96 braking system on '95 ST1100

Hi there.
I'm going to swap stock brakes on my '95 ST1100 for '96 ones, looking for an advice. Had anyone done this yet? Is it even possible?

With North American models, if they are both non ABS, there are no differences. I think there ARE differences between the ABS models. Being a Euro model though, I can't be sure about any of that.

Generally no significant differences to the EC spec models...
But I agree with Bush, cannot be answered without detailed model info on the donation and the receiving bike...

If they are non-ABS models then all years are pretty much the same AFAIK. However, 95 was the last year for the first generation ABS, and 96 was the first year for ABSII, so those two are definitely not interchangeable. It will be very obvious if you look at a 95 ABS model and a 96 ABS model, the brakes are totally different.

This is true for the US market bikes, and I think it applies worldwide, but I'm not completely sure about that.

ABSII (96 and later) has different size discs, different calipers/mounting, different size front forks and wider front wheel (120 vs 110). If it is STD to STD, you should be fine, but ABS to ABS across those years you will not without a fork swap/disc change/wheel change.

ST1100 '95 ABS-TCS, first gen ABS split into two separate modules . The goal was to improve braking by installing those three-cyl brackets with addition of CBS. It looks too complex and expensive after all, so I'd decide to swap just brackets for three-cylinder ones. Now I wonder if this is possible without major changes. Any advice (or better a good working solution ) on that?

inb4, thanks a lot for your previous input. Greetings from Russia!

artmem said:

...I'd decide to swap just brackets for three-cylinder ones. Now I wonder if this is possible without major changes...

Click to expand...

Well, the CBS is exactly the issue there...
ABS-II/CBS Simple explained:
When operating the front brake, the master actuates the two outer pistons of each front calliper, as well as the centre piston of the rear calliper (rear brake pressure controlled by the PCV on the fork leg).
When operating the rear brake, its master actuates the two outward pistons of the rear, plus the centre pistons of each front calliper...
And in between all the plumbing you have the ABS modulator pumps, operated by the ABS control unit, which is embedded in the bike electrics and ECU...
To cope with the achievable deceleration forces/provide increased contact patch on the front, Honda enlarged the diameter of fork tubes and bottoms, and added a 3,5" front rim with a 120/70 tire...

Easier to transplant engine and other usable items from the '95 ABS-I/TCS into the frame of the '96 ABS-II/CBS, then swapping the brake system from the latter into the first...

Hmm, that may be a real challenge because as I said, the discs between the two systems are a significantly different size and the mounting positions and systems are totally different between ABSI and ABSII. Good luck! Definitely, the overall braking capacity of the ABSII is much better than the standard. I plan to change out my 97 Standard one day to the ABSII calipers/forks when I get a chance.

Uncle Phil said:

...the overall braking capacity of the ABSII is much better than the standard.

Click to expand...

hmm... in theory...
Had a little "competition" during motorcycle safety training once... my friend on his '96 ABS-II/CBS, me on the standard non-ABS...
Hard braking manoeuvre from 45 and 60mph to full stop... several runs...
Under controlled conditions and dry road the "ancient" standard managed to stop 3~4 feet sooner then the ABS-II/CBS... repeatable...

Sure, with all the variables in everyday life an ABS rider simply saves time, not having to sensing the ideal pressure point, he just claws into the brake levers...

ST1100Y said:

hmm... in theory...
Had a little "competition" during motorcycle safety training once... my friend on his '96 ABS-II/CBS, me on the standard non-ABS...
Hard braking manoeuvre from 45 and 60mph to full stop... several runs...
Under controlled conditions and dry road the "ancient" standard managed to stop 3~4 feet sooner then the ABS-II/CBS... repeatable...

Click to expand...

I test rode a '96 ABS prior to buying my '97 non-ABS and the difference in braking power was substantial with an inexperienced ST rider at the controls. The '96 stopped nearly like a sportbike, which I was very familiar with having ridden only sportbikes for years prior to buying my ST. I passed on that particular '96 as it was exhibiting headshake already at only one year old, and the price was a bit high (dealer). Also, because I was used to riding sportbikes, I never put much effort into using the rear brake, which was the key difference in stopping the ST effectively. After getting familiar with the ST weight transfer (or lack thereof compared to a sportbike) I was able to brake much more effectively using both brakes on the non-ABS model. I never got back on an ABS version to compare the differences after learning how to use the non-ABS brakes to their full potential, so all I can remember was that first impression.

