A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Orientation of brakes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 13th 03, 09:14 AM
Marten Hoffmann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Orientation of brakes

schreef ...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:02:11 +0200, Marten Hoffmann
wrote:
So, for me, it's better with the left-hand front
brake. I've never wished I had more strength or
dexterity for my braking.


For me, a left-hand rear brake is safer because my right hand is often
busy with the dog leash ...... I've had this setup for years on my town
bike while the MTB and tandem have it the other way round. I never found
any difficulty in emergency stopping.


I'm glad that works for you, but I'm curious as
to how.

Your rear brake provides stopping power when you're going
fast and need an emergency stop, even while your dog is
pulling? IME, the rear tire rarely provides sufficient
traction to brake moderately, let alone in an emergency,
and especially so if you've got a dog pulling you.


You're right there so it's always necessary to look out for the other
traffic and/or obstacles in the woods. I may add that I live in Holland
were cars are used to bicycles with or without children/trailers/dogs
and the like. With the dog I tend to ride more carefully than without
because indeed, making an emergency stop is hard(er).

The point is that when you need to brake with the front brake only *and*
you have a dog leash in your right hand, it's hard to control the bike
since your handlebar will turn with braking and you have to counteract
this turning with only your left hand. When the rear brake is on the
left handle, I can make the bike lose speed at quite a rate (Magura HS-
33 on a hybrid bike) although never as good as with a front brake, of
course. Shifting my weight backwards helps. I also ride forest trails
with the leashed dog and especially on sandy, gravelly tracks you don't
want front-braking only...... I've had it for a while on my new hybrid
bike and still have the scars to prove it :-(

I stand by that point even if your dog is well behaved
and doesn't pull.


You're correct. BTW the dog is not a "pulling" type but for the first
mile. After that it settles into a gentle trot somewhere between 16 and
19 km/h. But I try to always keep an eye open for my "surroundings" in
traffic: cars, playing children, other dogs etc.

Unless you have a very small dog, with short legs, which
can't keep up with you when you go fast, so you go slow
and your rear brake is sufficient. I hate those dogs. G


The dog is of "medium height", some 16-18 inches high at the shoulders.
Once we clocked it at 47 km/h - going downhill and for a short distance
only, but still.....

--
Regards,
Marten
Ads
  #22  
Old August 13th 03, 03:25 PM
Sheldon Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Orientation of brakes

Marten Hoffmann wrote:

The point is that when you need to brake with the front brake only *and*
you have a dog leash in your right hand, it's hard to control the bike
since your handlebar will turn with braking and you have to counteract
this turning with only your left hand. When the rear brake is on the
left handle, I can make the bike lose speed at quite a rate (Magura HS-
33 on a hybrid bike) although never as good as with a front brake, of
course. Shifting my weight backwards helps.


Braking with one hand off the bars always requires some compensation for
the forward weight shift applied against one side of the handlebar.

However, despite what many people imagine, it makes no difference to
this whether it is the front or the rear brake being applied one-handed.
The amount of this force is directly proportional to the braking
force, whichever brake supplies it.

Of course, since the front brake is capable of generating twice as much
decelleration as the rear, it is _possible_ to generate twice as much
force on the handlebar _if_ you choose to brake that hard. However, if
you are merely slowing down with a decelleration that is within the
capability of the rear brake, it doesn't matter which of the brakes you use.

Sheldon "http://sheldonbrown.com/brakturn.html" Brown
+--------------------------------------------------+
| I'm crazy about the music of Leos Janacek, |
| especially the Msa Glagolskaya and Sinfonietta |
| http://sheldonbrown.com/music.html |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

  #23  
Old August 13th 03, 04:41 PM
Rick Onanian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Orientation of brakes

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 04:02:07 GMT, wrote:
I see no conflict there. I seldom if ever shift while braking
anyway.


You've never been halfway through a shift when you suddenly need to
brake?


Shifting takes fractions of a second. I am able to manage my riding
to not split mechanical motions into the 1/100 second range.


I thought you said you preferred downtube shifters. I
may have thought wrong.

However, with downtube shifters, it's more than
a 1/100 second project to remove hand from shifter
and reach immediately for front brake in an emergency.

Another, maybe more important reason why left-front-brake is good:
With these expensive and fragile brake/shift levers, there is often
an inconvenient conflict when you want to brake and shift in rapid
succession.


Let me clarify: I am commonly annoyed when I go to shift and
find that it won't because I was just braking.

You make it sound like motor racing. Shifting is not a rapid fire and
often performed act in bicycling although with more and more gears,
many riders believe they are operating a Ducati of the like as I see
then shift their away from a traffic light as it turns green.


Well, what about downshifting after braking? Sometimes I
forget to downshift, or didn't know I was going to need
to slow down, so I must shift after braking; or I might
try to interrupt my braking momentarily to downshift
before reaching a stop sign. These operations often
result in a conflict where it doesn't shift.

