|question for weight wiennies||mattcrout|
Jun 22, 2001 10:11 AM
|I've often heard that most people don't even use thier back brake very often if not at all. i seldomly use it myself since like 80% of your braking power is in the front brake. so here is my question, if you're looking to save weight by spending hundreds of dollars on really light stuff, why dont' you just remove the rear brake? that would probalby save a fair amount of weight i would think. ok thanks|
|re: question for weight wiennies||Cima Coppi|
Jun 22, 2001 10:15 AM
|Then what will you do if you have a front brake failure? Doesn't happen often, but you never know. |
Also, your stopping power is greatly increased by the use of both brakes. You can also fine tune your braking using only the back because its stopping power is not as strong.
I'd say you'd not be wise to remove the rear brake. Safety "outweights" losing a few ounces.
|I agree, and...||Lazy|
Jun 22, 2001 10:18 AM
|If you were going to set up a bike for something like a hill climb, then you could probably get away with it. Removing the brake, lever, and cables would probably save a pretty decent amount of weight. If you're really into it, you could remove the big chain ring as well.|
|One good crap negates the savings||AlexR|
Jun 22, 2001 10:20 AM
|Pardon the vulgarity, but it's true.
|One good crap would double the savings!! NM :-)||Lazy|
Jun 22, 2001 10:21 AM
|without brakes you might just take a crap...||DaveG|
Jun 22, 2001 10:59 AM
|as you are flying downhill towards that semi.|
|Once again, thanks for making LOL, DaveG!! (nm)||RhodyRider|
Jun 22, 2001 8:58 PM
|don't do it||Dog|
Jun 22, 2001 10:53 AM
|I've had front tire blowouts going down steep hills at 45 mph. I'd have been screwed with no back brake.
Put on a lightweight brake, but at least keep one there. I'm doing so even on my "climbing" bike.
|Because what goes up, must come down...||Cima Coppi|
Jun 22, 2001 11:00 AM
|Right, Doug?? |
|I have never heard this.........||Len J|
Jun 22, 2001 11:17 AM
|that most people don't even use thier back brake. Is this true?
Maybe it's one of those things we are all suppposed to know, But (DUH) I don't. What is the logic?
Everything I have read has said that the safest way to stop is with the Back Brake, Excessive force on the front Brake will throw you over the Bars. What am I missing?
Call me "Willing to learn"
|Back braker||Brian C.|
Jun 22, 2001 11:29 AM
|For a while there I was using the back brake only because the front brake was making a funny sound. |
For some reason (if anyone can explain the dyanmics, please do) the rear wheel had a tendency to lock up. After three or four of these screeching halts, the tire developed a significant scuff on it. Ultimately, it resulted in a flat tire.
Now, my front brake (sans funny sound) is the alpha bike stopper with support, when needed, from the rear.
Just an observation.
|rear wheel not in dropouts straight/or completely inserted? nm||Haiku d'état|
Jun 22, 2001 11:52 AM
|It didn't occur that might be a problem||Brian C.|
Jun 22, 2001 12:14 PM
|If so, it was corrected when the flat was fixed. Thanks.|
Jun 22, 2001 12:17 PM
|Even when you use the rear brake only, your inertia could push you forward over the handlebars (because your center of gravity is so far above the braking point). The weight, and traction, on your rear wheel will be reduced. That makes it far more likely to lock up and skid. Conversely, using your front brake, the weight on the front wheel will increase, and you're likely to be thrown before you lock up.|
Jun 23, 2001 7:29 AM
|The readers should be aware that when using only the rear brake, it is possible (albeit unlikely) for the rider to go over the handlebars, it is NOT possible for the rear wheel to lift off the ground pivoting the bike about the front wheel.|
Jun 22, 2001 12:46 PM
|As I understand it, the way to achieve the shortest controlled stops is to apply both brakes and then, as the forward weight transfer occurs, ease up on the rear to keep it from locking while applying more power to the front since it will then take more pressure prior to lock up with the additional weight. The technique has to practiced a lot to make it become a natural reaction in a panic stop situation.
