FYI: Radial vs. conventional master cylinders: BUSTED

So I took the time to put together this little document. It's pretty simple. I will entertain any mathematically based counterpoints. Enjoy.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfjcvtc2_55gf78bvhp

I've always argued with you about this topic, but I was aware of the physics behind it and that your calculations are correct. However I definitely feel a mechanical advantage to my radial MC setup. You mention that radial MC's were designed to occupy less space, but since when was handle bar space an issue with race bikes that only need a kill switch? I don't have a stock SV MC on me, but are you sure that the "space" isn't used in the radial mount to increase the lever length and provide mech advantage? Your assumption is that the lever arm lengths are equal for both MC designs. Also, are you sure that the radius around the pivot is constant for the radial mount?

Yeah, the numbers and diagrams look very nice and presentable, but have we actually spent time out on the road with these two different types of master cylinders on the same bike?
I have, and even with a radial master cylinder that supposedly didn't have any difference in piston bore and should have worked no better than the stock SV master cylinder (according to information I was given by somebody else), my front brakes worked mucho better.
If it didn't, I'd have taken it right back off and reported as such.

The feeling that I get, too, is that the Nissin radial master cylinder I'm using offers more leverage on the master cylinder piston.
This is visually obvious, too, because the lever pivot and master cylinder piston are very close together while the brake lever is very long.

Human perception being what it is, I'll stick with physics. I don't know what people are feeling, but I do know that the easiest person to fool with subjective sensation is the one who wants to be fooled.

The dimensions are tape measure accurate, I'll admit, because I didn't have my vernier calipers with me when I looked at the Brembo. The charts show that I did not assume lever lengths to be the same (although they are on the two Brembos). Still, the numbers show that there is a bigger difference between the 18X19 and the 20X19 than between either of those and the lowly stock master.

The ratio does change somewhat for a numerically larger pivot to lever ratio as the lever moves. I'll add something about that in a different document and post that. I'll let everyone know. Still, the effect has to do with the lengths of the components, not the arrangement of the bores. It's the relative sizes of the parts that makes the difference, not the arrangement of the bores.

Measure from the end of the stock SV lever to the end of the outlet banjo bolt. Now measure from the end of the Brembo lever to the outer edge of the cylinder. There's a substantial difference there. MotoGP engineers are trying to squeeze parts as far in as possible to get the narrowest bars possible. That's why they were designed, period.

So here's blah, blah, blah in the face of mathematics. You may not like the document but it stands pretty solidly based in physics and math. Show me some numbers that differ and we can talk.

You've got to be clear here though, radial designs offer no mechanical advantage, but there are substantial other reasons to buy different master cylinders. The SV part isn't especially good, the fact that it's axial and therefore uncool is completely irrelevant to this. The reason to upgrade it isn't that it's axial, it's just that it can be bettered.

The inescapable real world advantage of radial m/cs is that these days, if you're going to make a high quality m/c you make a radial, because otherwise it won't sell. There are still top quality axials out there- Beringer, Brembo and AP all make them- but they're niche products and expensive, and harder to find (AP have an exact equivalent to their most popular radial, the axial version costs twice as much. The ISR axial is actually better made than the ISR radial)

I recommend the current R6 master cylinder to people, not because it's a radial but because it's a very nice part, and well suited to the SV. Before, I recommended the RC51 m/c, which was an axial, but also a very nice part- but the R6 one is easier to find used.

So, this isn't a rebuff for Andy's post, he's completely correct, it's just a statement of what he left unsaid- which is that while axial is no worse or better than radial, there are still better and worse master cylinders. And these days, the people making better master cylinders are making them radial. Function can follow form.

If you want a simple comparison- red cars vs beige cars. Red cars aren't automatically faster than beige cars, but that doesn't mean all red cars and beige cars go at the same speed. And of course, people making fast cars don't make them beige, so if you want a fast car you're more likely to get a red one than a beige one.

the sv master is a 16X27?? :o must be a typo, 17 i assume

frankly, i find it funny that andy took the time to do this, we appreciate the effort tho :)

i would question the way you measured the deflection, the deflection to measure would be to the piston in the cyclinder, which would be nearly impossible to check, and the pressure output, really check the pressure coming out, not what it "should be"

i always assumed that the fluid had to turn another corner, maybe it's the old "the SS lines are better" ignoring the 3 year old fluid thing again, and that the calipers mounting would be more effecient, otherwise how can you explain the rotor diameter changing from a 320 to a 300 to a 310, were the 320's just too much and the 300's a little too little??

the R6 unit is just a "tighter" cylinder, the nissin's are a bit "sloppy" and that in its self makes a worthwhile upgrade in my opinion

I've got a question, andy. How many radial setups do you own? That you use everyday? How many have you raced with? Personally, that is.

How many of these setups can you debunk with any more detail than a few geometric figures in a webpage and a few hundred lines of text, from your *own* experience with them? I can follow the math just fine, but you, like the people you criticize, make assumptions about what 'should be'. This places your information no further into the realm of truth than any other person who would support the use of radial masters.

I am a skeptic, and support many skeptic sites on the web. I, like you, find those that don't take into regard the human tendencies to fill in the blanks, subject to scientific scrutiny -- or it's all bull$hit.

However, I have ridden with radial setups, both stock (GSX-R600) and modified setups (2gen SV with R6 radial master and stock calipers, and 1gen SV with stock master and SRAD six-piston calipers), in addition to my own setup prior to Nov '07, the stock 1gen with SS lines and RJL pads.

I also have access to the experiences of several club level racers who have absolutely no political or commercial reason to praise or condemn their equipment other than to comment on how they work. They seem to the polar opposite of what I'm seeing in your post -- they work with this stuff, the consumer, peon stuff, every weekend -- no pie-sky MotoGP stuff.

So I ask these guys, those whose objectivity I respect, did you notice a difference with these masters? How about the radial setup, including calipers?

Curiously counter to your very-scientific, if quite lacking-in-details, 'I'm done' ultimatum... to a man, they all liked the radial masters, whether with the rubbish floating SV calipers, or with radial calipers as well. The guys who raced Lightweight Twins and 600 Supersport both, prefer their radials on the track to the remote-res GSX-R and SV-S setups. They don't spend where things don't work... odd, isn't it?

The only thing I dislike more than those who 'choose to believe' and run from scientific scrutiny, are those that apply science in a half-a$$ed way that have no direct experience to support what they're criticizing, in the environments they were designed for, and therefore cannot know about their subjectivity to begin with.

Unless you race, andy... you have *no* place to debunk, criticize, or much less offer any 'science' to their worth.

I'm done here. :rolleyes:

Measure from the end of the stock SV lever to the end of the outlet banjo bolt. Now measure from the end of the Brembo lever to the outer edge of the cylinder. There's a substantial difference there. MotoGP engineers are trying to squeeze parts as far in as possible to get the narrowest bars possible. That's why they were designed, period.





I understand that the idea of radial system is for a smoother transition of the leverage acction... On your graph of the conventional and radial MC it shows that both levers to be fixed to the pivot point... On the radial MC that is true...

However, on a standard MC the lever is attached 1/2 off the pivot point. Requiring more effort on the transition of the leverage.

Kind off the same way when a rider bends his elbows parallel to the ground, steering inputs are 100% efficient. Because the steering input is radial to the steering head of the bike............... If the same rider locks his arms and wants to do the same steering input. It is now only 50% efficient. Because he has no leverage... He now must move his arms up and down to turn the steering head ho the bike. Does it work? Yes. But with at least 50% more effort.

I think there are two points to measure on the lever... The center of the lever pivot point to where the lever contacts the master cylinder plunger... Less important is the lever length because where does each rider applies the leverage is too variable. Some riders use two fingers, less leverage. Other riders use all four, further away more leverage.

However if we do not have a constant, how can we understand the change? Same goes with lever travel... 50mm of lever travel does not equal 50mm of piston travel. Unless the lever is the exact length as the center of the lever pivot point to where the lever contacts the master cylinder plunger... This is our radius point. Right?

Also in your graph you mention that the SV650 MC has a 16mm bore... And both Brembos MC have 19mm bore. Actually, one is 18mm, the other is 20mm. Which means that a:

16mm bore cylinder will move 16ml of fluid on a 1mm piston stroke, and 160ml of fluid on a 10mm piston stroke.
18mm bore cylinder will move 18ml of fluid on a 1mm piston stroke, and 180ml of fluid on a 10mm piston stroke. That is 12.5% more fulid...
20mm bore cylinder will move 20ml of fluid on a 1mm piston stroke, and 200ml of fluid on a 10mm piston stroke. That is 25% more fluid...In all hydraulic systems more surface area moves more fluid. I just want to understand the theory better... Luis

Brembo 18X19 has a pivot-to-plunger distance of 18mm, bore of 19mm. Brembo 20X19 has a pivot-to-plunger distance of 20mm, bore of 19mm. Deflections were calculated based on a similar angular deflection of the levers. Hydraulics of this size react virtually instantaneously. Twists and turns in very short systems make no difference. These brake systems move very small amounts of fluid at very low speeds.

I'm not arguing anything about quality. What I am saying is that what makes a difference, if there is one, is not the direction of the cylinder bore relative to the lever. Better quality may make the parts move more nicely, but unless there are gross friction issues or leakage you get the same pressure for a given input force. The amount of friction in either system is very, very small.

I searched this fine site, SV masters are apparently 5/8" or 16mm. I measured the pivot to plunger distance. If not, just change the numbers. Better yet, use the same numbers, draw some systems with different arrangements, calculate the numbers, whatever. You will find that the arrangement of the bore in no way makes a difference in "performance" (lever stroke per volume delivered, fluid pressure per lever pressure, etc.).

Rotor diameter is a typical engineering trade-off. Larger diameter rotors provide greater swept area and lower pad pressures, but they are heavier so they add unsprung mass and gyroscopic resistance to quick directional changes. Smaller rotors are lighter but they provide less swept area so require higher clamping forces and are more prone to fade. There is no perfect solution.

What surprises me most is how emotionally some people seem to be taking this. Don't take any of this personally. This is just simple lever math and simple physics. I didn't invent any of it. If the math is wrong show me.

What surprises me most is how emotionally some people seem to be taking this. Don't take any of this personally. This is just simple lever math and simple physics. I didn't invent any of it. If the math is wrong show me.

No, you're right -- you didn't invent any of it. So you're speculating on their use without any firsthand experience -- even in an engineering context.

What's more, you haven't responded to my pointed allegation, that you haven't used what you're talking about. And 'BUSTED'? If you're surprised that you're getting an emotional response to that, you were being coy in the first place.

You're skirting the issue, andy. Indeed you may have all of this engineering experience, all of these elevated contacts, all of this, all of that.

But what you DON'T have, is the experience to say, 'and I've tried this on my own sportbike, where I'd be able to use the difference -- and they're definitely no better'.

Don't hide behind formulas and what 'should be', andy. You don't know what you're talking about. Therefore, I could see Stephen Hawking's notarization on your posts about radials... but you'd have about as much weight on actually using them as he does.

I want to be wrong about this, andy -- you have a wealth of info that's good to share on other topics, and I've been very fair in taking this into consideration when I answer posts of yours that make sense. I could be like any other poster, and let one post emotionally color all responses -- but I don't, and won't.

But here, in this case, you have no leg to stand on. And I'll post as often as possible to remind the board that this is the case. Math put a man on the moon... but it was the astronauts inside and their experience, that brought back Apollo 13.

I guess I'm not done...

Andy, I don't think anyone is disputing your math here. What people are disputing is your attitude as the Mr. Know It All regarding a component that you have no first hand experience with, or very little from your own admittance. I think Northwind's post was dead on regarding axial vs radial and the issue now being that of economics. However, until you have the instruments to validate your calculations you are going to be not taken with full confidence.

Also, Brembo models are referred to as the piston first then lever offset and not vice versa FYI.

"Hiding behind the equations"? There's a concept, concealment by using clarity.

What I intended to demonstrate:
That the arrangement of the bore of a master cylinder relative to the lever has no bearing on the forces, pressures, motion, etc. of a master cylinder. That I have demonstrated.

