Pig of a rear brake, thar be squealin' boi!

[Antallica]

The Bandit's squealing on the rear upon application of pedal. You could almost say it does it when something get's enough friction/heat?

Anyways, sounds familiar to anyone? Would like to be able to use the rear without turning a few heads.

[Two Smoker]

, sounds like your pads are stuffed.... but it could be a stone stuck, but i reakon the pads being worn is the go....

[Antallica]

Yeah they don't seem to grip much either, probably right there mate.

Must top up the fluid too, seems rather low.

[Motu]

Sounds like they need a bit of oil - just pull your dipstick out and put a few drops on the pads.....anyway,what are you using your rear brake for? Apparently a really good rider doesn't use the rear brake.

[Racey Rider]

On behalf of the KiwiBiker leagal Management, Let me just confirm that Motu is ether JOKEING or 9/10 DRUNK when writing the above comment!
(ie. Please don't sue us if following his advise!)


NEVER put oil on the brake pads!!

And although some top race track riders don't use the rear brake when racing, There is a place for it, and learning proper use of both brakes on your bike may just SAVE YOUR LIFE,,,, if thats important to you!

[Bonez]

And although some top race track riders don't use the rear brake when racing,Weird, as it's around a 3rd of your braking power.

[merv]

Pull the pads out and put some heat resistant copper lube or something on the back of them.

[dhunt]

Weird, as it's around a 3rd of your braking power.
That really depends on how you brake, a stoppie for example uses 0% of your rear brake.

I've been told a good method is to apply both brakes when first braking then let the rear off and put it back on again when the bike is just about stopped (ie going slow). As having too much rear brake while hard braking has funny effects such as locking up.

[Hitcher]

Anybody who has learned from the Master, Andrew Templeton of Roadsafe, will use both brakes all the time. And why wouldn't you?

[vifferman]

Anybody who has learned from the Master, Andrew Templeton of Roadsafe, will use both brakes all the time. And why wouldn't you?I don't have a choice.
But I rarely used the rear brake on the FahrtSturm, as it was next to useless. However, on the VifFerraRi, I'm having to get used to using the back brake again, and I'm starting to enjoy the effectiveness of doing so, particularly when going slow in traffic.
Previously though (in a previous non-DCBS life), I've used the back brake to settle the bike (transfers some weight to the front) then applied the front brake as well shortly after. By modulating how much pressure is applied to each brake (when not braking hard), some degree of attitude adjustment can be had. In addition to slowing the bike down, of course.

And anyhoo - if the back brake provides any assistance at all in slowing the bike or helping to control it, shouldn't we be using it? :spudwhat:

[kerryg]

Anybody who has learned from the Master, Andrew Templeton of Roadsafe, will use both brakes all the time. And why wouldn't you?


I'm sure I've read somewhere an argument against the use of the back brake in many situations. Something about application of the rear brake unloading the front and upsetting the bike, especially in a hard braking situation (eg end of back straight at Puke). When I did my first couple of track days there the guys in the braking school advised me to to tuck my right foot back up on the peg so as not to be tempted to dab the rear brake AT ALL, and to rely solely on the front brakes. But then I'm no racer, and the advice given was at least partly for safety reasons: I think to avoid a situation where in a possible "senior moment" while hauling 200kgs + of bike plus my own (not-inconsiderable) bulk down from 250kms/hour that I jumped on the rear brake, then on the front, then both or neither, while trying to downchange frantically to scub off speed, causing the rear tyre to lock up and lose grip and front to dive alternately and spitting myself off into the paddocks...oops...I forgot...I already did that once.... :eek:

[Hitcher]

I'm sure I've read somewhere an argument against the use of the back brake in many situations.
It's all about touch and feel, surely? There is more subtlety to brake use than "on" or "off". I have never ridden a bike on a track but I have gone reasonably quickly on the road at times, and resting your foot on the rear brake is a good way of pulling off some speed without getting the nose to dive, particularly in a corner.

[kerryg]

It's all about touch and feel, surely? There is more subtlety to brake use than "on" or "off". I have never ridden a bike on a track but I have gone reasonably quickly on the road at times, and resting your foot on the rear brake is a good way of pulling off some speed without getting the nose to dive, particularly in a corner.


