Lost my brakes in the rain

[Flyboy]

I even sent an hour googling it. Couldn't find any reference to GS brakes sucking in rain. Found one article about the disc brakes on the GT 550, which took a little while to come on, but it went on to say that's just how disc brakes on all bikes were, before the mid 70s.

Disc brakes on cars were the same way at first.

Correct, because of the wiping effect of the pads displacing the water, this takes all of about half a second before the brakes are working as normal.
Hardly a death trap.

If you are riding your street bike on a public road, in the rain, in such a way that half a second of braking is critical, then yes, you are a tosser and riding like a tw@t and should not be allowed in public unsupervised.

Amazing how they used to throw those self same bikes with those self same brakes around race tracks on the ragged edge all over the world in the pouring rain and did quite alright.

[Rob S.]

You people are amazing! Almost like climate change deniers. Even when presented with documentation...

Hey! For your information, fully one tenth of one percent of all scientists around the world have stated that 'climate change', if it does exist at all, is not man-made.

In your face!

[jabcb]

Correct, because of the wiping effect of the pads displacing the water, this takes all of about half a second before the brakes are working as normal.
Hardly a death trap.

If you are riding your street bike on a public road, in the rain, in such a way that half a second of braking is critical, then yes, you are a tosser and riding like a tw@t and should not be allowed in public unsupervised.

Amazing how they used to throw those self same bikes with those self same brakes around race tracks on the ragged edge all over the world in the pouring rain and did quite alright.

Given all of the idiot drivers on the road, a half second can be the difference between an accident & a close call.
Its also worth remembering that many of those idiot car drivers have antilock brakes & can stop quite quickly in the rain despite being totally clueless.

There is even some evidence that LED stop lights reduce accidents, and LED stop lights are only about 140 milliseconds faster than conventional incandescent bulbs.

[Brendan W]

Maybe the OP could correct me on this one but he appears to be using Caltric resin pads ( up to 30-50% metal ??) on the front and sintered on the rear. I note that the rear retained effectiveness in the incident. I mistakenly thought organic pads were banned but now find that not only are they still being sold but are recommended for 'show bikes' and 'leisure' use by some vendors. I further note that it was the first time the bike had been ridden in the rain and that the brakes returned to normal function when dried out - in my humble opinion this is not consistant with oil contamination. A pad once contaminated is generally considered toast.
If people wish they can discount the linked Transport Research Laboratory tests as performed by the Area 51 guys on the grassy knoll but if it were my neck I would seriously consider sintered pads for the front....... after that pre-existing leak was fixed.

[themess]

Someone wrote that anti-lock braking produces shorter stopping distances in the rain. It does not. ABS maintains steering control. Integrated with traction control, it helps to keep the car under control under circumstances where it might otherwise spin out. If stopping distance is shorter with ABS, it is because the driver presses harder on the brake pedal, knowing that he can apply full braking force with a lower chance of losing directional control.

I didn't read the article, five times as long? ...

"The organic pads were extremely variable in their performance. The stopping distance, at a speed of 40 km/h, varied between 67 m and 433 m...some of the organic brake pads become waterlogged, and only after the water has been squeezed out of the pad does the brake begin to bite."

Translating this into the English units that us 'mercans refuse to drop

"The organic pads were extremely variable in their performance. The stopping distance, at a speed of 25 mph, varied between 220 ft and 1420 ft...some of the organic brake pads become waterlogged, and only after the water has been squeezed out of the pad does the brake begin to bite."

When I wrote 'five times as long', I was using the shorter distance. The longer distance is more than a quarter mile. On a flat, smooth road, the motorcycle probably won't coast for a quarter starting from 25 mph. A motorcycle would stop much shorter than that if the pad were replaced with waterlogged wood.

The article doesn't merit being taken seriously.

You people are amazing! Almost like climate change deniers. Even when presented with documentation you just cant admit that your wonderful old Suzuki's ever had any weak points. ...

Some people believe The Onion.

Given all of the idiot drivers on the road, a half second can be the difference between an accident & a close call. Its also worth remembering that many of those idiot car drivers have antilock brakes & can stop quite quickly in the rain despite being totally clueless.....

If a half second makes a difference, someone is following too closely.

I've been carpooling 58 miles to work. When she drives, she creeps up to a 0.5 second - 1 second following distance. When I drive, I follow behind by 3 to 20 seconds, more in the rain. Total trip time is maybe two minutes longer when I drive.

If traffic is so heavy that 0.5 seconds difference in stopping time is the difference between a crash and no crash, I wouldn't ride on a motorcycle, and would avoid that route in a car.

.... I mistakenly thought organic pads were banned but now find that not only are they still being sold but are recommended for 'show bikes' and 'leisure' use by some vendors. I further note that it was the first time the bike had been ridden in the rain and that the brakes returned to normal function when dried out - in my humble opinion this is not consistant with oil contamination. A pad once contaminated is generally considered toast...

What exactly were the article's "organic" pads? The introduction to the article refers to "common asbestos brake pads", as if the two were the same. Asbestos was gradually removed from brake pads in the late 70s and early 80s. Asbestos itself is inorganic. The pad contains many materials, many of which are organic (made from carbon compounds). Perhaps the authors did not test OE brake pads, but some early non-asbestos organic replacement pads, before they were ready for street use.

