Re: Thoughts on braking

[Bernie]

Luigi de Guzman wrote:

> So i've got to get to the library and return books. Somewhere in the
> middle of the City, in crowded stop-and-go traffic, my front brake
> cable snaps. apply my rear coaster brake (yuk). Limp to the library,
> return books, get bike to shop where a shopdude fits me up with new
> cable for GBP 1.80. great.
>
> I observe from my brief trip without a front brake that I am more or
> less utterly dependent on it. it's very hard for me to imagine riding
> without one. And yet when I got back to my room, I had an interesting
> AIM conversation with a friend fo mine from home:
>
> "you mean you use your *front* brake?" he said, somewhat incredulous.
> "I never use my front brake."
>
> I explain all the usual things--quote sheldon brown and my own
> experience, tell him to watch the beloki crash film again. but he
> persists. "Besides, all of my riding has been trail-riding, and I
> hardly ever use my front brake there."
>
> A statement I found very hard to believe.
>
> Then, out of curiosity, I went to see what our fossil-fueled brothers
> on motorbikes have to say about braking. They say to brake with both
> at the same time:
>
> "Use both brakes whenever slowing or stopping
>
> To stop, the hands and feet work together in a coordinated and smooth
> fashion. Squeeze the clutch and the front brake lever while pressing
> on the rear brake pedal and downshifting to first gear. The front
> brake provides around 70% of the stopping power for your motorcycle.
>
> Both brakes should be applied at the same time when stopping. Even
> though the full braking potential of each wheel may not be required
> for normal, planned stops, it is important to develop the habit of
> using both brakes so that your reflexes will be ready to respond
> quickly and properly when an emergency situation occurs."
>
> they even have a diagram:
>
> <http://www.msf-usa.org/CourseReview/assets/RiderHandbook_27_1.gif>
>
> In light of all of this I make a few observations & questions
>
> 1) Those big Flying Pigeons or Dutch roadsters, with only coaster
> brakes, were probably never intended to go very fast at all. My
> braking distance with only a rear coaster was scary, and my ability to
> brake depended largely on where my feet were in the pedal stroke.
> unnerving. [and I'm not very fast--the messengers and a lot of
> commuters, indeed, at at least one little girl can all beat me,
> speedwise]
>
> 2) Is there some sort of maximum speed, or some other purely physical
> limit to front-brake only braking? Why do the motorcycle guys
> recommend two-brake braking? [this will probably require me to do
> some tests when I go home, with the assistance of my science-minded
> younger brother]
>
> 3) If trail riders don't use their front brakes much--as my friend,
> who was a sometime MTBer, seems to allege--why do I see so many
> front-wheel disk brakes?
>
> -Luigi

Hey Luigi
As a person who was a kid on a CCM coaster brake bike in the mid 50's to
early 60's, I can say those brakes (I think we called them Bendix brakes)
worked very well. They withstood a lot of abuse, and kid cyclists learned
to use them very well. I remember lots of sliding stops, often just for
show, sometimes to save one's life.
My brakes never failed and I don't remember ever hearing about bad coaster
brakes. In that day we were all aware that "racing" bikes with lever
brakes were death traps because if you applied the front brakes too hard
you would fly over the bars. (!!!)

Certainly no one expected to apply his coaster brakes hard and still be in
a stable and upright position, that was just not possible. I still think
they are practical and durable brakes for those who want a simple shopper
type bicycle.
Best regards, Bernie

[Robin Hubert]

