Cycle Instructor Training - Day #1

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:01:33 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Nah, I blame the politicians ;-)

Nice try.

However, I would have said "party politicians"


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Chris Malcolm]

"LSMike" <[email protected]> writes:

>Honestly, what use is the rear brake if you're trying to stop as fast
>as possible? There will be little to no weight on it making its
>contribution relatively useless.

If the surface is not slippy enough to lift the back wheel off the
ground, then you will need to use the back brake for fastest stopping,
and using a little too much back brake means that you get warned that
you're approaching the limit by an easily controllable backslide rather
than a hit-the-ground-suddenly front slide.

If you're trying to stop rolling backwards down a very steep hill in
the rain, e.g. when stopped at lights, then the front brake may simply
let front wheel wheel slip where the back brake will hold you.
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Chris Malcolm]

James Annan <[email protected]> writes:

>Mike Causer wrote:

>> You're good at this, please tell us how you know when there's enough grip
>> to aviate the back wheel and when there isn't. Have you tried it on damp
>> tarmac, damp Bridport stone, wet tarmac, wet leaves?
>>
>> And when there isn't enough friction, and you've locked the front wheel
>> and are on your way down, please tell us your techniques for minimising
>> the injuries....

>However much friction there is or isn't, adding a rear wheel skid to the
>mix is hardly going to help matters. On very slippery ground it might be
>sensible to use the rear brake cos a front wheel skid is even worse.

It doesn't have to very slippery. On many ordinary wet roads you'll
need the back brake, and overusing it a little is very useful way of
getting a warning signal of an easily controllable rear wheel skid
rather than a hit-the-road front skid.

>But
>on any decent surface - ie the vast majority of all cycling - this
>statement in the original message is simply wrong:

>> The Instructor Trainers were
>> insistent that to stop a bike as fast as possible it was necessary to
>> use both brakes, not front brakes alone.

So in your opinion the vast majority of cyclists do the vast majority
of their cycling on dry roads?
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[James Annan]

Chris Malcolm wrote:

> James Annan <[email protected]> writes:
>

>
>>However much friction there is or isn't, adding a rear wheel skid to the
>>mix is hardly going to help matters. On very slippery ground it might be
>>sensible to use the rear brake cos a front wheel skid is even worse.
>
>
> It doesn't have to very slippery. On many ordinary wet roads you'll
> need the back brake, and overusing it a little is very useful way of
> getting a warning signal of an easily controllable rear wheel skid
> rather than a hit-the-road front skid.
>

"Need" = "need to use to achieve the absolute theoretical maximum
braking effect", or "need to use to brake effectively"? The former may
be true, but I don't believe the latter.

> So in your opinion the vast majority of cyclists do the vast majority
> of their cycling on dry roads?

Um..not sure about _vast_ majority, but the added benefit from using the
rear brake is certainly very small in all normal circumstances - and
when it does have a theoretical benefit, it also introduces the risk of
a skid. It is very much an optional extra in my riding, rather than
essential.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/