You'll find that the emergency stop requirements of the driving test are far from onerous.
I know braking technique well enough. You pull on those lever things. Why would I need to learn more?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Stuff
Indicator lights
(53 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
"Why would I need to learn more?"
Because we're probably doing it all wrong, by the sound of it. Maybe we're simply not ready for the thrill of tightly gripping a properly set-up front brake whilst heading downhill along NCN1 when it's covered in lightly-frosted wet leaves.
I should probably put some sort of tags around that, or use one of those winky things at the end or something. Might just leave it untagged and enigmatic.
I should perhaps not keep adding bits at the bottom after every couple of minutes, too.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I just think it's kind of like my car. I understood the idea of engine braking pretty quickly and why I shouldn't dip the clutch when I brake. I never occurred to me that I'd be better off cutting the line to the rear brakes too. Someone should tell the car-braking guys.
But my main point is probably one of risk-compensation. Much the same reason that I don't wear a helmet, if I knew how to brake on a dime I'd be inclined to rely on that ability. As it is I've never needed it.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I know braking technique well enough
I find the stopping better with two brakes.
I've already covered this, but if you want to keep believing it, as I've said it's your decision.
I have no doubt that you know braking technique 'well enough' as I'm sure you can stop a bike reasonably well otherwise you wouldn't be here. I'm noting that when you have to stop hard your 'reasonable technique' of using both brakes isn't optimal.
Maybe we're simply not ready for the thrill of tightly gripping a well-adjusted front brake whilst heading downhill along NCN1 when it's covered in lightly-frosted wet leaves.
Okay, I'll bite....
Which of the two following statements best describes my position in this thread:
1: You should use the front brake in absolutely 100% of conditions, all the time, and in fact should remove the back brake entirely as it should never, ever be touched, and you're clearly deluded if you think otherwise.
2: You should use the front brake most of the time as it delivers maximum braking power on good surfaces and is essential for emergency stops. However, should you find yourself going down NCN1 when it's covered in frosted leaves you are on what is clearly a bad surface and it would then be an extremely good
idea to use the back brake.Your turn ;)
@Insto again, you've replied while I'm typing.
I just think it's kind of like my car.
It is *like* your car in that the weight shift forward under braking loads the front wheels, hence why your car will have substantially stronger brakes in the front wheel compared to the back.
While this aspect of vehicle dynamics is the same between cars and bikes, a car can't apply enough brake force at the front to totally unload the back wheels, so they can still contribute. Which makes this:
I never occurred to me that I'd be better off cutting the line to the rear brakes too
a straw man argument, as firstly we're talking about bikes and not cars, and secondly if you would care to read my reply to wingpig you should be able to decipher that, strangely enough, I don't think bikes shouldn't have back brakes.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Not my turn, as I don't give a stuff which brake other people use as long as they a: stop when they should and b: don't insinuate, imply, suggest, lecture, berate or purport that someone else's means of bringing themselves to a safe and reliable stop or the surfaces on which they choose to move (if stated) are any less valid.
"but the danger with using it all the time is you are braking sub-optimally in most conditions"
Like that.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I read it (your reply to winpig) but I was totally going for option 1. You seem to be suggesting that that's not right.
Anyway, I use my front brake all of the time. I also use my rear brake all of the time. I'm perfectly aware of the greater stopping power of the front brake, as demonstrated by the concavity of my front rim. So, I'm not entirely sure what it is you think you're telling anyone with all your irony quotes. You're not, I think, telling anyone that any application of the rear brake diminishes the power of the front brake so having got the bit where the front brake is enough, I think I missed the bit where using the rear brake, in conjunction with the front brake, became a bad thing.
But that all supposes that the objective is to stop quickly. I'm not interested in being able to stop quickly.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@Insto: You seem to have a knack for posting when I'm still typing, so I'll put my reply to you here, the rest is directed at wingpig.
Okay, it seems we basically agree here, and I've probably done my usual thing of going out of my way to find fault with what somebody said. I'm perfectly fine with people braking whatever way they please so long as they understand that when it comes right down to it, front is best for aggressive stops. I just find using both at once to be very awkward most of the time. I can do it perfectly fine but I prefer firm braking with the front only and light feathery braking with the back only. My view is that there's not much point in using the back at the same time as you could just put a little more on the front. It seems people (yourself included) had gone out of their way to construe that I was saying you shouldn't use the back ever, which as I hope is clear isn't what I was meaning. I don't see how anyone could think I was arguing my position 1 there, if all of you do then that's a problem with my communication clearly and you should probably disregard everything I say....
-------------------------------
as long as they a: stop when they should
So if someone can't stop when they should because they're using the back brake when they should be using the front, that would be an exception, correct?