"Bernie" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Luigi de Guzman wrote:
>
> > So i've got to get to the library and return books. Somewhere in the
> > middle of the City, in crowded stop-and-go traffic, my front brake
> > cable snaps. apply my rear coaster brake (yuk). Limp to the library,
> > return books, get bike to shop where a shopdude fits me up with new
> > cable for GBP 1.80. great.
> >
> > I observe from my brief trip without a front brake that I am more or
> > less utterly dependent on it. it's very hard for me to imagine riding
> > without one. And yet when I got back to my room, I had an interesting
> > AIM conversation with a friend fo mine from home:
> >
> > "you mean you use your *front* brake?" he said, somewhat incredulous.
> > "I never use my front brake."
> >
> > I explain all the usual things--quote sheldon brown and my own
> > experience, tell him to watch the beloki crash film again. but he
> > persists. "Besides, all of my riding has been trail-riding, and I
> > hardly ever use my front brake there."
> >
> > A statement I found very hard to believe.
> >
> > Then, out of curiosity, I went to see what our fossil-fueled brothers
> > on motorbikes have to say about braking. They say to brake with both
> > at the same time:
> >
> > "Use both brakes whenever slowing or stopping
> >
> > To stop, the hands and feet work together in a coordinated and smooth
> > fashion. Squeeze the clutch and the front brake lever while pressing
> > on the rear brake pedal and downshifting to first gear. The front
> > brake provides around 70% of the stopping power for your motorcycle.
> >
> > Both brakes should be applied at the same time when stopping. Even
> > though the full braking potential of each wheel may not be required
> > for normal, planned stops, it is important to develop the habit of
> > using both brakes so that your reflexes will be ready to respond
> > quickly and properly when an emergency situation occurs."
> >
> > they even have a diagram:
> >
> > <http://www.msf-usa.org/CourseReview/assets/RiderHandbook_27_1.gif>
> >
> > In light of all of this I make a few observations & questions
> >
> > 1) Those big Flying Pigeons or Dutch roadsters, with only coaster
> > brakes, were probably never intended to go very fast at all. My
> > braking distance with only a rear coaster was scary, and my ability to
> > brake depended largely on where my feet were in the pedal stroke.
> > unnerving. [and I'm not very fast--the messengers and a lot of
> > commuters, indeed, at at least one little girl can all beat me,
> > speedwise]
> >
> > 2) Is there some sort of maximum speed, or some other purely physical
> > limit to front-brake only braking? Why do the motorcycle guys
> > recommend two-brake braking? [this will probably require me to do
> > some tests when I go home, with the assistance of my science-minded
> > younger brother]
> >
> > 3) If trail riders don't use their front brakes much--as my friend,
> > who was a sometime MTBer, seems to allege--why do I see so many
> > front-wheel disk brakes?
> >
> > -Luigi
>
> Hey Luigi
> As a person who was a kid on a CCM coaster brake bike in the mid 50's to
> early 60's, I can say those brakes (I think we called them Bendix brakes)
> worked very well. They withstood a lot of abuse, and kid cyclists learned
> to use them very well. I remember lots of sliding stops, often just for
> show, sometimes to save one's life.

No way! What you kids didn't know is that slamming on the rear brake and
sliding did little to nothing in regards to saving your lives. You only
think it did.

> My brakes never failed and I don't remember ever hearing about bad coaster
> brakes. In that day we were all aware that "racing" bikes with lever
> brakes were death traps because if you applied the front brakes too hard
> you would fly over the bars. (!!!)

Uh, do you still believe this?

>
> Certainly no one expected to apply his coaster brakes hard and still be in
> a stable and upright position, that was just not possible.

?????

>I still think
> they are practical and durable brakes for those who want a simple shopper
> type bicycle.

Sure, as long as you ride the thing at 10mph or less, and on the sidewalk,
and never have to stop quickly.




--
Robin Hubert >

[Bernie]

Robin Hubert wrote:

> > As a person who was a kid on a CCM coaster brake bike in the mid 50's to
> > early 60's, I can say those brakes (I think we called them Bendix brakes)
> > worked very well. They withstood a lot of abuse, and kid cyclists learned
> > to use them very well. I remember lots of sliding stops, often just for
> > show, sometimes to save one's life.
>
> No way! What you kids didn't know is that slamming on the rear brake and
> sliding did little to nothing in regards to saving your lives. You only
> think it did.

>
> I still think it did save me sometimes.