Because of the math and physics involved you can change the feel and/or performance of a master cylinder by changing the pivot-to-plunger radius, the bore area, the lever length. The arrangement of the bore never enters into any of the equations because it doesn't matter. Take a Brembo conventional 18X19 and a radial Brembo 18X19 and they will act and feel the same.

And yes, I did have the nomenclature backwards on the Brembos because that's the way it was described to me. I'll edit the document appropriately. Doesn't change the math.

Those who seem to have their panties all in a twist over Andy's analysis and post need to stop thumping your chest about your vast "experience" and try reading/thinking before typing for a change. He analyzed the physics of the two types of brake cylinders and showed that neither has an advantage. So, unless someone proves his analysis to be incorrect, if you're "feeling" something different, it's something that isn't there according to physics. Maybe you're "feeling" something because you WANT to or EXPECT to feel something? Sort of like a placebo effect. If he applied the physics correctly, the results don't lie, so instead of attacking someone who used physics to come to a conclusion that doesn't agree with your intuition and you don't want to accept, use physics to prove him wrong.

"Hiding behind the equations"? There's a concept, concealment by using clarity.

And I'll add, clarity by a means that says nothing to anyone who's used them. Again, let's see how you demonstrate how you've "busted" the superiority of radials over axial masters:

What I intended to demonstrate:
That the arrangement of the bore of a master cylinder relative to the lever has no bearing on the forces, pressures, motion, etc. of a master cylinder. That I have demonstrated.

Bull$hit. What you've 'demonstrated' is a few circles meaning something, and a few vectors meaning something, then saying this proves those who like them over axials are imagining things. That something -- have you actually used it? Felt it? Figured out how to get it past another guy trying to feel for it, at a buck in a turn? Please, 'demonstrate' this using your 'clarity'.

Because of the math and physics involved you can change the feel and/or performance of a master cylinder by changing the pivot-to-plunger radius, the bore area, the lever length. Take a Brembo conventional 18X19 and a radial Brembo 18X19 and they will act and feel the same.

There's a trick. Someone who can vouch for feeling, yet has not used a radial master. On his bike, in comparison to axial masters -- or any other kind of brake. That's like saying, 'because of the shape, speed and weight of this bullet, you should feel no pain as it enters and exits your body'. I'm sorry, chief -- but this requires some personal experience to convince me, thanks.

Doesn't change the math.

Nor your ability to convince me in any meaningful measure.

How about this -- when you can connect your math, to real existing components and their dimensions, metallurgy, and positions, with real measurements with dedicated instruments that relate to how they seem to work for thousands of racers throughout the world, separate from any concern about clearing space on the clipons... and perhaps I'll relent. Like I said before, I have *always* relented when you speak sense. I do not when you do not. Please put more effort into your scientific explanation -- it seems to have some big holes in it relating to the real world.

Thanks.

Those who seem to have their panties all in a twist over Andy's analysis and post need to stop thumping your chest about your vast "experience" and try reading/thinking before typing for a change. He analyzed the physics of the two types of brake cylinders and showed that neither has an advantage. So, unless someone proves his analysis to be incorrect, if you're "feeling" something different, it's something that isn't there according to physics. Maybe you're "feeling" something because you WANT to or EXPECT to feel something? Sort of like a placebo effect. If he applied the physics correctly, the results don't lie, so instead of attacking someone who used physics to come to a conclusion that doesn't agree with your intuition and you don't want to accept, use physics to prove him wrong.

jtsailjt, I think *you're* the one with panties in a twist.

This is not physics vs. physics -- that would be silly, since his formulas do balance -- but this has nothing to do with their worth in this context.

Since you seem to have expended about a half hour composing that sour little paragraph, I'll tell you what this is about -- it's his 'physics' trying to prove that radials are no better, vs. my experience and the experiences of many others who were skeptical about radials, finding them in practice to be superior to axials.

So, before chiming in with your little helper post, I'd take your own advice, and know from whence you speak. Are you a racer with a radial setup?

I thought so. Bye...

jtsailjt, I think *you're* the one with panties in a twist.

This is not physics vs. physics -- that would be silly, since his formulas do balance -- but this has nothing to do with their worth in this context.

Since you seem to have expended about a half hour composing that sour little paragraph, I'll tell you what this is about -- it's his 'physics' trying to prove that radials are no better, vs. my experience and the experiences of many others who were skeptical about radials, finding them in practice to be superior to axials.

So, before chiming in with your little helper post, I'd take your own advice, and know from whence you speak. Are you a racer with a radial setup?

I thought so. Bye...

More "I'm a racer and you're not" chest thumping. :rolleyes: THAT really proves something. The point is that brakes are completely subject to physics and if one type of cylinder exerts the same force as another with the same input, then what you "feel" will be exactly the same. The reason other brake system components DO make a difference can be explained by physics (SS lines, for example) or understood even without it, why not radial VS axial cylinders? Since you seem to "feel" (subjectively) there's a difference, instead of calling people names and expecting people to be impressed that apparently you race your bike, why not try to figure out WHY you perceive a difference when he has proven that the same force exerted by your fingers or foot have the same effect on the brake.

I agree with Andy's mathematical theory, it flows X amount of fluid through xxxxxxx. What can't be taken into effect is the same thing that can't be taken into when you build engines, and the like. Sometimes even though the math is perfect the result is not the same. Even when all the numbers line up. It is common practice to put two identical engines with the same specs. and get two different results.

The fact that radials are the same volume over pressure is irrelevant the fact that this design works better is what matters. For whatever fluid principle that makes brakes feel and work better (on a subjective level) in a radial position is what matters. If you don't race or ride extremely sensitively you won't notice a bit of difference. The other thing to question (just to throw this is) most radials' have a bleeder at the MC and most axials only bleed at the wheel. So you may very well have the issue of installer error to add insult to injury.


Andy you are right about wanting to believe because math won't lie, but all in all, general feeling/feedback is where the rubber meets the road and if it feels better and works and costs the same then guess what everyone changes regardless if it is any better. This is somewhat moronical only because if it feels better it is better right? And if it is the smae it isn't better.? I like the write up but come on just go ride.

This has turned into a p*****g match. I never said there was anything wrong with radial master cylinders. I have consistently said that radial and conventional brake master cylinders with the same technical specifications will feel and act the same. That's the truth. I've designed successful braking systems professionally. The physics translate from the page to the hard parts just fine.

Radial brake masters were designed to clear space on MotoGP handlebars so the bars could be narrowed a bit. They can be made a few grams lighter, too. Marketing folks jumped on the "radial" term and made false claims about them as marketing folks are wont to do (premium gasoline, anyone?). That's it, folks. I don't care if you believe me or not.

More "I'm a racer and you're not" chest thumping. :rolleyes: THAT really proves something.

When you can prove to me that your understanding of math can outbrake me into Turn 1? Then you'll have something to bring to the table. If not, then answer me this:

-- How long have you been riding?

-- Have you ridden with a radial setup? If not, how can you quantify my resistance to the original post as 'chest-thumping'?

How well do you know, when you say 'x dimension and geometry should feel the same' There we go with 'should feel' again. I hereby place the both of you in one boat -- the 'lalalalala' boat, since you won't address this and admit you're out of your area of expertise.

What are brake masters' purpose? To teach math? No -- it is one component in a system of components that stop your bike at will.

Why don't I define something that will convince me and end this discussion? Okay... let's agree that those who use these systems in competition, both axial and radial, on the track, are the most familiar with stopping a bike under the most extreme conditions a rider will ever face. They are also the community of brake users that have the most reason to use the better of these systems for their own use. Agreed? If not, I refuse to consider your comments as more than simple, petulant braying -- I'd like to see your definition of anyone more expert in what feel means in action.

So give me the testimonials of those in that community, who prefer axials over radials, and why. Then I can legitimize your stance against my 'chest-thumping'. Otherwise, it's another guy who wants to seem like he knows something, but has no first-hand knowledge of his subject.

Your volley, sailor...

Feeling is quite subjective.

I once spoke to a master suspension tuner that told me a story about riders complaining that his suspension settings "didn't feel right".

He set the suspension to the rider's wishes and sent him out.

When the rider came back in, they looked at the lap times and the original settings recommended by the tuner had lap times that were almost 3 seconds faster.

The bottom line is that it takes physics to create and perfect a design.

It takes a rider's "art" to bring it to that level. ( famous quote from Valentino Rossi that I heartily agree with.)

Please keep this discussion civil and do not let it degenerate to a p*ss*ng contest.

There is room for Win-Win in this discussion if objectivity is strived for. The only time and place for Win-Lose is on the track ... and even then there are points for second, third and ..... places.

You've got to be clear here though, radial designs offer no mechanical advantage, but there are substantial other reasons to buy different master cylinders. The SV part isn't especially good, the fact that it's axial and therefore uncool is completely irrelevant to this. The reason to upgrade it isn't that it's axial, it's just that it can be bettered.

The inescapable real world advantage of radial m/cs is that these days, if you're going to make a high quality m/c you make a radial, because otherwise it won't sell. There are still top quality axials out there- Beringer, Brembo and AP all make them- but they're niche products and expensive, and harder to find (AP have an exact equivalent to their most popular radial, the axial version costs twice as much. The ISR axial is actually better made than the ISR radial)

I recommend the current R6 master cylinder to people, not because it's a radial but because it's a very nice part, and well suited to the SV. Before, I recommended the RC51 m/c, which was an axial, but also a very nice part- but the R6 one is easier to find used.

So, this isn't a rebuff for Andy's post, he's completely correct, it's just a statement of what he left unsaid- which is that while axial is no worse or better than radial, there are still better and worse master cylinders. And these days, the people making better master cylinders are making them radial. Function can follow form.

If you want a simple comparison- red cars vs beige cars. Red cars aren't automatically faster than beige cars, but that doesn't mean all red cars and beige cars go at the same speed. And of course, people making fast cars don't make them beige, so if you want a fast car you're more likely to get a red one than a beige one.

It seems pretty much everybody overlooked (or ignored) a great post. Please check this out again. It makes tons of sense, and probably should be the end of this argument.

i agree with zip, in a way, all the numbers and the uber formulas can explain it in depth, but, lets see some real world numbers, i work with these know it all engineers like andy and joe, we make it to the print, to "their" numbers and it doesn't come out "right", they get all confused, the numbers aren't always perfect

This has turned into a p*****g match. I never said there was anything wrong with radial master cylinders. I have consistently said that radial and conventional brake master cylinders with the same technical specifications will feel and act the same.

How do you know this? Because it should?


I've designed successful braking systems professionally. The physics translate from the page to the hard parts just fine.

Not that you can convince someone who challenges your authorship in a thread full of posts. Even if they aren't BUSTED... why not just self-efface? I'd respect your position much more had that happened. But as it stands, I still have a job to do...

Radial brake masters were designed to clear space on MotoGP handlebars so the bars could be narrowed a bit. They can be made a few grams lighter, too. Marketing folks jumped on the "radial" term and made false claims about them as marketing folks are wont to do (premium gasoline, anyone?). That's it, folks. I don't care if you believe me or not.

Oh, but you do. Or you'd pull the post and repost with a title and content less worthy of my replies.

As far as I see, all you're doing is repeating claims. All I'm doing is repeating my request for verification of those claims. And because you design brake systems, doesn't mean you've used radials on your own bike, does it?

Well, does it?

If you have issue with my retorts, pull the thread. You started this with your BUSTED jab, plain as the nose on your face *on the thread list*, and tried to PM me to backpedal my passionate replies, which have to be read to be absorbed. As far as I'm concerned, you advertised your stance, I'm only responding to you (and the equally uninformed jtsailjt). You can end it all with one click.

Why not change your thread title to "Comparisons of Geometries Between Radial and Axial Masters Using Diagrams", with the caveat 'no claims are made to the actual, in-use superiority of one or the other, I'm just trying to shed some light'. Because that's what you PM'd me with, and it frustrates me even more that at your age and your experience on this forum, you didn't see this coming. Do include 'I have no personal experience using these systems, so a lot of this is speculation on my part'.

THAT, is clarity.

Call it pi$$ing. Call it what you want. Points are made, and valid responses are nil.

--

Radial systems are no less immune to marketing pressures than any showroom system. But the people I've talked to that use various systems can attest to them, if they're chosen for dimensions as carefully as an axial. I've also seen placings between two or more well-matched racers chalk it up to having better feel with a swap to radials, whether Brembo aftermarket or the R6 Brembos vs stock axials they started with.

