact with the ground! This is simple physics, max deceleration is
when the resultant of vertical and horizontal forces pass thro' the
centre of the contact patch of the front tyre. Any more and over the
bars you go, any less is less than max. Simple.
>If you have experienced the symptoms you describe (which)
>I don't doubt) the reason is something other than what you believe.
Have you ever riden a superbike and tried an emergency stop?
Have you compared different bikes?
Have you tried a bike fitted with CBS?
I think 'not' to all questions, otherwise you would not have made the
above statement.
> Oh, and I don't think combined brakes are a good idea either.
Quite right! The purchaser should be given the choice, particularly on a
high performance bike. Linked is fine on the Pan European, but that has
ABS as well.
> --
> ap
--
Perry Leo
Dave Hodgkissmyass wrote:
>
> Elvis Presley <sic>
>
> You are not very bright are you?
>
> The *LINKED* Combined Braking System on the Blackbird is compulsory!
Neither are you for buying a bike with linked brakes!
HTH
--
Perry
Perry Leo
Elvis Presley wrote:
>
[Snip]
> This is the same reason why my idle speed is set to 5,000 rpm to prevent
> my cack handed downshifts from making the rear skip under braking.
> (About 2ft in the air at Mansfield the other weekend - due to the cack
> handed braking ;-))
>
[Snip}
If this for real? I've never heard of anyone doing this before. Surely
this will reduce the overall braking effect as when you shit
Perry Leo
Er finger trouble there!
I meant to say: when you SHUT the throttle and brake hard the engine
breaking on the rear wheel will be lost and instead it will be helping
you along. How long do your back brake pads last?
When I raced I did the opposite and turned the idle off to get max
braking effect.
Agree about all the other stuff BTW - rear brakes are for losers :-)
--
Perry
Trevor Dennis
Elvis Presley <el...@cerfyrl.qrzba.pb.hx> said
>Much the same principle as applying the front brake whilst wheeleying
>being bad for stability. (You can actually counter-steer whilst
>wheelying in more or less the same way as when your wheel is on the deck
>- as long as it is spinning at a good rate)
Dave Taylor used an electric motor to keep the front wheel
spinning while wheelying the full circuit of the IoM.
--
Trevor Dennis /`\ .(o~)-(o~). /`\ tre...@tdennnis.demon.co.uk
The Polite Brit / , \( _______ )/ , \ tden...@ford.com
OGH #1 ___/ /_\ /`"-------"`\ /_\ \___ Southern England
jgs`~//^\~_`\ <__ __> /`_~/^\\~`
`~//^\\~`~//^\\~`
Elvis Presley
In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.971028...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>,
Peter Harding <har...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes
>On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, Elvis Presley wrote:
>
>> Given that the rear wheel spinning is giving you
>> the majority of your bikes stability
>
>I wonder about that. Bicycles stand up because the rider constantly and on
>the whole unknowingly adjusts where the weight goes all the time. Sure,
>there's a helluva lot more angular momentum in a bike back wheel, but I
>wonder which one does the most to keep it all upright?
>
>I'm tempted to guess that a bike gets "stability" from the way its design
>channels the rider-weight adjustment to where it's needed.
>
Well, I'm no physicist, but I know that countersteering the front wheel
<on a chain or belt driven machine> capsizes the wheel, and thusly the
bike, and I am told that this is a gyroscopic effect. Presuming the rear
wheel has a larger mass and isn't on a steering bearing of any kind,
having the blighter spinning rather than chattering or locking seems to
me to be a good idea in the general cuase of stability.
Lighter wheels are also supposed to quicken steering (ie reduce
stability).
--
The King <elvis<at>presley.demon.co.uk>
Moped Racer Online Magazine.
Mr James Witham To Compete In Charity 4 Hour Moped Race At Cadwell Park
On Sunday 16th November 1997. Further details in due course.....
<http://www.presley.demon.co.uk>Last update:01.10.97
Elvis Presley
In article <3455D0...@boat.bt.com>, Perry Leo <le...@boat.bt.com>
writes
>Agree about all the other stuff BTW - rear brakes are for losers :-)
They're handy for maneouvering in the pits garages at Donnington in the
wet (esp when you have a 5000rpm idle speed ;-)
Trevor Dennis
Elvis Presley <el...@cerfyrl.qrzba.pb.hx> said
>Well, I'm no physicist, but I know that countersteering the front wheel
><on a chain or belt driven machine> capsizes the wheel, and thusly the
>bike, and I am told that this is a gyroscopic effect.
I hope that's a troll.
Peter Rodgers
In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.971028...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>, Peter Harding <har...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, Elvis Presley wrote:
>
>> Given that the rear wheel spinning is giving you
>> the majority of your bikes stability
>
>I wonder about that. Bicycles stand up because the rider constantly and on
>the whole unknowingly adjusts where the weight goes all the time. Sure,
>there's a helluva lot more angular momentum in a bike back wheel, but I
>wonder which one does the most to keep it all upright?
>
>I'm tempted to guess that a bike gets "stability" from the way its design
>channels the rider-weight adjustment to where it's needed.