>
> > My brakes never failed and I don't remember ever hearing about bad coaster
> > brakes. In that day we were all aware that "racing" bikes with lever
> > brakes were death traps because if you applied the front brakes too hard
> > you would fly over the bars. (!!!)
>
> Uh, do you still believe this?
>

Nope. It was a kid myth of the time, possibly still out there...

> > Certainly no one expected to apply his coaster brakes hard and still be in
> > a stable and upright position, that was just not possible.
>
> ?????

With only a rear brake that easily locks up the wheel, its hard to remain in a
stable position. You tend to slide and end up with one foot on the ground for
stability as you skid.

>
> >I still think
> > they are practical and durable brakes for those who want a simple shopper
> > type bicycle.
>
> Sure, as long as you ride the thing at 10mph or less, and on the sidewalk,
> and never have to stop quickly.

Lots of people ride at less than 10 mph all the time and still go places and do
things on their bikes. I know a few who don't like bikes with gearshifts and
handbrakes because they want simplicity. Look at the current popularity of
cruisers. More power to them!
Sidewalk riding? I'm fully in favour of street riding. Sidewalks are called
walks because....
Bernie

[David Kerber]

In article et>,
says...
> "Bernie" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Luigi de Guzman wrote:
> >
> > > So i've got to get to the library and return books. Somewhere in the
> > > middle of the City, in crowded stop-and-go traffic, my front brake
> > > cable snaps. apply my rear coaster brake (yuk). Limp to the library,
> > > return books, get bike to shop where a shopdude fits me up with new
> > > cable for GBP 1.80. great.
> > >
> > > I observe from my brief trip without a front brake that I am more or
> > > less utterly dependent on it. it's very hard for me to imagine riding
> > > without one. And yet when I got back to my room, I had an interesting
> > > AIM conversation with a friend fo mine from home:
> > >
> > > "you mean you use your *front* brake?" he said, somewhat incredulous.
> > > "I never use my front brake."
> > >
> > > I explain all the usual things--quote sheldon brown and my own
> > > experience, tell him to watch the beloki crash film again. but he
> > > persists. "Besides, all of my riding has been trail-riding, and I
> > > hardly ever use my front brake there."
> > >
> > > A statement I found very hard to believe.
> > >
> > > Then, out of curiosity, I went to see what our fossil-fueled brothers
> > > on motorbikes have to say about braking. They say to brake with both
> > > at the same time:
> > >
> > > "Use both brakes whenever slowing or stopping
> > >
> > > To stop, the hands and feet work together in a coordinated and smooth
> > > fashion. Squeeze the clutch and the front brake lever while pressing
> > > on the rear brake pedal and downshifting to first gear. The front
> > > brake provides around 70% of the stopping power for your motorcycle.
> > >
> > > Both brakes should be applied at the same time when stopping. Even
> > > though the full braking potential of each wheel may not be required
> > > for normal, planned stops, it is important to develop the habit of
> > > using both brakes so that your reflexes will be ready to respond
> > > quickly and properly when an emergency situation occurs."
> > >
> > > they even have a diagram:
> > >
> > > <http://www.msf-usa.org/CourseReview/assets/RiderHandbook_27_1.gif>
> > >
> > > In light of all of this I make a few observations & questions
> > >
> > > 1) Those big Flying Pigeons or Dutch roadsters, with only coaster
> > > brakes, were probably never intended to go very fast at all. My
> > > braking distance with only a rear coaster was scary, and my ability to
> > > brake depended largely on where my feet were in the pedal stroke.
> > > unnerving. [and I'm not very fast--the messengers and a lot of
> > > commuters, indeed, at at least one little girl can all beat me,
> > > speedwise]
> > >
> > > 2) Is there some sort of maximum speed, or some other purely physical
> > > limit to front-brake only braking? Why do the motorcycle guys
> > > recommend two-brake braking? [this will probably require me to do
> > > some tests when I go home, with the assistance of my science-minded
> > > younger brother]
> > >
> > > 3) If trail riders don't use their front brakes much--as my friend,
> > > who was a sometime MTBer, seems to allege--why do I see so many
> > > front-wheel disk brakes?
> > >
> > > -Luigi
> >
> > Hey Luigi
> > As a person who was a kid on a CCM coaster brake bike in the mid 50's to
> > early 60's, I can say those brakes (I think we called them Bendix brakes)
> > worked very well. They withstood a lot of abuse, and kid cyclists learned
> > to use them very well. I remember lots of sliding stops, often just for
> > show, sometimes to save one's life.
>
> No way! What you kids didn't know is that slamming on the rear brake and
> sliding did little to nothing in regards to saving your lives. You only
> think it did.
>
> > My brakes never failed and I don't remember ever hearing about bad coaster
> > brakes. In that day we were all aware that "racing" bikes with lever
> > brakes were death traps because if you applied the front brakes too hard
> > you would fly over the bars. (!!!)
>
> Uh, do you still believe this?

