I'll restate this to where even you can understand it.......
Which bike would stop faster assuming you only hit one brake like you'd probobly do in an emergency panic stop where your life's flashing in front of your eyes type of stop where you got about 1/00 of a second to respond with some type of hard as hell braking or your gonna freaking DIE!!) I suggest you don't really know the answer to that, as it's a wild guess as to how your subconsious would respond to hitting either or both brakes...which is my point...
Back to the question, Which would result in a faster stop?
1. Rider hits only the front brake with unlinked brakes....
2. Rider hits only the rear brake with unlinked brakes
or
3. rider with linked brakes hitting either one
Hint: How many guys made up the 3 stooges.....?
MOE?
I really don't understand why you are being rude to me. My post was a reply to someone ELSE who replied to a post I made. It was about the capability of brake systems. It had nothing to do with YOU.
I have not at any time "spoken to you", and your apparently highly emotional concerns.
But I will. Now.
First, I avoid many evolving situations that call for maximum braking. That's because I've ridden well over a million miles in the last 35 years, and folded that riding experience into ways to ride that have me handing situatoins before they reach the critical level. That's further enhanced by the fact that I prective riding regularly, both the physical riding abilities and developed skills, and in situation handling and response. As well, I am a riding instructor. That has me continually reviewing sound ways to ride that both produce fun, and keep my wellbeing intact - and successfully passing those on to others. The end result is I am a TRAINED rider, controlling my motorcycle in the circumstances I'm faceing, rather then an emotional accessory to a bike moving along as if it had a mind of its own.
None the less, it does arise that I need to use maximum braking from time to time. In the last year I can recall three such times - in 68,000 miles. All three times I applied both front and rear brakes, fully to the threshold SHORT of ABS activation, which in fact did occur in the last 3 feet or so of the two full stops that arose - the other slowing maneuver simiply got me down from 65 mph to 35 mph whereupon I swerved around the hazzard.
In short, I did what I was trained to do. And of that, I neither desire nor deserve any "awards" beyond havning saved my own bacon. I do note that salavation would not have been realized had I not trained to ride a bike quite well, but instead simply mashed the rear brake, in ignorance of the fact there was a better way to ride.
I once did live in such ignorance. But, when that veil was lifted, I realized it would only be my own sloth that would leave me with that same dangerous liability if I did not do something to make use of the broaer knowedge of others so I could take better care of myself. So I did the work, and I've now got the skills, that are going to save me from some things my prior ignorance, and then lack of work/training, would not have.
There is no right answer to the question you propose. There are still factors beyond what you have stated that affect the outcomes.
But, setting those variables aside, the general, very general, order of stopping distances would be:
Both brakes, linked or not
Front only, linked or not
Non-linked brake front only
Rear only, linked or not
The problem is you assume that brakes linked front-to-rear (or rear-to-front) stop shorter than a non-linked. The tests I have done, and repeated several times, do not bear this out.
Using VFR models with the same tires that had both linked and unlinked brakes, in ten stops from 60 mph there were just as many times the non-linked bike stopped shorter as the other way round. The average difference was less than two feet. This is not a statistically relvant value since it is smaller than the Standard Deviation.
In other words, they stop in the same distance. Because the linking has been made nearly ineffective so as not to produce detrimental effects.
The same test performed on two versions of the K1200RS (front-to-rear linking only) showed vastly different results - very much in favor of the linked brake bike. Why so?
The BMW system was capable of applying maximum brake pressure to the rear brake when the only the front lever was pressed.
This is NOT the kind of system that is, or will be, used on other brands of motorcycles - for the forseable future. It is a powered system with computer controls. It is prone to failures, devastating failures, it is heavy, and it is very costly. It has been set aside by BMW in their current models, as they continue to sort through solutions to a problems, to get good stopping results and not add detriments.
Anyway, when you do apply both brakes using the BMW system, and do the same with any other similar bike like an FJR, the BMW does not stop shorter, significantly or otherwise.
The bottom line is that among linked and non-linked bikes, whether we're talking ftont-to-rear linking or rear-to-front linking, the bike which stops shorter does so because the rider did the better job of manipulating the brakes veruss the traction threshold, and/or versus the ABS threshold. Doing that consistently requires training.
Why not train to use both brakes well rather than train to use only one?
Then your question goes away.
Email me and I'll even send you the materials to help do that.
Best wishes.