Yeah Hitcher I believe you're right for a competent and experienced rider and/or for normal road riding.. It's probably more that someone who is less-than-100%-experienced might jump on the rear brake too hard and drop him/herself in the poop...while over-application of the front brake possibly doesn't have the same risks.

[Motu]

So there you go Ant - you idiot,you shouldn't be using the rear brake in the first place,take it off and the noise will go away.

[James Deuce]

Fill out your Insurance form, and then let me take for a ride. I'll fix your back brake and get you a "new" bike.

[onearmedbandit]

Read an interview with a top MotoGP techie, who said ALL the worlds FASTEST racers use the rear brake. Now get this, by applying enough rear brake when entering a corner, combined with obvious front braking you lower the centre of gravity of the bike, allowing for higher corner speed. Now if you want to argue with someone in the know (how many here are involved with top-flight race teams??) be my guest, as for me I know when to shut-up and listen. He also claimed many riders choose to 'trail' the rear brake through a corner, helping to compose the bike under power changes, etc. (Yes, the article was about the use of rear brakes)

[TwoSeven]

too soft a compound pad will cause squeal. Its the dust that builds up and causes a glaze on the pad surface. On many bikes their isnt sufficient air-flow over the calipers to clear the dust so it builds up.

Wooden brakes (no feel) are often caused by matching the wrong compound with the application (both usage and disc material). If you have carbon or stainless sintered, you probably wont get enough heat into them for the beggers to start gripping, so they just feel wooden and give the impression you have to haul on the lever.

[vifferman]

too soft a compound pad will cause squeal. Its the dust that builds up and causes a glaze on the pad surface. On many bikes their isnt sufficient air-flow over the calipers to clear the dust so it builds up.Not just that, but they're also subject to building up road crap from the back tyre.
If the pad is glazed, you can sand it back with some sandpaper, and give it a clean with brake cleaner (clean the disk too while you're at it.)
The pads could well be just worn down - some of them are designed so the anti-rattle doofer (technical term) contacts the disk when the pads are worn to the limits and makes a god-awful squeal to alert the less maintenance-conscious to the fact that they're ferkt!

[kerryg]

Now if you want to argue with someone in the know (how many here are involved with top-flight race teams??) be my guest, as for me I know when to shut-up and listen.


Jeez, WTF ...who rattled your cage??

I thought :spudwhat: there was a reasonable sort of discussion going on...but I'm wrong again.

However plainly you are an incontrovertible authority, indeed plainly no less an outright oracle about this matter, having once read an article by a MotoGP mechanic..... so I for one will in future refrain from any utterances that might conflict with your estimable wisdom :not:

As a matter of interest, many of the top racers also slide their rear wheels in a controlled fashion...but that doesn't make it a good idea for lesser riders. My point, not that I expect you to grasp it, is that there are differing views about the use of the rear brake. I would not be so foolish as to tell someone with a different outlook to "shut up and listen" because fora such as these are intended for discussion, not unilateral (and arguably ill-informed) proclamation by one onanist. :moon:

[vifferman]

Maybe you're disk is squealing like a peeg becoz theres one trapped in there. :Pokey: HAve you checked you haven't got one stuck in the works somewhere? :laugh:

Or maybe it just needs some lubeing. Soak it in some grease from a pork chop.
mmmmmm.... porkchop.....

[Motu]

It doesn't matter how it happens - braking,engine braking or under power - but I prefer to have an unsettled rear end....if the rear tyre is under stress,the front isn't,you very seldom lose the front if the rear is fighting for traction.

[TwoSeven]

You cant really say that people should or shouldnt use the rear brake because it depends on the bike - some bikes have rears that work, some dont - and the capabilities of the rider.

Brakes are not just for stoping the bike, they are also for controlling stability, cornering technique and aiding in changes of direction as well as ultimate speed in the wet.

To say that you shouldnt use them or to leave a dud rear on a bike without trying to fix is in my mind is akin to chopping off a leg and wondering why you cant run very fast.

[onearmedbandit]

Jeez, WTF ...who rattled your cage??

