| Author | Message | ||
     Edonis |
This is from another board, but quite frankly I was surprised. The XB series was well out of the top 10. I was always under the impression that the ZTL system was a bit superior to the hub mounted systems. " These figures represent the top 10 shortest 60-0 stopping distances tested by Motorcycle Consumer News (Dec. 2003 issue). 1. 1999 Triumph Speed Triple 106.7' 2. 1997 Suzuki Marauder 800 107.6 3. 1997 Yamaha YZF600R 108.2 4. 1998 Ducati 750 Monster 109.1 5. 1998 Suzuki TL1000S 109.4 6. 2002 Honda VTX 1800 109.5 7. 2002 Harley V-Rod 109.5 8. 1998 Buell M2 Cyclone 109.6 9. 2003 Triumph Speed 4 109.7 10. 2002 Ducati Monster S4 109.8 Yes, your bike is probably WORSE. Here are some car numbers from places like MotorTrend, AutoWeek, etc. 2002-2004 Honda Civic Si 60-0 128' 2003 Tiburon GT 122' 2003 RSX-S 133' 2003 Celica GTS 129' 2000 Ford Explorer 2-Door 134' 2003 Honda Pilot 131.08' 1999 Chevy Cavalier 4 door 139' 2004 GTO 120' If you have any numbers for your particular bike, post them up. Same goes for your car. Now while the randomly selected cars above have slightly worse stopping distance than the bikes, consider that these bikes are the TOP TEN tested by MCN, ridden on closed courses, with great pavement and the riders KNEW they were trying to get best stopping distances." "I'm curious if the Buell XB series was on that list? I happen to ride one and find the ZTL system rather impressive. From an engineering standpoint its more efficient than standard braking system as it bypasses the loss of energy through the hub of the wheel completley. Back to the question though, honestly, yes. I cover the brake in urban enviroments, and am somewhat obsessive compulsive when it comes to my surroundings (road surface, traffic patterns, etc.). That and the bike inspires confidence, yet I make it a point to stay grounded and humble." "They have tested the XB series and they are not on that list. XB12 was tested in issue :Vol. 34 Number 11 Nov. 2003 60-0 @ 123.3' worse than these top 10 bikes, and worse than some of the cars that are NOT the top ten cars for braking (which incidently aren't always 50,000+ cars). Consider an EXPLORER stops in 134'." http://www.squidbusters.com/sb/showthread.php?t=3377 | ||
| Buells Rule! (Dyna in disguise) |
Pass the popcorn. | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
If I had to guess I'd say it has something to do with the XB's 52 inch wheelbase. That would explain a Suzuki Marauder outstopping an XB. | ||
| Blake |
Edonis, Already a hot topic since yesterday at... http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/6817/128205.html In short, how quickly one can stop a motorcycle depends more on where the CG is relative to the front tire contact patch than anything else. Thus you have the Suzuki Marauder in 2nd place. Lots of statistic variability in such random test results too. And some not so random factors too, especially if MCN used different riders with different heights and/or weights in their testing. | ||
| Tomzweifel |
If you're wondering (like the squid busters article) whether you can avoid hitting the car in front of you, it's a moot point. You don't have to out-stop the guy in front of you. If you can't you're talking a love tap at worst. The guy in front of you has to under-stop the guy behind you. That's the one that's going to ruin your day. The idea of ZTL isn't to improve braking performance, it's to reduce torsional forces on the wheel. Less force, less mass. | ||
| Edonis |
I hardly ever frequent that section, which would explain my ignorance. Thats a massive bit of info available, thanks. Cheers | ||
| Bbstacker |
Thanks for pointing that out, Tom. All of the facts, figures and statistics are academic if you don't leave yourself an "out". | ||
| Nick |
I read in Performance Bikes once that pretty much all bikes can put enough brake force down to lift the back wheel, and when that happens, you don't have much braking left before you take a tumble. In short, the braking power of the ZTL system is not the cause of the Buells 'lack of stop' relative to the other bikes. It's most certainly the short wheelbase as already discussed. If you want to stop quicker, then you need a longer wheelbase (or more mass over the back end), which after a certain point will lengthen stopping distances as front wheel grip will suffer. | ||
| Djkaplan |
Well..., a Buell did finish in the top 10! | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
Yeah baby! a tubah! (simulated yankee accent) | ||
| Buellin_ri |
Well I think I might keep that to myself. Everyone is always pointing out the front brake set up on my XB. Hate to tell them that a Hyundai can out brake me.  | ||
| Buellin_ri |
http://www.ggwiz.com/f/braking.htm | ||
| Ryker77 |
"8. 1998 Buell M2 Cyclone 109.6" But wouldn't every 1998-2002 tube frame have the same stopping distance. Which is about the same for the other biker tested as the same brakes and frame are used for many years. After hitting an old lady on my 98 s1w. Straight line emergency braking is very Important to me. | ||
| M1combat |
Emergency turning should be more important  . Most people look at the ZTL and think that they must have changed the brakes around to offer better braking power... That's not the case. It works just as well as is needed. You can still face plant yourself from top speed or anything under that. The "stopping power" of the brakes is reasonably close to unimportant once you can lift the rear tire at top speed. The CG and PMOI is more important. The only real reason to add power after that is for modulation because of the way your fingers work (it CAN get too sensitive though). They changed it around for handling reasons. There is a LOT less unsprung mass in our front end than any other street bikes front end. This allows the front wheel to conform to the surface of the road more accurately. This is why we can walk by other bikes on less than perfect roads. I'd like to see that test performed on a bumpy surface . One mre thing... I'll bet that number was attained with Dunlop D207's. Those tires are HORRIBLE in EVERY aspect IMO. | ||
| Daves |
I don't see an R1 listed either? I assume they are using both front and rear brakes for the test? | ||
| Bbstacker |
M1, I agree with everything you said. I compared the front wheel weight with that of a dual-disk sport bike. The average difference exceeds 6 lbs. And, yes, The Dunlops don't even make good tire swings. | ||
| Trac95ker |
I also agree with M1..to add one more thing...less weight=less rotating mass=less gyroscopic effect=more flickable !!!! |
