|
Originally Posted by mander
(Post 5051008)
Coaster brakes go on beach cruisers and childrens bikes, not practical transportation.
The problem with a rear brake alone is that it cannot stop you anywhere near as quick as a front brake. A front brake alone is a bad choice too because in poor traction situations it can cause you to bail (in a move that a TdF commentator called "the front brake mistake"). Ultimately for a practical bike you need a way to slow both wheels. But this is the forum where we ride brakeless fg, which is essentially a bad rear brake, so do what you want. The bottom line is, just because something is dumb doesn't mean you can't pull it off and have fun with it. |
Originally Posted by Bushman
(Post 5051101)
i ride a 1960 Schwinn cruiser with only a coaster brake for transportation. It stops fine in traffic. I think it has more to do with rider skill than brake choice.
Maybe it's because I've spent a large part of my life in a hospital, but when things concern people's lives, don't take chances. Raise your hand if you want to be the "first" to find out why rear-brake only is a bad choice. |
Originally Posted by brinskan
(Post 5050241)
You see, that is the thing. I think I am so used to only have a rear brake that even though I have two brakes, I still only use the rear. But some of you may be correct, in that oh **** moment, I might be looking for the front brake too and it doesn't really save me that much weight.
Now as for it being a worse idea than a SS with just a front brake, you are all bugging and do not understand the physics of a bike. While yes, on all vehicles weight transfer puts the most stress on the front braking system, it does not actually relate the same way to a bicycle as it does to a car. On cars almost 90% of the braking is done up front, even most motorcyclists depend on only the front brake, but that is because of the increased stability of these vehicles due to their vehicle to driver weight ratio. Anyone here who has jammed super hard on a front brake on a bicycle while moving their weight forward understands what an endo is. So because of this most riders will use both front and rear brakes on a bike, usually jamming the rears while modulating the fronts. This lets the rear wheel take the initial job of scrubbing off speed and slowing inertia, then the front is used to continue to slow the bike after the initial point of decreasing speed. Without using the front brake with the rear brake the front of the bike can become unstable. Because if there is too little weight up front, the wheel could lock up and skid, which is way harder to control that a skidding rear wheel. And again, too much weight forward and ya endo. This does not happen when you only use only the rear brake. For years simple bikes have come equipped with only a rear brake. I doubt there is a single bike that ever came with JUST a front brake. This all said, I am still weary about removing the front brake, and that is why I asked if anyone else has done it. I am guessing no, simply out of fear of being lambasted by the internet collective. your reasoning here has left the building. there is no basic difference between the motorcycle and the bicycle in application of the brakes and the forces involved. none at all. ever endoed a motorbike, or done a rolling stoppie? it's exactly the same as on a bicycle. most of the effective stopping power is on the front brake. what you need to learn is modulation of the brakes, and distribution of your weight when you brake. sure, you can run a rear brake only, but it will not be as effective as a front brake, which in turn is not as effective as two brakes. does it look cool? who cares? the most cool is when you don't give a sh1t what others think. the rest is just being a poseur, whichis, frasnkly, not cool at all... |
Originally Posted by Briareos
(Post 5051126)
Raise your hand if you want to be the "first" to find out why rear-brake only is a bad choice.
|
Originally Posted by Bushman
(Post 5051101)
i ride a 1960 Schwinn cruiser with only a coaster brake for transportation. It stops fine in traffic. I think it has more to do with rider skill than brake choice.
|
:p just saying....dont blame the equipment for operator error. Why can I stop a 50lb old cruiser with coaster brake just fine when Mr Car Courier suddenly cuts me off?
too many people blaming their equipment for their accidents (that put them into hospital). Maybe they should pay less attention to beeboppalooing to their iPods and develop better Situational Awareness to the riding conditions around them, as well as learn how their bike reacts under normal and emergency stopping procedures, both on dry, wet and sandy pavements. :) but that would be using common sense would'nt it..... go forbid people use common sense. |
I'd say that ultimately you should do what is most comfortable for you, as that will be most useful in an emergency situation. I have never endo'd from over zealous front braking, but if you do maybe it is better to stick with what you know.
Personally, I'd say get used to riding fixed (a defacto rear brake) and add a front brake. I ride front brake only/ fixed through traffic all the time and I feel very comfortable with it. |
Originally Posted by Bushman
(Post 5051101)
It stops fine in traffic.
|
yes i do, Just because i ride a "cruiser" doe'nt mean i'm out dillydallying around bumbling along at seawall speeds. Quite the opposite - I rip on that thing. 110 PSI in the Conti slicks, 50 x 18 gearing, Redline 180mm cranks.
|
Originally Posted by iamtim
(Post 5052100)
Of course it does! I bet you're not routinely hitting the 20-40mph range on a cruiser, however, are you?
of those hills I was getting 32-35, easily. In fairness I dont think a 28c tire would be too cool bcause of the lock-up factor but my 2.25's handled it OK every time a moose or sasquatch ran out in front of me. I prefer a coaster over everthing else. |
Originally Posted by Bushman
(Post 5052124)
110 PSI in the Conti slicks, 50 x 18 gearing, Redline 180mm cranks.
|
I just converted my fg to ss to give to my girlfriend, I had issues trying to get a brake on the front, so i put it on the rear. I can stop faster than I ever could fixed with no brakes..
you guys need to stop telling everyone they need two brakes.. why not three.. you could have a coaster and both brakes, then if both of your brakes failed you'd still be ok! |
Originally Posted by mander
(Post 5051008)
Coaster brakes go on beach cruisers and childrens bikes, not practical transportation.