I thought :spudwhat: there was a reasonable sort of discussion going on...but I'm wrong again.

However plainly you are an incontrovertible authority, indeed plainly no less an outright oracle about this matter, having once read an article by a MotoGP mechanic..... so I for one will in future refrain from any utterances that might conflict with your estimable wisdom :not:

As a matter of interest, many of the top racers also slide their rear wheels in a controlled fashion...but that doesn't make it a good idea for lesser riders. My point, not that I expect you to grasp it, is that there are differing views about the use of the rear brake. I would not be so foolish as to tell someone with a different outlook to "shut up and listen" because fora such as these are intended for discussion, not unilateral (and arguably ill-informed) proclamation by one onanist. :moon:

Right, first try actually reading a post before commenting on it, then you might not make yourself out to be an idiot.

1/ This is not my information, nor my wisdom, nor am I an 'incontrovertible authority', and for that matter I am not an oracle. See, if you read my post I was quoting a person who is no doubt an 'incontrovertible authority' on the matter. Nowhere did I claim that I had established this opinion. You sir, need to educate yourself to avoid making yourself look so ignorant in the future.

2/ The post was not suggesting this is a suitable techique for the road, new rider or experienced. While posting I thought I might need to clarify that point, but assumed that everyone here would see my post was in response to 'many racers don't use the back brake'. Proof again of your inability to comprehend the English language.

3/ Did I say he was a 'mechanic'? No I did not, wrong again. Please, please, learn to read properly.

Now I'm not trying to cause shit with you, but if you bring it I will let you know all about it. Thankyou and have a good day.

[Two Smoker]

WELL.......... I race, and i use the rear brake..... but then again, im slow so dont have a clue..... however MR is fast and he also uses the rear brake..... but then who gives a fuck.... do what ever feels best for you.....

Anyway back to the original question...... Ant, what Two Seven said is another possiblitly, i had this problem on the RG but it was more of a groaning sound for me.... But i would go for the brake pad change mate :niceone: Highly recommend SBS pads...

[kerryg]

then you might not make yourself out to be an idiot.



*yawn*.....

[onearmedbandit]

Well thought out response there. I clarify my post, hoping to clear up any mis-understanding, and that's the best response you could think of. My point is proven.

[kerryg]

Well thought out response there. I clarify my post, hoping to clear up any mis-understanding, and that's the best response you could think of. My point is proven.
Oh drat....there you are again!!!

I would like to engage you in a battle of wits but, as a certain politician said, I won't attack an unarmed man....

I could spend time rebutting your attempt at clarification point by illogical point, but I lack the interest, you would still fail to get it and I anyway don't see the need. Let your postings speak for themselves.

That's it from me. Attention span already all used up on this tedious little spat.

[onearmedbandit]

Oh drat....there you are again!!!

I would like to engage you in a battle of wits but, as a certain politician said, I won't attack an unarmed man....

I could spend time rebutting your attempt at clarification point by illogical point, but I lack the interest, you would still fail to get it and I anyway don't see the need. Let your postings speak for themselves.

That's it from me. Attention span already all used up on this tedious little spat.

No please inform us all where I am wrong. I'm all ears, or in this instance, all eyes. And since when has this become a battle of wits? All I did was post something I have read, you slammed me for that, but won't give a reason or reasons why. So have you the balls my man, to back yourself? I'd love to hear from you, seems you have formed quite an opinion of me from one or two posts. However, I suspect you will go quiet on this, having nothing to back up your claims.

[duckman]

Fight fight fight fight .... just kidding .. Kiss and make up eh it's nearly Xmas!!!

[kerryg]

No please inform us all where I am wrong. .


Oh ...do I want to...ummm... alright.

