Stranger Danger!

Not really what I meant Orange....BTW, I do respect the work you've done and the contributions you've made to this forum.....BUT
There is no doubt and many real world examples of people riding for years on virtual death-traps in shorts, flip-flops, and helmetless....with nary a bug stuck in their hair. Does that make it safe? The first safety course I took taught us "There are two kinds of riders, those that have gone down, and those that are going to go down."
IMHO, any advantage you can give yourself, whether it's a properly maintained bike, safety gear, proper riding instruction, hell....properly inflated tires, could lengthen that time before you ride the asphalt.

 

I'm guessing this is because you don't have any actual arguments left?


An XJ should stop as fast as an XJ, not as fast as an R1. A functional XJ is just fine. Removing the front brake makes it not functional. If it worked before, and it doesn't work now, it's called broken. What is that called in your dictionary? The rear brake alone is not sufficient to stop an XJ safely.

When was it that the last bike came out of the factory with just the rear brake? If I remember correctly, that was some time in the 1930's. Why do you think that is? I bet it's because the bikes with no front brakes made back then didn't go particularly fast. If it doesn't go very fast, you can have crappy brakes and not get in trouble. Which is what I've been saying all along.

You don't have to like science. However, facts are facts, and gravity will still put your ass on the pavement, and inertia will drag you along it, no matter what you believe. To quote Vince Masuka, science is a cold hard bitch.



Incidentally, I'm not an unreasonable man. If I am wrong, I would be totally willing to admit it. Show me one of those RBO bikes with that perfect adjustment and skill with a stopping distance even remotely comparable to a similar bike with normal brakes, and I will make a public announcement to that effect.

 

I know that front/back brake combo works better than a single rear. The question is whether a rear brake only will stop you in time? If you haven't been on a bike like that, how can you say it won't stop in time? Someone says they can, but you and others say no because of science and physics. You also have to consider responsible riding style and skill in the equation.

Any vehicle can be dangerous if the operator doesn't know and respect it's limits.
Dear old Great Grand Dad had a 1908 Harley, only suspension it had was the air in the tires and no front brake. He lived into his 70's.

I didn't want to go any further with this because its not going anywhere.

BTW I'm not trying to be nasty about this stuff, all that I've said is like what would be said between brothers.

 

brakes? these bikes come with brakes? lol

I sorta go with the original designers and engineers...

There is a reason for front and rear brakes, just as there is a reason for handlebars and not a pull back rudder type of lever.

But that's what I think...could be wrong though..

 

I'm still not getting the logic here?
Just because of some combination of skill, luck, and circumstance you're not a trunk ornament on a Buick, does not make it safe....there is a reason every bike made has front brakes...BECAUSE THEY WORK. They don't look better or save gas, THEY STOP A MOTORCYCLE FASTER. If you remove them, your stopping distance increases exponentially...no amount of skill or luck will save you when you life depends on stopping within 40 feet and your bike needs 90.

 

We aren't talking about respecting limits. We are talking about intentionally increasing these limits to a pretty significant degree.

A 1908 Harley had about 7 horsepower. That's comparable to a scooter, except a scooter weighs less.

The smallest XJ puts out about 50 horse or so. Bigger ones, more. This ain't your Grandpa's Harley.

And, to counter an example with an example, back in the day T.E. Lawrence, the "of Arabia" Lawrence, died because he flew off his bike and landed with his head on a rock. He had all kinds of motorcycle skill and knew the limitations of his Brough Superior, but there were these kids who ran out into the road after a ball...

 

Lawrence was also going very fast which is why I mentioned limits.

The braking ability is less than the front/back combo, but not as bad as you suppose. When I mentioned limits, I was talking about adjusting your speed and distance between vehicles in traffic. It's not hard to figure that out.
Since you guys are still fixated on the assumption that rear only is so dangerous, why don't you try it out for yourselves. Adjust your rear brake accordingly, ride with appropriate speed and distance between you and others and just use the rear brake in the correct manner.

 

Is this a conventional rear brake or full floating and would this bike have rear suspension?

 

I did. As I said, the fact that I'm posting here proves it can be done.

"can be done" =/= "good idea"

There isn't any adjustment on a disk, though.

 

Well there you go, it can be done. Good idea, maybe not.

Disk is definitely better. No adjustment, that's where the MC/caliper pressure comes into play. An anemic MC/caliper won't cut it.
We've seen a rear wheel to front conversion with a disk brake, so converting the rear brake to disc could be done. Maybe using a 650 front disk and MC? I think that would work much better.
Gotta remember that the rear brake only mod is mostly for looks and those bikes are usually taken for short rides at lower speeds.
As far as hard tails are concerned, they look better in my opinion and can be ridden safely, but very hard on the tail and back. Wish I could've done my soft tail mod on my bike.

 

if you want it just for looks a dual leading shoe can't be beat. if there's suspension, full floating and dual leading shoe is almost as good as a disk.

 

there is no rear brake force adjustment on any bike outside of how hard you press on the brake pedal. only a free play adjustment.

the point I was trying to make is that without front brakes, no matter how careful you are and no matter how much you "adjust" your riding style, you are taking a huge risk riding without a front brake. in an emergency situation, you WILL find yourself sideways as you go under a cage.

in any situation other than losing one of your brakes on the road, it is just stupid to ride. yes, if you do have an emergency where one of your braking systems fail, it could be possible to limp home. adjusting your riding style for added safety and the trip not being too long.

