Stranger Danger!

How about we just toss brakes altogether? There are all these three-wheel bikes that have NO BRAKES and they don't get into accidents either. Never mind that it's because they are powered by three year olds and don't go very fast.

The heavy single-speed beach cruiser/granny bikes are what tends to come with only the rear brake. They aren't fast either.

Look, if you have something anemic, like that 7 horse Harley, or a half a lawnmower, or whatever, it's fine. However, taking a moderately powerful highway-capable bike like an XJ and tossing most of it's braking ability is unsafe, no matter how your remaining brake is adjusted. If you actually go out on the street, that is.

If you have some sort of a show queen chopper that can't get out of it's own way and can be outcornered by USS Enterprise the aircraft carrier... Well, so long as it only moves between trailer and show floor, I guess it's fine too. I suppose that falls under "knowing your limitations".


I am trying hard to figure out why front brakes need defending. What possible upside is there to removing them? Why would you do it?

 

what's the most famous bike ever built ? hint: it didn't have a front brake.
good read, good video
http://thevintagent.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... erica.html

 

Increasing following distance does not compensate for the sudden lane changer, the asshat who pulls out from a side street, or the child who runs out from an alleyway without looking. Giving up the front brake is nothing less than throwing away part of your rider's toolkit. Be the bunny.

 

Technically. K-Moe....If you compensate(?) with knowing your limits AND riding within them...you can work your way through it...at least that's what I've just learned. Of course, not everybody can do this, because they don't/didn't know their limits....Technically speaking....

 

If the dude selling that bike took the front caliper off for looks, why didn't he go all the way and remove the disc too? :?


My two cents.

No way I'd REMOVE braking power on a bike, or anything for that matter, that I'd be using in traffic on a regular basis. I like to think I drive and ride defensively, but there have been times when I've had to hit the brakes HARD to avoid an accident and animals, and was grateful for the reserve braking power of modern vehicles.

And on a related aside, having only the rear brakes on my kids go cart was the main reason I never put a more powerful motor in it like they wanted.

A show or parade bike though? I'd be tempted to expose the "swirlies" in all their curvacious glory. 8)

 

Because replicating that one thing you saw in a movie on the street is totally a smart idea. Then again, they did get doped out of their skulls in Easy Rider, so at the time it might have seemed like one.

Reminds me of some kid on a gun board asking which gun is best to bend bullets like they did in Wanted...

So, aside from letting you pretend to be Peter Fonda, is there any actual benefit to this silliness?

 

As Hank Moody would say, "Church!"

 

"Captain America" would have a greater rear weight bias, due to the extended forks. And 2 guys sitting on the back tire??

I saw this at Daytona a few years ago - - a front hub brake that does not look like a brake. Not by much.

http://www.360brake.com/photogal.html

 

Sounds like my favorite NASCAR quote, interview after an accident on the track: "we ran out of talent". - Travis Pastrana

 

Speaking of nascar, perhaps the best driver in roundy round racing, Dale Earnhardt, rejected a certain safety device, saying he was the best safety device in the car and didn't want the restriction in vision that it caused.

We know what happened to him.

 

I prefer to expand my limits by having modern(ish) equipment.

 

The rear-brake-only bicycle never got into an accident:

not because it was an anemic bike to begin with....I could do 35 going down hill with it.....and did.... but rather because I rode it in a manner that I KNEW just how much distance it took to stop at maximum controlled braking from different speeds. Example: if I new that it would take a bare minimum of 20 feet to make any emergency stop, then I'd better stay well more than 20 ft from anything at that speed. Anything that would jump out in the meantime, would be a problem.

Yes, of course having more braking ability means an even shorter stopping distance. But, it still comes down to knowing just what your bike can do for ITS OWN maximum braking ability, and riding within a manner that will not exceed that. ANY bike that has something jump out into that minimum braking distance and shorten it is going to be an accident regardless. That goes for cars, trucks, battleships, planes, anything.

O/B, I totally get what you're saying..... other's keep getting distracted by the "well if you had more brakes, you could stop faster' thought.

Well DUH.......ANY thing that has extra brakes will be able to stop faster.

If someone should want to go the the braking extreme, then put brakes on that will allow you to stop the bike instantly without skidding, screaching, etc...... But now THAT introduce another problem--the bike stops instantly the split second you touch the brake (that's awesome), except YOU are now an accident to clean up because when the bike stopped instantly, you're body kept going. Yeah, I know totally unrealistic. But people, it's not an argument of who's right or wrong-----

Its still a matter of RIDING YOUR EQUIPMENT IN A MANNER THAT YOU ARE IN CONTROL OF YOUR EQUIPMENT. That means KNOWING THE CAPABILITIES OF YOUR EQUIPMENT, AND YOUR OWN.

To keep arguing it, is like arguing which car is better......because it can brake quicker? Funny, my crappy little PT Cruiser is NOT the best braking car ever made, other's can stop a whole lot quicker. BUT, it's stopped in emergency situations a whole lot more than many other cars did. How do I know that? Well.....its still here, on the road, and I"m going to turn 290,000 miles in a couple weeks. Other cars with really top of the line brakes are sitting in the scrapyard. Why? Because people didn't stay within the limits of their braking ability.......or someone elses.

Let's move on, PLEASE.

nuff said.......not replying anymore.

Dave

 

+1
K-moe - nice chart, but of course the stopping distance is most likely calculated at the same speed for all bikes on the chart. If my rear only bike takes 180ft to stop at whatever speed they used to calculate, I would naturally reduce my speed.
As for the unseen danger of a car cutting in front of you or a child/animal running out in front, that would be difficult no matter how many brakes you have. According to the chart, both brakes wouldn't stop you in time for the latter scenario(95ft).