The VN2000 has two massive rotors on the front and it brakes better with it. It brakes so well with he front that if you use it hard you can lock the front wheel.

I had an accident for pushing hard on the front brake, so the way I brake the Rogue now is I apply first only rear and then press the front to continue the stopping action. I rather have the rear wheel skid than the front to block.

 

I think what the guy said (or at least tried to say) is in some part true; that you can get more braking from the rear on the big Vulcan compared to some types of bikes, like a sport bike.

The rear of the big V is heavier, therefore you can get more braking out of it (again, relative to rear brake use on sport bike), therefore they made the rear brake setup more beefy to handle that.

However, I think he's wrong that the rear is capable of more braking than the front and that the proportion should be biased toward the rear brake. Although, admittedly, there are a lot of variables. If I'm riding two-up with my GF, undoubtedly there is lots of braking potential on the rear.

 

Why on earth would someone want to use brakes?

 

I don't see what the thickness of the brake pads has to do with the ability of the tire to handle a torsional load. The 70/30 split is because of the weight distribution on the tires under breaking. Under hard breaking, 70% of the bike's weight is on the front meat. That's the theory behind braking harder on the front. That being said, I don't know if I could purposefully and consistently adjust to a 10% difference in how I split my braking. Seems pretty picky.

 

That's a fairly consistent theme but the point is not all bikes are the same. A long (relatively low) cruiser doesn't transfer the weight like a (relatively tall) and short sport bike.

As an extreme example think of a dragster. Doesn't matter how big of brakes you'd put up front because there isn't much weight nor weight transfer.

I found this interesting: http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/streetsurvival/0608_crup_effective_braking/index.html

 

Stopping power

Given the massive amount of torque dwelling within the V2K, I find that compression braking (to the rear wheel obviously) does most of the work until you need to finish your coasting. I mainly use the rear brake and just touch the front to finish or grab it when I REALLY need to stop quick. In the city, amongst all the idiot cagers on their phones, all three modes are tested....

 

Brakes

Both brakes all the time !

JJ

 

"Proper technique involves using both brakes quickly and effectively."

So true.

"Of course, on a cruiser, the rear wheel continues to carry substantial weight and the rear brake continues to be effective right through the stop."

Yes sir.

"We hope that everyone knows that the front brake provides most of your motorcycle's stopping power."

Unfortunately,not everyone knows.

"So no matter what you ride, you should apply both brakes using both controls."

Very true.

"Pull in the clutch, but don't downshift:
The study found that downshifting added about 10 feet to stopping distances, compared to not shifting and pulling in the clutch. Pulling in the clutch improved stopping performance compared to leaving it engaged and not shifting."

I would not have guessed that.

JJ

 

I have to agree with Trip on this matter. What in the world does the thickness of the pads have to do with stopping power. By that logic once the pads get a little worn are you using 80/20 front? And can you even tell when you're using 10% more in the rear than in the front and vice versa? In my opinion the salesman was just that... a salesman. I could fill a book on stupid stuff salesmen have told me over the years. You have to remember they're on commission.

 

And it all changes when you go darkside ! Nothing like 6 more inches of rubber to stop with... Bulldozer

 

The disk/pad thickness doesn't necessarily have a direct relationship on stopping power, but they certainly do have relevance to being able to use the back brake harder/more.

Being able to put more braking force to the ground necessitates heavier-duty braking components if you want them to live a reasonable life.

So, while I think the salesman was in some part correct, he/she didn't elucidate it very well, or the translation is a bit off.

 

At the motorcycle course I took, and in an MSF pamphlet, the theory is that the front brake can supply up to 70% of the braking force, and that it is ALWAYS better to brake with the front brake.

Except for the "ALWAYS" part, which I believe is, more accurately, "ALMOST ALWAYS," the MSF recommendation is correct. For example, when in a turn or when traction is less than optimal, one should be quite judicious with the use of a front brake, else one go boom.

The above notwithstanding, I'm not aware of any model of Vulcan that has altered any law of physics, so I'm guessing that your sales-guy was either very young, somewhat of an inexperienced rider, or both.

 

Does anyone actually know what happens when you brake on a motorcycle? The same exact thing that happens when you brake in a car only with two wheels instead of four. The front end dives adding more weight and braking ability and the rear end rises subtracting weight from the rear end thus reducing braking ability of the rear brakes.

For normal non panic braking use both rear(first) and front(second) brakes to gently stop your bike.

For abnormal panic braking use both rear(first) and front(second) brakes to gently stop your bike, hopefully short of hitting the jughead that caused you to panic brake.

Summation: BOTH BRAKES ALL THE TIME. When the pads wear out replace them.

 

Does anyone actually know what happens when you brake on a motorcycle? The same exact thing that happens when you brake in a car only with two wheels instead of four.