Why not? It's true? In this case, "too hard" means hard enough to lock
the front, therby causing an endo (on most bikes, anyway).


--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

[asqui]

David Kerber wrote:
> In article et>,
> says...
>> "Bernie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> My brakes never failed and I don't remember ever hearing about bad
>>> coaster brakes. In that day we were all aware that "racing" bikes
>>> with lever brakes were death traps because if you applied the front
>>> brakes too hard you would fly over the bars. (!!!)
>>
>> Uh, do you still believe this?
>
> Why not? It's true? In this case, "too hard" means hard enough to
> lock
> the front, therby causing an endo (on most bikes, anyway).

As recently mentioned somewhere (possibly even earlier in this thread, but I
can't be bothered to find it):
Locking the front would simply cause it to slide out to one side, much like
locking the rear. An endo is when you brake hard enough to exceed the
pitch-over point, but not hard enough to lock up the front.

As for the "death trap" comment: A front brake is a death trap because it
can be misused and cause an accident, but a rear brake is not a deathtrap
when the only way for you to stop with it from speed involves sliding all
over the place and possibly under the wheels of another vehicle?

Dani

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> David Kerber wrote:
> > In article et>,
> > says...
> >> "Bernie" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> My brakes never failed and I don't remember ever hearing about bad
> >>> coaster brakes. In that day we were all aware that "racing" bikes
> >>> with lever brakes were death traps because if you applied the front
> >>> brakes too hard you would fly over the bars. (!!!)
> >>
> >> Uh, do you still believe this?
> >
> > Why not? It's true? In this case, "too hard" means hard enough to
> > lock
> > the front, therby causing an endo (on most bikes, anyway).
>
> As recently mentioned somewhere (possibly even earlier in this thread, but I
> can't be bothered to find it):
> Locking the front would simply cause it to slide out to one side, much like
> locking the rear. An endo is when you brake hard enough to exceed the
> pitch-over point, but not hard enough to lock up the front.

Do you really think you can slide the front on a typical road bike on
clean pavement? I've seen a few people (not many) lock the fronts while
going straight, and they've always gone over the front, apparently
because the tire had too much traction to slide.

Of course hitting the front brakes too hard on a corner is an entirely
different matter, because you have a sideways component to the
frictional force adding to the deceleration component.

....

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

[Rick Onanian]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 00:08:29 +0000 (UTC), asqui >
wrote:
> As for the "death trap" comment: A front brake is a death trap because it
> can be misused and cause an accident, but a rear brake is not a deathtrap
> when the only way for you to stop with it from speed involves sliding all
> over the place and possibly under the wheels of another vehicle?

Don't forget the whole reason you're panic-braking in the
first place: to avoid a hazard in front of you. The rear
brake [used alone for panic-stopping] is a deathtrap because
it won't accomplish anything.

When I was a little kid getting my fun out of skidding as
long as I possibly could, I found that with a little more
speed I layed a LOT longer track. I can't imagine what
would happen with the speeds I reach now and the tiny
contact patch on my 700x23c @ 125 psi tires...I bet I
could maintain my speed skidding down a moderate hill.

