Podolak

I would think the back brake as a backup would be important if nothing else...

staehpj1

On really long (several miles) downhills while loaded touring I find it is a good idea to alternate to prevent overheating one or the other. Better to not brake at all and just go like hell, but sometimes that isn't possible

miamijim

When I'm mtn. biking I use my rear brake to 'trail steer'. Proper rear brake use helps to rotate and get through a corner.

I'm sure I learned the technique trail riding my BMX bike.

atbman

Or, as we say, "Greetings flatface!".

hines drive

SE Michigan is pretty flat, though I did try it on the hills I encountered, such as they were. I'll keep experimenting.

I'm no physicist, but it stands to reason that two tires braking = additional traction. The real issue is one of control. The issue of speed is also interesting, but from the tenor of the SB article, it's not clear if he's talking about "stopping fast" in terms of an emergency stop, or racing, or just general cycling.

In terms of general cycling, stopping smoothly and under control is at a premium, but I never find myself needing or intending to lock up my brakes. That's not to say that practicing an "oh ****!" stop wouldn't be useful, just that it's difficult to put Sheldon's advice into the context of everyday cycling, since it seems phrased in terms of absolutes.

tntyz

I never want to stop fsater than my ability to unclip.

Throwmeabone

That's fine if you're going completely straight, but if you need to change lanes or anything I'm more comfortable using the front brake. The rear wheel can slip out to the side easily on a wet road.

bengreen79

I prefer my rear brake for most braking since the front brake causes the front suspension to compress.

zonatandem

So take off your rear brake and find out . . .
. . . got accident insurance?

gascostalot

Okay lets learn something about brakes:

Brakes do not stop a bike. Seriously, they dont. What stops the bike is the tires. So first of all, your bike will only stop as good as the traction on your tires. You can test this by trying to stop on dry pavement, then go trying to stop on ice. Less traction = Less braking power.

Secondly, the purpose of the brakes is to turn the rotational energy into heat energy. This causes the wheels to slow down, but the bike will want to continue moving forward at the same pace. Since the frame is attached to the wheel, the frame will rotate on the axis and push down on the tire. This downward push is what stopping the bike. The more energy being applied down on the tires, the more braking force you have. This is why front brakes does 90% of the stopping. When you use the rear brakes, you're just dragging weight that slows you down. When you're using the front brake, you're transferring forward energy into braking energy, which stops you.

90%+10% > then just 90%. Honestly I dont see why anyone would perform an endo on their bikes when all they need to do (and should be doing) is lean back on the bike while applying full force on the brakes.

But a rear brake is very handy when you're dealing with slicky conditions. You can drag your rear wheel and keep in control. But once you're sliding your front wheel you're basically out of control. For that reason, it's better to use the rear brakes to slow down on slick conditions.

deraltekluge

You were doing fine up to this point, but that really doesn't make sense.

Without suspension, the frame doesn't rotate. It doesn't have to for braking to occur. There is a "weight transfer" effect caused by the deceleration, of course, so that when you are braking, the front tire has more vertical force applied to it, and thus is capable of producing more braking force before it skids. The rear tire has correspondingly less vertical force, and thus is capable of less braking force before skidding.

On slippery surfaces where total friction is less, and the maximum deceleration is also less, the weight transfer is correspondingly less, and the rear will contribute a larger fraction of the total braking.

In an automobile, you have one brake pedal and the braking system has a proportioning valve to control front/rear braking balance. On a bike you have two brake levers, and adjust the proportions yourself.

VenturaCyclist

Have you seen BMX race? Thousands and thousands of years ago before a meteorite struck the earth they would jam their shoe against the front tire to stop. As time evolved they place a front brake on the BMX bike. Where is this brake today? Are you capable of observing simple facts? Are you capable of learning anything?

Okay how about you're descending the Davis Double and you've accumulated a lot of speed, keeping up with cars. You are twisting with the curves. Are you the skilled cyclist that SB speaks of to use the front brake only? Lets say you are and as you apply the front brake the rear skids out due to the extreme forces involved. What do you do now, Einstein?

And why are you overheating one brake? Had you used both of them the temperature on both brakes would be lower than the extreme temperature on the single brake you're using.

gascostalot

You explained it better then I, but one thing I do want to note is that your rigid bicycle does have suspension: the tires.

J A Holman

He's saying it is better for a beginner to stop using both brakes. Sudden weight transfer while stopping quickly with front brake only is not a beginner skill. As he recommends the "conventional wisdom" to the beginner it implies the opposite, that front brake alone is more dangerous for the beginner.

hines drive

But that's not what Sheldon actually says. He first says, "Skilled cyclists use the front brake alone probably 95% of the time." He then states, "you will never be able to stop as short safely as a cyclist who has learned to use the front brake by itself."