No, it doesn't. In a four-wheeled vehicle, one has almost no concern whatsoever with regard to one's lean angle during braking (racing situations excepted). However, on a two-wheeled vehicle, lean angle is of primary concern, so your "BOTH BRAKES ALL THE TIME" recommendation is folly.

 

Here's the thing

The reason why there is a lot of discussion about not using the rear brake is this; your tires have a finite amount of traction at any given moment. Use it all up, and down you go. The rear tire can lock up easier because A) as you brake, weight shifts to the front and B) engine compression ('engine braking') is already eating up some traction.

PROPERLY using the rear brake is a great way to improve your stopping, but beware that in a hard stop, because the weight is shifting forward, you'll lock it up much easier than in a normal stop. Lots of accidents happen due to too much rear brake. A bike WILL stop faster with both brakes than just the front, but, again, it could stop on it's side if you use too much rear! (Same with the front, but because the weight is shifting front, the front will have more traction)

 

Don't think anyone is debating the theory behind motorcycle braking, the debate/question is whether a long, heavy cruiser can or should use the brakes somewhat differently than the pat answer.

I believe the answer is yes, although perhaps some don't know it as such if they have not driven a considerably different type like a crotch rocket. The rear tire on my crotch rocket locks up WAY easier than on the VN2K.

 

Ok, it's time for me to find some other place to read words of wisdom.

 

The salesman was of the stereotypical variety; more interested in making his sale than anything. Why this all started was due to me bringing my bike to a friend who has 25 years riding experience and who stays on top of things in the motorcycle world. He took a look at the bike and told me my front pads looked like they were closer to being worn out than not. Seeing as how I had just bought the bike, I was not impressed that the dealer had not informed me that I would need a change of pads sooner rather than later. I went back to the dealer and the whole discussion with the salesman took place, with him trying to reassure me that there was at least a couple of thousand kms left on the pads and he even went so far as to bring over the head mechanic to take another look at it. The salesman made it clear that he had never ridden a vn2000 and that he didn't ride cruisers, hence my coming here to gain some knowledge and clairity.

What I do find odd is even in the manual, the rear pad is almost double the thickness of the front, yet the front (in theory) is supposed to provide more stopping power, and consequently wear down faster....yet there is less of it than at the rear.

 

What I do find odd is even in the manual, the rear pad is almost double the thickness of the front, yet the front (in theory) is supposed to provide more stopping power, and consequently wear down faster....yet there is less of it than at the rear.

I still don't really understand what you're getting at. There are two front disks and two sets of pads sharing the work and the wear. If the fronts seem disproportionately worn the situation could be very simply that the previous owner didn't use the rear brake very much.

As far as the salesman telling you about the bike, well, his job is to sell. Your job is to know what you're buying.

 

This is just a GUESS. But;

Brakes work best when heated, lots of riding books recommend gently riding the front brake when you think you might run into trouble (like coming to an intersection) in order to heat them up.

Thinner pads get hotter, that's why brakes wear out faster on the last half (they run hotter).

So MAYBE, and this is purely a guess, the pads in the front are thinner to facilitate more heat and stronger braking.

Of course, it could just be that one rear disc eats more pad in typical day to day stops that two thinner pads on two discs?

 

The VN2K Owner's manual doesn't give the specs for new pads. It only says replace the pads when thickness is less than 1mm. Same measurement applies to front and rear.

The problem with trying to conclude anything from merely the thickness of the front vs. rear pads doesn't take into consideration several variables, just for starters...

1. Are the pads actually same material/spec?
2. What is the area of the pads compared to each other?
3. Is the radius of the disk the same where the pads run?
4. There are two front discs and one rear disc.

The answer least likely is that Kawasaki made them that way because they're idiots. My guess is that if one were to use the brakes as Kawasaki did during their tests, the front pads and rear pads will be worn out about the same time.

 

I always use both brakes. It always provides a nice, even stop. On the Vic, the Vulcan, the '85 Vulcan, and the wife's shadow, I've experienced rear brake lockup from dancing too hard on the rear brake. My MSF instructor advised "light, then LIGHTER pressure on the rear brake," and when I follow that sage advice, everything works out just fine.

As for the shift in weight, I dunno how long a V2K is, but the XR is a full inch longer than a VN1700, and it STILL dives on its nose pretty good under hard braking. Not as much as the Vulcan did, and certainly not as much as the Wife's Shadow (which I fully believed could be forced to endo in ideal conditions), but dive she does.

Concerning the thickness of the pad, I agree with the assessment that the four front pads are probably thinner because there's twice as many of them to share load. I also agree with the assessment that they're probably more worn anyway because the PO probably used them more. On your car, you'll replace your front pads about twice as often as your rear, and 3 times as often as the shoes in drum brakes (those damn things last forever).

