I shift by feel more then anything. You'll get used to it. Just follow what your manual says about break in period though. Once you get through that you should have a good idea how it feels and sounds

 

That's ALL it is. I generally like running as low as possible without lugging it. The sound is great in the low to mid twos when the throttle rolls on. If the road has any complications like hills or turns it is advantageous to run slightly higher rpm range and have more torque available. Controlling speed with throttle instead of brakes is the way to go.

 

I have found this thread very interesting. In truth, I don't think there is just one correct way to stop - engine breaking or straight brakes. For me, it depends upon the situation. When I am riding my bike down the Mt. Washington Auto Road, I definitely use engine braking to keep my speed where it needs to be. When I have all the time in the world to stop, I often use engine braking as well. When I am in a hurry to stop, I just use my brakes while downshifting to stay in the proper gear just in case I need to take off quickly at some point to avoid being rear-ended.

I took the beginner MSF in the early '90s. At that time, my instructor said that older bikes didn't have good brakes and needed to use engine braking to supplement stopping. He indicated newer bikes didn't have the same issue. (I don't know if this is true or not, but it is what he said). I have anti-lock brakes. The owner's manual and the DVD that came with the bike about ABS, point out that ABS will be no help when using engine braking. So, there is, for me on my bike, a greater risk associated with engine braking than with straight brakes because I take ABS out of the equation if I use engine braking. I take this to mean "times they are a changin'" and the more bikes fitted with ABS, the less it will make sense to use engine braking except in special situations like riding down a mountain.

 

I think you may be mis-understanding. (or maybe I am) ABS brakes work when you apply too much pressure to the brakes for the conditions and lock the wheel(s). ABS doesn't know or care whether you're engine braking or not.
My guess is that what they are saying is that if you down shift to too low of a gear that the back tire starts to slide, the ABS won't help...well duh.

That's my take on it, but what do I know...disk brakes were a big deal to me

 

Ok, to sum this thread up:

1. Shift wherever you want to, it's your engine
2. Engine braking works but does not contribute to braking if you are also using the rear brakes
3. Constantly downshifting to slow with engine braking causes excessive, unnecessary clutch wear
4. Brakes work better than engine braking (60-0 with engine braking .2 miles = 1056 feet, braking with brakes 60-0 about 140 feet; both distances on good dry pavement)
5. Brake pads are much cheaper to replace than clutch plates (Clutch replacement at dealer $1000+, brake pads in about 30 minutes in driveway $60)
6. Most people do not know how to properly use a manual transmission on a car or motorcycle (i.e. when trying to accelerate as fast as possible, most people upshift at about 3000-4000 rpm causing slower acceleration that running it to redline) (i.e most people ride and drive in too high of a gear for the circumstances; 6th gear at 45 mph)
7. Running your engine to redline will not hurt it. That's what it was designed for.
8. ABS only works then braking with brakes (Antilock-Braking-System)
9. Brake pads on a Toyota Prius can last 150,000 miles or more because it uses an electric motor for regenerative braking (instead of heat, excess energy is converted to electricity and stored in the battery pack) under normal circumstances! Maybe the new electric Harley will make everyone happy!
10. This thread has been entertaining and WTF all at the same time!

 

Steve, I note you are posting from Canada. As I mentioned earlier, I have a very good friend who is an instructor in Canada. He's in Calgary. I copied your post and sent to him and asked his opinion, and received his reply last night. Our email exchange is below.


"Brad,

I came across this post on the Harley forum I frequent, in a discussion on engine braking. The poster is from Canada.

Is there any validity to his post? Please elaborate!

Thanks, "


His reply in its entirety:

"Certainly not, we teach people to use the gears, clutch and brakes smoothly both up and down through the gears.

Emergency braking; pull in the clutch as you apply both brakes (threshold braking) and snick down through the gears so when you come to a stop you are in first and ready to make an emergency evade if necessary.

Take care my friend, I know we won’t likely see you this year, but certainly hope to see you next year J I’m probably headed for Sturgis next year for the 75th.

Btw 15 years teaching motorcycles if he asks "


My reply back:

"Thanks, Brad, I was relatively sure he confused regular braking on the road coming to a normal stop, with emergency threshold braking, the same as is taught down here."


Steve, your comments about the "any gravel, sand, water, or painted lines" are covered late in the course under "Special Riding Situations." In that same section other hazards are covered including gravel roads, riding downhill on gravel, rain grooves, bridge gratings, bumps, cracks and potholes, pea rock, mud, snow and ice, spills, load limits, tire blowouts, and broken clutch cable all of which may necessitate braking other than the normal stopping that you would have on a smooth, dry road free of hazards, when you use engine braking in conjuction with your front and rear brakes.


Yesterday, my lady and I rode over to Sioux Falls for the demo rides at the Indian/Victory dealer. There was a long, gradual downhill on I90 coming into SF with a left then right turn at the bottom due to road construction. The speed limit went from 75 to 45 to 15 mph. Because of this thread, I was paying particular attention to the semi in front of us, who went all the way down that hill to the turn without braking until just before the turns, but I could see the puffs of smoke from his stacks as he properly shifted down through his gears. I also did the same thing, and went through the turns in second gear at about 15 mph, all without needing to brake.

And yes, I was keeping an eye on my mirrors and would have flashed my brake lights at traffic behind, had the need arisen.

The dealer ran my bike through his shop for a check over and test ride to establish a trade in value, and the only problem was slight cupping on my front Dunlop, which has over 20,000 miles on it. The brake pads were fine, as was the clutch.

 

I have not misunderstood. The point they are making (and I was trying to make) is that if you lose rear wheel traction (lock up the wheel) when engine braking there will not be any ABS response (since ABS is only activated through the brakes) to save you. If you are too aggressive with the engine braking, or you hit a patch of sand while engine braking, ABS won't help. If you are too aggressive with the brake or hit a patch of sand with the brake, ABS can help.

 

Thank you for your interesting posts and concise information, funbikerchick. I have never owned a bike with ABS, and it wasn't addressed at all in the MSF courses when I last taught.

 

Funbikerchick does have a point that engine braking can get you in trouble if abused at a bad time. This could create a situation that would be tougher to get out of, especially for a rider that got into the situation due to a lack of riding experience. Choosing ABS protected braking over engine braking would have minimized the consequences of that mistake.

The ABS equipped bike is safer than non ABS. No amount of experience or skill can match what ABS can do.

 

OK..gotcha. Wasn't sure that that's what you were trying to say. I agree with you except for the "(lock up the wheel) when engine braking" part. Although you may lose traction by down shifting too agressively, you will not "lock up the wheel"....but I know what ya meant.