On 13 Jan 2005 11:58:27 GMT, Mark Thompson
<
[email protected]> wrote:
>> As some bicyclists are sufficienty skilled to pronounce the rear brake
>> pretty useless
>
>Hey, he thinks I'm a skilled cyclist! Pity it was sarcasm. For the record
>there's no skill involved. Get a decent brake, slam it on. All the weight
>shifting to the front and the back wheel having no weight on top of it
>takes care of the rest.
No sarcasm involved. It was a genuine comment: Some cyclists claim
that with a good braking technique, the rear brake does no work, and
there is no risk of cartwheeling. I assume they shift their weight
backwards (front brake only probably doesn't work when not sitting on
the saddle.
>> would there be any benefit gained by having two brakes
>> on the front wheel. With modern equipment, the two brakes could be,
>> say, a cantilever and a disc?
>
>Yeah, but only if the stongest brake couldn't lock the front wheel/send you
>over the bars on its own. I'm guessing that with two good front brakes
>you'd be able to stop incedibly quickly (if you don't count the
>cartwheeling through the air bit).
I'm guessing that having two brakes on the front wheel may allow
better control. The point between a brake providing maximum
deceleration and locking the wheel is quite fine. Let's call this the
"critical brake point". Sharing the force between two brakes, both
more distance from the CBP could perhaps give better deceleration with
less risk of wheel-locking?
What about on a recument *bi*cycle
--
Amazon: "If you are interested in 'Asimov's I-Robot',
you may also be interested in 'Garfield - The Movie'.
... erm, how do they figure that one out?