[aargee]

Originally Posted by basuroy

You replaced the brakes the third time with Bybre as in the same stock one ? If so then why do you think the present set up is better than the original one ?

Only once, not thrice. Present setup is better because I'm experiencing better braking than what it used to be before & considerably equivalent to Nissin setup

[msrsooraj]

How exactly was his wife sitting on the bike? Was she sitting side-ways like typical Indian women wearing saree does or was she sitting the proper way? If it were the former, then that per se could have contributed big time into her falling off. Anyways, I hope she recovers full and well and by the soonest.

[rahul4321]

I don't know if this link opens but there is another story circulating on the social media about a Harley Davidson mechanic who had an accident due to the jamming of the rear brakes on a HD Iron 883. I am not sure whether the company is to be blamed here as the mechanic was on a scheduled test ride and the customer might have mentioned the rear brakes in the list of complaints (not disclosed). However still, I thought it might make for an interesting read as it looks like the rear brake jamming on a Harley is not a one-off incident.


https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...0&id=637621998

[Urban_Nomad]

New thread title suggestion - "Someone with too much money and time to spare, on 2 wheels & with no skill fumbles and blames HD". This tribe unfortunately seems to be growing

No machine is perfect and that includes the whatever lakh rupees HD as well. Since he had been complaining of poor rear brakes, he should have taken that into account whilst riding. To share an analogy; the front brakes on my KTM Duke 390 are quite spongy. The same has been checked and parts replaced multiuple times but the issue still persists. Its the case with most 390s and actually many other KTM models the world over. So whenever I ride, I factor that in w.r.t. my stopping distance / safe zone

And sometimes you do encounter hazards on our roads that you are unable to spot until the very last minute. In most scenarios, its best to ride it out as opposed to give the bike last minute "HEAVE HO" inputs and totally unsettle it

Wish people took more time riding and understanding their machines. Money will buy you a motorcycle, not the skill to ride it ....... Period!

[man_of_steel]

Originally Posted by basuroy

I have realized the braking force is uneven . SVC as expected completely dismissed any discussion on the subject . Both brakes also have developed a loud squeal that has no place on any motorcycle never mind one this costly .

Its a fact that the 390 seriously lacks the initial bite from the front brake. Having said that, the bite is progressive enough to give proper feedback on how well you can stop. Did you get your system bled?

I completely agree to black12rr on this. A sports bike with near 50-50 front - rear weight distribution can stop effectively with front brake alone (Provided the tarmac is dry and clean). Back brake's usage is pretty much limited to nill-30%! Don't believe me?



But on types like cruisers and scooters the weight bias is towards the rear tyre and even on aggressive application of front brake, the rear will always have a good contact patch. Where as a sports bike's rear tyre will come off the ground the moment you become hot on the right lever. How many Harleys have you seen doing a stoppie? And that long raked front fork will not be forgiving like a sports bike if you grab a handful of front brake and might result in an instant front wheel washout. (One of the lessons learned among many others during a 4 month bed rest).

The point is, it does matter which type of bike you ride and your braking will(should) change based on the bike you ride. So on a cruiser you will have to use the rear brake more than on any other bikes. Having said that, why this person chose to ride a bike while having suspicion on the brake is beyond me!

[EDIT]: hope he adds a sizzy bar to his bike!

[basuroy]

Originally Posted by man_of_steel

Its a fact that the 390 seriously lacks the initial bite from the front brake. Having said that, the bite is progressive enough to give proper feedback on how well you can stop. Did you get your system bled?

I completely agree to black12rr on this. A sports bike with near 50-50 front - rear weight distribution can stop effectively with front brake alone (Provided the tarmac is dry and clean). Back brake's usage is pretty much limited to nill-30%! Don't believe me?

Yes the initial bite as compared to the first few hundred kilometers is gone but I have adjusted to that , my observation is even with the same amount(not the correct word but hope you get what I am trying to express ) of depression both levers ( I use both except when really slow ) often result in varied braking action . Overall this is fine , I anyways brake with room for error so yet to run into any potential braking related situation . No SVC didn't bleed brakes , they cleaned the pads on the 3rd visit (complaint was the squealing noise ) but it didn't fix the squeal.


On the topic of braking , you are spot on - both brakes are required almost every time . My first 1000km was solely front brake (weird because I was coming from an enfield with solely rear application ) but by 1500-1700 km mark , I had the rear brake action down to a subconscious effort , took about 500kms of consciously reminding myself to depress it . My gripe at first was it is very awkward to engage the rear in my bike but once I adjusted to it , I don't feel it anymore. Nowadays I find my braking begins - rear only -- rear + front -- rear only to necessary speed or complete stop .