> Dani
--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:58:27 -0400, David Kerber >
wrote:
> Do you really think you can slide the front on a typical road bike on
> clean pavement? I've seen a few people (not many) lock the fronts while
> going straight, and they've always gone over the front, apparently
> because the tire had too much traction to slide.

I wish I could come up with some safe conditions for
testing this. It actually sounds like fun.

--
Rick Onanian

[Tom Sherman]

David Kerber wrote:
>
> Do you really think you can slide the front on a typical road bike on
> clean pavement? I've seen a few people (not many) lock the fronts while
> going straight, and they've always gone over the front, apparently
> because the tire had too much traction to slide....

While the coefficient of static friction will be greater than the
coefficient of kinetic friction between the tire and pavement, there is
likely still enough retardation provided by a sliding front tire on an
upright road bike to cause a pitch-over.

It takes a high amount of braking force to lock up a wheel - I have to
pull very hard on the levers to lock up the front wheels on my tadpole
trike which has Avid cable operated disc brakes. (The combined
rider/trike center of mass is low enough and far enough back that the
rear wheel stays on the ground during application of maximum braking
force.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

[asqui]

Rick Onanian wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 00:08:29 +0000 (UTC), asqui
> > wrote:
>> As for the "death trap" comment: A front brake is a death trap
>> because it can be misused and cause an accident, but a rear brake is
>> not a deathtrap when the only way for you to stop with it from speed
>> involves sliding all over the place and possibly under the wheels of
>> another vehicle?
>
> Don't forget the whole reason you're panic-braking in the
> first place: to avoid a hazard in front of you. The rear
> brake [used alone for panic-stopping] is a deathtrap because
> it won't accomplish anything.

I know. I was being sarcastic :)

> When I was a little kid getting my fun out of skidding as
> long as I possibly could, I found that with a little more
> speed I layed a LOT longer track. I can't imagine what
> would happen with the speeds I reach now and the tiny
> contact patch on my 700x23c @ 125 psi tires...I bet I
> could maintain my speed skidding down a moderate hill.

Until you wear through the paper-thin tires and blow the inner, because then
your contact patch would increase ;)

>> Dani

[Arpit]

I have a mountain bike, and I go riding in the australian bush a lot.
A lot of the times, there are tracks, with extremely steep descents.
The sort of thing which I can barely pull my bike up by hand when I
need to go back. They usually have gravel/small rocks on them, and I
find its often easies to just lock my wheels and slide down skidding,
often for a vertical distacnce of 50 meters or so at a time. YOu need
to have good balance though.


On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 21:36:05 -0400, Rick Onanian >
wrote:

>On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 00:08:29 +0000 (UTC), asqui >
>wrote:
>> As for the "death trap" comment: A front brake is a death trap because it
>> can be misused and cause an accident, but a rear brake is not a deathtrap
>> when the only way for you to stop with it from speed involves sliding all
>> over the place and possibly under the wheels of another vehicle?
>
>Don't forget the whole reason you're panic-braking in the
>first place: to avoid a hazard in front of you. The rear
>brake [used alone for panic-stopping] is a deathtrap because
>it won't accomplish anything.
>
>When I was a little kid getting my fun out of skidding as
>long as I possibly could, I found that with a little more
>speed I layed a LOT longer track. I can't imagine what
>would happen with the speeds I reach now and the tiny
>contact patch on my 700x23c @ 125 psi tires...I bet I
>could maintain my speed skidding down a moderate hill.
>
>> Dani

[Buck]

"Arpit" > wrote in message
> I have a mountain bike, and I go riding in the australian bush a lot.
> A lot of the times, there are tracks, with extremely steep descents.
> The sort of thing which I can barely pull my bike up by hand when I
> need to go back. They usually have gravel/small rocks on them, and I
> find its often easies to just lock my wheels and slide down skidding,
> often for a vertical distacnce of 50 meters or so at a time. YOu need
> to have good balance though.