[TooManyToys]

Wow, a brake thread that I bypassed.

Disc brakes by their design and operation are not inherently affected by water since the water is flung from the Disney by centrifugal force. Add slot or holes and there is even an improvement over the first clearing first revolution.

But these last few posts have hit on the reason, the fiber reinforcement of the brake pads.

Asbestos is a hygroscopic fiber, as are some of the non-asbestos fibers also used in organic classified friction material compounds. When they absorb water, disc or drum, it takes heat energy today them before they loose the water film on the rubbing surfaces that prevents normal coefficient of friction.

The removal of asbestos from highway use varied all over the world. And Japanese auto and bike manufacturers continued to use the asbestos materials (legally) into the 80's and 90's, well after those of us in the USA and other countries banned it's manufacture. Not the use, just making them!

Asbestos and other fibers in organic compounds are only about 15 percent of the matrix, it's not a big block of fibers as some think. While some carbon is in the compound initially, it's the carbonization of the matrix at the rubbing surface by normal braking temperatures that turn this thin layer into a carbon matrix. That is why "bedding or burnishing" the brakes is so important, even with semi-metallic compounds. Also brake fluid has the same effect on friction material as water does, it may alter the friction or it may not. All depends on the friction compound. If you experience a wet fade issue, change the pads to a different material.

[tkent02]

Given all of the idiot drivers on the road, a half second can be the difference between an accident & a close call.
Its also worth remembering that many of those idiot car drivers have antilock brakes & can stop quite quickly in the rain despite being totally clueless.

There is even some evidence that LED stop lights reduce accidents, and LED stop lights are only about 140 milliseconds faster than conventional incandescent bulbs.

It takes me a half second to get the weight transferred to the front wheel so I can really pull on them anyway. The brakes are dried out and working hard before that. Anyone who tailgates in the rain on a motorcycle is a fool, plain and simple.

None of this equates to five times the stopping distance wet as in dry. That is still pure fiction.

[yank]

I have old brit bikes with drum brakes from late 50 early 60 thought they where ok. In 81 I bought the 1100e thought it will never get any better then this, many miles in the rain,I don't get it either.

[bccap]

I even sent an hour googling it. Couldn't find any reference to GS brakes sucking in rain. Found one article about the disc brakes on the GT 550, which took a little while to come on, but it went on to say that's just how disc brakes on all bikes were, before the mid 70s.

Disc brakes on cars were the same way at first.

I had a 76 550 GT. I don't remember any problems with braking. But the TT 500 I had previously needed a brick wall to stop it.....

[Brendan W]

More fiction. The Dept of Mechanical Engineering in Melbourne University was in on the act as well, distributing misinformation. Page 34

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/1983/pdf/Mcycle_Brak_2_pt1.pdf

[tkent02]

You don't have to ride if it scares you.

[Brendan W]

Touche! Nice one I actually got a laugh out of that.

[TooManyToys]

The last paragraph in 3.2.1, page 31 discusses their finding that sintered (full) metallic pads have comparable friction in both dry and wet condition whereas "organic" suffered wet fade. The issue is their investigation (and table) classifies materials as organic and metallic, way to simplistic for a valid study.

You have to differentiate between the fibers and organics of a particular formulation. A semi-metallic compound, which will have organic components that are not hygroscopic, will have the same wet fade resistance as a sintered product. So will an organic if all of its components are not hygroscopic. Most ceramics are of this nature, a compound that uses potassium titanate fibers in place of asbestos or other non-metallic reinforcement fibers.

[Brendan W]

The last paragraph in 3.2.1, page 31 discusses their finding that sintered (full) metallic pads have comparable friction in both dry and wet condition whereas "organic" suffered wet fade. The issue is their investigation (and table) classifies materials as organic and metallic, way to simplistic for a valid study.

You have to differentiate between the fibers and organics of a particular formulation. A semi-metallic compound, which will have organic components that are not hygroscopic, will have the same wet fade resistance as a sintered product. So will an organic if all of its components are not hygroscopic. Most ceramics are of this nature, a compound that uses potassium titanate fibers in place of asbestos or other non-metallic reinforcement fibers.

Fully agree especially given the fact that a plethora of recipes have emerged since this work was done. If you dig further into the Australian study they question the validity of their wetting methods as inadequate representation of real world conditions. The other point of note is the double force pull required.
From the OP's point of view what are the chances that a leak fix and new pads of the same material will give him acceptable performance in the wet. I'm not convinced.

[tkent02]

From the OP's point of view what are the chances that a leak fix and new pads of the same material will give him acceptable performance in the wet. I'm not convinced.

I don't have a clue what's wrong with the OP's brakes. Probably they haven't been opened up and cleaned out in 35 years, pads are contaminated, lines are shot, seals are hardened and cracked, just generally messed up brakes which happens with decades of neglect.

Whatever caused his problem, it is NOT normal operation for early GS brakes.
To say it is normal, that they are supposed to suck is completely irresponsible.