Tim1,
EBS is suppose to slow you down...LOL

 

Man, you guys are touchy! All I was saying was that in some applications, drums are perfectly fine. This post was supposed to be about people who own a Ruby and things they don't like about it, NOT about why Polaris is better because it has disc brakes. I will be the first one to tell you that because of the advantages of discs, they are more suited to a high performance application. By the way, what category does the Ruby fall into. This is starting to get annoying. Every forum has this my quad is better than your quad attitude in it.

 

I thought drums was a big negitive for the Rubicon.Just because the a big utilitiy does not need the best brakes out there Honda should put them on anyways don't you? After all at $6999 you already paid for them.

 

Amen to that! It is called jealousy, and there's plenty of it here and it is a direct result of insecurity the sp500 riders have with there own bikes.

 

I always look at other people,s drum brakes set ups and wish I could have a set of those.LOL

Come on we are just saying the Rubicon is a premium class bike and should have disk brakes not cost cutting drums found on entery level bargain quades ,and even then they only use them on the back usually.

 

I had a Honda with drum brakes that worked great. After 9 years and thousands of miles, I had to get them fixed. No maintinence was ever needed.
I have a Polaris with disc brakes with less miles that had to be fixed after two years.

Both systems worked to my satisfaction.
I would buy a machine with either one. Whats the big freakin deal about brakes??

Oh, by the way, My quad is better than yours!
sheeeesh!

 

I posted a letter from Honda as to why they were not putting discs on a utility right now. You can do a search and find it.
Someone brought up trucks. The GM trucks I see with discs on the front and drums in the rear replace dics two or three times before the drums have to be replaced. Since 1997, my 300 has had brakes replaced once and adjusted twice. I am not complaining. If Honda goes to a disc. Good. It is not that big of deal either way to me. I usually slow down with compression braking, I guess.
If you don't like what is on the Rubicon, why did you buy one? I guess the reply posts are from owners, as that is to whom Andy was directing his interrogative.

 

There are a couple logic disconnects involving this and past drum vs. disc discussions--maybe you guys can clear it up for me.
One: I find it curious that some of you think Honda would spend what has to be well into seven or eight figures developing a completely new atv engine and transmission (yeah, I know-- the Hondamatic or whatever has been around, but not adapted to this application), not to mention a new chassis, and they would however then scrimp on brakes? That idea is, how shall I put it?-- absurd. Take apart a typical Honda drum brake and compare it to an atv disc and then explain to me how they're cheaper to manufacture. (Spare me the "because drums are on old trucks and Chevy has discs" line of reasoning.)
Two: With the product liability climate the way it is, and in view of the legions of well-paid lawyers Honda no doubt employs, do you seriously think they would risk multiple millions (and their reputation and that of atving in general) on a brake system that had the slightest chance being judged inadequate? Please.
Some of you need to get out of the silly Us vs. Them mentality and look at these things with some common sense. All machines such as an atv are compromises of varying degees between engineering, production, and marketing. But to imply against all logic that in these days a huge corporation (and a huge target) to which quality is obviously a prime goal would try to weasel a couple bucks on so basic (and litiginous) a vehicle system as brakes is ridiculous.
Yes, discs may stop faster and work better when wet. Drums have to be properly manufactured to seal reliably. (Seems to me I saw an interview with a Kawasaki or Suzuki "suit" who admitted they have had trouble along those lines in years past--supposedly rectified now.) I trust the years of R&D, in constant consultation with the legal dept., that Honda (or Yamaha or any responsible corporation) invests. They know more than I, but perhaps somebody else out there can help Honda out on this.

Anyway Andy, back to your original question. The only thing I would change from where I sit is the official name. I mean what's with the "Foreman" part? Honda needs a new Marketing guy. Oh, and the wheels are too shiny.

 

I am by no means an expert on ATV's or different types of breaks. All I know is that I own a 1988 Foreman 350 and have had no problems with it at all. I owned a 1999 SP500 and had no problems. I sold the SP500 and bought a Rubicon. There were reasons why I sold the SP500 and bought the Rubicon. For the kind of riding I do the drum breaks work perfectly and I have nothing bad to say about them. As long as what you have works the way you want it to and you enjoy it, that should be all that counts. I believe the original post was, "any negatives on the rubicon"? I have nothing negative to say about the Rubicon. In my opinion there is no better atv made. I would like to put a more aggressive tire on mine. Anyone got any suggestions?
It appears to me that the majority of the negative remarks are comming from people who do not own a Rubicon. The Rubicon is worth the money I paid for it and more.

 

Well stated Gooch! I'm with you 100%.