Andres125sx wrote: ↑22 May 2018, 19:44
Sorry but you´re confusing different things. They barely use any rear brake because the rear wheel is almost on the air, if not completely as shown above, so any rear brake input will only lock the wheel, stall the bike, and cause a crash. That´s the reason they had to reduce unwanted engine braking effects, any engine retention can cause a lock and the engine stalling. Not good.
Ducati´s longer wheelbase OTOH reduce this problem (so Ducati riders might use the rear brake more than their rivals), but magnifies a different one, steering while entering the corner, as longer wheelbase is more stable, but less agile, so they need to use the rear brake to cause some oversteering, or reduce understeering.
But DF while braking, if located at the front end, is useless. No bike need anti-lock systems on dry conditions (on tarmac!), as the limiting factor is not the front wheel grip, but the rear wheel becoming too light, jumping, and moving sideways causing serious stability problems to the rider
So DF at the front end, for braking, is useless. They´d need DF at the rear end to keep the rear wheel planted so they can hit the front brake harder and improve braking, but nowadays, unlike F1, front wheel grip while braking is not the problem, it´s the rear wheel becoming too light...
As for such ideas of engine braking "stalling" the engine.. yeah, that's in fact.. 180 degrees out..
- the concern was with big 4T engine rotating inertia either "stalling" the rear tyre - causing an unwanted slide,
or worse - a highside crash, by still 'motoring' the bike.. on a snap-shut throttle - slide-save attempt..
( esp' when the 'idle' was turned up to ~ 3-4000 rpm - to reduce the unwanted engine braking, from "stalling" the bike).
Expensive electronics-suite 'work-arounds' were necessary to settle these characteristics, but as a further example
of Casey Stoner's deft touch, he insisted on having these 'override' functions dialed down - to minimal settings..