[JayKis]

Is it just me that keeps wondering why every one here is bent on the character assassination of the Pune Businessman here?

To whoever says that rear brakes dont contribute to braking you should all be shot.

• For a Sports bike - Braking distance using front and rear brake is lesser than the braking distance using just the front. The front does most of the job in the braking though. A good rider can get away with just using the front brakes on a sports bike. You hold on to the tank with your knees so that the front tyre gets loaded for extra grip and this combined with lesser rake angle helps in great braking.
• For a Cruiser bike - Braking distance using front and rear bike is significantly lesser than braking distance just using the front. The higher rake means that you cannot load the front tyre just like the sportsbike which means the weight on the front tyre for braking is much lesser which inturn means the front grip is lower and more braking distance.

The cruisers can stop just as good as a sports bike but only if they use their rear brakes! Here is the proof!
http://www.motorcycle-vermont.com/th...king-distance/


Harleys are heavy bikes and this particular model Dyna bob weighs 305 kilos!!!. Braking is not at all impressive on these bikes for that matter having ridden the Street 750, Superlow and the Iron 883.

If there was a problem with the rear brakes and the rider couldnot stop in time, it is definitely the fault of Harley Davidson since they didnot rectify that issue.

If the speed bump was unauthorized/ no sign post he should sue the municipal corporation as well!

[nitro.1000bhp]

While the rest of you are busy being shot by the enraged gentleman above I have made some observations based on some of the logic provided by some very knowledgeable dudes above...

So sport bikes have a kind of geometry where the front brakes do most of the braking as all the weight is transferred to the front. As stated by the Laws of Physics ... And Harleys on the other hand can somehow reverse the Laws of physics and transfer the weight backwards under heavy braking!!


I wonder how much Harley invested in this ground breaking, Law reversing Rear disc brake!



A bike need not do a stoppie to figure if the front is doing all the braking. Noticed something called 'brake dive' ? where the front fork compresses and the rear shocks expand? While that is more noticable the tyres actually deform under braking which cannot be seen by the naked eye as its spinning fast. The front tyre squishes as the weight transfer loads it up and the rear tyre returns to its normal state as the load is shed . That squished up front tyre will be responsible for most of the braking as the load over it increases the friction coefficient like another gentleman posted previously.

It does'nt matter if its a 130kg race bike, a 300kg cruiser or a 1500kg hatchback. The laws of physics are the same . Which is why even some cars with ABS have only drums at the back ..."coz they don't do much".

[JayKis]

Note from Support : Personal attacks on fellow BHPians are STRICTLY prohibited on Team-BHP. All members are part of the Team-BHP family, and any discriminating or derogatory comment will NOT be permitted.

We advise you to read the Forum Rules before proceeding any further.

Originally Posted by nitro.1000bhp

While the rest of you are busy being shot by the enraged gentleman above I have made some observations based on some of the logic provided by some very knowledgeable dudes above...

So sport bikes have a kind of geometry where the front brakes do most of the braking as all the weight is transferred to the front. As stated by the Laws of Physics ... And Harleys on the other hand can somehow reverse the Laws of physics and transfer the weight backwards under heavy braking!!

The point for your convenience again - Using both brakes in a cruiser bike results in a much better stopping distance than using the front alone. If the rear brake was faulty and it contributed to the accident, Harley should pay! Simple.

Originally Posted by nitro.1000bhp

I wonder how much Harley invested in this ground breaking, Law reversing Rear disc brake!



A bike need not do a stoppie to figure if the front is doing all the braking. Noticed something called 'brake dive' ? where the front fork compresses and the rear shocks expand? While that is more noticable the tyres actually deform under braking which cannot be seen by the naked eye as its spinning fast. The front tyre squishes as the weight transfer loads it up and the rear tyre returns to its normal state as the load is shed . That squished up front tyre will be responsible for most of the braking as the load over it increases the friction coefficient like another gentleman posted previously.

It does'nt matter if its a 130kg race bike, a 300kg cruiser or a 1500kg hatchback. The laws of physics are the same . Which is why even some cars with ABS have only drums at the back ..."coz they don't do much".

No one is questioning the laws of physics here. Please include the rake angle and wheel base to your laws and you will get what was intended.
Do you know why a stoppie on a chopper is difficult?

