braking distance

The MCN reports the FJR as taking 20-25 feet more from 65 mph than the Honda, Kawi or BMW.

From 120-125 up to 145 feet is a huge difference.

Anyone care to argue that this isn't REALLY important?

To me, it's almost a deal breaker.

Thanks.

No need to argue with so many variables such as tires, temps, riders, bike weight, and road conditions just to name a few. I would think a lot more research should be considered before calling it a deal breaker.

FJRay said:

No need to argue with so many variables such as tires, temps, riders, bike weight, and road conditions just to name a few. I would think a lot more research should be considered before calling it a deal breaker.

Click to expand...

If you are traveling in a straight line you will be able to look well ahead. If you are in a curve the lightest bike and rider combination has the advantage. I have stopped my 2005 from 60 mph in 100 feet. But I am an expert roadracer with the iron to prove it. It is all relative. If the bikes in question are equipt with abs brakes then you may wish to go with the winner of the one time test.

CODan said:

The MCN reports the FJR as taking 20-25 feet more from 65 mph than the Honda, Kawi or BMW.
From 120-125 up to 145 feet is a huge difference.

Anyone care to argue that this isn't REALLY important?

To me, it's almost a deal breaker.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Unless all the bikes were compared on the same day, same surface, same conditions, same rider, etc. a direct comparison is pointless. Even if they were tested together there are still variables that could come into play.

I am sure that all of those bikes have powerful enough brakes to lock both tires at will so the "difference" quoted could be explained simply as the difference in tire selection if you chose to ignore all the other variables.

Hard to justify the difference in braking quoted as a deal breaker as you are unlikely to ever be able to duplicate those conditions of the test in the real world anyway...i.e...throw in some sand or less than optimum pavement and ALL of them will stop at considerably longer distances made even by the surface you are on.

This sort of comparison is proof that (some) people make WAY too much out of magazine "data."

The following is another data point. This is from a document off of the Motorcycle Safety Foundation's web site. To read the entire report >>CLICK HERE<<

The opening text:

In 2003, the U.S. Department of

Transportation, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA) in cooperation

with Transport Canada (TC) conducted a

motorcycle brake research project. The

objective of this testing program was to assess

the effectiveness of anti-lock braking systems

(ABS) and combined brake systems (CBS) on

motorcycles using various braking maneuvers

and loading conditions.

Testing was performed with six motorcycles,

representing the dual-purpose, sport, and sport

touring segments for motorcycles. The

following motorcycles were used in the tests:

1. 2002 Honda VFR 800 with ABS & CBS

2. 2002 BMW F650 with ABS

3. 2002 BMW R 1150R with ABS & CBS

4. 2002 BMW R 1150R without ABS or CBS

5. 2004 Yamaha FJR1300 with ABS

6. 2004 Yamaha FJR1300 without ABS

The closing data table:



NOTE: 2004 FJRs were available at the end of 2003.

I don't know anything about the numbers, but I am very impressed by the FJR's brakes. I got to test them this past Sunday. I was coming down South St Vrain canyon from the Peak to Peak highway. In one of the few passing areas I came upon a line of three cars and quickly passed them coming up behind a couple riding two up on some sort of BMW. He had just passed also and he now took off down the canyon with me behind him. I don't count myself as being a great rider, but I was very impressed by the way he was winding down the canyon, especially for having a passenger. I was doing my best to try and keep up with him.

It was one of the most enjoyable rides that I have had coming down this canyon, which I ride frequently. It just made it so much fun to follow someone who seemed to be such a good rider. As we came around one of the last corners at the bottom of the canyon, a deer jumped out in front of the BMW. He came to a quick stop, and I think he was less than 10 feet from the deer. I was probably about 3 or 4 seconds behind him, and I brought my bike to a very quick stop as well. This was the first quick stop that I have had to make on the FJR, and I was very impressed by its capabilities.

He gave me a thumbs up, and when I pulled up next to him in Lyons, he complimented me by saying I did a good job when we encountered the deer. I was honored.

John

I love braking discussions, because everybody talks about everything except the right thing.

Speaking physics-wise, braking is acceleration. You're applying an acceleration vector opposite your direction of travel.

Cornering is acceleration. You're applying an acceleration vector across your direction of travel.

Yanking throttle and running up the gears is acceleration. You're applying an acceleration vector straight ahead.

In all of these situations, the number one factor in how much the acceleration vector affects the bike is the grip available at the tire/road interface.

Brakes do not stop bikes (or cars.) Tires stop bikes. Brakes just convert kinetic energy to heat, and hopefully dissipate that heat.

So when comparing stopping differences, you must consider not just surface quality, temperature, and weight, but the tire.

(I wonder if Jeff would consider adding brake testing to his tire testing, maybe with some pressure differences.)

Bikes have a huge disadvantage in tires compared to cars. My '95 Probe GT has four 225/50-16 paws on the ground, weighs half again what a Miata weighs, has smaller rotors than the Miata, and will out-stop it every time. At least the first time. The Miata's larger brakes can dissipate more heat, so I get brake fade sooner. Anyway, that 225mm tread width is all on the road, in a very wide contact patch. A bike tire has maybe 15 or 20% as much rubber on the road. Partly from having half as many tires, but mostly from having tires with a round, not flat, profile. That flat area on your rear tire after 2000 slab miles? That's all the rubber you put on the ground.

