WE HAVE A WINNER. Sure, it doesn't include Mass in the final form. However, if the brakes are your issue then you're going to get less of that velocity per time G force (referencing an earlier above post) when you try to stop more mass with the same system. The "Art of" cycling books have a bad habit of oversimplifying and slightly mis stating things so that the average non technical person can think they understand it. The problem is that it results in a bunch of people that don't really understand it, even though in their heads it leaves them happy. It's sort of like the Discovery and History channels. Their shows about how things work are really cool (at least I thought so), until I actually had some of my own knowledge of the things they are talking about, and now I just cringe when I have to watch them. For example, rolling resistance. I was discussing bike stuff with a guy around thanksgiving and he asked how rolling resistance worked. I tried to go directly into a very basic primer of hysteresis and damping effects vs. spring effects. He understood what I was saying but somehow didn't believe that it related to bicycle wheels because I didn't mention the tire cords shearing against each other (which is also misleading the way it is written). I should add that the guy I was talking with is reasonably intelligent, just not technical.

Before someone starts to say "But my brakes are good enough, they can lock my tires" stop and think about why you don't have drum brakes on all 4 tires of your car if drum brakes can produce as much (or more) stopping power as disks (hint, ease of modulation).

</rant>