>
I think that under braking (which was what Elvis was talking about)
the gyroscopic effects of a spinning rear wheel keeps the rear of the bike
in line with the front. When you lock up the back wheel there is nothing
stopping it stepping out to the side. This is caused by the back of the bike
trying to overtake the front so twisting the bike. This is a bad thing,
particularly when you eventually release the back brake and the bike tries
to come into line again (at extremis I guess it could cause a straight line
highside). Ive experienced the stepping out effect on a rear lock up many
times. If you release the rear brake quickly, then the back end returns
behind the front.
The business of keeping upright when just toddling along the road is
some bizarre combination of gyroscopics, weight shift and steering input.
Ive never heard a convincing explaination of how a rider stays upright.
Pete
Perry Leo
Neal Champion wrote:
>
>
> No I'm with Elvis here - you're revs shouldn't be below 5 grand
> anywhere on the track (unless you're riding a Manx Norton or similar
> :-) , so a five grand idle is fine.
>
The revs won't be any lower because they're being driven by the back
wheel (on a trailing throttle). But instead of the engine producing
zero bhp with no idle it will be producing a few bhps which will be
pushing the back wheel against the brake thereby reducing braking effect
at the back.
I accept Elvis's premise that if the rear wheel is not on the ground it
doesn't matter and can see other advantages as well(such as faster
engine pick up on the way out). I've just not heard anyone else doing
the same - the GP two-strokes don't appear to idle at all.
--
Perry
Elvis Presley
In article <wThqwoAfe5V0EwW$@tdennis.demon.co.uk>, Trevor Dennis
<tre...@tdennis.demon.co.uk> writes
>Elvis Presley <el...@cerfyrl.qrzba.pb.hx> said
>
>>Well, I'm no physicist, but I know that countersteering the front wheel
>><on a chain or belt driven machine> capsizes the wheel, and thusly the
>>bike, and I am told that this is a gyroscopic effect.
>
>I hope that's a troll.
>
Trev, you and I both know that shafties don't countersteer. Your
pathetic attempt to try to re-open the "debate" on this issue frankly
sickens me.
Fuckwit!
Neal Champion
Perry Leo <le...@boat.bt.com> did tap out :
>Perry Leo wrote:
>>
>> >
>
>I meant to say: when you SHUT the throttle and brake hard the engine
>breaking on the rear wheel will be lost and instead it will be helping
>you along. How long do your back brake pads last?
>
>When I raced I did the opposite and turned the idle off to get max
>braking effect.
No I'm with Elvis here - you're revs shouldn't be below 5 grand
anywhere on the track (unless you're riding a Manx Norton or similar
:-) , so a five grand idle is fine.
Champ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kawasaki ZZR1100, Marin Rocky Ridge, Burton SuperModel 68, Jackson Soloist
...but surely I'm more than a list of consumer durables!
Vanity Publishing at www.nchamp.demon.co.uk BOF#2 (ass.)
Trevor Dennis
Elvis Presley <el...@cerfyrl.qrzba.pb.hx> said
>Fuckwit!
I have a feeling we're gonna see that word rather a lot around here. :(
andy the pugh
Peter Rodgers <pet...@xdcs.xac.xuk> wrote:
> The business of keeping upright when just toddling along the road is
> some bizarre combination of gyroscopics, weight shift and steering input.
> Ive never heard a convincing explaination of how a rider stays upright.
You know how you balance a broom handle on the palm of your hand? Like
that, you continually steer the contact point under your centre of
gravity. To start walking with a balanced broom you pull your hand back,
let the broom start to fall, then follow it. This is countersteering.
There are other factors, the steering geometry makes a lot of it happen
automatically, and gyroscopics play a minor role, enough to steer a bit
when wheelying, but nothing like as quickly as with the tyre on the
ground.
--
ap
Trevor Dennis
andy the pugh <a.c....@shef.ac.uk> said
>Elvis Presley <el...@cerfyrl.qrzba.pb.hx> wrote:
>
>> Well, I'm no physicist, but I know that countersteering the front wheel
>> <on a chain or belt driven machine> capsizes the wheel, and thusly the
>> bike, and I am told that this is a gyroscopic effect.
>
>engineer.
You called.
>Someone once told me that gyroscopic effects in motorcycle dynmics were
>largely irrelevant.
My feeling is that the gyroscopic influence on counter steering is
largely disproved by the fact that the faster you go, the less it
happens.
Peter Rodgers
In article <19971030220...@ra201017.shef.ac.uk>, a.c....@shef.ac.uk (andy the pugh) writes:
>Peter Rodgers <pet...@xdcs.xac.xuk> wrote:
>
>You know how you balance a broom handle on the palm of your hand? Like
>that, you continually steer the contact point under your centre of
>gravity. To start walking with a balanced broom you pull your hand back,
>let the broom start to fall, then follow it. This is countersteering.
>
OK. The buisness of walking with a broomhandle on your palm is a pretty
convincing analogy.
I think youve misnamed it countersteering tho, although you could use
countersteering to keep you upright.
Pete
Andy Woodward
\Agree about all the other stuff BTW - rear brakes are for losers :-)
....like that Doohan wimp?