The problem with a rear brake alone is that it cannot stop you anywhere near as quick as a front brake. A front brake alone is a bad choice too because in poor traction situations it can cause you to bail (in a move that a TdF commentator called "the front brake mistake"). Ultimately for a practical bike you need a way to slow both wheels. But this is the forum where we ride brakeless fg, which is essentially a bad rear brake, so do what you want. The bottom line is, just because something is dumb doesn't mean you can't pull it off and have fun with it. |
..and carry and anchor to toss also.
|
Originally Posted by iamtim
(Post 5052100)
Of course it does! I bet you're not routinely hitting the 20-40mph range on a cruiser, however, are you?
As to the OP's original question, ride with a rear brake if you choose. A front brake is more feasible but a rear will function just fine as long as your realize your limitations. |
Originally Posted by mathletics
(Post 5052293)
Again, why? Why can't the rear brake slow you as quickly as the front?
|
Originally Posted by dobber
Nor despite most protestations are the fixie commuters.
Originally Posted by dobber
Take a look at any true work bike, the ones used in factories or built for use by street vendors.
Originally Posted by dobber
as long as your realize your limitations
|
Fast where? There aren't huge hills to bomb in manhattan.
You can argue all you want, but you can't argue with physics The front brake provides most of the stopping power- on any bike. Period. Even on a car... or motorcycle.
Originally Posted by deathhare
(Post 5049452)
You guys do realize there is a huge culture of BMX street riders that have been riding freewheel/rear brake only for a loong time?
And yes, they go as fast or faster than most people on this forum. |
I am trying out SS with my Pista but I have only front brakes. It gets the job done but I must admit that it is a bit sketch. I like the security blanket of having two sets of brakes and there are times when you should use just the rears, just the fronts or both depending on speed and traction conditions.
The main drawback of using one brakes (either front or rear) for me is the fact that I can't properly modulate my braking consistantly over bad road (like pot holes or gravel). With two brakes this is easier. With that said, I am only running one brake because my frame doesn't have holes for a rear brake. If you know what the limitations are just go for it. |
long story short, yes, you can have a back brake only, however it's not as effective as a front brake only, which is not as effective as two brakes. It will still stop you, it's still a brake, but in that oh **** moment where a bus just made a sharp turn and you need to stop or slam into it, a rear brake is not going to do the job. A front brake will stop you quicker, but on a SS where you can't lock the cog, you should really have two brakes. Not to mention, you said you like the simplistic look of it, front brake only looks significantly better than rear brake only.
|
Originally Posted by lamalex
(Post 5053192)
long story short, yes, you can have a back brake only, however it's not as effective as a front brake only, which is not as effective as two brakes. It will still stop you, it's still a brake, but in that oh **** moment where a bus just made a sharp turn and you need to stop or slam into it, a rear brake is not going to do the job. A front brake will stop you quicker, but on a SS where you can't lock the cog, you should really have two brakes. Not to mention, you said you like the simplistic look of it, front brake only looks significantly better than rear brake only.
|
Originally Posted by mander
(Post 5052374)
Because rider's CoG is above the hubs, the rider's weight transfers forward during deceleration. Basically, it shifts to the front wheel. The harder you decelerate, the more it happens. Thus the harder you decelerate, the less weight is on the rear wheel, and the less stopping power a rear brake has. At the quickest deceleration you can manage without flipping over the front of the bike, the rear wheel is almost completely unweighted and therefore it is useless to brake with---at any braking level it will just skid softly and gently along the pavement. A rear brake alone can only provide so much deceleration before it shifts your weight too far forward and no longer works well.
|
Originally Posted by deathhare
(Post 5049452)
You guys do realize there is a huge culture of BMX street riders that have been riding freewheel/rear brake only for a loong time?
And yes, they go as fast or faster than most people on this forum. |
Originally Posted by San Rensho
(Post 5053621)
The OP is not asking about going fast, he asked about braking, which means going slow, and rear brake only on a bicycle gives next to no stopping power compared to a front brake. With rear only braking his braking would be marginally better than with a no brakes fixed set up.
If wanna ride fast, its best to have a front and a rear brake. |
OP, run a brake on the front but put the lever on the right-hand side. That way, you'll FEEL like you're pulling the rear but actually using the front. Since you are SO used to having to pull the right lever, the only new thing you'll need to get used to stopping faster.
:rolleyes: |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:41 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.