So if you like radials, don't be thinking it's all in your head. There is a bling issue, make no mistake, and I can't speak for those that can't choose system dimensions competently... but all else being equal, their worth in their designed purpose is known, and definitely used.

Zip, have you ever compared 2 master cylinders, one radial and one axial, with the exact same pivot points, bore, quality of materials and design of piston? I would think not, I'd be surprised if such a thing exists... But if you want to make a real world comparison that can counter the mathematical comparison, really that's what you need. The current brembo radials are among the best m/cs ever made- I was lucky enough to get one off a BSB racer which is their second top of the line- and it's fantastic. But it's got all sorts of design improvements over the older brembo axials, different seals, different brake line mounting points, etc. In other words, there's more than enough to explain the difference in performance without looking at the mounting method

I don't think the original analysis covered lever length? I'd be interested in some comparisons there, I don't have an SV one to compare but I'm fairly sure the R6 lever is a fair bit longer.

Zip, have you ever compared 2 master cylinders, one radial and one axial, with the exact same pivot points, bore, quality of materials and design of piston? I would think not, I'd be surprised if such a thing exists... But if you want to make a real world comparison that can counter the mathematical comparison, really that's what you need. The current brembo radials are among the best m/cs ever made- I was lucky enough to get one off a BSB racer which is their second top of the line- and it's fantastic. But it's got all sorts of design improvements over the older brembo axials, different seals, different brake line mounting points, etc. In other words, there's more than enough to explain the difference in performance without looking at the mounting method

I don't think the original analysis covered lever length? I'd be interested in some comparisons there, I don't have an SV one to compare but I'm fairly sure the R6 lever is a fair bit longer.

Finally, someone who can short-circuit this with a bit of application... (I wonder what Currently runs... conforming, sir!)

That is one factor that can influence performance, definitely -- the quality of seals and attention to friction in moving parts -- otherwise, they wouldn't be there, being such an expensive and high-profile system.

My issue is that, none of the radials I've used, firsthand, properly-setup, were at that level -- they are all consumer systems. As well as the axial systems, all consumer. These have no fancy seals, only whatever the manufacturer paid for to be on the piece. Then they, the variety of radials I've used in several configurations, have no reason to be better than the variety of axials I've used in different configurations. The advantages were not always the same with different apps -- some felt about the same. But some definitely have an advantage -- and I'm not Checa or Vale.

This is why I questioned the mount method. Is it that the direction of force is better for the anatomy of the hand (even as an unexpected benefit unforeseen in the design process)? Is it stiffer or more flexible lever lengths? What is the cause behind what I'm feeling? The inability for the original poster to address this any further, and stonewall me with 'my math decrees no advantage, I don't care what you think, I'm right' frustrates me into repeating with calls to either invalidate with facts/experience, or address my concerns with some explanation. Lack of actual use pretty much negates any meaningful discussion, however.

Thanks for your reply. What I wanted was for a racer to come in and say 'Zip, what're you on about? My mates and I ran axix but changed to rady for a season, and saw no difference. Then we tried radz for a few races, and this happened. So we went back to axix, and found it was aaaa that was the problem -- it has no advantage at bbbb. I can see why you may have felt this in this situation, cccc, but overall, it was a wash/****e'... but this'll do. ;)

Ah, well, there's nothing cool about my MC that the normal forged ones don't have, just slightly tighter tolerances and a quick release lever. I think the seal set is the same as the consumer one.

well as an engineer, I can't leave it at "the radial simply feels better", even though that is exactly what I want to say and what I have felt personally. Even with the poorly bled gsx-r radial I have on my SV right now, I get a mushy feel but still more braking power than I did with a firm stock axial MC. Of course none of this is science, and I agree with Andy that subjectiveness will not hold up in an arguement. SO I will make an attempt to model both systems and get a better look at what is going on here. It will provide more inside than a couple of simple free body diagrams, that could be overlooking something.

Even with the poorly bled gsx-r radial I have on my SV right now, I get a mushy feel but still more braking power than I did with a firm stock axial MC. SO I will make an attempt to model both systems and get a better look at what is going on here. It will provide more inside than a couple of simple free body diagrams, that could be overlooking something.Your time would be better spent bleeding your motorcycles brakes :D

pne, you've got two masters and feel that one is much better for you. You are in a perfect position to see what the mechanical differences are. Measure the pivot-to-plunger distance, the bore, and the distance from the lever pivot to the center of where you hand rests.

Plug those numbers in and report the results for each master.

Output pressure = {(Input Force) * (Lever pivot to center of hand) / (Pivot to plunger distance) / (bore area)} Assume some input force, say 10 Kg.

Output force = same as above without the output pressure

Volume per lever travel = {(Pivot to plunger distance) / (Lever pivot to center of hand) * (Lever movement at center of hand) * (Bore area)} Assume some input lever travel, say 25mm.

Those are two good numbers to look at.

Even with the poorly bled gsx-r radial I have on my SV right now, I get a mushy feel but still more braking power than I did with a firm stock axial MC.

Could be wrong but I think the GSXR one may be 18mm bore.

A work bench with vise, a bunch of master cylinders, a pressure gauge, and a fish scale pulling on the end of the brake levers would be a good winter project. ;D

Marc, that would certainly tell the tale about performance. You can do what you describe with the numbers, they translate very well into the real world.

The raw numbers definitely tell how the part works, but not which one an individual will like. Some folks like the hard pull/less motion feel of a larger bore and/or smaller numerical ratio between the lever length and the pivot-to-plunger length. Some folks like the lighter pull/more motion feel of a smaller bore and/or larger numerical ratio between the lever length and the pivot-to-plunger length.

All the talk about "feel" is usually around those two factors. Different strokes for different folks.

pne, you've got two masters and feel that one is much better for you. You are in a perfect position to see what the mechanical differences are. Measure the pivot-to-plunger distance, the bore, and the distance from the lever pivot to the center of where you hand rests.

Plug those numbers in and report the results for each master.

Output pressure = {(Input Force) * (Lever pivot to center of hand) / (Pivot to plunger distance) / (bore area)} Assume some input force, say 10 Kg.

Output force = same as above without the output pressure

Volume per lever travel = {(Pivot to plunger distance) / (Lever pivot to center of hand) * (Lever movement at center of hand) * (Bore area)} Assume some input lever travel, say 25mm.

Those are two good numbers to look at.
I would love to help, but of the two SV masters I have, one is shattered and the other one has a broken lever. If someone would volunteer to send me a brake lever, I'd be happy to make some measurements.

I can tell you that comparing the stock master cylinder to the Nissin radial from a 2007 GSX-R600 that I'm now using, the stock master cylinder has a longer distance from center of lever pivot to point of contact on the piston, as well as a shorter distance from lever pivot center to where my finger grabs the brake lever.

The measurements for the Nissin radial are less from lever pivot bolt to piston rod and more (by quite a bit) from lever pivot bolt to where my finger pulls on the brake lever.

To me, it's just a case of having considerably more leverage on the master cylinder piston, something I'd visually noticed before I even installed the radial master cylinder, something I attributed the stronger feel of the front brakes to after I did install it, and was always the reason I felt that this type of master cylinder worked better.
In fact, could this be one of the reasons why the parts are jumbled-up in the manner they are with radial master cylinders?
Maybe it's a way of getting more leverage with this "shortage of real estate" up at the handlebar.
Eh?

Translation: There's no way the stock master cylinder will perform like the one I'm using now.
What's the big deal?
In fact, I don't really understand why this kind of Mythbusters stuff has to brought up (unless we're simply bored :) ) because the difference in these measurements are quite obvious to anybody who looks at one.

In that case I would guarantee that the radial has a larger bore than the stock. It would be interesting to know what the various dimensions are.

With a long lever and a short pivot-to-plunger distance the stroke length at the lever would be very long if the bore were the same size as the stock master. Sort of like putting a master designed for small 4 pot calipers on a setup with big 6 pot calipers.

Yes, it is a bigger bore: 5/8".
Now what? :D

The dimensions of the new master could explain the difference in braking feel without considering bore arrangement. Take a look at the formulas in that document and see how the two compare numerically, and see if that matches your subjective feel. Note that nowhere in the formulas is there anything about bore arrangement.

Simple experiment, no? BTW, if you measured the stock bore would you please post it? I keep hearing different numbers, and I'm not going to take mine apart. Good riding weather.

Hold on.
I have that backwards.

The stock master cylinder is 5/8".
The one I'm using now is 3/4".

Mty head hurts can't we all get along.

Lets agree that the brakes we have today are far better than drum brakes.

So in the end Axial, and radial MC's are great maybe ones a little better than another.

Maybe one guy likes Fat chicks and another guy likes Brunettes but ultimately scoring the won is what really counts. the whole which one is better, is subjective enough to leave it at that. You like one I like another, are either of us wrong. Leave it to preference and give it a rest all you would be racer, tech, engineers.

Hold on.
I have that backwards.

The stock master cylinder is 5/8".
The one I'm using now is 3/4".

Our bikes are Metric.... We should not convert measurements to SAE...

5/8 is close but not quite 16mm
3/4 is close but not quite 19mm

Luis :p


PS The thing that makes this imposible to compare is that the systems are too different...

Different bore / piston sizes... Different tolerances... Different pivot to plunger distances of leverage.. Calipers with 2 pistons over radials with 4 pistons...

Is no wonder why GSXR brake system is far superior over Stock SV brake system...

Now, if you install a 19mm Radial Master Cylinder on a Stock SV Calipers... ;D Just be carefull.... The 19mm piston will move a lot more fliud creating less lever movement or more fluid pressure...

Some one would like to try this? :D

PS The thing that makes this imposible to compare is that the systems are too different...

Different bore / piston sizes... Different tolerances... Different pivot to plunger distances of leverage.. And that is what ziptech is missing. "Yo man, those radials are the f*ck, axials stink" without considering that he compares different designs with different mechanical dimensions.
And to prevent any "how long have you been riding and where´s your racing license" questions: I have owned both, I had an SV master on GSX-R calipers and now have an R6 radial master which works better with the *non-SV* calipers for which it was designed - big surprise, eh?
The SV master with the ´95 GSX-R calipers on the bike of my wife works quite well, actually, which is also no surprise since the GSX-R masters of these days were more or less all of the 5/8" (or 16 mm) type.

Northwinds posts sum it up nicely, I´d like to add.

Ciao
Jan

......which works better with the *non-SV* calipers for which it was designed - big surprise, eh?
The SV master with the ´95 GSX-R calipers on the bike of my wife works quite well, actually, which is also no surprise since the GSX-R masters of these days were more or less all of the 5/8" (or 16 mm) type.

Northwinds posts sum it up nicely, I´d like to add.

Ciao
Jan

I'm perfectly happy with the stock brakes on my SV and wonder how you can ascertain that changing the master and calipers works "better?" Do you mean work better than a mix/match combo might, or just better overall? It seems to me that just a little more than a light squeeze on the front brake lever and I'm stopping so fast I can barely hang on and avoid going over the handlebars. How much "better" can brakes get? If braking gets any better, I'll need to strap myself on! I can understand how SS lines will provide a more linear transfer of hand on brake lever pressure to the brakes due to them not expanding in demanding circumstances like max braking, but how much stopping distance can be gained by these other upgrades we're talking about here? My bike is an ABS model so it seems to me that it would be especially hard to improve much by changing parts, given that with ABS you can just SQUEEZE and immediately get max braking (and before we get bombarded with ziptech's version, I'll stipulate that of course a racer like him can easily beat ABS braking on his worst day with both eyes closed).

So, my question is, in how many less feet can a competent rider (ABS and non ABS) expect to get from 90mph to 0mph by changing out various parts in the SV braking system? Does anyone have any good estimates or educated guesses?

Now, if you install a 19mm Radial Master Cylinder on a Stock SV Calipers... ;D Just be carefull.... The 19mm piston will move a lot more fliud creating less lever movement or more fluid pressure...