He very clearly implies with this sentence that, even as to skilled cyclists, using the front brake by itself is safer than using both together. That's not the same thing as saying that a beginner must use to deal with forward weight transfer under hard braking. In fact, the entire reason we're having this conversation is that this thesis isn't well supported in the following essay...

cyccommute 

Or mountain biked When you are headed down something that is steeper than any pavement you'll ever encounter and is full of rocks and covered in round marbles of decomposed granite, you quickly learn that the rear brake - along with weight shifting - has a huge effect on the stopping ability of a bicycle. Use the front brake only in that situation and you'd better have a damned good dentist! Once you learn how effective the rear brake is on bad surfaces, you learn how useful it is in much more effective it is on good surfaces.

I hate to say it but, in this case, Sheldon Brown was full of beans.

DieselDan

The rear brake just slows you down.
The front brake stops you.
You don't need to stop everytime you use a brake.

Zan

front brake isn't used as much when mountain biking. not safe to do so in a lot of situations. easier to use rear on loose terrain than the front - which can be dangerous. the rear brake also gives you a slight bit more braking power ('till the point of lock up). that slight bit IS useful when you need to stop quickly.

cyccommute 

No. I'll touch my leg to the top tube to stabilize the bike and dampen the death wobble while applying both brakes to slow the bike to a speed below where the oscillation occurs.

cyccommute 

The frame does rotate...around the front hub. That's where the weight transfer comes from. Even with suspension, the rotation is around the front hub. All the suspension does is convert a little of that weight transfer to heat through compression of whatever the spring medium is.

Skidding of the rear tire is due to the weight transfer to the front wheel and loss of contact by the rear wheel. Anybody can skid a rear wheel by shifting weight forward while braking. You don't even need a front brake to do it. As any 10 year old boy. He'll show you how

deraltekluge

With a rigid frame/fork, it rotates only if you're picking the rear tire up off the pavement. You get a weight transfer, but no rotation. If you have a suspension, you will get a small amount of rotation.

cyccommute 

The rotation on any wheeled vehicle is around the pivot point of the axle. That's where the weight transfer comes from. When you stop the wheel (fast or slow), the momentum of the system tries to rotate around the axle. Car, truck, bicycle, unicycle...all try to pivot around that point. You don't have to go all the way around the axle to get rotation. Preferably, the rotation should be minimal but in extreme cases...endo...it can be almost completely around that point.

If the bike, car, truck or unicycle is equipped with suspension, you are just compressing the suspension with the natural rotation of the system and the weight transfer that goes with it.

cyccommute 

The front brake still does most of the heavy lifting in mountain biking...even in high angle stopping situations. Mountain bikers just try to put a longer lever arm on the rear to keep the wheel in contact with the ground and maximize what the rear brake gives you. Most road bikers don't understand this at the same lizard brain level as mountain bikers They haven't been smacked by the ground as many times

Doug5150

I don't know what country you're in, so this may very well not apply to you.

In the USA, the federal (national level) agency that regulates bicycles (the CPSC) states that if a bicycle does not use a pedal-operated coaster-brake, then it must have two separate hand-operated brakes, each of which must be capable of passing the braking test they use (the details of which I don't know, but it's a pretty mild test I understand).

The CPSC rules only involve the sales of bicycles, and don't regulate the continued operation of them (another thing they regulate is the types of reflectors that new bicycles should be provided with). So it is legal to remove the rear brake if you want (or the reflectors). ....-Except that there may be state or local laws which require these things to be left on.

In the olden days, if you thought that the rear brake was useless, with certain forks and brakes it was possible to mount both brakes on the front wheel, one in front & one behind the fork crown. Now most brakes aren't center-mount, so this isn't easily practical.

I would assume that it would be legal to sell new bikes with a rear freewheel and both a disk and a rim brake on the front wheel. I have read that part the CPSC regs before (they're online somewhere) and it doesn't state which wheels the brakes must control, only that new bikes (with no coaster-brake) need two totally-separate hand brakes.

There is another good reason not to put both brakes on one wheel however: if you get a front flat at high speed, the control of the front wheel can be very very poor, and in that case it would be safer to brake to a stop with just the rear wheel.

Gratuitous plug:
On most recumbent bikes, either the front or the rear brake will stop the bike very well, and (with many examples) there's no danger of flipping over forward in a panic stop.
~

Desertsasquach

Now i'm no expert but I have logged virtually every mile I have put to pedal and not one of my Giants have ever had front brakes. This month I have logged over 350 miles, been commuting for 5 months now and riding round one of our local lakes .