Clutch clunk

[psycoreefer]

Well, after talking to 3 of my co-workers (2 of them also ride), NONE of them use engine braking on either a car or a bike. One mentioned that he actually bent a valve on a hardley by shifting incorrectly, and basically doing an engine brake unintentionally (though I can't see how engine braking could cause that to happen). The argument against it is that considerable force is being applied to the drivetrain in REVERSE of the direction it is designed to go, and puts stress on places that are not designed to handle it. Of course, that is just theory, and I have no evidence that considerable damage is happening.

Now, I DO see that the use of engine braking does add to the negative accelleration of the vehicle, and in an emergency, it may shorten the stopping distance considerably. However, NOT engine braking causes zero stress on the drivetrain, and brake pads are a lot cheaper and easier to replace than drivetrain components. So, perhaps the idea of using it on a regular basis is not the best idea, but being familiar with the practice for emergency situations may be a good idea??

Actually, an automatic transmission IS downshifting as you slow your speed. IT just is not as apparent as with a manual when it is letting the engine do the work because it is designed to keep rpms in a certain range, just like upshifting. Heck, most automatic trans vehicles do not even have a tach. If it did not downshift, then it would have to shift before giving power when you apply gas after slowing down.

The problem I would forsee with only downshifting to 1st when coming to a stop, is if the light turns green when your doing 25 MPH. Now with an XS11 and the stock FD, if your still in 5th it will pull you up to speed anyway, but try that on a 250 or even a 450 cc bike. You'll be coasting off the side of the road to restart the bike. If your in 1st gear already, then you need to upshift or you WILL get tire skid, or see your tach climb fast or both.

As stated, engine braking is a definite benefit if not a requirement for emergency braking, especially on these big heavy bikes. Fact is, we as humans do what we have always done in an emergency, just faster. So if you practice not engine braking, in an emergency you will not do it, and it will take you longer to stop and could cost you your life.

I don't see how that could be true, if your using both brakes properly any more "negative acceleration" will cause the tires to skid and thats bad. Stock XS brakes have more then enough umph to skid either tire, at least on both my bikes, and especially the back tire which is the only one the engine is hooked to. I'd say the only way engine braking could help in an emergency stop is if your not using the back brake to begin with.

That said, I do use engine braking while riding around, however "panic" mode is clutch in, down shifting and both brakes applied until I hear the little "squeek" that says anymore and I'll be sliding. That is the proper emergency technique, because:
1. You need to be in the proper gear for road speed so if you have to you can "add" power and get out of a bad spot. Example you may need to shoot out on the shoulder to prevent becoming a pancake if the guy behind isn't paying attention to the idiot that just pulled out into your lane.
2. You don't want to stall the motor, same reason as #1
3. You want to stop as quickly as possible - the brakes are perfectly capable of this without the engines help
4. Its less "things" going on to down shift with the clutch in, then trying to engine brake between each shift and not "over brake" the rear wheel.

Panic stops should be practiced on a regular basis - if you don't your cheating yourself of the few feet that could be the difference between life and death!

[WMarshy]

The argument against it is that considerable force is being applied to the drivetrain in REVERSE of the direction it is designed to go, and puts stress on places that are not designed to handle it. Of course, that is just theory, and I have no evidence that considerable damage is happening.

I can assure you that the straight cut gears and ball/roller bearings in the drive train do not care which particular direction the forces are being applied. The "back side" of the gear tooth is as strong as the "front side" which normally sees the force during acceleration. In addition, I think the tooth stress at 7500 RPM or at at peak HP/torque is way higher than those under engine breaking the same exact load at 4500-6500 RPM. If your engine breaking at 6500 rpm or higher on a regular basis then you have larger problems at hand. Add in the help of the breaks and it becomes way less. The problem with engine breaking at such a high rpm is it can induce large tensile stress on the connecting rods... Im not so much concerned about the drive train as I am about the durability of the engine to handle it. It might be possible to get the intake and exhaust valves to make contact if they start to "float". Thats why strong valve springs are required in high reving engines...

[Crazcnuk]

Thre is no way to bend valves or damage the engine by shifting properly, and what we are talking about is shifting PROPERLY.

In fact, you are far more likely to damage your transmission by driving the way you describe. You are talking about coasting around and using nothign but the brakes until you are stopped which means you have no engine at all during any kind of slowing maneuver.

That is crazy. The effect of engine braking is one of the reasons we have transmissions in the first place. Have you never seen the 'Use lower gear' signs?