Some one would like to try this? :D

I've done it. Brembo 19x18 with steel lines and stock calipers with Vesrah RJL pads. It was beautiful. I'm a fan of very little lever movement. When I switched to the GSXR brakes (4-pot calipers with Vesrah RJL pads), I was glad I also switched to the Brembo 19RCS so I could use the 19x20 ratio, as in the end I had more lever movement than I was accustomed to.

Given that ya'll went mathematical with this thread, let me be a bit of a statistical geek.
The comparison you're trying to make has a so-called "omitted variable" problem. Radials may well be better (which I don't know and it's not relevant for my point), but not necessarily so because of the radial layout. There surely are tons of other variables that affect the overall performance, and many are very likely to be different for radial MCs because, say, manufacturers think radials are cool (or better suited for racing, due to space arrangements), and spend more time and better materials in building them. In a way, I'm restating North's point.
Bottom line is that Andy's right in deriving his conclusions given is assumptions, and Zip may well be right because users obviously take into account many things that Andy omits.
It's like comparing apples to oranges, really. Zip's may easily be right, but that doesn't make Andy's point any weaker.
IF they've got exactly the same performance, and a computer error means that non-radials are shipped with pi$$ as a break fluid, sure radials will be better, but not simply because of the layout.

I'm perfectly happy with the stock brakes on my SV and wonder how you can ascertain that changing the master and calipers works "better?" Do you mean work better than a mix/match combo might,The R6 master works better than the SV master on the GSX-R calipers. Better as in: less force required for equal stopping power - this in return makes fine-control easier which of course adds to the "feel".

or just better overall? It seems to me that just a little more than a light squeeze on the front brake lever and I'm stopping so fast I can barely hang on and avoid going over the handlebars.Check your posture while braking. This can improve the overall braking performance a lot - some mag tests showed that the main time difference on the track between hobbyists and semi-pros was made while braking - on identical machines. Of course the pros were also faster in cornering, but the difference was not as much as in braking.

I can understand how SS lines will provide a more linear transfer of hand on brake lever pressure to the brakes due to them not expanding in demanding circumstances like max braking,This effect is virtually negligible, at least if the brake lines on your bike are less than 10 years old. :)

but how much stopping distance can be gained by these other upgrades we're talking about here?From the pure technically standpoint and for street use: next to nothing. You can easily lock the front tire with the SV brakes. BUT: approaching the limits is easier with better control, see above. So the advantage doesn´t come from the increased stopping power, but the better ability the rider has to control it (and increased "free attention capacity").

So, my question is, in how many less feet can a competent rider (ABS and non ABS) expect to get from 90mph to 0mph by changing out various parts in the SV braking system? Does anyone have any good estimates or educated guesses?I don´t know. But be assured that the ABS brake on your SV is totally adequate for street riding.

Ciao
Jan

The R6 master works better than the SV master on the GSX-R calipers. Better as in: less force required for equal stopping power - this in return makes fine-control easier which of course adds to the "feel".


From the pure technically standpoint and for street use: next to nothing. You can easily lock the front tire with the SV brakes. BUT: approaching the limits is easier with better control, see above. So the advantage doesn´t come from the increased stopping power, but the better ability the rider has to control it (and increased "free attention capacity").

I don´t know. But be assured that the ABS brake on your SV is totally adequate for street riding.

Ciao
Jan

Your first statement is what has me wondering, because if it requires LESS force for a given amount of stopping power, then doesn't that mean you have a smaller range to modulate, resulting in LESS feel? Wouldn't a larger range (within reason) from min braking to fully locked up result in an easier time to quickly find a particular amount of brake application and thus a better "feel?" Just trying to understand the terminology.

I know what you mean about the ability to lock up the front wheel, but I cannot lock the front wheel on my SV because I have ABS, and that's one of the reasons that got me wondering how any of these "improvements" can help an ABS bike in particular.

Yeah, as I mentioned in my last post, I'm not a bit worried about the stock braking, just trying to understand what effect, if any, changing all these parts could have. After all, there MUST be a reason people go to all the trouble of spending money to replace perfectly good brake parts on their bikes. Are these changes only pertinent to non ABS bikes and if so, why not just retrofit with ABS if you want better braking? To me, about the biggest advantage of ABS in a panic stop situation is that you don't have to waste critical microseconds as you attempt to "guestimate" where that fine line is between max braking and fully locked up. Pro's who have been briefed in advance and are therefore expecting to brake and are intimately familiar with a uniform and predictable track surface can quickly and accurately nail that critical "guestimate" and beat ABS stopping distances, but it seems to me that even a pro out on a road where he cannot always be familiar with the exact characteristics of the road surface, would benefit more from ABS than by changing out any other part of his braking system. And for the rest of us who are not professional riders, it's not even close.

So I took the time to put together this little document. It's pretty simple. I will entertain any mathematically based counterpoints. Enjoy.



Something that might explain everyone’s "feel" statements with the Radial MC is that you didn't take 3 dimensions into account.

If you have any vertical deflection at the contact with the cylinder with a Conventional MC that motion has to be passed through the pivot an down to the leaver, thus creating an effective twisting force between the applied force and the contact point.
If there is any vertical deflection at the contact with the cylinder with a radial MC it will be in line with the leaver and not going to feel as sloppy.

Just my $0.02
(Disclaimer: as an Elec Eng I don't deal in this real world stuff.)

Here comes the truly subjective part of the braking topic. What is "better feel"? It's all relative.

Some folks prefer a relatively hard lever effort with relatively less lever movement. They are more comfortable modulating with grip effort.

Some folks prefer a relatively easy lever with relatively more lever movement. They are more comfortable modulating with lever position.

There is no right answer. It's easy to make changes in the direction you want because the systems react the same every time to the same changes. If you feel your lever is too stiff and you have to grip too hard to get the braking you want you can try a master with a smaller bore and/or a shorter pivot-to-plunger distance. If you feel your lever moves too much and doesn't provide the grip feedback you want then go to a larger bore and/or a longer pivot-to-plunger distance. This approach works all the time.

What if you want both more effort and longer travel? Now you have to redesign the entire system.

Going back to numbers, a 3/4" bore has 44% more area than a 5/8" bore. To get a sense of what each would feel like you need the pivot-to-plunger distance of each, and the distance from the pivot to where your hand would rest. The formulas are in the originally attached document.

Some folks prefer a relatively hard lever effort with relatively less lever movement. They are more comfortable modulating with grip effort.

Some folks prefer a relatively easy lever with relatively more lever movement. They are more comfortable modulating with lever position.




+1 Exactly what I found when debating the switch to a 19x18 vs 19x20 lever ration. I (and many others) prefer to modulate by the amount of force required to increase brake pressure, while many others prefer to modulate by brake lever travel. 6 of one, half dozen of the other--its all about what you personally prefer.

Are these changes only pertinent to non ABS bikes and if so, why not just retrofit with ABS if you want better braking?
because adding an ABS system is a lot of work and money, because a lot of us track our bikes, and because electronics are more prone to failure than a simple hydraulic setup.

I could add to pne's comments that ABS does not provide "better braking". What it does is prevent wheel lockup, a completely different topic.

I really like ABS for what it does, but it's a "safety net" for extreme conditions/circumstances.

I'm perfectly happy with the stock brakes on my SV and wonder how you can ascertain that changing the master and calipers works "better?" Do you mean work better than a mix/match combo might, or just better overall? It seems to me that just a little more than a light squeeze on the front brake lever and I'm stopping so fast I can barely hang on and avoid going over the handlebars. How much "better" can brakes get? If braking gets any better, I'll need to strap myself on! I can understand how SS lines will provide a more linear transfer of hand on brake lever pressure to the brakes due to them not expanding in demanding circumstances like max braking, but how much stopping distance can be gained by these other upgrades we're talking about here? My bike is an ABS model so it seems to me that it would be especially hard to improve much by changing parts, given that with ABS you can just SQUEEZE and immediately get max braking (and before we get bombarded with ziptech's version, I'll stipulate that of course a racer like him can easily beat ABS braking on his worst day with both eyes closed).

So, my question is, in how many less feet can a competent rider (ABS and non ABS) expect to get from 90mph to 0mph by changing out various parts in the SV braking system? Does anyone have any good estimates or educated guesses?


This is going to be my last post on this matter.

I'm amused by jtsailjt's comment about 'how much better can brakes be', simply because they can put him over the handlebars. An expert opinion... drums with no shoe material can also do the same thing, sailor, but I wouldn't ride or race with them. Therefore you can assume he, as well as the ever-sanctimonious andyauger, does not have any experience with why you have to have more feel when using them harder than a street rider will ever have to -- even with the SV's marginal calipers and axial master. This is what a radial gives you, and this is not accounted for in the hallowed technical scribbles.

--

Folks, the passion you are seeing to the claims made on the original and subsequent posts are as such:

-- andy made the mistake of *advertising* a claim of no difference in the way radial and axial masters 'should work', based on a couple of assumptions and some oversimplified drawings. "BUSTED" is free for all lurkers to see on the forum's front page, and judging by the view count, it worked -- much to my disapproval, as it conveys the absolute wrong message. Assuming all is the same, he says, there should be no difference in how they work. I had to counter. Hard.

-- My reply was, but in practice they do work better. I know, I've used quite a few radial systems, on SVs as well as the GSX-R600, plus a few axial systems, like the 1gen and 2gen R6, the stock naked 1gen master, the stock GSX-R-based SV-S master, on a few caliper and line combinations. I've ridden a few trackbikes... so my experience is more than adequate to oppose theory, especially as presented.

-- auger's oh-so-comprehensive drawings only take direction of force exerted on the piston into account, which he's repeatedly lobbied. What if... just imagine... that FEEDBACK from the caliper pistons pushing back and being felt at the lever, has something to do with being able to keep the front wheel on the point of lockup and/or control, not just force transferred? What if, since your fingers are pulling back towards the bar, that a brake piston that pushes in exactly the opposite direction (a radial master in definition)... is easier to feel, than the same force having to depend on the pivoting 90 degrees relative to the master, to transmit it? Can that be why many who've ever used them, especially in competition, claim to be able to brake with more confidence? NOT explained in the drawings, nor his extrapolations.

-- What really set me off, was a dismissal of my experience on the track, with a few high school bits of math in Paint, just because he claims to have 'designed' systems. These lines and arrows, negate what you know, because my presentation of Not-Auger's-Math is sound. Bull$hit!

--

andyauger, I say with complete confidence, you've never used these systems on a motorcycle you've ridden. You've never competed with anyone for a place on the track at speed with both systems, and you therefore cannot claim to understand and have a say on why bore arrangement has nothing to with any advantage. Because it's the unchallenged truth, according to your own refusal to address it.

I say the arrangement has a definite advantage. If he wants me to produce a mathematical response, first he needs to admit his own drawings oversimplify the issue far more than what's needed to solidify his stance. THEN we can draw -- not a moment before.

My allegations:

-- auger has no real-world experience to back up his math. I can use E=mc^2 to explain bore arrangement, the math is sound... but it equally has no bearing on BUSTing anything. He proclaims 'show me' why he's wrong, but he has yet to 'show me' any proof in use. So he not only lacks any weight there, but I no longer have any respect for him as a technician as well. Show me, by DOING it and producing a rebuttal. Or go back to your sketches, and try again.

-- The math is oversimplified, and is no ultimatum on the actual components' worth in themselves. Show ME, math related to actual components, with faithful drawings of their actual dimensions, and all the rest of the math involved in what the componentry on radial masters actually do, as well as for axials. Maybe then we can discuss something in a context you seem to prefer over experience using them.

--

This is again, my last post on the matter before the above conditions are met. Address my points first, auger... and stop PMing me when you want to continue your diversionary-tactic pi$$ing offline. Take your fight into the open, where the world can judge. As it stands, I don't take your original claims, explanations, or rebuttals any further than five seconds -- and four of them are gone.


BTW... I've done no swearing, and no threatening in any of my posts -- only passionate and pointed challenge. If the mods shut me down because of my tone, I'll have to follow the Zoran path of no-confidence -- passionate and pointed is not insubordination simply for being. And I'll definitely advertise as much truth about it as auger is still allowed in his BUSTED thread title.


