I've been doing some reading lately and dry vs wet came up again. The best explanation I've been given from this site has been: "Wet sits in oil/liquid and dry doesn't sit in a medium".
I'm now curious to know more. This is what I've gathered in point form:
-Wet clutch you run risk of messing it up if you don't use proper lubricant/oil suggested by manufacturer
-Wet clutches don't wear away as quickly as dry clutches
-Wet clutches can be made to slip easier (meaning partially engaged engine to reduce effects of engine braking? - can someone elaborate for me?)
-Dry clutches require more feathering to shift smoothly (what's this mean?)
-Shifting with dry clutch is a more solid noticeable shift?
Then Slipper Clutch
-Designed to mitigate the effects of engine braking as riders decelerate as they enter corners.
*is that the same as holding the clutch partially in?
*so a slipper clutch does this automatically - how is it advantageous?
-Most newer litre bikes have slipper clutches
*why would you need a slipper clutch if you can slip the clutch easily with a wet clutch? Does the slipper clutch work without autonomously?
To me it sounds like a Wet Clutch makes more sense than Dry. Why do all the ducati fan boys on the forums I've read these arguments on insist that dry is better? I've even read that the 848 (dunno about 1098) has a wet clutch. But the option is there to convert to a dry clutch.