Your story reminds me of a time at Sears Point raceway many years ago when I did a similar shootout with a new BMW rider who was very proud of his ABS equipped bike. On a dirt road I beat him every time in 40-50mph to zero braking tests with my FZR1000 (no ABS). I figured that his ABS was actually modulating too much and increasing his stopping distance, while my front wheel was plowing and even locking up a bit and digging a furrow in the dirt. Because it was controlled, and I was very familiar with my bike, I was able to plow the front like that without worry. On a random loose gravel road with less controlled circumstances I suspect my confidence would have been a lot less and the ABS would have proved beneficial.

dwalby said:

...because I was used to riding sportbikes, I never put much effort into using the rear brake, which was the key difference in stopping the ST effectively.

Click to expand...

Yeah, a common misconception among "true riders" to not use the rear brake... ;-)

On loose ground, like gravel or snow, ABS is always a questionable thing... I still don't get used that an ABS equipped car actually accelerates when I try using the brakes on a snow covered downhill road... uahhh!!! :shock: :lol:
Locking wheels are still converting/absorbing the most kinetic energy... yeah, you can't steer and locked up tires provide no siding anymore... but the increased stopping distance is actually forcing you to go even more defensive in odd conditions... which is why I wonder so much that they make dual-sports with ABS but no OFF-switch on it...

Also interesting was last years safety training, where just for comparison the instructors logged and compared various performances of the very different bikes/riders attending.
So in between all those brand new Aprilias, Beemers and Hondas with their very latest ABS systems and about half the fighting weight (in total like 12 bikes in that group), my old non-ABS ST1100 made 4th in shortest stopping...
I grinned and prompted "...yeah, and that on a basically 25 year old bike..." :lol:

And as you said, once you got used to proper use of the (unliked) brakes of a standard model, you'll find yourself very unhappy on a model with CBS... BTDT... :?
No more precise pressure point, no more control brake (rear) in turns, with all the added "safety" on board quite mushy and imprecise...

Never ridden an ABS anything myself . . . well, except in my car . . . and I'm with Martin on preferring to keep with a non ABS model, for now. I really appreciate having separate front and rear systems when I need a little trail braking in a curve.

ST1100Y said:

Yeah, a common misconception among "true riders" to not use the rear brake... ;-)

Click to expand...

On a sport bike under heavy braking the weight transfer is such that the rear wheel has so little weight on it (or none at all) that it contributes very little stopping power anyway, and tends to lock up very easily. The difference between using it and not using it isn't all that significant. Heavier bikes with longer wheelbases keep more force on the rear wheel, so they have more usable rear wheel braking power.

Having both models (STD and ABSII) you will not believe the difference in stopping power from the calipers of the ABSII until you ride one - not the ABS system, just the improved calipers and pads. And in reality, you do not notice the 'linked brakes' ... but then I ride like an old man.

Uncle Phil said:

but then I ride like an old man

Click to expand...

lol, excuse me while I cough and clear my throat...

Great thanks to all of you for your attention. I've understood that it will be easier for me to buy a new bike.

artmem said:

Great thanks to all of you for your attention. I've understood that it will be easier for me to buy a new bike.

Click to expand...

If you go to a 96 or later, you get the 40 amp alternator instead of the 28 amp also. ;-)

Bush said:

I really appreciate having separate front and rear systems when I need a little trail braking in a curve.

Click to expand...

Ditto, runs like on rails through all corners with that technique... with a pretty fast speed
Proper use of rear/trail brake also makes the ride way smoother, calms the suspension (thus higher corner speed), eliminating any slack/bump in the drive train, etc...
Seems for us an ABS-I/TCS model would be the beST
STill the narrow 110/80 front tire for agility and precise steering, independent front and rear brakes plus the minor improvement of having an ABS...
(I only fear of getting completely overboard with ABS aboard, brain getting lazy and that... probably better to maintain the active mental respect of the matter, I think I'm riding more foresighted and defensive without it...)

dwalby said:

On a sport bike under heavy braking the weight transfer is such that the rear wheel has so little weight on it (or none at all) that it contributes very little stopping power anyway, and tends to lock up very easily. The difference between using it and not using it isn't all that significant.