Thanks, see you all on the board.

because adding an ABS system is a lot of work and money, because a lot of us track our bikes, and because electronics are more prone to failure than a simple hydraulic setup.It seems to me that all these other changes are quite a lot of work and money too and ABS makes a real difference, whereas there seems to be a lot of disagreement about how much all these other things really help. ABS brakes are reliable enough for every airliner and fighter jet and car that's been produced in the last 20 or so years. And in the EXTREMELY rare case where it fails, you're left with the same brakes you had before you added it. Besides, who's really to say that electrical components/connections are any less reliable than hydraulic components/connections are. I'm not going to debate that point but it's certainly nothing I would take as a given.
I could add to pne's comments that ABS does not provide "better braking". What it does is prevent wheel lockup, a completely different topic.

I really like ABS for what it does, but it's a "safety net" for extreme conditions/circumstances. Well that kind of depends on how you define "better braking." I would say that removing the fear (and we all SHOULD fear this!) of locking up your wheels when you can least afford to would allow you to accomplish better braking, than if you know you have to stay away from that ever moving line of where your wheels lock up and you (most likely) go down. Aren't "extreme conditions/circumstances" the very reason we need good brakes? After all, if it's just a garden variety stop you're talking about, pretty much any old brakes will do.

This is going to be my last post on this matter.

This is again, my last post on the matter before the above conditions are met.

Maybe it's the echo in here but I seem to remember reading this sort of thing from you before, before, before...;)

Ziptech, you're wrong about many things. I'm not disputing what you feel at the bars, I'm disputing that the key factor is the arrangement of the bar. So I'm putting together another little page or two examining in detail what happens when you pull the lever. I'll start a new thread with both papers attached. Let's see if there is any technical difference that pops up.

I already know the answer, having worked on these things for a long time. Still, I'll do the paper and see what we see.

so, even if they do react the same (on paper) , if the radial is a larger bore there is a benefit to upgrading to one over the normal axial master

the jimdaddy, I never said that changing bore diameter, pivot-to-plunger distance, or pivot to hand placement position didn't change the way a master cylinder felt and functioned. All those items can make a big difference. Take a look at my post at the end of page 6.

The orientation of the bore relative to the hand lever does not change the performance or feel of the master.

The orientation of the bore relative to the hand lever does not change the performance or feel of the master.

I don't get the feeling that anybody is desputing this, and if this were point of this thread, I doubt that it would have gotten this far (because it would be kinda' like posting a thread supplying data that's supposed to prove how round wheels roll better than octagonal ones).
In other words:
I think we understand that part.

What's feeding the debate here as far as I can tell is that the vibe I am getting is, basically, Andyauger personally feels swapping master cylinders (and brake calipers) on an SV-650 for more modern day parts (that do a mucho better job of stopping the bike with far less effort and better control while doing it - period) is silly, unnecessary, and a waste of time and money, and maybe even a hit of why-don't-you-slow-it-the-heck-down-if-you're-really-riding-on-the-street-that-fast-cowboy. :D
Basically, people like me think the brakes were poor and wanted something much better (and a master cylinder with more leverage was part of that), while he seems to strongly disagree with the idea of even thinking of such things.

Sure, I could be wrong about his feelings on this, but that's exactly how I percieve this whole issue, which started way back in threads brought up about improving the weak (my own opinion, now :D ) front brakes on the SV-650 models, where his replies basically said, "You don't need stronger front brakes".

LOL, that "no more posts" pledge lasted less than one afternoon. I KNEW it was too good to be true!

What I said was, "This is my last post on this matter."

"On this matter", means, on the matters of this thread you're posting to, Short Bus.

If you want to extend your heartfelt wish that this actually means something different to you, I'll let you do so. But you'd be wrong -- like every other time I've embarrassed you.

More? Please do. When you think you have a clue about how brakes work, also feel free to contribute your vast pool of non-knowledge. I need to feel that I'm contributing to the community by helping the handicapped.;D

YZetc, no, that's not what I'm saying at all. I do think that most of the problems that people have with SV brakes are due to inadequate maintenance (old fluid, glazed pads and rotors, dirty pistons, etc.). My thinking is that you get the system running correctly and then decide if you want to change stuff out.

If you do, what do you change out? Well, you need to understand the effects of different changes. Examples:

- Everything works but you want a firmer lever with less travel? Then you need a master that pumps more per stroke movement. Volume output per lever angle change depends on two factors: master cylinder bore and pivot-to-plunger distance. You could buy a $400 radial master cylinder that won't do what you're looking for.

- Everything works but you want more lever movement to improve modulation? Then you need the reverse of the previous example.

- Everything works but you are racing and find that your brakes are fading and are inadequate to the task? Get ready to change lots of stuff, starting with rotors and pads, working your way through calipers and master until you get what you need.

- Everything works but you've got money and want performance and bling? Then the sky's the limit.

What I'm against is making changes without understanding the ins and outs. Changes to the braking system should be at least calculated before throwing money away.

How to size a master cylinder, as promised.
http://forum.svrider.com/showthread.php?t=84756

Now... I was thinking a little, and is there not an impact with an axial m/c caused by the cam action? Assuming that the part of the lever that actuates the piston is at right angles to the lever, then as the lever is pulled each successive mm will move the piston slightly less will it not? As more of the movement of the lever will be translated into movement across the direction of travel instead of along the direction of travel. Not a big difference, but if my gut feeling is right, by the end of the lever travel about 10% of the movement will be wasted. With the radials I've used, I don't believe the same effect would be as pronounced.

(hmm, I lack the vocabulary to explain this well. Hopefully someone will follow it.)

I might have missed something in this thread where someone already said this, but why don't we just ignore the lever alltogether. Those are replaceable for the most part. Then you have a very basic hydraulic system that is very easily tested to find which produces more force output on your brake caliper. Thats the end goal right? We want to put a specific amount of force on the brake pads in a specific amount of time. With Pascals law (Pressure=Force/Area) you can find your force delivered fairly quickly.

While I have not had any experience with radial MC's, I cannot vouche for the feal. I can DEIFNATLY see how it would be different though. The same force delivered might occur, but the losses in the system could be radically different and change the feal of the system. I don't think that is the point of this thread as proposed by Andy though.

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfjcvtc2_55gf78bvhp

There's the link to the document, now expanded with an analysis of the "cam action".

It's true the levers themselves are replaceable, but the pivot to plunger distance stays the same, and your hand will grip the lever in pretty much the same distance from the pivot, since the positioning of the mounting clamp is pretty much fixed by the throttle/start-stop/starter assembly.

It seems to me that all these other changes are quite a lot of work and money too and ABS makes a real difference, whereas there seems to be a lot of disagreement about how much all these other things really help. ABS brakes are reliable enough for every airliner and fighter jet and car that's been produced in the last 20 or so years. And in the EXTREMELY rare case where it fails, you're left with the same brakes you had before you added it. Besides, who's really to say that electrical components/connections are any less reliable than hydraulic components/connections are. I'm not going to debate that point but it's certainly nothing I would take as a given.
Well that kind of depends on how you define "better braking." I would say that removing the fear (and we all SHOULD fear this!) of locking up your wheels when you can least afford to would allow you to accomplish better braking, than if you know you have to stay away from that ever moving line of where your wheels lock up and you (most likely) go down. Aren't "extreme conditions/circumstances" the very reason we need good brakes? After all, if it's just a garden variety stop you're talking about, pretty much any old brakes will do.



Maybe it's the echo in here but I seem to remember reading this sort of thing from you before, before, before...;)

i would love ABS on a slippery oily surface, but it does not provide better braking than an upgraded system in dry conditions. While it has its pros, ABS cannot do a lot of things. It cannot prevent brake fade, or the feel as your rubber lines expand, or help smoothly transfer weight to the front. While I have not ridden an sv650 with abs, there is no doubt in my mind that it doesn't hold a candle to the brakes off of a late model gixxer. As for locking up the front, you really have to be quite ham fisted to do it in a straight line, or being careless while leaned over. I have locked up the front before and recovered pretty easily.

Plus, even with this ABS feature, you've still got those cheeseball calipers (and master cylinder), so the brakes aren't going to perform any better than the non-ABS model.
If I had bought the ABS version instead of the non-ABS version that I did buy (thank God :D ), after deciding to replace parts (I did the 4-piston caliper swap as well as a burly master cylinder) in order to give the brakes the power I wanted, I'd have a lot of hardware hanging on the bike doing ****-all (nothing).

Myself, I just don't want ABS because I'm not scared of using the front brake and don't lock the front wheel unless I mean to do it, so that means I have no use or need for all of the parts that go along with it.
Some seem to really like the fact that the bike has this feature, so great for them.

There's the link to the document, now expanded with an analysis of the "cam action".


Not to be a Ziptech, but that diagram bears no resemblance to the common brembo radials, you've made the assumption that the radial MC actuates the piston in the exact same manner as a typical axial, which is incorrect. The brembos (and others) utilise a pushrod between lever and piston. Now, I'm not saying that has any significant differences, it may or it may not, but it doesn't work in the way your diagram shows.

Myself, I just don't want ABS because I'm not scared of using the front brake and don't lock the front wheel unless I mean to do it.

Yeah, see, this used to be my attitude, but I changed my mind. You're completely 100% confident that you'll never lock the front accidentally? You won't, for instance, brake over a bad surface or spill while riding at night? You'll never have some really shocking thing happen in front of you, and have your reflexes go faster than your brain? And also, you're 100% sure that you'll never use less brake than you could have in an emergency?

That last one was the clincher for me. Nobody uses 100% of the available braking force every time, even in a perfectly controlled planned stop. Add in surprise, and road surface and weather variables, and ABS starts to really show its benefits. People fixate on it stopping a front end lock, but it also (if you use it) stops underbraking in an emergency. That's the edge that sets it apart for me, I'm very confident in my ability to stop without locking the front, but I'm certainly not confident that I'll stop in the shortest possible distance, every time, while doing an emergency stop on wet tarmac on cold tyres.

Answering Northwind's comment above about the pushrod used in Brembos.

The pushrod moves the plunger less than a direct contact because as the hand lever rotates the pushrod assumes an angle relative to the plunger's line of travel. It doesn't make much difference, though. The pushrod has an adjustable length for changing the lever reach. With either a short or long adjustment the difference in stroke is less than 0.2mm in 15 degrees of lever rotation (a typical rotation number for very firm braking), on the order of 1% less stroke on the pushrod setup.

The pushrod imposes a side load on the plunger, and the pivot is not frictionless, so the net friction of a pushrod setup can be significantly higher than a direct contact setup. Still, the numbers are very small, small enough to be insignificant.

I guess I'll add that to the document when I have time.

TJD hit the nail on the head with is comment regarding deflection and Andy's assumption on the output pressure.

Andy, nice try, but engineering does not suffer assumptive data lightly.

the problem with looking at the two levers mathmatically is that you have only done it a little bit. the relationship of pivot points, piston direction and actuation, force application direction, total travel, deflection of pivot points and such.... they are all very different, too different for any sort of simple comparison.

also, a digg difference in feel could come from the pivot location being further from the bar, which is commonly true with these two systems. the force could be applied in a slightly different direction, one that might feel better to most human hands.

now if they could make a radial brake with a built in resivoir, that would be great, urine cups hanging on my bars look like crap

now if they could make a radial brake with a built in resivoir, that would be great, urine cups hanging on my bars look like crap

they do.

http://www.isr-brakes.se/images/products/21-012.jpg

Couple of things.

I didn't assume any output pressures, they are calculated. In the real world those calculations are reliable and result in pieces that work like the paper says they would.

"the problem with looking at the two levers mathmatically is that you have only done it a little bit. the relationship of pivot points, piston direction and actuation, force application direction, total travel, deflection of pivot points and such.... they are all very different, too different for any sort of simple comparison.

also, a digg difference in feel could come from the pivot location being further from the bar, which is commonly true with these two systems. the force could be applied in a slightly different direction, one that might feel better to most human hands."

I didn't do it just a little bit. I worked professionally on this kind of stuff for many years. The relationships are just as simple as shown in my paper. In the real world those simple formulas are what engineers use to predict how these things will work and feel, and the simple formulas translate into real world applications perfectly. It ain't magic.

Changing the lever itself out, for example to a dog leg style, will change the way the master feels, but that same change in feel would show up with a conventional or radial system with the same performance numbers (volume output per degree of lever input).