We make up for it by using incredibly soft rubber. If your bike tire had the same rubber as your SUV, you couldn't ride it. Breathe on the throttle, you'd spin the rear. Breathe again on the brake lever and you'd stop the front tire cold. To make our bikes usable, we put up with tire mileage we'd never accept for our cars, just to get the grip we need.

That grip is what runs, turns, and stops our bikes. Not the engine, not the handlebar, not the brakes.

What a great post, couldn't agree more with Wfooshe. B)

Good info. Woofshee. And to prove your point, albeit a pucker factor was involved, when I aggressively accelerated onto the freeway on the commute home in a light rain (I know), the rear tire tried to go out from under me. Contact patch is everything. BUT... one advantage when not braking or accelerating is that a bike's contact patch puts more pounds per square inch on the surface than a cage. I've ridden in heavy downpours where cages were hydroplaning and I wasn't.

I'm not making a decision based on 1 test, though the test seems to have been well done.

But I recall reading threads & posts with concerns about the FJR braking.

The NHTSA report tells me that in comparison to an VFR and BMW R, when lightly loaded, at 80 mph (~129 kph) the FJR takes about 8 or 9 meters farther to stop, 25 to 30 feet more approximately. But of course this is 03/04 info.

25 feet more at 60 mph could easily spell the difference between sweat and blood.

Why do we need brake pads???

wfooshe, I don't disagree with anything you said. But, the ability of the braking system to convert that kinetic energy into heat AND have it dissipate that heat without fading IS an integral part of any braking system. Some do it better than others. In addition, the amount of kinetic energy varies from vehicle to vehicle due to weight. The heavier the object, the more energy needed to convert to heat. A system that is more efficient at converting that energy can cause a heavier bike to stop more quickly than a lighter bike with a less efficient system.

Having said that, I'm exceptionally impressed with the braking ability of my '06 FJR.

Non technically speaking

I've owned a fair range and therefore number of bike and I have never had a bike with better brake than the FJR, but I've had much worse. Or maybe it's just my tires??

No Complaints here.

CODan, If you are a good enough rider to approach the performance numbers the PROFESSIONAL RIDERS obtain for the MotoMagazines. Then you should be looking at a Bimoto ( $50,000 to $70,000) depending on your taste.

I am fairly certain that the FJR has far more capabilities than YOU have skill.

Please post a few pictures of your Bimoto when you get it, Thanks....

Bearly Flying said:

CODan, If you are a good enough rider to approach the performance numbers the PROFESSIONAL RIDERS obtain for the MotoMagazines. Then you should be looking at a Bimoto ( $50,000 to $70,000) depending on your taste.
I am fairly certain that the FJR has far more capabilities than YOU have skill.

Please post a few pictures of your Bimoto when you get it, Thanks....

Click to expand...

And because I'm not a professional rider I should not have the best brakes possible?

So far, only anecdotal info disagrees with the test and the objective NHTSA info is ambiguous at best (04 vs. 07, differences between lightly loaded and fully loaded).

I may still buy an FJR but I'd sure like to see some test DATA, not opinion, that indicates the brakes are really good, not just mediocre.

If I was an expert and much younger I sure as hell wouldn't buy a Bimota.

Honestly, I hope you pass on the Feej. You don't have one, and you're already bitchin. Can't imagine the number of "this sux" posts that would follow the purchase of one. Go for the beemer, any of 'em. They're perfect, and everybody knows it.

The best brakes in the world won't keep a rider like me from disaster. Past history has shown that incidents involving braking that resulted in a crash were due to application time being a little too late.

Capt. Bob

radman said:

Honestly, I hope you pass on the Feej. You don't have one, and you're already bitchin. Can't imagine the number of "this sux" posts that would follow the purchase of one. Go for the beemer, any of 'em. They're perfect, and everybody knows it.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the helpful comment.

I want the best info, period.

If the FJR has mediocre brakes, I want to know, so that I make a significant purchase with the best information I can get.

Why should that be a problem?

The FJR brake capabilities are in the correct range for a Sport Touring motorcycle. Testing can not give one solid black/white result with absolute certainty because of all the dynamics involved (as stated in the previous replies). Test results compiled from several test sessions can show a trend. The test trends that I’ve seen put the FJR brakes as better than a lot of bikes but not as good as some. If brake performance is the sole key to your decision then pick a single report or a bike with a good trend and go for it. Just be aware that if you ever change tire types, air pressure, tire temperature, etc., your bike will no longer produce the same braking distance as those from the report you selected.

IMO, brakes that can easily be modulated and controlled are better than really powerful brakes that grab and/or can’t be used aggressively without consideration by the rider. Racing is a short period of focused riding where it is reasonable for the rider to have wicked brakes that need special attention. On the street motorcycles need binders that can tolerate some less than dazzling skills and still bring the rider and bike home undamaged.

Go for the beemer, any of 'em. They're perfect, and everybody knows it.

Click to expand...

Yup, real road burners.