 

I was out playin' around a bit earlier. I do believe I've been seriously under-utilizing that back brake. Man, I can flat out lay into that thing compared to my crotch rocket.

May be able to show something interesting in the near future...stay tuned.

 

there are so many variables in braking, your style of braking and the bike your braking, as well as wet or dry conditions. Me, never learning to ride from educators in riding,,, have always led with the rear but majority of stop is with the front in normal stops. Always both brakes in immediate shut down "panic" stopping ( I have never locked up the front brake ) Though I have skidded the back with the engine as well as the rear brake. Being my first bike with dual front discs I feel confident in it's ability to stop me. I just try to judge what my situation calls for, had plenty of practice recently stopping at yellow lights, when I could have just twisted the right grip. Hey better to to learn how to stop with options, than with no option but to stop. doesn't the rear braking eat tires? When wet I try to foresee stopping needs, slow down and take it easy,,, knowing cagers are idiots in the wet!

 

OK. I'm gonna dive in here. Let me first say I have over 20yrs experience I driving bikes, cars, pickups, and 18 Wheelers. Here is the difference. Did you know that at one time big trucks did not have front brakes at all. That was to keep them from locking up and losing steering control. Four wheelers have on their brakes a portioning valve to distribute an already set value of pressure to the braked set by the factory. Your bike has not got this valve built into it. You are that valve. Your experience determines what you do from what the bike is doing. In normal everyday stopping, most not all, use the back brake to slow down. Hence the reason fir thicker pads is because you will them more often in normal driving. This way they will last as long as the front. The front will stop you better because of the weight distribution. But unlike a car, it can lock and be snatched out of your hands. Now back to portion distribution. Let up on the front and apply more to the back. This is called controlled braking. You are the valve remember. Apply to much to the rear and the rear end will try to pass you. We call this Jack knife in my trade. The only way to stop it is to let off the brakes. It's scary as hell to tell yourself to let up when you really want to press harder. All of this to say this. You are the brakes. Practice when you ride to gain insight and experience . This is what will help you the most.

'06 Clasic 1500 T6 Ann Ed

 

The NHTSA says that many (I forget the percentage but it's high) accidents are caused by over use of the rear brake, and not enough front. I theorize that it's a normal learned reaction to stomp your foot in a panic, and not to grip a front brake! Many of these accidents according to a recent study had lots of rear brake and NO front brake, causing the bike to slide out of control or simply not stop in time. (as the bike will stop faster with front than rear).

For what it's worth, the MSF, which is a culmination of various studies and training over the years, teaches using both brakes applied at the same time with a bias towards the front. They also teach that if you do lock up the rear, to leave it locked to prevent it from suddenly grabbing and causing a high side, but to let off the front if it locks up and then re apply the correct pressure.

Whatever it is you feel is the right way for you to ride, practice it and make it intentional practice hard braking, practice using the brakes correctly, etc. don't make a left turning cager your first, or first in a while, experience with a hard stop.

Also, a good rider never panic stops, because they are not panicking. They are skilled, educated, aware and well practiced. They are simply making a maximum effort stop because they have determined it is the best accident avoidance strategy for that particular scenario!

Also, while we're on the subject, I think braking IS the best strategy for many situations. Some people speed up and swerve in situations I think hard braking would be much better, but because they don't practice, they aren't confident enough to do it. Then there is the ever present "I had to lay it down". Well, modern rubber tires will stop much better than plastic and metal! I've also heard that "I'd rather slide into it or slide under it than go over it". Well, as for me, I'd rather hit it at 10 with some level of control as to where I go after that than to slide into it at 30 (because I reduced my rate of deceleration when I laid it down) and go who knows where, potentially into oncoming traffic.

-John

 

You'll just have to wait to see what my tests are. They'll be backed by real data, not just my subjective opinion...although I'm not going to push things hard enough to put myself at high risk of going down.

As far as the best overall strategy, swerve vs. brake, I think there's there's no way to say for sure. It's a spur of the moment evaluation and reaction. I've used both successfully, as I'm sure others have. I don't buy into the "had to lay it down" thing though either. Sure, layin' it down might have been preferable to plowing in head first, but neither are preferable to effective swerving or braking.

Bear in mind I'm not saying the rear brake provides more braking than the front, but I am saying that on a long, heavy cruiser you might be able to use it more than the standard theory implies.

When was the last time anyone was out doing max braking practice? My GF doesn't appreciate it when I get into the brakes hard two-up, but you gotta know how it reacts.

 

Here's a tickler...just out rigging up the system last night and planning what I might do. You'll notethree decelerations from around 40mph that got to about -0.5g using just the rear brake. I tried to apply the brake until it just started squaking a bit. On the first test I went a bit too far and left a fairly good patch on the road.