Take two masters with the same volume output per degree of lever input. Suppose one is a stock radial and the other is a $400 Brembo part. The difference in feel (and there will be a difference in feel) is due to the extra money Brembo put into materials and tight manufacturing tolerances. A conventional Brembo will be a better master than a mass produced radial. Why is this so hard to understand?

now if they could make a radial brake with a built in resivoir, that would be great, urine cups hanging on my bars look like crap

Braking make one as well as ISR. Though the Braking one frankly looks like ass. If you want to downsize your reservoir a bit, use a Brembo clutch one, they're quite dinky and still work perfectly, it's just more effort to bleed the brakes.

Plus, even with this ABS feature, you've still got those cheeseball calipers (and master cylinder), so the brakes aren't going to perform any better than the non-ABS model.
If I had bought the ABS version instead of the non-ABS version that I did buy (thank God :D ), after deciding to replace parts (I did the 4-piston caliper swap as well as a burly master cylinder) in order to give the brakes the power I wanted, I'd have a lot of hardware hanging on the bike doing ****-all (nothing).

Myself, I just don't want ABS because I'm not scared of using the front brake and don't lock the front wheel unless I mean to do it, so that means I have no use or need for all of the parts that go along with it.
Some seem to really like the fact that the bike has this feature, so great for them.

Famous last words of many, right up until they suddenly find themself in a situation where, OH MY GOD I'M GONNA HIT THAT FVKING TRUCK suddenly flashes through their mind and they squeeze the brakes for all they're worth, promptly lock up both wheels, and find themself sliding down the road sideways, right into/under the truck. ABS will save you when you panic and squeeze the brake lever too hard. All those who instinctively always know the coefficient of friction of every road surface they ride on,
AND have icewater running in their veins so they NEVER panic even for a split second, don't need ABS, all other lesser beings can benefit from it.

now if they could make a radial brake with a built in resivoir, that would be great, urine cups hanging on my bars look like crap

The stock front master cylinder from the Suzuki B-King is exactly this.
Made by Nissin, I think.

But, I still think ABS sucks. :D
...and that's your privilege. LOL

Actually, this is my third time around this issue. First it was airplanes that got ABS and a few "old school purists" resisted and claimed they could do better without the ABS but gradually they went off the end of the runway or almost did and quietly became ABS converts. Now, you can't find a jet fighter, business jet, or airliner without ABS. One of the reasons it's so useful in jets is that at say 125mph, it's a WAY more fine line between almost no discernible braking and locking them up, than it is at slower speeds. If you've been practicing your max braking at 60mph and have that down pretty well that's great, but don't think it's ANYTHING like max braking at 125mph. Apples and oranges. But even at high speeds, the ABS can discern that very fine line and will give you all the braking available to you without locking up the wheels.

Then, they started putting ABS in cars and I heard all the same old tired arguments that I had heard from other pilots 10 or 15 years earlier. Now, I haven't seen a car without ABS in years.

So now we're finally going through the same process with motorcycles and I'm hearing all the same old arguments about ABS. Deja Vu...

But, I still think ABS sucks. :D

Dunno about ABS... other than on the two bikes I'd ridden with them (both BMWs), they sucked. Bad...

Supposed Honda is debuting a trick fly-by-wire system on the CBRs... hopefully it's not another one of their recent great-in-concept/worthless-in-execution ideas, like their first sportbike LBS system. Yuck...

Something everyone knows, is that if you do a task often enough, you get pretty good at it. Do the same thing with the bar raised in difficulty, and you get even better at it. This applies to braking near or at the threshold of grip, and knowing where that threshold is, whether rain or shine.

What I don't like about ABS, is 1) they introduce a lot of components that add weight, complexity, and add'l fail points 2) they put riders in the frame of mind that they don't need to practice, be aware and actively scan to prevent those 'surprise' situations in the first place.

I'm not saying surprise situations won't all put us on our a$$es at least once in a long and colorful riding life. It will... but ABS on sportbikes is only gonna dilute the skill level of riders coming into the sport.

Bad roads bring good people. I honestly don't want to ride with the motorcycle counterparts of these dillweeds that surround me in their cages every weekday morning... slovenly assuming the technology they've purchased absolves them from blame or responsibility. **** that.

They teach you right from the first hour in the MSF -- practice, practice, practice. A street ABS system is just encouraging less-serious people into the sport. I won't race with someone who refuses to learn the flags and courtesies... so why would desire to share the road with someone who doesn't know how to brake?

No ABS. Leave that for the aquariums, please. ;)


Don't need to know the coefficient of friction. Just know what you're feeling. Don't need vodka-veins for that, Flipper... just practice, well-maintained systems, and knowing when to stop pushing your pace. Even you can learn that.

Famous last words of many, right up until they suddenly find themself in a situation where, OH MY GOD I'M GONNA HIT THAT FVKING TRUCK suddenly flashes through their mind and they squeeze the brakes for all they're worth, promptly lock up both wheels, and find themself sliding down the road sideways, right into/under the truck. ABS will save you when you panic and squeeze the brake lever too hard. All those who instinctively always know the coefficient of friction of every road surface they ride on,
AND have icewater running in their veins so they NEVER panic even for a split second, don't need ABS, all other lesser beings can benefit from it.
Whereas ABS would start stuttering and send you into the back of the truck just the same. ABS doesn't violate some law of physics and drastically shorten your stopping time. The computer will modulate a crappy brake system for you, but it's still a crappy brake system.

Lets examine what happens in your situation in two cases.

ABS- You grab a fist full of front brake. The sh!tty front suspension dives, and bottoms out. Once it bottoms you instantly lose traction and ABS kicks in. Now, rebounding off the bump stops the weight is transferred back and forth in a see-saw motion. All the while the ABS is giving you as much traction as possible in the rapidly changing contact patch. You stop in a fairly long distance.

Upgraded conventional system- you squeeze the brakes, transfer the weight to the front slowly and do not bottom the fork. Friction greatly increases at the front tire from the additional weight and you stop quickly.

Whereas ABS would start stuttering and send you into the back of the truck just the same. ABS doesn't violate some law of physics and drastically shorten your stopping time. The computer will modulate a crappy brake system for you, but it's still a crappy brake system.

Lets examine what happens in your situation in two cases.

ABS- You grab a fist full of front brake. The sh!tty front suspension dives, and bottoms out. Once it bottoms you instantly lose traction and ABS kicks in. Now, rebounding off the bump stops the weight is transferred back and forth in a see-saw motion. All the while the ABS is giving you as much traction as possible in the rapidly changing contact patch. You stop in a fairly long distance.

Upgraded conventional system- you squeeze the brakes, transfer the weight to the front slowly and do not bottom the fork. Friction greatly increases at the front tire from the additional weight and you stop quickly.

You forgot the obvious progression of that line of reasoning ...

ABS with top notch suspension components ... AK20 cartridges and Penske triple rear with a set of sticky tires.

Care to expound what will happen here?

My next SV will have ABS and I will be transferring my suspension components to it. I would love to jam that SOB hard and see what it can do.

Dunno about ABS... other than on the two bikes I'd ridden with them (both BMWs), they sucked. Bad...

Supposed Honda is debuting a trick fly-by-wire system on the CBRs... hopefully it's not another one of their recent great-in-concept/worthless-in-execution ideas, like their first sportbike LBS system. Yuck...

Something everyone knows, is that if you do a task often enough, you get pretty good at it. Do the same thing with the bar raised in difficulty, and you get even better at it. This applies to braking near or at the threshold of grip, and knowing where that threshold is, whether rain or shine.

What I don't like about ABS, is 1) they introduce a lot of components that add weight, complexity, and add'l fail points 2) they put riders in the frame of mind that they don't need to practice, be aware and actively scan to prevent those 'surprise' situations in the first place.

I'm not saying surprise situations won't all put us on our a$$es at least once in a long and colorful riding life. It will... but ABS on sportbikes is only gonna dilute the skill level of riders coming into the sport.

Bad roads bring good people. I honestly don't want to ride with the motorcycle counterparts of these dillweeds that surround me in their cages every weekday morning... slovenly assuming the technology they've purchased absolves them from blame or responsibility. **** that.

They teach you right from the first hour in the MSF -- practice, practice, practice. A street ABS system is just encouraging less-serious people into the sport. I won't race with someone who refuses to learn the flags and courtesies... so why would desire to share the road with someone who doesn't know how to brake?

No ABS. Leave that for the aquariums, please. ;)


Don't need to know the coefficient of friction. Just know what you're feeling. Don't need vodka-veins for that, Flipper... just practice, well-maintained systems, and knowing when to stop pushing your pace. Even you can learn that.

This is actually getting pretty humorous because I heard ALL these same arguments 25 years ago when some airplanes still didn't have ABS. It really is like deja vu all over again.

One thing (alas, the only thing) you are right about is early BMW ABS, it sucked.

The weight added by ABS is negligible on a bike/rider combo that weighs about 600lbs or even much more.

ABS isn't any more complex than your electronic ignition, you're just not used to it so it SEEMS complex to you.

Your assumption that drivers (riders) will become more careless or assume less responsibility for their own actions as technology improves is silly. Sure, there are plenty of irresponsible drivers on the road, but there is NO correlation between that and how advanced their vehicle is, except of course between your ears.

If ABS is encouraging less serious people into the sport I've never seen it and doubt it's true. In fact, most new riders I've met don't even know what ABS is and it's certainly not what convinced them to take up riding. Have you REALLY met even a single new, irresponsible rider who told you that he/she had finally decided to take up motorcycle riding because of the availability of ABS?:rolleyes: I have ABS on every vehicle I operate (except boats;)) and I can assure you that it doesn't make me any more lax in trying to avoid situations where I might have to make a panic stop. I don't EVER want to have to make a panic stop and take great pains to avoid those situations, but I know that despite my best efforts it's likely to happen again someday and I want everything on my side possible when that time comes. If you think people with superior stopping ability due to having ABS on their bikes are made overconfident and pose a danger to you, do you conversely think that people with poorly maintained brakes and bald tires make better riders? It just doesn't make any sense at all. ABS is one of many safety innovations (like disc brakes instead of drum brakes) that make riding safer but of course it doesn't relieve the rider of any responsibility or mean that he/she shouldn't practice to become as skillful as possible. With ABS you still need to practice just as much, just practice a different skill. Instead of trying to be super brake modulator, you turn that over to a simple computer that can do it better than you can, allowing you to focus on other aspects of trying to survive the situation such as steering and balancing so the rubber stays where it will do you some good, in contact with the road.

You don't need to know the actual number that is the coefficient of friction (sorry, thought you'd be able to understand figurative speaking), but you DO need to know how slippery the surface is and if you haven't recently braked on it, there is no way of knowing. Yes, you can see general things such as if pavement is wet or dry, but there are huge variations in how slippery that means it is and at 80mph you're not always aware of the subtle differences (that can make a HUGE difference in the braking characteristics) in the surfaces on which you're riding. So when you suddenly (after all your practicing, practicing, practicing) come across a situation where you have to suddenly stop, and quickly and expertly apply roughly the amount of brake pressure that it took to make a threshold stop on the surface you've been practicing on, you MIGHT immediately have just locked em up and you MIGHT still have more braking available and could get away with squeezing even harder. IF you didn't immediately start sliding sideways due to initial overbraking, an experienced rider will quickly figure out how much pressure he can get away with and then will be able to apply the optimum amount of pressure to make a threshold stop, but only as long as he keeps his sanity, the trouble is, when part of your brain is pretty sure you're gonna die in the next 3 seconds or so it's tough to overcome the strong urge to overbrake. It's NOT quite the same as when you were practicing and that's why so many experienced riders end up sliding down the road sideways. Also, notice I said "quickly" figure it out, but maybe not quickly enough when you are approaching the side of that truck at over 100' per second. If you take even half a second analyzing the surface and calibrating your brain just how hard you can get away with squeezing that brake lever on an unfamiliar road surface, that 50' can make the difference in whether you simply clean out your shorts when you get home, or get scraped off the side of that truck.

There's no substitute for skillful riding, and braking is a very important skill to develop, but ABS is a useful tool that will help you most when you need it most, in a panic stop.

