how about throwing a tire pump into the spokes as a second brake? :eek:

:lol:Ooooh that would suck!

I really dont care to look and see how your "name" is spelled.
I also dont care to "argue" with you anymore as you seem like a person that would go for ages just to agravate people.
You may be the smartest bloke on the planet, you may be the most moronic fool ever, not my job to find out.
Ive looked through most of your posts and it seems that about 90% are of the "smart a**" variety, this was no suprise.
Ive met quite a few people like yourself, none of which I cared to carry on conversations with because they are always concerned with the syntax of things, not the meanings.
Rainyktopl, you's gots' problems... did I spell that right??
Im done here.

"It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never to use either." -Mark Twain

I think he just wants to fool with his bike and do something different. Its not for a reason.

Anyway, it would be cool if you removed the rear brake, and used the left and right brake lever to control the front disk brake, and front normal brake. That would be a redundant system that would stop you well, and you wouldn't have an extra lever.

I dont think thats a good idea. There is a specific way to brake while riding (dont want to sound like all the other no-it-alls on this forum) but you NEED a back brake. If you only had a front brake you wouldn't get the control you wanted. I actually tried going for a short ride only using the front brake, but it is too dangerous. In an emergency when you need an immediate stop, slamming the front brakes down might cause the bike to jump up a bit, which can be dangerous. When braking i pull back on the back brake almost until drifting point. Thats about 80% of the way, and i pull the front brake say 50% (it changes on how fast i'm going). So you sort of need a back brake.

While i'm posting in this forum i would like to make a comment.

This is the most ridiculas, longest forum i've ever seen, and its just gonna keep on going. The question CdCf asked has been answered and opinions have been given, so this thread is about done. But there are a slight few people that are going on about ridiculas things down to the last point of 'spelling and grammer'. This is a BIKE FORUM, not a freaken SPELLING forum. Please just Get Over It. I think everybody who has read this has a fair idea of 'who's in the right, and who's the smart a##, ect.'

Good Day :p

On the contrary, I'm very serious about this.

Having two front brakes protects me from the very slim risk of a front brake failure, for whatever reason. I agree fully that risk is very slim, and indeed I have never myself experienced a brake failure, and I don't know anyone personally who's had one either. But the risk is not zero. There could be a defect in the manufacture of the brake. No amount of maintenance can protect against that.

(My only bike crash ever was due to a broken RD, which entered the rear wheel, stopping me instantly. I didn't suffer anything but minor bruises and some broken skin, but it wasn't pleasant either. That happened 12 years ago.)

Let's look at this from another perspective then.
You wouldn't argue against getting a disc brake for the front wheel, by itself, would you? The only difference is that I decide to keep the rim brake instead of removing it. I don't care much about cost and weight. We're talking a few hundred grams here. The extra cost (keeping the rim brake vs ditching it) amounts to the cost of rebuilding the wheel. And I'm going to try to do that myself, anyway.

Good on ya. I've never seen a down side to having two front brakes. I agree it would be the same as fitting on disk brakes, although you would need a different wheel.

This whole situation about 2 brakes incase one brakes is just like wanting a parachute on a plane incase it crashes.

Good luck with fitting em on. Let us know if all goes well :)

And indeed all new Cirrus SR22 aircraft have parachutes. Two crashes have so far been prevented by them.

http://www.thewarfields.com/img/CirrusCAPS.jpg

And ultralights in Germany are required by law to have full aircraft 'chutes...
Did I mention I'm an aviation nut? :)

When i said parachutes i ment for people, but not for planes! What the?

Amen. On that note Im going for a ride.

I hate to get involved but i will. Raiyn your the one in wrong. I suggest you read the original post and then read your respones. Every one negative (except fot the pump in tire post), and yes i'm sorry to say this but giving statistics like you just have has definatley awarded you smart @#$ of the year ok. Go one, look up my statistics i really couldn't care less. THis is ridiculas, i literally was laughing out loud when i read your posts. Look i'm stopping there. Get OVER IT!

You like people laughing at you? you've reached your goal then!

This post is dead, lets leave it alone.

Worse than that - locking the front brakes will often cause an immediate face-plant in the street!
Getting in the habit of relying on front brakes first is dangerous. Learned this lesson the hard way -
now I always start with the rears, and add the fronts carefully when the rears alone aren't sufficient.
Do NOT disable the rear brakes.