"I don't see how that could be true, if your using both brakes properly any more "negative acceleration" will cause the tires to skid and thats bad"

Not at all. If you are using the engine AND the brakes properly, you will stop in the same or less distance, with far less brake wear, heat and fade. By using just the brakes you are risking overheating, brake fade and losing much of your braking power very quickly in many situations.

What do you people do on long, steep hills?

I have a feeling you all do what we are talking about, but you've never thought about it. I have NEVER seen anyone, in my nearly 50 years that approaches an intersection at 200yds, pulls in the clutch and coasts/brakes to the stop line exclusively on the brakes. In ANY kind of vehicle.

[psycoreefer]

Thre is no way to bend valves or damage the engine by shifting properly, and what we are talking about is shifting PROPERLY.

I agree, under normal day to day riding...

That is crazy. The effect of engine braking is one of the reasons we have transmissions in the first place. Have you never seen the 'Use lower gear' signs?

Again, I agree during normal riding

"I don't see how that could be true, if your using both brakes properly any more "negative acceleration" will cause the tires to skid and thats bad"

Not at all. If you are using the engine AND the brakes properly, you will stop in the same or less distance, with far less brake wear, heat and fade. By using just the brakes you are risking overheating, brake fade and losing much of your braking power very quickly in many situations.

I both agree and disagree with this statement, in normal everyday riding, and when going down long steep hills I agree, you should be using engine braking, and I do use it in normal day to day riding. I live in the mountains and see people "smoking" their brakes on a regular basis, engine braking is a key concept that I think most Drivers training skips over, especially important for mountain driving.

However I strongly disagree with the red part, in a panic/emergency stopping situation there is no way to stop in less distance then you do using your brakes properly. Using them properly means that the both tires are on the verge of skidding, as close to skidding as you can get without actually loosing traction. There is no way - engine braking can get you more stopping power then you've already got with your rear brake. The engine can't magically make your tire stickier. And I can assure you it is very easy to skid the rear tire, the back brake is way more then enough during hard stopping.

What do you people do on long, steep hills?

I use engine braking, its a normal thing to do, see above

I have a feeling you all do what we are talking about, but you've never thought about it. I have NEVER seen anyone, in my nearly 50 years that approaches an intersection at 200yds, pulls in the clutch and coasts/brakes to the stop line exclusively on the brakes. In ANY kind of vehicle.

I agree.

I still maintain that engine braking has no place in a panic/emergency stop, please someone put forth an argument as to its benefit in that situation, if it can help and I don't understand it then I want to because those few feet do matter.

[Crazcnuk]

"I still maintain that engine braking has no place in a panic/emergency stop, please someone put forth an argument as to its benefit in that situation"

I would ask you to explain ANY reason NOT to use it?

WHY to use it? To make your brakes work better by not overheating them.

It's all situational, and no one here was actually talking about emergencies, we are talking about they 98% of the normal driving we do.

Here is a question, for those of you that don't think you use engine braking.

How the hell do you drive a standard transmission car or truck?

Since you are NEVER to use your left foot on any of the peddles (two-footing is a no-no) how exactly do you push the clutch down AND use the brakes with the right foot?

[WMarshy]

I think you both agree with about 95% of what we have been saying about engine breaking but you two disagree about using it in an emergency situation. In truth, my first instinct is to pull the clutch and break appropriately acording to the situation. Down shifting becomes an after thought due to sensory overload. I do think I can stop in a shorter distance engine breaking but, its just too much in an emergency situation.

P.S. There are no "real" hills where C-Bug lives so most people have probably never experienced a 1500' elevation change in a couple of miles, let alone smoking the breaks...

[psycoreefer]

"I still maintain that engine braking has no place in a panic/emergency stop, please someone put forth an argument as to its benefit in that situation"

I would ask you to explain ANY reason NOT to use it?
[/QUOTE]
Why not? Because its much more difficult to "modulate" the changing (with RPM\gear\speed) effectiveness of engine braking then it is to simply use the rear brake. Why not? Because it is much easier to simply hold the cluth lever in then squeeze\and release it 4 times in what is probably less then a second. Why not? Because it will not decrease your stopping distance at all.

WHY to use it? To make your brakes work better by not overheating them.

If you overheat your brakes during a single panic stop I'd guess your going way faster then I've ever ridden. Plus you'll likely only overheat the front brakes to the point of having problems, and engine braking only works on the rear, and I'd be willing to bet that even a super hot rear brake has enough bite to lock the rear wheel. I know that under hard stopping I'm using maybe 10% of what the rear can give because the rear is so light under hard braking.