CN

 

All toughness and angsty rebel without a cause attitude aside -- In practice, its easier to lock a rear brake than it is a front brake.

With no front brakes, if you are in an emergency and do lock the rear brake, you'll wish you had your fronts.

A rear brake can stop you, yes. Both brakes can stop you sooner.

Pretty simple.

Choose wisely, Dr. Jones.

 

All these posts changed my mind about bikes with no front brakes.....


I will now never ride another chop without front brakes...

 

Screw that! I'm going to go rip the front brakes off of my MR2 right NAO!

Honestly it seems more of a trailer queen show bike.

 

anyone want to submit this to Mythbusters and let the prove it? 8O

 

I'm jumping in now.....

I prefer both brakes.

That being said, I'm going to agree with Orange/Black that if he adjusts his riding style because he already KNOWS what his bike can do, then I'm sure he's a safe rider and CAN control his bike in an emergency situation.

Going back to the comment of "if you need 40 feet to stop but are going to take 90"..............

I don't care how much brakes/parachutes/reverse thrusters/etc..... you have: if you're in a situation where you MUST stop in 40 feet but are GOING to take 90, you're going to be in an accident. Doesn't matter what you do......you're going too fast for the situation------period. You simply can't stop in the space allowed. THAT is science. THAT is why there are so many car accidents.....People can't stop in the space available, and they have FOUR brakes.

If you're going fast enough that you NEED 90 feet to stop, ANYThing with less space than that is going to be an accident, regardless.

As I said, I prefer both brakes, and all my bikes have both sets, and are fully functioning. MY riding style allows me to not even use the brakes much of the time. I don't ride like grandma, but I do let off the throttle well in advance of stops, and roll up to the stop at which point at tiny touch of one brake or the other is more than enough to stop. I do use both, but sometimes stop with one, or the other. If I'm running higher speeds, yes of course I apply the front a hair before the rear.

Now, in 13 years I have had to replace pads or shoes ONCE........it took THAT long to wear them down. I DON'T ride out of my ability range, and I don't ride in a manner needing panic braking all the time. I have had ONE instance where BOTH brakes were needed in order to stop before climbing a bumper. It was totally the fault of the lady who stopped for no reason in the middle of a 55mph zone to do a u-turn. I stopped with about half and inch to spare. BUT, if I had been paying closer attention, I might have seen her brake lights sooner.......could just the rear have stopped me? I bet if I had been farther back as I probably should have, (and would have, if I only had rear brakes), and if I had been paying more attention to her rather than looking at trees, birds, etc/whatever..........

All blah blah............

What I'm getting at is, if O/B KNOWS his bike, and it's capabilities, and HIS capabilities, I doubt that there will be any problems. We are supposed to always ride within our ability. If you can't control your bike in an emergency situation, you are an accident waiting to happen.

Hey, I didn't have any front brakes on ANY bicycle til I got my first 10-speed bike. The rear-brake-only bike NEVER got into an accident. WHY? because I rode within my ability level. BUT, if I had ever been in a spot where I HAD to stop in 4 feet but it would have take 9 ft to stop, even a 10 speed with both brakes would not have been able to stop in 4 ft if it were going to take 9 ft for THAT bike to stop.

People are trying to compare apples and oranges here:

If bike A has only rear brakes it can only stop so fast
If bike B as both brakes, it can stop faster
If bike A has both brakes it can also stop faster

All of those are true BUT:

If Bike A has to stop in 40ft, but it's GOING to take A 90ft.......accident
if Bike B has to stop in 40ft, but it's GOING to take B 90ft.......accident
if a car has to stop in 40ft, but it's GOING to take car 90ft.......accident
if ANYTHING has to stop in 40ft, but it's GOING to take it 90ft.......accident

I'm not going to call O/B's bike unsafe. I WILL say that if I were to ride it, I PERSONALLY would be unsafe until I could learn just what the maximum capabilities of the bike/myself are. THEN I would be perfectly safe as well.

I believe O/B KNOWS what his capabilities in an emergency situation are, and rides within those capacities.

It comes down to a simple matter of knowing what YOUR limitations are, and always riding well within those limitations, so that in an emergency situation, those limitations are NOT exceeded. ANY accident that takes place, takes place because SOME limitation of some sort WAS exceeded, whatever it may have been.

More than 'nuff sed..........

Dave F

 

No myths here for them to bust.

It is well established (read 'obvious') that while braking, rider and machine masses shift forward over the front wheel, increasing its contact patch area, increasing traction and increasing its braking efficacy.

At the same time, when masses shift forward, there is less mass carried by the rear wheel, its contact patch area and its traction are reduced, as is its braking efficacy.

Not gonna bust out my slide-rule to "prove it", but it is no myth that front breaks can and do provide more stopping power than the rear.

On my mountain bike, I run Front brakes only -- call me crazy.

All that said, rider preference is paramount, and always will be. Its not illegal (at least in my state) to run rear brakes only, so I don't see any reason to grief anyone who wants to.

I will, however, say this once more for good measure -- Choose wisely, Dr. Jones.

 

It's always nice to hear from someone that's objective!
I also prefer both brakes, was just trying to get people to understand a little better and not assume the worst. Both brakes are better than one, but is one brake as dangerous as people have perceived. They need to examine things from all angles and experience before jumping to conclusions.
You don't need mythbusters to think for you, guys.