[nitro.1000bhp]

Originally Posted by JayKis

The point for your convenience again - Using both brakes in a cruiser bike results in a much better stopping distance than using the front alone. If the rear brake was faulty and it contributed to the accident, Harley should pay! Simple.

I get your point. But I don't agree. Repeating point same convince me not. Nowhere was it mentioned he applied both brakes which you seem to have concluded based on....?

Anyhow apllying both brakes simultaneously with the same braking force may result in the rear tyre loosing traction due to weightlessness as its transfered to the front.

Originally Posted by JayKis

No one is questioning the laws of physics here. Please include the rake angle and wheel base to your laws and you will get what was intended.
Do you know why a stoppie on a chopper is difficult?

A bike need not do a stoppie to figure if the front is doing all the braking. Noticed something called 'brake dive' ? where the front fork compresses and the rear shocks expand? While that is more noticable the tyres actually deform under braking which cannot be seen by the naked eye as its spinning fast. The front tyre squishes as the weight transfer loads it up and the rear tyre returns to its normal state as the load is shed . That squished up front tyre will be responsible for most of the braking as the load over it increases the friction coefficient like another gentleman posted previously. (I seem to have replied to your noob question before)

[JayKis]

Originally Posted by nitro.1000bhp

While the rest of you are busy being shot by the enraged gentleman above I have made some observations based on some of the logic provided by some very knowledgeable dudes above...

Its documented that the owner did complain to the service center multiple times on the faulty rear brake.

Singh, the previously proud owner of a swanky Harley Davidson Dyna Street Bob — FXDB, has alleged that since one year before the accident took place he had been complaining to the authorised dealer, Mokshaa Motorbikes Company, about the rear brake pads.

Now how do we know if he applied both brakes when he crashed?

Originally Posted by nitro.1000bhp

I get your point. But I don't agree. Repeating point same convince me not. Nowhere was it mentioned he applied both brakes which you seem to have concluded based on....?

[Shanky_Cobra]

WOW! Reading all the posts above (not the ones right above) i feel like i have tapped into some unknown reserve of automotive knowledge, a lot of which i could apply on day to day basis.

Ajayviz, black12rr & viper_711, thanks for all your valuable inputs. It will surely make me a better rider. Yes, i do ride everyday to work.

GTO, i'll keep your 'excerpt + link' tip in mind next time onwards. Thanks for covering up my mistakes.

As for the businessman on his bike, he might have spotted the speed breaker a bit too late and is now just pushing the blame on HD.
As mentioned above, on a bike most of the bite comes from the front and at 50 to 60 kmph, the bike should have ideally come to a halt if the rider would've spotted the speed breaker well in time.
I am not speaking in HD's defence. The brakes should have been effective and the customer's complaint should have been addressed effectively by their mechanics.

[aargee]

Who read the entire news? The blame games are already ON between owner & ASC

Christian, on the other hand, said that if Singh knew that the brakes were not functioning he should not have ridden the bike and risked their lives. "We had asked him to hand over the bike, but he was not ready to do so. We even told him that if he wants, we will summon mechanics from the company and open up the bike in front him. But, he refused and never left the bike back," he retaliated

No one will know the truth

[JayKis]

Originally Posted by aargee

Who read the entire news? The blame games are already ON between owner & ASC
No one will know the truth

Precisely the point. No one will know the truth.

While Singh said that he has corresponded several times with Harley Davidson's India office over email, and even received a reply from the company that it is considering the case on a priority basis, when Mirror tried to contact the office we received a reply stating, "We are unaware of this case or any pending litigation." Confusingly, when asked again, they replied, "We do not comment on pending litigation."


But if you were after the service centre to get the brakes changed for sometime and has proof to say that the problem (as above)was not rectified the last time you took it there, isnt it Harleys problem then?

The brakes should not have been faulty in the first place! If the timelines between the complaint and the accident is more than a month or so (not evident from the news), Harley should pay up! If Harley can sufficiently prove that they had called the customer to change the break pads and the customer was not ready to drop the bike, the onus becomes on the customer then!

N.B: Assuming whatever is reported in pune mirror is factually correct!

[Added_flavor]

I honestly smell something fishy here.

If the businessman had been complaining about the rear brake for over a year, he simply shouldn't have agreed to take the bike back until the issue is satisfactorily resolved. The fact that he'd have signed the form and taken the exit pass simply means he was satisfied with the work done! Verbal rants cannot be believed nor can be used as evidence in the court.

Why wait for a fall to go to the court? He could have done it long back!

Using the fall and injury to spouse is just playing the victim IMO.