While the rear brake may not contribute all the much, wasting what it contributes seems unwise.
Jun 23, 2001 8:25 AM
|i believe the shortest way to stop would be to brake with only the front. the rear wheel will lift off the ground and you can modulate the front brake so you don't flip. find your balance point and ride the nose wheelie until you stop. i did this just last week when a pickup turned in front of me while i was going 30mph. i'm not sure actual distances but i stopped quick enough :)|
Jun 22, 2001 11:19 AM
|My brother used to pull this stunt. It's all well and good until you need to feather the rear deep in a corner (using the front kills your line) or the roads are wet. To see how this might play out in a "safer" environment go ride a MTB and use only the front brake. You'll return with a new appreciation for the difference between the front and rear. |
Having taken courses in vehicle dynamics, built race cars for ASME design competitions and 30+ of biking, I'll be the first to admitt that in a straight line, all other things being equal, the dynamics of the situation is such that the front brake does provide most of the stopping power. But reality isn't ideal and not all roads are perfectly straight.
You could also try riding with out a helmet to save both weight and drag. Heck, shave your whole body and ride nekid.
Jun 23, 2001 7:39 AM
|It is almost self-evident that the front brake provides most of the braking. One look at the sizes of the front brakes vs. rear brakes on any car/motorbike will show this. Many autos have only drum brakes on the rear while virtually all front brakes are disc.
It is hard to think of a real-life situation where the rear provides more braking than the front.
|It is hard to think...||Dog|
Jun 25, 2001 7:32 AM
|"It is hard to think of a real-life situation where the rear provides more braking than the front."
This one is easy, for it has happened to me many times: Front tire blows out going down hill at 45 mph. You'll be happy to have that rear brake.
Jun 22, 2001 1:59 PM
|You've got to be kidding... I mean, I don't want to carry any more weight than I have to (my bike comes in under 17lbs) but removing rear brakes is just plain stupid.
All I want to do with my life is to be in a group of riders where some jackass thinks that saving 200gr is worth risking his life and that of the the other riders around him. What kind of a idiot do you have to be? Why not also remove the tape from your bars and that second bolt from your stem (it might hold) or lets take out a spoke or two while you're at it you pobably don't need all of them as well and how about the crank chain ring bolts - can't need all of them, and since you'l be climing be a man and do it out of th saddle that way you won't need one and can save another 250gr......
Hey while I'm at it why no drill some holes in frame (in "non" crucial areas of course)...
Hell, just toss the whole bike and save the 16lbs - just run up that damned hill, that way I won't have to worry about idiots like you causing crashes during races or group rides...
Get a life........
Jun 22, 2001 4:16 PM
|Feel better now?|
Jun 22, 2001 4:22 PM
|It was only a question. He hasn't removed his brake or suggested he was going to. He just had a thought. Relax!!!|
|Bad Thoughts||grz mnky|
Jun 22, 2001 4:33 PM
|He had a bad thought, therefore s/he must be a witch or warlock so we must burn them at the virtual stake. ;-) |
It's so funny how hyper sensitive everyone can get with just a thought or suggestion.
I'm with you: s/he asked a question and wanted people's thoughts. Had he advised that everyone do this and it was a good thing then....
|you lack the disposition necessary to be successful on a bike.||.calm|
Jun 22, 2001 11:34 PM
|Cut off an arm||mr_spin|
Jun 22, 2001 2:57 PM
|You only really need one. That's gotta be worth a pound or two.|
|Lop off a Nut||grz mnky|
Jun 22, 2001 4:33 PM
|You only need one right?|
|People live perfectly normal lives with only 1 kidney. (nm)||look271|
Jun 23, 2001 9:24 AM
|they don't call them weight wiennies for nothing.||.calm|
Jun 22, 2001 11:29 PM
|weight does not really matter that much. If weight bothers you, ride with only one water bottle, instead of two like Pantani or Casagrande. That will save more weight than most expensive frames or components.|
|re: question for weight wiennies||GTrider215|
Jun 23, 2001 10:27 AM
|weight wiennies are fags|| |