Well, ride down a long steep hill covered in wet roots and rocks and you may reconsider that. There needs to be a fair bit of lever travel between engagement and lock up, but many seemed to be determined to engineer that out.

Firm and mushy are relative terms that, actually, don't mean anything. A lot of people simply equate a solid feel at the bar with strength, positive lock on the clutch power. In both cases they give up finesse.

What many call mushy, I call feel. If you're riding out west and getting big speed, you'd want more power in your brakes, and perhaps stronger clutch engagement than I do, but sudden engagement isn't beneficial to me. Progressive engagement gives me something I can work with.

 

+1

Pretty tough to modulate a mushy brake.

 

Well talk is one thing, and posting is another. We are still waiting on the video of the KLX, did it really happen?

And how do 'wire hangers' fit into this mix...

I guess the high brow 'tea totaller's' probably won't be back for another 6 years.

 

No, it's pretty easy to modulate a mushy brake. It's pretty hard to modulate a grabby one. I'm just talking about a brake with a good amount of lever travel before lock up. For me, I don't need or want steel braided lines, but I am not going to bleed air into my system either.

All these words are pretty meaningless. Some people would call a chassis maneuverable while other would call it unstable. It's the same thing from a different perspective. Maneuverability is instability, by definition. It's prone to deviating from course with small control inputs. It just depends if that's something you like or not.

The OP here was looking for more lever travel and a more progressive engagement from the clutch. To me, especially in 250 guise, that's a worthwhile goal.