Exactly the kind of behavior which damages trails. Perhaps it is less of an
issue because of the low rainfall in the outback, but skidding down trails
in wetter areas messes up the drainage and results in water using the trail
as a conduit - which results in greater erosion. Learn to decend without
skidding. A rolling wheel provides greater control than a skidding wheel.
Brake to the point just before lockup. See how easy it is to decend when you
aren't sliding.

-Buck

[Arpit]

Beleive me, this doesnt cause any erosion, some of the rocks are
gravel, but some are as large as your head :p Also, by locking the
wheels, and deflating the wheels to about 10psi, I get much better
traction than if i roll. Rolling I've had my brake pads melt.

Note these arent bike tracks, they are abandoned walking tracks. Only
the rangers drive through them on VERY chunky 4wds.

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:53:24 GMT, "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x
y c o r p . c o m> wrote:

>"Arpit" > wrote in message
>> I have a mountain bike, and I go riding in the australian bush a lot.
>> A lot of the times, there are tracks, with extremely steep descents.
>> The sort of thing which I can barely pull my bike up by hand when I
>> need to go back. They usually have gravel/small rocks on them, and I
>> find its often easies to just lock my wheels and slide down skidding,
>> often for a vertical distacnce of 50 meters or so at a time. YOu need
>> to have good balance though.
>
>Exactly the kind of behavior which damages trails. Perhaps it is less of an
>issue because of the low rainfall in the outback, but skidding down trails
>in wetter areas messes up the drainage and results in water using the trail
>as a conduit - which results in greater erosion. Learn to decend without
>skidding. A rolling wheel provides greater control than a skidding wheel.
>Brake to the point just before lockup. See how easy it is to decend when you
>aren't sliding.
>
>-Buck
>
>

[Arpit]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 01:04:42 GMT,
wrote:

>Armpit writes:
>
>> I have a mountain bike, and I go riding in the Australian bush a
>> lot. A lot of the times, there are tracks, with extremely steep
>> descents. The sort of thing which I can barely pull my bike up by
>> hand when I need to go back. They usually have gravel/small rocks on
>> them, and I find its often easier to just lock my wheels and slide
>> down skidding, often for a vertical distance of 50 meters or so at
>> a time. You need to have good balance though.
>
>Oh! You're so manly. How do you do it. I certainly can't balance
>that well...

hahahahah, dunno, its hard, but becomes easier when you see a 10
meter drop on either side ;)
>I assume from the way you tell it. I don't know what you
>call extremely steep but it isn't more than 40% grade because a
>bicycle with a rider on it will endo before that. You don't have to
>go to the Australian bush for such trails.
Aussie bush is within cycling distance from my house :) big national
park
>Mountains are full of
>trails that approach and exceed what a bicycle can descend. There are
>some well known passes in the Alps Col Ferret and Passo San Giacomo,
>for instance, where MTB's have no advantage over a road bicycle
>because the bicycle must be carried uphill and must be wheeled
>downhill by the rider who restrains it by using the front brake.

Yep, I did that the first few times going on those paths, too scared
to do otherwise :P But the weight of a steel kmart-i-cycle ;) and the
fact that my front AND back brakes were rarely enough from stopping
the bycycle sliding when i was wheeling it forced me to learn quick :p
>
>Of course there are local trails as steep as that but they aren't
>famous mountain passes.

Well, not all of it is steep, you get some flat bits to reast, and its
good if you go out of control, I think i mentioned one of my brake
pads melted off once.
>
>You probably need to re-evaluate what should be ridden and what should
>be walked.
Yes, well, the distinction blurrs when you don't care about the bike
surviving the trip. Heh, I used to ride bmx bikes, and well, i broke
the chains :/ then I realised the tracks I was cycling on were for
stunt motercycles.
>Skidding doesn't prevent an endo, because if it achieves
>constant speed then it is no different than letting the brake shoes
>slide with the front wheel wheel rolling.
Yep, except the surface area of 2 mountain bike tires inflated at less
than 10psi on the ground is greater than 2 brake pads.
>If you get any useful
>effect from your rear brake, then it ain't steep.

I get a useful effect. comfort ;)
>
>Jobst Brandt

>Palo Alto CA