It's all situational, and no one here was actually talking about emergencies, we are talking about they 98% of the normal driving we do.

It is situational, and during normal driving I completely agree, engine braking is useful and the proper technique.
However someone up above mentioned emergency braking and I responded to that case, engine braking should not be something your "thinking" about or doing during a panic stop, there are too many other things needing your attention in that case.

Here is a question, for those of you that don't think you use engine braking.

How the hell do you drive a standard transmission car or truck?

Since you are NEVER to use your left foot on any of the peddles (two-footing is a no-no) how exactly do you push the clutch down AND use the brakes with the right foot?

Maybe I was never taught the correct method but I was always told left foot for clutch, right foot for gas/brake. If you only use one foot, how do you take off on a hill? How do you make a complete stop for that matter, as you'd have to some how be holding the clutch in (so the engine doesn't stall) and pressing the brake (to stop the car).

BTW I just re-read this post and it sounds a little hostile, I assure you I'm taking this lightly, no hard feelings or anything, just want to better understand where my logic is flawed, or maybe enlighten you

[CatatonicBug]

In fact, you are far more likely to damage your transmission by driving the way you describe. You are talking about coasting around and using nothign but the brakes until you are stopped which means you have no engine at all during any kind of slowing maneuver.

I cannot comprehend how coasting in ANY condition could be detrimental to the engine or any other part of the drivetrain. Can you please explain this?

That is crazy. The effect of engine braking is one of the reasons we have transmissions in the first place. Have you never seen the 'Use lower gear' signs?

Yes, those "use lower gear" signs are for trucks (semi's) - not for regular vehicles. However, we are talking about engine BRAKING (attmpting to come to a complete stop), not maintaining speed or preventing a runaway.

What do you people do on long, steep hills?

I grew up with a VERY long, steep hill very close to my home (Conejo Grade, for those of you in SoCal), that I had to traverse twice everyday. On the slow side, I managed to get my 3-cyl Geo Metro up to 90mph, under full power. On the faster side, I would coast for most of the way down. If speed got too high for traffic, I'd engage the transmission in 5th gear, and for additional slowing, I'd use the brake. I would not downshift into 4th (or lower) and use the increased RPM to slow the vehicle. The weight of a regular car (and especially a bike) is not enough to have to worry about brake fade because of overheating in most cases. I have never heard of a car needing to use the "runaway truck" ramps on a grade because their brakes overheated.

I have NEVER seen anyone, in my nearly 50 years that approaches an intersection at 200yds, pulls in the clutch and coasts/brakes to the stop line exclusively on the brakes. In ANY kind of vehicle.

I've never seen anyone NOT do it that way. Of course, we are not talking about just releasing the accellerator. That is simply slowing down. What is in question here is the use of downshifting, and using the increased RPM to slow the car, then downshifting again, repeating all the way to 1st gear before stopping.

[CatatonicBug]

I would ask you to explain ANY reason NOT to use it?

How the hell do you drive a standard transmission car or truck?

Since you are NEVER to use your left foot on any of the peddles (two-footing is a no-no) how exactly do you push the clutch down AND use the brakes with the right foot?

Two-footing is the only way you drive a manual transmission vehicle. Left foot on the clutch, right foot on the brake OR the gas. The only place 2 feet are NOT used is in an automatic.

The one reason I can think of NOT to use engine braking in an emergeny situation is that there are way too many steps involved. Too much to think about in a panic situation.
1. Release accellerator,
2. grab brake and keep it applied (adjusting as needed for RPM's),
3. grab clutch, downshift, blip accellerator, release clutch, wait for PRMs to decrease,
4. repeat #3 for each gear until stopped.

[jmnjrpa]

Now this is funny!

How the hell do you drive a standard transmission car or truck?

Since you are NEVER to use your left foot on any of the peddles (two-footing is a no-no) how exactly do you push the clutch down AND use the brakes with the right foot?

This cracks me up!LOL

[Crazcnuk]

Heh, I thought it would.

Too bad a few hijacked the thread into an energency stopping thread, which it was never about.

These guys adhere to the 'OH NO panic stop pull everything in push everything down and hopefully skid to a stop in time'.

THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT AND WAS NEVER ABOUT EMERGENCY STOPS.

It's about normal driving. Emergency stops have to be handled on a case by case basis.

However, you now know why so many bikes lock up the brakes fall over and skid into whatever it was they were trying to avoid.

I always use engine braking, IF THERE IS TIME. I don't have to think about it, it's natural, even in panic stop conditions, to downshift the bike, and yes I can go through all the gears in a couple of seconds.