However, it is better in these operations to have the
rear shifter and front brakes in opposite hands; and
shifting requires more dexterity than braking, so to
have the rear shifter in my right hand and front brake
in my left hand works well.

People who don't have those situations, I'm sure, don't
have those problems. BTW, I still like integrated brake
and shift levers, despite that minor issue.


As far as rapid fire, sequential shifting: It can be
useful at times, especially when a traffic light turns
green. In fact, this is probably the only time I do it.
I find that I keep up with the automotive traffic if I
pour uninterrupted power into the pedals and shift,
well, like I was riding a Ducati. I find that I _don't_
keep up if I leave it in one gear the whole time.

Maybe if I didn't have a 9-speed, I'd be okay, but it's
certainly easier to calmly rapid-fire shift shift shift
than it is to use a single gear as long as possible,
then shift four gears before being able to add power
again.

I'd be lying if I said that it wasn't also fun to do
that, but I'd do it whether it was fun or not.

Regardless of fun, on my other road bike, with a 6
speed wide ratio freewheel and downtube shifters, I
have no need to shift like that, and don't. I ride off
with the traffic, and shift once or twice, not 5 times
like I do on my 9 speed with it's one and two tooth
jumps and easy-access quick shifters.

Jobst Brandt

Palo Alto CA

--
Rick Onanian
  #24  
Old August 13th 03, 05:05 PM
Rick Onanian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Orientation of brakes

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 07:14:54 GMT, wrote:
I think this has morphed into how to shift. The claim was that riders
shift so often that braking and shifting conflict. This is like the


No, that wasn't the claim at all. I claimed not that
I shift so often that it will coincedentally conflict
with braking, but rather, that I often find myself
needing or wanting to shift and brake nearly
simultaneously.

That is especially common when it's necessary to
downshift in order to be prepared to resume moving
after braking to a stop sign or red light. If you
never need to do this, you have extremely strong
legs and knees, and/or are always planning ahead
quite perfectly.

claim that hand signals interfere with braking. This may be true for
speeds above 40mph but hand signals are easily and properly given
before braking for a left turn (I assume from the left lane and in
front of cars).


Left turning is a whole other animal. We could
discuss methods for it, but suffice it to say
that I've found patterns that work for me.

Jobst Brandt

Palo Alto CA

--
Rick Onanian
  #25  
Old August 13th 03, 10:55 PM
Mike S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Orientation of brakes


"Rick Onanian" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 07:14:54 GMT, wrote:
I think this has morphed into how to shift. The claim was that riders
shift so often that braking and shifting conflict. This is like the


No, that wasn't the claim at all. I claimed not that
I shift so often that it will coincedentally conflict
with braking, but rather, that I often find myself
needing or wanting to shift and brake nearly
simultaneously.

That is especially common when it's necessary to
downshift in order to be prepared to resume moving
after braking to a stop sign or red light. If you
never need to do this, you have extremely strong
legs and knees, and/or are always planning ahead
quite perfectly.

claim that hand signals interfere with braking. This may be true for
speeds above 40mph but hand signals are easily and properly given
before braking for a left turn (I assume from the left lane and in
front of cars).


Left turning is a whole other animal. We could
discuss methods for it, but suffice it to say
that I've found patterns that work for me.

Jobst Brandt

Palo Alto CA

--
Rick Onanian



  #26  
Old August 14th 03, 07:55 AM
Ryan Cousineau
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Orientation of brakes

In article . net,
"bfd" wrote:

Yup, and the fact that its a full *145g* lighter than the 2003 version means
Trek is going to get the BIG bucks! I bet this new 2004 Trek 5900 Superlight
(gotta luv that name) with Shimano Dura Ace 10 is going to retail in the
$5000+ range! So, what are you waiting for? Get rid of that old steel bike
(you still riding steel?) and get in line NOW!


Hey, I am the farthest thing from a weight weenie, but a 145g weight
reduction is nearly mythic by weight weenie standards. On a bike that
weighs about 6.8 kg, that's over 2% right there.

Pulling that sort of weight improvement on a mature design is reasonably
impressive. It shouldn't be enough to push OCLV riders to dump last
year's model, but at least the engineers should be impressed

Personally, I am still more than 145g above my goal weight, so I will
work on reducing the weight of and aerodynamic refinements to my belly.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Disc Brakes - Thermal Expansion Drag Vincent J. Souki Mountain Biking 2 May 12th 04 03:35 PM
Disk Brakes john Mountain Biking 4 January 22nd 04 02:44 AM
which disc brakes to buy Ermo Mountain Biking 6 September 3rd 03 10:46 PM
Help! T-Nut needed for Modolo brakes on old Bianchi Quattro Marc Racing 0 August 10th 03 03:41 AM
What to replace Novatech cable disk brakes with? Paul Gravestock Mountain Biking 0 June 26th 03 12:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.