Note that there are two reasons for ABS. The primary one is to allow the driver/rider to maintain directional control under heavy braking. Once you lose traction you lose directional control. On a car the result can be sliding into something that you could have steered around. On a motorcycle the result can be the bike sliding along on its side with the rider doing the same.

In extensive tests even the most expert riders manage to stop in less distance with modern ABS systems on iffy surfaces. On excellent surfaces with expert riders it's a close call. As mentioned by jtsaijlt, how do you tell what kind of surface you're on? Did a car just drip air conditioning condensate in your path? What about a hydraulic leak from the local garbage truck?

Even the SVs crappy, cheesy, cheapo (insert the adjective of your choice) brake systems will skid the rear tire or flip the bike over forward, so ABS on the rear tire would be very helpful. The stoppie effect is why ABS is more difficult to design on the front end. Your rear tire can be off the ground and headed skyward while the front tire is still rolling some.

Whereas ABS would start stuttering and send you into the back of the truck just the same. ABS doesn't violate some law of physics and drastically shorten your stopping time. The computer will modulate a crappy brake system for you, but it's still a crappy brake system.


Sorry, this is just wrong. 2 ways ABS stops you faster:

1) You lock up, and either crash or have to let off the brakes and reappply them
or
2) You don't brake enough.

If you're bottoming out your suspension on braking, fix it, it's unsafe.

This is actually getting pretty humorous...

Humorous for us both. You really expect me to believe, you correlate your claims for braking on an airplane, with its size, weight, and size of its suspension compared to its size and weight, with braking for a motorcycle? Or are you daft? From past posts, Occam's Razor I guess...

One thing (alas, the only thing) you are right about is early BMW ABS, it sucked.

As you've said, you're free to your opinion. And they still suck on the newer BMWs -- does the R1200LT count? Dismal feel even when not triggered.

The weight added by ABS is negligible on a bike/rider combo that weighs about 600lbs or even much more.

I would really like to see justification for this claim. And name me one sportbike that's not a supertanker like a BMW Four, that weighs more than 600 lbs. Certainly not the SV you claim to own and ride. Maybe this anecdotal bit is from time around airplanes?

ABS isn't any more complex than your electronic ignition, you're just not used to it so it SEEMS complex to you.

Not any more than using judgement, practice and awareness to learn to brake better. Plus ignitions don't have to be able to modulate hydraulic pressure -- so they're more mechanically-complex. HDDs, the mechanical aspect of them is their weak point, both dynamically and time-to-failure compared to SSDs. I work with both at Boeing.

Your assumption that drivers (riders) will become more careless ... between your ears.

And you have a very poor understanding of human nature.

If the technology I've purchased in my E90 3-series BMW says it'll intervene/assume control when I'm on a rainy, slippery road before sunrise, without my needing to be present and aware to prevent close encounters with dangerous situations --- would you then be present and aware during these situations, or passively rely on machinery to bail you out?

I commute through some of the most affluent communities in the country -- Mercer Island being one of them, and I live on Bainbridge Island. I also ride year-round in some of the wettest and flakiest weather a motorcyclist can encounter in the US. There's a lot of technology in the vehicles next to me every day, and when the weather is too bad to ride in (frost or snow), I drive with these people in my ABS-less $10K Toyota. I'm not a particularly granny-like driver, either -- but I am super-sensitive to my surroundings from driving HMMWVs in snow while stationed in Germany. No ABS.

Funny when I see a car in the deep ditches along I-305 on the Island, they're not econoboxes from 20 years ago, as mine is. They're E- and C-Class Mercedes-Benzes, X5s, and big diesel rigs like the F-350. All have at least ABS, as well as traction control on the Germans. Notable survivors in two years of this commute, are AWD cars like the Audi Quattros and Subaru Outbacks that are popular here. The 2WD sedans, with all this technology, are simply, eyes-front, in the ditch. All due to their drivers not knowing what their cars can do, and expecting the electronic calliope to miraculously save them. Wrong answer, if not unexpected IME.

If ABS ... Have you REALLY met even a single new, irresponsible rider ... availability of ABS?:rolleyes:

You, prime example -- you don't practice on-limit braking, yet crow on about how your airplane anecdotes support their use on bikes, when the dynamics and interaction are *completely* different? It's not like you have enough exposure in this sport to know what new riders are getting into it for, in the first place, jtsailjt. Come on...

This is sophistry. If a new rider takes up riding, you said yourself they often don't know what ABS is. I agree there -- and this flippant attitude towards entering a very demanding sport, is what prompted my ABS blast.

Fuel economy is pushing a lot of people into this sport (controversial in itself, but read on). Once fuel touched $4/gal here, the ridership on the ferry became suddenly clogged with lots of new, shiny BMWs with riders wearing new shiny gear... and skills to match. ALL of the BMW riders I've bothered to ask cited ABS as their prime reason for going with that brand, as 'ABS on other brands isn't as developed'. Sucker for their marketing, simple as that. As I've noted before in other posts, these same riders often show up with rashed fairing lowers, beveled heads, crash bars over such, or disappear altogether. Best thing for them, if they're being in the saddle is just because they want to save fuel... and not to become motorcyclists. The scooters on the ferry with the exception of two original ones, also fall into this category -- 'makes sense, eveyone else seems to be doing it...'

I don't want to ride with bean-counting weenies watching fuel prices. I want to ride with motorcyclists who want to sharpen their skills every opportunity they get. It just improves our ability to counter the very people who own these tech-laden cages from saying 'this goes on your bike' or 'you can't ride one' with letters to their Congressman. Surely you can see the benefit in that. I don't want my choices, especially with sportbikes, reduced to 'ABS or nothing', then have to pay more for technology I dislike in the first place.

... take great pains to avoid those situations, but I know that despite my best efforts it's likely to happen again someday...

Okay... you're finally starting to convince me you're at least aspiring to ridership, rather than riding a fad or feeling for your MA oats. Because I see many riders/drivers like that. Not totally convinced though, so I'll read on...

If you think people with superior stopping ability due to having ABS on their bikes are made overconfident and pose a danger to you, do you conversely think that people with poorly maintained brakes and bald tires make better riders?

This is a silly statement, and insults my intelligence. I do NOT advocate riding on bald tires and poorly-maintained brakes in the first place, and certainly don't agree with your comparison in an ABS/non-ABS context. I will say, that a rider with properly-maintained components, lots of practice, a bit of experience and training in situational awareness, will definitely outperform an ABS bike with poorly-maintained components and marginal experience. Kinda like me compared to you, in fact. Fluid looking dark, jtsailjt? ;D

... you turn that over to a simple computer that can do it better than you can, allowing you to focus on other aspects of trying to survive the situation such as steering and balancing so the rubber stays where it will do you some good, in contact with the road.

This passage makes sense... when upright. It did and does make plenty of sense for cars, even if the users often think they do more than they were designed to.

It becomes questionable when the bike rolls onto the side of the tire, as then rolling circumferences come into play -- even more so with somewhat more severe profiles in sport tires. You'll run into that someday. Just ride for a month in rain, leaned over, and grab a handful. See if ABS saves you then.

If you say then a tipover sensor can be utilized, I don't know of a single existing productionized component that can keep up with being able to sense lean angle other than on/off. You need a lot more granularity in your inputs to make ABS work on a motorcycle, esp a sportbike. Perhaps the new board-based accelerometer components such as in the Nintendo Wii can be used for this, but it remains to be seen. Plus, anything like that is definitely an additional fail point, more so if there are moving parts.

I agree with auger's point about ABS on the rear, but sportbikes bias braking almost totally at the front, which he mentions. So while they may work with the duty *you* subject it to... it won't work for mine, or anyone else who aspires to sport pace. We'll see where Honda's solution goes, both as technology in itself and how it is received in the market.

You don't need to know the actual number that is the coefficient of friction (sorry, ... the side of that truck.

That was a mouthful I'll defuse with the below statement:

If I was truly looking ahead and practicing situational awareness, I 1) wouldn't be doing 80 mph in the rain, and 2) would have the proper setup of my suspension, choice of tire and brake pads, and 3) enough practice that muscle memory takes over, eliminating having to think about anything.

This is a point I pound into anyone who comes to me with advice on how to ride. Practice how you want to react to a situation enough, and it'll be almost instantaneous when the moment of truth appears. It happens with the martial art I practice, as well as with anything you do. You apparently don't put much stock in this simple bit of wetware fact, otherwise you'd have preempted that diatribe of yours.

So yes, I practice, as should everyone. If you don't, don't expect ABS to absolve you. Been riding for 16 years in lots of inclement weather (Wash. D.C./NoVA and here) on far worse tires, brakes, and suspension as today's... that should say enough for the worth of putting in the work, to stay off your side. Don't crutch on this technology -- it's worth is very narrow on a motorcycle.

--

There's no substitute for skillful riding, and braking is a very important skill to develop, but ABS is a useful tool that will help you most when you need it most, in a panic stop.

I appreciate your deference to a fact I know to be true in practice. I can see the benefit of ABS on a bike, when upright, and when all else within the discipline you've put in and used, can't do anything further (it'll happen someday). 'Panic stop', however, for a rider who's serious about their abilities, is an oxymoron. ;)

All I'm going to say is: your suspension and your tires are critically important. If the suspension can't keep that tire on the ground, your brakes -- ABS or not -- are useless.

- R1200LT "Dismal feel even when not triggered." So it's got numb brakes. ABS or not won't help feel. My experience with a couple of newer BMWs is that their brakes are fine (R1200R and two different Ks).

- "And name me one sportbike that's not a supertanker like a BMW Four, that weighs more than 600 lbs." He said bike/rider combination.

- "Not any more than using judgement, practice and awareness to learn to brake better." Here you're using an argument I've seen you use before. That is, your abilities at braking are superior and everyone should aspire to your level of braking expertise. Yeah. Sure.

Vehicle ABS systems are quite reliable even though they are more mechanically complex than ignitions.

- "And you have a very poor understanding of human nature." Does he? In my experience the vast majority of people who buy cars with things like ABS drive exactly the same way they did without ABS. The vast majority of the driving and riding public have no idea of the technical details of their machines.

- "You, prime example -- you don't practice on-limit braking, yet crow on about how your airplane anecdotes support their use on bikes". First, he never said what he practiced or didn't practice, so you're making an assumption about his skills, and also doing some crowing about what a skilled rider you are. Second, what he's saying is that the same arguments against ABS brakes have been around forever, from the very first systems on airplanes, through cars, and finally among the bike crowd. I've heard it all before also.

- Rear tire ABS on a motorcycle will work leaned over with certain limits. If you're too close to the limits of adhesion nothing will help. If there's some adhesion headspace then ABS can prevent the rear tire from skidding. As I mentioned earlier, I don't think ABS is a big help on front brakes, but as systems improve that could change.

In the end, ABS is a very good thing for a vast majority of riders.

My weight reference was for total weight of motorcycle and rider and equipment, and adding ABS is a very, very small percentage of that weight. For example, according to my SV650A naked owners manual, the dry mass is 376lbs so you can compare that to one without ABS to see how much weight the ABS adds to the weight of my bike. It's insignificant.

Of course an airplane weighs much more than a motorcycle, but getting it stopped on an asphalt road/runway using pneumatic rubber tires is very similar to what you do with a motorcycle. It's the same principle whether it's a car, motorcycle, or airplane. But I think ABS is even MORE needed on motorcycles because if you screw up braking in an airplane or car, you just won't stop as well, and you might even blow some tires, but you won't end up sliding down the road on your A$$ like you might if you lock up your motorcycle tires.

You've obviously got issues with peoples motivations for which shiny new bike people are buying, and I might even agree with you, but it's irrelevant because you or I don't get to choose who else is on the road with us. Lots of new people are going to get bikes and many of them won't ever really have a clue about riding, but denying them ABS isn't going to keep them from doing stupid things or make them practice any more. It can only help them, or you, if you happen to be in their way some day.

In your last paragraph above, it appears that you FINALLY DO realize after all, that ABS is a valuable tool in getting a bike stopped under most real world conditions, and since I'm tired of beating this dead horse anyway, I'll leave it at that.

the replies are in response to your original comment of "why don't you just add an ABS system instead of upgrading the existing braking system?" Now you are defending it from the viewpoint that ABS will help you stop better in panic situations with sketchy road surfaces. I never disagreed with that statement, yes ABS will stop you quicker if you hamfist the brakes and the pavement is slippery. The alternative is locking up the front and crashing. My point is adding ABS gives you a safety net, it does not IMPROVE your braking capacity. It only allows you to maximize it in given conditions. I can add ABS to a 1970's camaro, or I could add brembo calipers/pads/rotors. Which do you think would stop the car faster?