I don't know how many times I have come around a corner, or over a hill and somthing was in the lane, so I had to grab brakes, clutch and gears, get around the obstruction, then hit the throttle to get out of the way of whatever was coming up behind me fast. I want to be in the right gear for the speed I am moving at that moment.

[DGXSER]

The one reason I can think of NOT to use engine braking in an emergeny situation is that there are way too many steps involved. Too much to think about in a panic situation.
1. Release accellerator,
2. grab brake and keep it applied (adjusting as needed for RPM's),
3. grab clutch, downshift, blip accellerator, release clutch, wait for PRMs to decrease,
4. repeat #3 for each gear until stopped.

Number two is a little incorrect, you do not adjust braking for rpms, or perhaps I misread that, you adjust throttle.

As to your concern, It can be confusing to think of it all, if you do not normally do it. You know its alot like learning martial arts, Alot of people see what we do and think that is way to much and I'll never learn to do that. I ask my students how many of them were born knowing how to write the letter A, of course the answer is none. Then I ask, how many have to think about writing the letter A now, and the answer remains, none of them. This is because they have done it so many times they do not even have to think about doing, they just do. So it will be with engine braking in an emergency if you practice it normally.

I do disagree that the engine or transmission components will suffer from engine braking. This is like thinking your drive train in your car suffers when you drive in reverse. Many of the components are the exact same as used in drive. Our drive lines are ALOT like a manual shift rear drive car, basically with only one "axle". I never heard anyone tell you to limit use of reverse in a car because it is hard on the drive train.

The short of this is, if you think it is bad joojoo, or bad for your bike, then don't do it. Your surely not going to hurt anything except perhaps brake pads which can be changed. Until an emergency situation comes up. Then, hopefully, the extra stopping distance is not of importance to you. If you doubt it effects stopping distance, well try it both ways and see what you measure or see.

[WMarshy]

Heh, I thought it would.

Too bad a few hijacked the thread into an energency stopping thread, which it was never about.

These guys adhere to the 'OH NO panic stop pull everything in push everything down and hopefully skid to a stop in time'.

THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT AND WAS NEVER ABOUT EMERGENCY STOPS.

It's about normal driving. Emergency stops have to be handled on a case by case basis.

However, you now know why so many bikes lock up the brakes fall over and skid into whatever it was they were trying to avoid.

I always use engine braking, IF THERE IS TIME. I don't have to think about it, it's natural, even in panic stop conditions, to downshift the bike, and yes I can go through all the gears in a couple of seconds.

I don't know how many times I have come around a corner, or over a hill and somthing was in the lane, so I had to grab brakes, clutch and gears, get around the obstruction, then hit the throttle to get out of the way of whatever was coming up behind me fast. I want to be in the right gear for the speed I am moving at that moment.

I agree, to me though an emergency means that you have no time to think, just react (no time to down shift). The whole emergency stopping thing was a little beyond the intent of the engine breaking topic IMO.

[Guy_b_g]

I agree, to me though an emergency means that you have no time to think, just react (no time to down shift).

In a full out emergency stop I don't think it matters if you downshift or not. Traction of your front and rear tires will limit how quickly you can decelerate, The traction of the rear tire is easily overcome by either engine torque or braking (if you are braking all-out) and the vast majority of your traction will only be available to the front tire if you are braking properly. It'll take next to nothing to lock up the rear wheel and cause it to start to drift out.

That said, I do downshift, even during emergency stops...it's not something you have to think about at all...if you've been riding very long at all or if you have been practicing emergency stops it is just instinctive (everyone should practice emergency stops on any new bike until they know how hard they can brake without a problem)...not something you even have to think about..except perhaps when you know conditions are less than ideal..rain, gravel, etc...and even then it's not something I really think about..I just don't brake as hard initially...and feel for when there is tire slippage.

[b.walker5]

Engine braking and downshifting have been part of my normal driving for 38 years, and i have taught my kids and others the same method. I was taught by my father never to rely on brakes only, as one day they might not be there and if you dont know any other way how the hell are you going to slow down and stop. Emergencies are different, and clutch and brakes are the norm, but as Craz said this thread was never about emergency stopping in the first place. (actually it was about clunking noises when shifting )

I've been doing it this way since i started driving and riding 38 years ago. I have never yet seen, or heard of, a transmission or clutch failure as a result and will happily continue with what has become a tried and true method for me. Nothing like experience to teach one a few tricks, but to each his own and there is obviously a few different opinions out there.