Highly unlikely that redundant front brakes would be a real big safety plus for most, but if you do
some loooong steeeep downhills having the disks on the front and the ability to choose could be a
big plus, in which case it doesn't sound too far-fetched at all. Go for it.

Raiyn you are smart and a good spellar... not mee

One 'mechanical' problem the OP will encounter if he tries to mount a disc on a 'regular' front fork is the the forces of braking when using a disc are able to pull wheel out from the drop outs if the clamping forces of the skewer aren't very tight. A conventional dropout is angled down and back, which is the direction the disc under braking tries to pull the front wheel. There's been a huge discussion of this phenomenon on many other bicycle forums by James Annan (sp?) If a disc-specific fork is used, they don't have the necessary mounting hole for the front rim brake.

I think the OP was just using this forum as a mental exercise. I think having dual front brakes is impractical from a useful point of view as well as from a expense point of view. The money spent on the dual brake conversion could well be spent on bicycle mechanic classes to learn how to maintain a bike so that a possible front brake failure won't happen. I've not heard of anyone that has been coming down a long, fast descent that has had front brake failure of any kind. More likely would be a tire puncture, loss of tire grip due to road conditions or loss of control due to other factors.

Perhaps a more prudent approach would be to start modulating the speed at the start of the descent, not once you've built up a large head of steam.

I had thought about the redundant brake systems also, but for another reason. I have been thinking about putting on assist levers (which perform the same function the old "suicide levers" were supposed to perform) and realized that the weight of the levers was similar to the weight of regular brake levers, and that a second pair of brakes might be simpler to install, and might avoid any compromise in reliability due to the assist levers and the klugey way they are supposed to be installed. The penalty would be the weight of some extra cable and the actual brakes. My focus was on a combination of V-brake and road brake, but disk and something else would serve the same purpose. However, having used the "suicide levers" for more than 35 years, I think they are perfectly safe if adjusted properly, and the CPSC did us all a great disservice by outlawing them. I also think that stem located shifters were much less a threat to genitalia than suggested by the CPSC, and that they were a lot more reliable and easier to use than STI.

My reason for wanting brake levers at two positions is so that I can move my hands around to different bar positions and still have the brake levers ready for instant response.

I kind of want to fornicate with my bicycle. I'm not sure which part yet. I don't want to soil the seat, even though its leather would be a nice spot for it. I'm still eyeing. I'll keep you all updated.

Anothing thing that noone has thought of is pie. Pie could easily become lodged between pad and wheel, rendering the front brake worthless. Especially if its a gummy pie. Like Lemon Marange.

I like pie. Whats your favortie kind of pie?

I had a piece of Pumpkin Pie at my mom's house the other day. She meant to buy Sweet Potato pie, but bought Pumpkin Pie by mistake. I am quite glad of it, as I do not care for sweet potato pie, although I love Pumpkin pie. There was no cream on my pie.

What do you think of creamless pies? I like them. Sometimes its better, you know?

http://www.farina1.com/xmas2001/pie.jpg

oh oh its a piejack

Fog: I installed Tektro RX 2.0 top-mount brake levers on my wifes Calfee because she has arthritis and finds it painful and difficult to brake from the hoods or drops. (pic is not of our bike) It's a neat intallation with no loss of brake feel like you would experience with the old 'suicide' brake levers.

I think a second set of brakes is an answer to a problem that in reality doesn't exist.

Im seriously one of the nicest guys youll ever meet.
I give everyone encouragment on their ideas, no matter how far fetched.
Without encouraging new ideas society would be at a standstill and the word invention would be useless.
If you have an idea, go for it.... one day it may spawn something that could possibly benifit us all.
cDcF - There are a lot of people that dont like to think outside the box, I dont know why. Maybe its because they are too afraid of what others might think, afraid of failure, or just want to stay within the status quo. I applaud you for breaking the barrier and trying something new, just make sure and let us know and/ or see the results so we might decided for ourselfs if its indeed a feasible thing to do.
Good day all and thanks to most for being personable.

Criticism, even of those who think outside-of-the-box, is valid because it makes them think and re-think to validate their position. The out-of-the-box thinkers are not immune from making mistakes or creating more problems with their solution than they cure.

Now, that's not to say that denigrating or ridiculing ones ideas is a good thing, it's not. But each exhange of ideas in a theory helps the other understand their own position better. Yin and Yang.