Andy Woodward
>Someone once told me that gyroscopic effects in motorcycle dynmics were
>largely irrelevant.
>Seeing as how he is professor of vehicle dynamics, with a special
>interest in motorcycles I have determined to share his viewpoint until
>persuaded otherwise.
But Keith Code says its very important.......
Elvis Presley
In article <HFcHlnAl...@tdennis.demon.co.uk>, Trevor Dennis
<tre...@tdennis.demon.co.uk> writes
>My feeling is that the gyroscopic influence on counter steering is
>largely disproved by the fact that the faster you go, the less it
>happens.
??????? At high speeds you turn the bars INTO the corner??? IME, it
still happens - it just takes more effort to capsize the front wheel the
faster it is spinning. (ie the faster it spins, the more stable it is.)
Trevor Dennis
Simon Atkinson <Si...@raunds.demon.co.uk> said
>He meant one who trained in mechanics. Not one powered by clockwork.
I'd ask you to stop blubbering, but I spose you've got plenty to spare.
Trevor Dennis
Simon Atkinson <Si...@raunds.demon.co.uk> said
>How was THE DO????????
>
>BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You're asking for cork in the blow hole matey.
uk
On Sun, 2 Nov 1997 13:43:42 +0000, steve harrison
<st...@harriet.demon.co.ukbogoff> wrote:
>For reasons best known to themselves <345184...@xxvirgin.net>, Dave
>Hodgkisson <dave.hod...@xxvirgin.net> writes
>>Has anyone had any bad experiences using the combined braking system on
>>the CBR1100XX Super Blackbird under extreme conditions?
>
>The whole idea scares me.
SNIP
>The whole point of having separate brakes is to be able to chose which
>brake and how much braking is used. If your going to link them you may
>as well only have one brake lever/peddle.
This one peddle idea is daft.....that means the only thing your right hand
has to do is operate the throttle, oh yeah and help with the steering and
balancing and turn the lights on and off, oh and maybe operate the "KILL"
switch.
It could be worse, Honda could have made the CBR 2 wheel drive. A daunting
prospect to say the least.
>
>Does *anyone* out there think linked brakes are a good idea?
YES, Moto Guzzi do, they've been fitting linked brakes for
years......Stupid Bastards.
Fight the Spam - replace the "more_spam"
in my address with "Grafix" to e-mail me.
Sean
(Just remember, if you can't see me for looking
then you're searching too hard)
tow....@gmail.com
any suggestions?
SteveL
> Hello" I just changed front pads on my 97' 1100xx when I apply rear brake it seems both front&rear are sticking
>
> any suggestions?
Look at the date of the posts you are replying to.
17 fucking years ago.
That's special that is.
Steve
TMack
and the one from tow....@gmail.com that you are responding to. This is
still the same when viewed using a completely different news server.
However, Google Groups has 26 posts in a thread that starts with an
article by Dave Hodgkisson shown as posted on April 19th when viewed in
the initial header list - BUT dated 24/10/1997 when the header is clicked
on to show the thread.
The post by tow....@gmail.com doesn't seem to be a direct response to
anything, which means that he may have posted a simple question about his
brakes that subsequently got entangled with other, much earlier stuff in
GG. If this is the case he's going to be baffled by your reply. OTOH, if
he used GG to access ukrm he can be forgiven for not checking dates when
the thread was shown as started on 19/04/14
--
Tony
'09 FJR1300, '87 TW200,
89 TW200, '07 Street Triple OMF#24
Paul Carmichael
--
Paul.
CBR1100XX SuperBlackbird (Buen mueble de patio), Orbea Dakar, Legs
BOTAFOT #4 BOTAFOF #30 MRO #24 OMF #15 UKRMMA #30
http://paulc.es/
c...@post.netunix.com
> SteveL wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 19 April 2014 22:23:33 UTC+1, tow....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Hello" I just changed front pads on my 97' 1100xx when I apply rear brake
>>> it seems both front&rear are sticking
>>>
>>> any suggestions?
>>
>> Yes.
>> Look at the date of the posts you are replying to.
>> 17 fucking years ago.
>> That's special that is.
>
> Erm, what are you talking about?
<yawn>
The Older Gentleman
> Look at the date of the posts you are replying to.
> 17 fucking years ago.
> That's special that is.
--
Honda CB400 Four CB250 CB125S CG125 Triumph Street Triple
Guzzi California Yamaha 660 Tenere Suzuki TS250ER x3
More garages needed....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
Eiron
(which is doubtful as it would have rusted away by now), and posed the
question
today rather than 17 years ago via a Google timewarp.
And here's the answer:
http://www.jaws-motorcycles.co.uk/bird2.htm#link
--
Eiron.
Paul Carmichael
> But it's still a valid question, assuming Two Dicks actually has a '97
> Honda (which is doubtful as it would have rusted away by now)
zymur...@googlemail.com
> Eiron wrote:
>
>
>
> > But it's still a valid question, assuming Two Dicks actually has a '97
>
> > Honda (which is doubtful as it would have rusted away by now)
>
> I have a '98 Blackbird that still looks new.
I have a 2000 Blackbird that looks decidedly secondhand ..
Paul.