I'm very, very happy to insinuate, imply, suggest, lecture, berate or purport that using the back brake is sub-optimal for stopping under most conditions, because it is. Sub-optimal means exactly that; there's no point in actuating 2 brakes where one will do just as well, if you want to do it then that's fine with me but it doesn't change my view.
Okay I'll clarify that. Like you, if we're talking about everyday conditions when you don't have to stop hard, then okay do whatever you please, since it doesn't make a huge difference. I've already said it: Instography is clearly surviving fine with his techniques so more power to him. If you want to continue with your moral outrage please do so under the understanding that I'm genuinely surprised about the reaction I'm getting here, as I thought on a cycling forum of all places, it would be basic knowledge about the power and function of the front brake compared to the back.
The meat of this is what Uberuce hinted at: Physics. I could show you pages of equations showing why the front brake stops you best, I could draw you tons of diagrams showing why this is the case, I could cite you a million references backing me up. It's basic stuff, on a bike under normal conditions the front brake alone stops you fastest, period. If anyone finds this offensive well you better not find out the Earth actually goes round the Sun, governed by the same equations and all....
So, hopefully you understand this front brake thing is a cold, hard fact. All cyclists should be aware of it for the exact reasons shown in this thread: If you have the idea it doesn't matter what brake you use to stop, then you're flat out wrong, and I couldn't care less if it hurts when I say it. You want to stop hard you use the front brake. You want to use the back brake when it's warranted but always remember that front one? Fantastic, that's exactly what I do. You want to use both at the same time to stop? Okay, I don't see the point, but I won't string you up for it...
I'm going to say this one last time: If you use your back brake then you're no different from me. If you use your back brake under the impression that's the best way to stop hard, then you should practice stopping, like I suggested and see the results.
Posted 11 years ago # -
It's all about stopping hard with you. I think you should change the way you ride if stopping hard is so important. Cycling is meant to be fun.
You say that optimal means stopping with one brake rather than two but actually optimal only means achieving your (in this scenario, braking) objectives in "the condition, degree, or amount ... most favourable". Unless your dictionary defines optimal in some other way the optimal braking performance is achieved by any means necessary - whatever gets you the most favourable outcome. It only means using one brake rather than two if you've already decided that the optimal braking outcome is to stop with one brake rather than two. You've elevated your preference to a principle.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Okay there's a few things going on here, and it's late, and I'm going off somewhere tomorrow so I'll try to clear stuff up:
@Wingpig: I've likely come across as pretty aggressive in my post, this was intentional, because this is one of those threads where (it seems to me) people are deliberately missing the point of what I'm saying, setting up strawmen all over the place and splitting hairs constantly. I'm not out for blood and I'd like to take back some of what I said....I'll stand by some bits of it though, mostly that the front brake is best when it comes to raw power. I don't want to drag out an argument just for the sake of it so consider this buried. Balls in your court.
@Insto:
It's all about stopping hard with you. I think you should change the way you ride if stopping hard is so important. Cycling is meant to be fun.I want to direct you to something I said earlier, about how I can't recall the last time I ever had to properly emergency stop, outside of practicing it. You said something about not wanting to ride with that knowledge because you'd ride *to* that knowledge. To be direct: I brake as smoothly and consistently as possible, I haven't really-hard stopped in ages because I've never needed to, I won't ever put myself in a position where I need to hard stop but...nevertheless through some factor outside my control one day I might need to, and that's why I want and have the knowledge. I'm not riding around full speed and stopping screeching to a halt at every traffic light, if that's what you think.
For me stopping power is important, and it's the flipside of going-power. I'm pretty fit at the moment and I can easily accelerate hard and fast from a light, but I don't, because it's a waste of energy and I can easily pootle up to the same speed in a longer time. Same thing with braking; hard braking is never good for pads, rims and other bits, so I avoid it as much as possible but the potential is there should I need to use it.
Or, look at it this way: You can easily set up a brake to only pull part way, limiting the power you can apply no matter how hard you pull. This is the same as not being prepared to pull fully and hard, but it doesn't seem a good idea put like this....on the other hand a normally set up brake can be pulled hard, but certainly doesn't have to be, and won't be for most of it's life.
I think this has probably gone as far as it can, and I hope I've clarified my position, so I'll be dropping out unless there's any startling revelations.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I seem to remember putting down a thread about indicator lights somewhere around here but it's gone missing...
Posted 11 years ago # -
There you went again, assuming I don't understand physics, when I' said nothing from which such a conclusion ought to have been be drawn.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I had always been of the opinion that pulling too hard on the front puts one in danger of going over the bars.
Using both brakes makes that outcome less likely, IMO.
Sheldon is a great resource, but he did also make lots of pronouncements about cycling that need not be taken as gospel.
