Engine Braking Sucks(?)
#32
Modern brakes are capable of great braking force. The limit is the ability of the tire to transmit that force to the ground, i.e: the grip of the tire.
Modern brakes are strong enough to lock the tire. So, no reason to do engine braking in the first place.
Anyway, no, engine braking shouldn't suck ANY oil, unless there's something badly wrong in the engine.
Slowing down is another thing. You let the bike slow down nice and easy, then you stop it with brakes, that uses engine braking in the softest way. It's actually not "braking" but slowing down.
#33
Jakes dont retard injector timing, they hold the exhaust valves open so the cylinder wont fire and allows the cylinder compression to act like a large drive train brake.
As far as the OP if youre using oil from excessive downshifting, you very well may have worn valve guides/seals.
As far as the OP if youre using oil from excessive downshifting, you very well may have worn valve guides/seals.
Last edited by cHarley; 08-10-2009 at 02:31 PM.
#34
Engine braking was used on older vehicles (cars and bikes) as old drum brakes didn't brake all that much and, moreover, didn't stand up to much fatigue.
Modern brakes are capable of great braking force. The limit is the ability of the tire to transmit that force to the ground, i.e: the grip of the tire.
Modern brakes are strong enough to lock the tire. So, no reason to do engine braking in the first place.
Anyway, no, engine braking shouldn't suck ANY oil, unless there's something badly wrong in the engine.
Slowing down is another thing. You let the bike slow down nice and easy, then you stop it with brakes, that uses engine braking in the softest way. It's actually not "braking" but slowing down.
Modern brakes are capable of great braking force. The limit is the ability of the tire to transmit that force to the ground, i.e: the grip of the tire.
Modern brakes are strong enough to lock the tire. So, no reason to do engine braking in the first place.
Anyway, no, engine braking shouldn't suck ANY oil, unless there's something badly wrong in the engine.
Slowing down is another thing. You let the bike slow down nice and easy, then you stop it with brakes, that uses engine braking in the softest way. It's actually not "braking" but slowing down.
#37
It's more like... a two wheeler!
Trucks have special system that provide good engine braking, and they need it for a variety of reasons, mass being the first.
#38
+1 "Totally disagree. Proper use of clutch/throttle during downshifting prevents most problems. The purpose of a transmission is to match engine speed with road speed--at all times. Proper riding entails downshifing through the gears as you slow down--not coming to a stop and then crunching gears down to first."
As long as you match the engine and road speeds before you re-engage the clutch you won't harm the bike - lots of riders (even on sportbikes can't do this or don't get why they ought to do it) but it is one of these beautiful things that is a) safer, b) faster and c) feels good. Don't deny yourself - do it.
As long as you match the engine and road speeds before you re-engage the clutch you won't harm the bike - lots of riders (even on sportbikes can't do this or don't get why they ought to do it) but it is one of these beautiful things that is a) safer, b) faster and c) feels good. Don't deny yourself - do it.
When the wheels pull the engine the cutoff, well, cuts off fuel, and the engine actually doesn't consume any.
You then downshift to the next lower gear, again until you are at minimum, then you brake to stop while you downshift le last gears. Downshifting with a stopped bike is not good for the transmission.
As said, there is no reason to use engine braking, as the brakes have all the power needed to stop the bike. Moreover, while engine brake is grossly modulable, brakes can be operated with great finesse to balance the load between front and rear wheels, getting a far better control of the bike.
Engine braking can be used when riding with complete ease, and slowing down on a long, open road.
Contrary to what others have said, downshifting does NO HARM to the clutch, provided you do it the RIGHT way.
That is, shifting AND revving up the engine as needed to match the wheel speed. On cars with a traditional "H" transmission the best way is doing double declutch (or heel-and-toe if braking into a bend). Few people know how to do it properly today. On a bike luckily isn't necessary, as it has a sequential transmission.
Just shift and rev up as needed. It's easy to learn how much.
Releasing the clutch puts almost no load at all on the clutch. It's then the engine which brakes. As said, it's best to do it to save fuel, letting it rev down almost to minimum before downshifting again.
You HAVE to rev up, or you risk locking your rear tire.
Easy, simple.
To brake, and I mean not when you have to slow down, but when you need to BRAKE, you pull BOTH levers.
Engine braking on modern vehicles has NO PLACE. Tests show that it actually WORSEN your braking space as the brakes have to deal also with slowing down the engine, as if the bike wasn't enough.
So, when braking hard clutch must be instantly disengaged.
#39
During normal riding conditions (NOT in the mountain twistys) it's important to understand that using your drive train to slow you down generates excesive wear on the engine, transmission, primary chain, and final drive belt. IMO it's NOT a good habit, and can cost you hard earned $$$. Brake pads are a lot cheaper than drive train components. Just my .02
-clutch-
-clutch-