Click to expand...

Well, the instructors on every motorcycle safety/perfection training I attended differ on that...
When not talking about a "stoppie", balacing on the front wheel only, even a little, gentle trail braking (even only 5%) is stabilizing largely, eliminating the swing/wobble of the bike trying to "swing" around the head bearings...
Sure, it does take practice how to operate your brakes accordingly, but that's what those trainings are for...

Uncle Phil said:

Having both models (STD and ABSII) you will not believe the difference in stopping power from the calipers of the ABSII until you ride one - not the ABS system, just the improved calipers and pads.

Click to expand...

Ridden both I see the actual difference/benefit only in "not having to think/sense"...
You can go like 120mph with that ABS-II/CBS and just hammer on the front lever plus stomp your heel on the pedal of the rear brakes, and the machine will do the rest...
An independent, non-ABS requires a little more sensitivity, start slightly on the rear first, then grab the front brake, wait for the forward weight-shift and then full pressure on the front...
And within all this you've to look out/consider all kinds of stuff on the deck there, white-lines, tar-snakes, oil-spill, etc...

And ABS is also not the total life-saver, had an acquittance with a black '96 ABS-II/CBS who went down heavily... dumb bra in a small sedan pulling out an alley, he grabs into them binders, not considering the steel tramway rail in the road... he and the bike skidded down the road for like 150~200 ft...

And in reality, you do not notice the 'linked brakes'

Click to expand...

Well, I did... took me quite a while to adjust to that CBS thing and the changed behaviour of the bike...
And due the shorter pipe-runs/lower liquid volume the standard brakes feel just way more precise...

... but then I ride like an old man.

Click to expand...

LOL! I'D like to see that live... :lol:

ST1100Y said:

Well, the instructors on every motorcycle safety/perfection training I attended differ on that...
When not talking about a "stoppie", balacing on the front wheel only, even a little, gentle trail braking (even only 5%) is stabilizing largely, eliminating the swing/wobble of the bike trying to "swing" around the head bearings...
Sure, it does take practice how to operate your brakes accordingly, but that's what those trainings are for...

Click to expand...

I never said I didn't use the rear brake at all on my sport bikes, nor did I recommend not using it. I said its not going to make a big difference either way in overall stopping power, so your comment about using it 5% would seem to be consistent with that. I never experienced the need to use rear braking to stabilize the bike in corners. The last few sportbikes I owned were stable at any speed or lean angle, so you lost me a bit on that comment unless you're talking about racetrack speeds, which are irrelevant to me. So for the type of street riding I did in that era, using or not using the rear brake was not a big deal to me, I used it sometimes, but not always. I'm sure the instructors disagree, but I think they're striving for a higher skill level than I am, just call me lazy.

dwalby said:

I said its not going to make a big difference either way in overall stopping power, so your comment about using it 5% would seem to be consistent with that.

Click to expand...

To quote the instructors:
why give away those couple percent of braking power? At the end they could make the difference in hitting or not hitting an obstacle on the road...

I never experienced the need to use rear braking to stabilize the bike in corners. The last few sportbikes I owned were stable at any speed or lean angle, so you lost me a bit on that comment unless you're talking about racetrack speeds, which are irrelevant to me.

Click to expand...

Use and effectiveness of trail-brake surely depends on the weight distribution/payload of the mount.
But what I observe way too often is that many riders (especially those on hypersports) just upset their bike's suspension by overzealous, too heavy and sudden front brake use, and then missing the ideal turn-entrance...
And then the weird thing happens, in which the old, heavy, narrow tired, "ancient" ST is actually quicker in the turn, constantly closing the gap the overpowered hypersport might have gained on the previous straight piece of road in between the corners... and that they cannot shake off that old man's bike is just baffling them "weekend warriors"...
So by being gentle and "analogue" on them brakes, finding a smooth, ideal line one can gain more, then all the power of engine and brakes the other guy might have at hand...

And during slow, narrow turn manoeuvring the trail-braking gets really essential, they have those meanderings on the training premises, where you practice that till your clutch hand cramps up, and without proper dosed use of rear brake, the bikes get totally unstable in those tight, >360? backsweeps... (and in such a parkour where you have to turn your head almost 90? to look into the bend ahead, CBS just sucks :lol: )