Posted 11 years ago # -
You can avoid going over the bars by putting your weight back. And try to avoid locking the brakes.
As above, rear brakes aren't very effective, but in skiddy conditions it's better to have a rear wheel skid than a front wheel one.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@Focus, yes I had borrowed it for the purposes of being too argumentative for my own good, with the result that I've probably came across as pretty silly in this thread, so you may now have it back before I embarrass myself further....
@Nelly: Using both does make it less likely to go over the bars, but the over the bars danger is a bit hyped up, it's not an easy thing to do and not a problem with correct bracing. That said I'm with you on the whole Sheldon thing - he needs a bit of taking down in some peoples estimations I believe.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"the over the bars danger is a bit hyped up"
Except for children who are a lot lighter than adults and more likely to panic brake.
Always good to encourage them to use both brakes.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Mtb with powerful front brakes and soft suspension controlled by an inexperienced rider can be equally hilarious (off road with a soft landing).
Posted 11 years ago # -
I wouldn't 'encourage' kids to use both brakes I'd teach them to do so.
I teach them that (assuming they are set up correctly) their front brake will always stop them. Their back brake will always help them stay in control. That is IMHO a good starting place. Experience will teach them that on different bikes and in different conditions every set of brakes will feel and work a it differently.
Bikeability is like a driving test - you pass with a base level of skills and knowledge that make you competant. You are then left, on your own, to hopefully improve and become a good cyclist/driver with experience.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"I wouldn't 'encourage' kids to use both brakes I'd teach them to do so."
Yes, that is a good response to my "encourage".
I suppose I was thinking about very basics - getting some kids to use any brakes!
Yes "teach".
I was once involved in a bike fun session at a school with a sloping playground.
We watched as one child (probably P3, so about 8) gradually picked up speed rolling towards the wall at the bottom.
The collide was inevitable - and fortunately without damage/injury.
'You forget to use your brakes.'
'I've only ever cycled in the backgreen. It's flat.'
Always best to assume people (not just children) don't necessarily know 'the basics' - Highway Code, filtering, ASLs etc.
CCE has been good at 'educating' and showing that there isn't just one way/opinion!
Posted 11 years ago # -
Good reminder for me chdot.
On the odd occasion I am teaching someone to ride a bike, everytime it 'happens' and they start pedalling it dawns on me we haven't covered braking yet!
One day i will remember to cover that just before i think that eureka moment is not too far away!
Posted 11 years ago # -
@ allebong
I didn't mind the discussion (who am I to tell people what to talk about) even if it got a bit "overly lively" but it would have been better taken to a fresh thread. The interest period of my original post seems to have passed (which is fine) but the thread title no longer applies to what is now being discussed. Conversations morphing happens in the real world too so it's not unusual, just a bit confusing when the heading doesn't apply to the current topic ;-)
Anyway, since we're well off the original topic...
My brake usage varies according to conditions rather than being set in stone. In all situations I use both brakes but in different ways. I certainly wouldn't agree the rear brake is unnecessary. Why remove an extra braking source?
Off-road (in the mountain biking sense) I would agree with the front braking taking priority in stopping power. That can be counter-intuitive as you are probably going downhill most of the time but I adhere to the concept of front brake to slow down, rear to aid control. On loose or fragile surfaces, braking hard at the back will induce skidding whereas the front will tend to grip better as it digs the front of the bike into the ground. The rear can then be feathered to allow more precise handling. A very useful technique once you have the confidence to try it.
On road, I use both brakes more evenly but I agree with front braking in as much as the same grip principle applies. (Of course in the reasonably unlikely situation that you were rolling down a hill backwards, it would be the rear brake, now the pseudo-front, which would be the one to stop more solidly). But, I personally don't agree with front use only. Apart from anything else the dive you get from braking (less noticeable on a bike than a car unless you have front suspension) will put some extra pressure on the headset bearings, so it's my belief that a more even braking balance between front and rear will reduce that. The difference in styles may be fairly small unless you have a lose headset but I still think it's worth consideration.
Anyway, I may be unusual in this but I often actually pump the brakes gently, alternating between front and rear until I glide to a stop. That is when I have the space to glide of course, In an emergency I will adapt to what grip I have on the road.Over all, I definitely wear down my rear pads quicker than the front ones. So deal with it! ;-p
Posted 11 years ago # -
Hopefully not too many TLDR* reactions to the above. I got into the flow of things!
* Too Long, Didn't Read, for those who don't do acronyms.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Chris Sherrington did have these neat wireless controlled indicators with integrated tail light on his Sprint 26X trike for a while but finally gave up after too much bother getting a front set working as well. Looked quite good. Arellcat has indicators and hazards on her Quest.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Oh, thank you for the explanation of TLDR!
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