1. Your first posting included these immortal words: "...if you want to argue with someone in the know (how many here are involved with top-flight race teams?) be my guest, as for me I know when to shut up and listen".
I could say many things about that, but the main ones are as follows:

a. it rules out that any differing view could have any validity, and tells those who see shades of grey where you see only black and white to "shut up and listen". It's at best damn impolite and at worst downright arrogant.
b. the basis of your authority in making this bald statement is ONE article you claim to have read. You have no other basis to support your sweeping and over-riding statement, you do not attribute your source, and you state 1 man's opinion as if it as a matter of unarguable fact. Which it is not (unarguable I mean). Of course it might well be true but YOUR saying so doesn't make it so. Hence I pointed out that you are acting as though you are some sort of oracle on this subject but don't appear to have much in the way of credentials (other than 1 article) to support that imagined status
c. there are lot of KB members who constructively, wittily and helpfully engage with others on this forum, and all power to them I say. It is not in the interests of sensible, reasoned useful discussion to take a totally dogmatic position and proclaim its correctness for all to hear, and most particularly when it is done in an insulting way to others trying to contribute to a discussion.. You are free to do it (it's a free country), but don't expect me to think it's OK or to withhold from expressing my displeasure


I have no more time now (5 o'clock on a Friday...I'm off) but I will continue on Monday

[onearmedbandit]

Okay, thank you for answering my request. Sure, maybe I was a little heavy handed on the 'shut up and listen' statement, but that was intended towards myself. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, right or wrong. As far as 'one man's opinion', well sorry it wasn't his opinion, rather data taken from telemetry from these guys bikes, so hardly qualifies as 'opinion'. And so this does not, once again, make me an 'oracle', as this is factual based.

So maybe I was a little firm in my wording, however if you met me you would see that that is not my style. But from seeing arguements on the net such as 'I never use counter-steering' and 'racers don't use the rear brake', I felt the need to emphasise some facts.

Sorry if I offended anyone by my posting, it was not my intention. Now lets shake hands, move on, and as you say 'there are lot of KB members who constructively, wittily and helpfully engage with others on this forum, and all power to them I say', so lets get on with it. Peace out.

[FROSTY]

Before sailing off into panic mode here please just follow the steps probably already covered here.
1) remove the pads examine them to ensure there is pad material remaining

2) get a sheet of 600 grit wet and dry paper and lay it on a perfectly smooth flat surface. Get the paper wet.
3) put the pad surface on the sandpaper sand the pad untill the pad has a dull flat surface --use lots of water -it stops dust build up and removes the glaze from the pad. do this for both pads.
4) give the backing plate a quick sand as well as the edges of the plate.
5) using 800-100grit paper sand the rod/rods the pads slide on untill you have a smooth shiney surface with no lumps n bumps on it.
6) using coppercoat or similar HMP grease VERY lightly coat the rods and the backing plates of the pads -emphasis on very lightly.
7) using a drill bit of the correct size degunge all the holes in your disk--You use it as a HAND reamer
If after doing as above you still have squeaky brakes then Id look at pad compound or possibly a sticky piston.

About the brakes debate - Freddy merkle doesnt use back brakes-that was his style.
I use back brakes in the wet on the track as well as to stabilise the bike in a light braking situation.
I use the back brakes in the wet on the road in proportion to the front
If Im braking Very hard I tend Not to use the rear brakes mostly because I find that in combination with engine braking it destabilises the bike

[FROSTY]

I'm sure I've read somewhere an argument against the use of the back brake in many situations. Something about application of the rear brake unloading the front and upsetting the bike, especially in a hard braking situation (eg end of back straight at Puke). When I did my first couple of track days there the guys in the braking school advised me to to tuck my right foot back up on the peg so as not to be tempted to dab the rear brake AT ALL, and to rely solely on the front brakes. But then I'm no racer, and the advice given was at least partly for safety reasons: I think to avoid a situation where in a possible "senior moment" while hauling 200kgs + of bike plus my own (not-inconsiderable) bulk down from 250kms/hour that I jumped on the rear brake, then on the front, then both or neither, while trying to downchange frantically to scub off speed, causing the rear tyre to lock up and lose grip and front to dive alternately and spitting myself off into the paddocks...oops...I forgot...I already did that once.... :eek:
Kerry --I'd suggest to you that the advise was correct for YOU on that day.
I think its all about information absorbsion.
I'd suggest that for you that hairpin came up bloody fast and the temptation then would be to stomp on the brakes -possibly over cooking it.
For a seasoned racer it doesn't seem to come up as fast so there is time to think about track position,braking points proportion of brakes etc.
So for them its a well informed decision as to how much rear brake and why