You forgot the obvious progression of that line of reasoning ...

ABS with top notch suspension components ... AK20 cartridges and Penske triple rear with a set of sticky tires.

Care to expound what will happen here?

My next SV will have ABS and I will be transferring my suspension components to it. I would love to jam that SOB hard and see what it can do.
Stabbing the brakes will bottom both expensive and stock suspension bits. The ABS cannot predict lost of traction (at least as far as I know). It reacts after traction is lost, with lightning fast reaction/computation time. It cannot interpret your fork diving and start modulation from that point, it has to wait until traction has been lost and then attempt to regain it. With proper weight transfer and brake application you would never have put yourself in that hairy situation in the first place. My car has a very aggressive ABS system that will let a bit of slip before activating. I can stop much faster if I brake properly versus jamming on the pedal hard.

"Dismal feel even when not triggered." So it's got numb brakes. ABS or not won't help feel. My experience with a couple of newer BMWs is that their brakes are fine (R1200R and two different Ks).

Here again is a user who won't know what good feel is anyway... since he hasn't ridden with any really good ones -- like radial setups.

Saying they're fine for you means nothing to me. And my braking ability IS superior to yours... since you don't compete. End of argument of who knows feel better, auger -- and if that LT didn't have ABS, it would NOT stop nearly as well -- since the feel isn't there to modulate on the edge of lockup. Why is this so hard to understand?

- "And name me one sportbike that's not a supertanker like a BMW Four, that weighs more than 600 lbs." He said bike/rider combination.

Granted.

- "Not any more than using judgement, practice and awareness to learn to brake better." Here you're using an argument I've seen you use before. That is, your abilities at braking are superior and everyone should aspire to your level of braking expertise. Yeah. Sure.

Auger... your whole premise to support argument for your case, either here with ABS, or in the front with radials (proper documents posted for which I'm still waiting for) is that if you can't counter my argument, in my yard, you don't have a stance, and I won't take down the thread. That annoys me... enough to come back here every few hours to challenge your authority with my own.

And as you're fond of falling back on... it's not my math. Everyone should practice to become riders that can get their monies worth out of their bike's abilities, ESPECIALLY sport kit like the SVs to more focused race replicas. It's not MY level of expertise -- practice and diligence should make all of us safer, travel more miles with less incident, foster an awareness of what your body and mind does when fatigued, as well as the traffic and road around you.

Going out and practicing braking, auger, will make riders know how and when to brake harder, stop shorter, die less. Even you, believe it or not. So you can take your petulance and shove it, buddy.

Vehicle ABS systems are quite reliable even though they are more mechanically complex than ignitions.

But not as. Even you haven't said that, in those very-carefully chosen words.

- "And you have a very poor understanding of human nature." Does he? In my experience the vast majority of people who buy cars with things like ABS drive exactly the same way they did without ABS. The vast majority of the driving and riding public have no idea of the technical details of their machines.

He does. Auger, do you *really* expect me to believe that when I put $60K down on a loaded Merc E550, that I won't want to know what all the bells and whistles are... or that the salesman won't show me, demo me, or otherwise explain how I can use them?

And since you're so fond of referring to technical jargon to explain your stance to laymen... let's see some stats, with references and links, to back you up. Let's see what 'the vast majority of the driving and riding public' means in andyauger's mind -- because I know what I've seen over two years.

- "You, prime example -- you don't practice on-limit braking, yet crow on about how your airplane anecdotes support their use on bikes". First, he never said what he practiced or didn't practice, so you're making an assumption about his skills, and also doing some crowing about what a skilled rider you are. Second, what he's saying is that the same arguments against ABS brakes have been around forever, from the very first systems on airplanes, through cars, and finally among the bike crowd. I've heard it all before also.

Read the thread, auger. He said himself through his posts, that he doesn't see the use of braking more than he's used to, and that using more would put him over the handlebars -- what? That doesn't point to someone who goes to a parking lot after hours on weekends, and practices how not to.

I don't think I'm a skilled rider -- I AM a skilled rider. I know this, because you have to, to be accepted by your peers at the track. Failing in this -- you either get someone in your face end of session, get thrown off the course by the safety guys, or you go down at track speeds, possibly in traffic. None of which you can claim authorship to, auger. So I'll claim all the superiority I want over the both of you -- I have it. Practice, and you can have it. Not an option for you apparently, but that's your decision and your prerogative.

I'm not making assumption 1 there, auger... although you have, and that thick skin you were proud of a few days ago, seems to have been breached...

- Rear tire ABS on a motorcycle will work leaned over with certain limits. If you're too close to the limits of adhesion nothing will help. If there's some adhesion headspace then ABS can prevent the rear tire from skidding. As I mentioned earlier, I don't think ABS is a big help on front brakes, but as systems improve that could change.

I'll agree with this statement, as I've seen and felt it.

An explanation of why I chose the side of the tire in my bike argument here, is the same problem bikes have had with traction control -- when you lean the bike on its side, the rolling circumference of the tire gets smaller -- which means the wheel speed sensor thinks the wheel is spinning faster than actual road speed. In order to know how much line pressure to apply before triggering, the ABS ECU has to know how fast the wheel is turning. If it doesn't know the difference between straight up and leaned over, it can't apply the correct amount of brake force to maintain control.

It *is* easier to do with a tire that has a larger tread area radius (rear tyre), as the differences aren't as dramatic as at the front, nor will it have much braking to do... but it IS valuable for traction control.

Then there is the questions of tire choice -- will my ABS not work as well if I change type or brand of tires? With cars, it's much more simple as the change from new to worn is much more slight. I don't want to be limited to a certain tire with my sport machine.

Here's the deal -- you post a thread with a flawed premise, and I'll stuff that flaw with experiences from real-world application, like a wick in a boil, until it becomes a 'pi$$ing contest'. So expect that to happen with this -- and other posts -- in the future. No more sanctimony for its own sake.

I have lots of respect for your knowledge, andy... but when it attempts to marginalize practical application, you'll see me. :bs:

This whole thread is humorous, sorry OP but it is just a big pissing contest now and the concept of it is lost with all of the 'no I am right' arguments.

Sorry about that, V9 -- however, there are very clear biases here, and one of the things that make forums great, is to post your take when you feel it's right. It can get sniped from the majority if it doesn't make sense. That is what a forum is, and I respect the mods for not using any Gestapo tactics even if the tone, subject matter and flight time of this thread annoys them. That is part of why riders come here.

So I apologize if you feel this isn't your cup of tea. But posting with my own knowledge and experience isn't simply to counter the opposing camp -- it's to educate, too. Even if you think we're both wrong, just reading along you'll learn tons, and I acknowledge, like a grown-up, those points from opposing posters that I can corroborate. There are a lot of experiences I've shared here as well, not revealed in any other thread.

Besides... I enjoy a good heated discussion. I've had good training.

So, if you just want to see where this goes, throw a bag of Redenbacher in the nuker, dump into the La-Z-Boy, and watch the fight. ;)

It is pretty early for me to post in a constructive manner. I see nothing 'Busted' here (I have read 'most' of this thread) and my point is that the pissing match has taken the credibility away from the opinions posted. I have plenty of experience - racing, street, moto-x, Nissin/Brembo/various OEM Japanese and Euro manufacturers - and I do not personally see the need to sell anyone here on 'my vast knowledge' (which I am being sarcastic about, fyi). But you are correct, it is a forum and that is in and of itself a place to post various opinions differing or not, so have at it.

The above commentary is all "JMO".

Stabbing the brakes will bottom both expensive and stock suspension bits. The ABS cannot predict lost of traction (at least as far as I know). It reacts after traction is lost, with lightning fast reaction/computation time. It cannot interpret your fork diving and start modulation from that point, it has to wait until traction has been lost and then attempt to regain it. With proper weight transfer and brake application you would never have put yourself in that hairy situation in the first place. My car has a very aggressive ABS system that will let a bit of slip before activating. I can stop much faster if I brake properly versus jamming on the pedal hard.





Since putting the new suspension bits on, I have never bottomed out the suspension that I am aware of.

The ziptie on the fork shows a little more than 3/4 travel and I have hit some pretty rough roads.

This suspension is matched to my weight and there is some weight transfer to the front, but no nosediving compared to stock. The weight transfer is very controllable with the throttle ... I am still learning how to master these subtle changes in a hard turn.

BTW, you don't add ABS, you buy a bike and add quality suspension bits and proper tires. I believe it is one reason that the new bikes have twice as many sensors for the speedometer. Plus there is the controls part that is already integrated in the ECU/CPU and the wiring harness. By the time you add ABS to a legacy system, it is prohibitively expensive. That mod does not make any sense.

As for ABS preventing me from washing out my front when I am leaned way over, it will never happen. What ABS will do is help someone stop quicker when they stand the bike up and brake.

It would of prevented my last crash. I ran out of pavement and 6 feet into the gravel/dirt my front tucked in because it was locked.

Since putting the new suspension bits on, I have never bottomed out the suspension that I am aware of.


Yep, that's the second time PNE's made comments about bottoming out the suspension on heavy braking- if this is happening then the fork is eaither faulty or set up wrong for him, but he ignored that.

Since putting the new suspension bits on, I have never bottomed out the suspension that I am aware of. The ziptie on the fork shows a little more than 3/4 travel and I have hit some pretty rough roads.

This suspension is matched to my weight and there is some weight transfer to the front, but no nosediving compared to stock. The weight transfer is very controllable with the throttle ... I am still learning how to master these subtle changes in a hard turn.

Good info, folks. If your susp'n is truly set up correctly, then this should never happen -- the air 'spring' volume atop the fork oil and proper damping balance should prevent bottoming with the right spring rate (at both ends, mind you). All forks will transfer weight (one of their disadvantages compared to alternate front ends), but not excessive and not using all susp'n travel. Currently, you can also influence how the front end steers on exit by increasing rebound damping a bit -- throttle making it run wide, is a sign of not enough. ;)

BTW, you don't add ABS, you buy a bike and add quality suspension bits and proper tires. I believe it is one reason that the new bikes have twice as many sensors for the speedometer. Plus there is the controls part that is already integrated in the ECU/CPU and the wiring harness. By the time you add ABS to a legacy system, it is prohibitively expensive. That mod does not make any sense.

+1 -- this is partly why I oppose them being standardized. It adds a LOT of cost and requires a lot of R&D to do right -- many, like BMW, still haven't figured out how to make them work well enough and cost low enough to be accepted industry-wide, like disc brakes and o-ring chains -- even after 20 years of chances. You can't even walk your bike in the garage with some late BMW ABS setups -- it doesn't provide braking force when the bike isn't running... :rolleyes:

Conventional systems are light-years ahead in feel and power, as of even ten years ago. Learning how to use these properly would eliminate the 1) need, and 2) cost passed down to you. And they will be passed down -- cars can absorb much more on volume bikes cannot.

As for ABS preventing me from washing out my front when I am leaned way over, it will never happen. What ABS will do is help someone stop quicker when they stand the bike up and brake.

It would have prevented my last crash. I ran out of pavement and 6 feet into the gravel/dirt my front tucked in because it was locked.

One thing I notice when things get scary on the bike, is that I tend to get looser, releasing a 'death grip' from the controls at a certain point. This has saved me TONS of times from sure dumps (though not this last one). One of my mentors here came up on dirtbikes, and he says its his ability to stay in the throttle when going off track, that prevents him from same. None of these bikes mentioned had ABS at the time. You *can* develop the skill to do it. Currently's incident may have been helped by an ABS system... but so would practice in the dirt. ;)
;)

It was a classic primal reflex of "Oh ****e" coming in too hot with a nice parking spot on the outside of the curve that I aimed for. I stood the bike up and the tires did their thing on the pavement without locking up and once I was off the road, I just did not have the reflexes to modulate the brakes properly.

This is one case where I think the ABS system would of kicked in better than 90% of most riders reflexes.