Forget your rear brake, blip the throttle when you downshift aggresivley [example: your already at 7000rpm and want to downshift] and life will be sweet. Don't read too far into how you slow down. If you want to slow via engine go for it, just barely tap the rear brake pedal so your brake light comes on. Yes it causes slightly more engine wear from higher revs but consider how many people change gearing and do the exact same thing. The only other thing is crank thrust but that isen't really a concern with these motors.
I always shift into nuetral at a stop but alot of people think its unsafe for some weird reason.....

 

It's because if for some reason you have to go NOW, the only way to be any less prepared to do so is by taking your key out of the ignition

 

Okay guys I want to simplify this in the best way possible:

Over time which will cause less damage/wear to the bike if done properly? (here we are not concerning safety)

1. engine braking and braking at same time

OR

2. only braking and shiftng all the way down to first or neutral



Both of these in consideration only for stopping for a stop sign, red light, or slowing down in general when not having to do it suddenly

 

There is no reason you shouldn't downshift as you come to a stop. You're not doing anything wrong, to the motor or as a driving technique. Motors are meant to be driven, and "unnecessary wear" is a load of crap. I think the many users here with high mileage bikes can attest that their driving habits haven't lengthened their lives at all. Keep up with your maintenance and don't abuse the bike and it'll give you years of happy service.

However, as a safety thing for both you and other drivers, do what I do: push your rear brake pedal down just enough to activate the brake light. This will show that you are actually slowing down. Sure, it will engage the rear brake a little bit, but not enough to notice it as you come to a stop, and it's worth your safety.

 

aken I agree 100% with what you are saying but I mean, come one realistically, you engine break you will have to replace some parts earlier than if you had not done it, the same goes with just braking, you would have to replace the brakes a lot earlier if you dont engine brake and use only brakes.

In the end brakes are meant to brake and engines are meant to rev, but over time one of these methods has to have an advantage in less damage/wear to the bike, considering that this wear is happenning to different parts of the bike.

 

Yes, you have to replace parts. That's called maintenance. You do it with every single vehicle. Why are you over thinking it?

Also, engine braking puts a lot less strain on a motorcycle than acceleration, high RPMs, hard shifting, etc. Are you going to stop doing those, too?

 

As I mentioned before I want to get the most/best performance out of this bike with the most mileage I could get out of it. I am the type of person where If I feel like I revved it too much or rode too agressively that I damaged the bike. This is why i am asking these questions
I like engine braking and braking at the same time a lot and find it to suit my riding perfectly, but If what I am doing is going to hurt the bike( cause more wear, damage parts, lower gas mileage, mess up the engine to a point where changing parts wont fix it ) then I want to change my habits of riding

 

Use the brakes to slow the bike down. That's what they are there for. The bonus is that if your micro-switches are adjusted correctly, your brake light(s) also come on, signaling to drivers behind you what's going on.

I also engine brake, but not to slow the bike down. It's done to make sure I have the engine in the correct RPM range for the next maneuver I anticipate will come up. Going into a corner, that means being at the lower part of the power-band so I can accelerate through and out of the corner before having to upshift. If coming to a stop, that means being at the middle to lower part of the power-band so I can go like a bat out of hell when the opportunity presents itself.

 

Guys I understood the concept of everything you have told me before I made this thread, what I do not understand at this moment is in due time which will cost more, braking without using the engine( - lower brake/disc life, + higher mpg )
versus
engine braking and braking ( - lower mpg, + longer brake/disc life, - engine damage(if there is any which I need help finding out))

 

If you think normal operation of a vehicle is "damaging", then you're in the wrong sport. Why have a bike if you aren't going to use its potential to at least have a little fun? Again, you've overthinking this to the point where you're removing the fun part of owning a sport bike.

What will cost you more over time? Using the brakes alone. Because the brakes will wear faster and you'll need to replace them more often.

Engine braking "hurts" the motor just as much as shifting "hurts" the clutch. It will wear out eventually regardless. The amount of time it takes to wear down parts of the motor is 1) insignificant, 2) next to impossible to figure out. So stop worrying about it, figure out a way that YOU PREFER to ride, stick with it and have some fun.