Why fat tires?



N

n5hsr

Guest
"gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]
>
> "n5hsr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> "gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>> "n5hsr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> OK, I've been out of biking for quite a few years, and am surprised at
>>>> all the fat knobby tires on bikes now. I'm used to the skinny tires.
>>>> Don't the fat knobbies take more to pedal? My Suburban has 27x 1 1/4
>>>> tires, my old Racer was 26 x 1 3/8.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The mountain bike craze of the 90s means there are lots of knobby -tired
>>> bikes out there. Most of them are being used on-road, which is a case of
>>> style over substance.
>>>

>>
>> Sort of like all the Stupid Useless Vehicles (SUV's with 2 wheel drive)
>> that I have to dodge with my Corolla?
>>
>> I swear the way some of them drive, one has to flunk an intelligence test
>> to own one. If I ever needed a 4x4, I would buy something that had real
>> 4x4 drive, like a WWII era Jeep or better yet, a 6x6 Deuce and a half.
>>
>> Charles of Schaumburg

>
> I think it's a combination of the "cool" factor and the uncomfortable
> experiences many people had with road bikes. Putting a casual cyclist on a
> race-oriented bike is a recipe for discomfort, IMHO. I was fortunate
> enough to start cycling on a touring bike as a kid, so I have always
> ridden comfortable bikes with relaxed geometry. I also got used to riding
> my touring bike on all sorts of surfaces. It looks as though non-racing
> road bikes are making a resurgence, which is a good thing.
>


Good. I'll have to find one, though I'm wondering if a good used Schwinn
from the pre-China days might be a good investment for the ride.

Charles of Schaumburg
 
N

n5hsr

Guest
"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> n5hsr wrote:
>
>> Well, I don't see people my age riding bikes much. They're too busy
>> driving their SUV's. As for me, I lost 25 lbs in 5 weeks, but I don't
>> recommend what I did to lose it. Being in traction for 5 weeks is not a
>> lot of fun.
>>
>> Charles of Schaumburg

>
> Are you related to Bill Baka?
>
> Rich
>


Nope, I'm not related to anyone on this newsgroup.

Charles of Schaumburg
 
T

Tom Keats

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"n5hsr" <[email protected]> writes:

> I don't want to road race, I just want to commute 3 miles down the asphalt
> to my place of work. There's a nice little park halfway there, and the
> roads are mostly 2 lane between, speed limit 45 officially. It's pretty
> much a straight ride. I was thinking of maybe getting an old ladies
> Varsity or something like that to ride, so I don't have to get 'over' the
> bar because of my hip.


I think a road/hybrid bike with a mixte frame would be
right up yer alley. If you could find a reasonably-priced,
used one in good shape, that would be great. I've got a
'70s mixte "ten-speed" myself, and I like it enough to have
replaced the freewheel and the original steel-rimmed wheels
with aluminum-alloy ones. The bike itself was given to me;
I subsequently spent about $10 for the 5-speed freewheel,
$10 for the chain, $120 for the wheels. Plus $20 for a pair
of pedals, $30 for fenders, and $n for other various bits 'n
pieces (brake pads, inner cables, etc.) Ya just can't escape
spending money for a decent, ridable bike.

Cannondale makes a modern mixte[*] (their Adventure 400 model)
that appears to be fairly well spec'd, but the price is
probably about 4 or 5 times what you were originally thinking.
I expect other mfgrs will have similar models; I'm not
specifically recommending any particular brand.


cheers,
Tom

[*] Not a true mixte as it has a single top-tube.
But it's still a step-thru frame.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
R

Road Man

Guest
"n5hsr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
It looks as though non-racing
>> road bikes are making a resurgence, which is a good thing.
>>

>
> Good. I'll have to find one, though I'm wondering if a good used
> Schwinn from the pre-China days might be a good investment for the
> ride.
>
> Charles of Schaumburg
>


Without a doubt, the old Schwinns are among your best choices.
Varsities and Continentals were very strong and very heavy. They'd be
less desirable even for the low-intensity riding you're planning, but
certainly as servicable today as they were in their day. But, a Super
Sport of the '70s has a really good frame, being made of Columbus
tubing ('tis reputed!), and that bike is one you would easily grow
with.

I visited a Madison, Wi bike shop that maintains a fleet of red
(decidedly non-Republican!!) bikes used in an urban rental service.
If anyone has a good view on what old bikes have held up, it's their
techs. I didn't recognize the bike one was working on (thought it was
a Columbia), and he said it was a Suburban, and that nothing holds up
like these old Schwinns.

Ken
 
T

The Wogster

Guest
n5hsr wrote:
> "gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>"n5hsr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]
>>
>>>OK, I've been out of biking for quite a few years, and am surprised at
>>>all the fat knobby tires on bikes now. I'm used to the skinny tires.
>>>Don't the fat knobbies take more to pedal? My Suburban has 27x 1 1/4
>>>tires, my old Racer was 26 x 1 3/8.
>>>

>>
>>The mountain bike craze of the 90s means there are lots of knobby -tired
>>bikes out there. Most of them are being used on-road, which is a case of
>>style over substance.
>>

>
>
> Sort of like all the Stupid Useless Vehicles (SUV's with 2 wheel drive) that
> I have to dodge with my Corolla?
>
> I swear the way some of them drive, one has to flunk an intelligence test to
> own one. If I ever needed a 4x4, I would buy something that had real 4x4
> drive, like a WWII era Jeep or better yet, a 6x6 Deuce and a half.
>


Four wheel drive, often causes more problems then it solves, for
example, on a snowy and icey day, you will see more 4x4s sitting in the
ditch then anything else. The reason, 4x4 gives you more go, but
doesn't give you any additional stop, all cars built in the last 50
years at least, have 4 wheel brakes (usually front disc, rear drum).
Best, if your driving in winter, is to make sure your tires and brakes
are in good condition. One car I had, I bought an extra set of used
rims, they looked like ****, but they fit. Had a set of good snow tires
mounted and balanced on those rims. In the fall, I would jack the car
up, and put the winter wheels on. In the spring, I put the summer
tires, with the fancy wheels back on. Because I had the extra rims,
this was something I could do myself. Even though the car was rear
wheel drive, I took it everywhere, and in 4 years got stuck once.

Thinking about brakes, I wonder something, brake performance wise, would
a bike with front disc and rear rim brake be just as effective as disc
both front and rear?

W
 
N

n5hsr

Guest
"The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> n5hsr wrote:
>> "gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>>"n5hsr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]
>>>
>>>>OK, I've been out of biking for quite a few years, and am surprised at
>>>>all the fat knobby tires on bikes now. I'm used to the skinny tires.
>>>>Don't the fat knobbies take more to pedal? My Suburban has 27x 1 1/4
>>>>tires, my old Racer was 26 x 1 3/8.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The mountain bike craze of the 90s means there are lots of knobby -tired
>>>bikes out there. Most of them are being used on-road, which is a case of
>>>style over substance.
>>>

>>
>>
>> Sort of like all the Stupid Useless Vehicles (SUV's with 2 wheel drive)
>> that I have to dodge with my Corolla?
>>
>> I swear the way some of them drive, one has to flunk an intelligence test
>> to own one. If I ever needed a 4x4, I would buy something that had real
>> 4x4 drive, like a WWII era Jeep or better yet, a 6x6 Deuce and a half.
>>

>
> Four wheel drive, often causes more problems then it solves, for example,
> on a snowy and icey day, you will see more 4x4s sitting in the ditch then
> anything else. The reason, 4x4 gives you more go, but doesn't give you
> any additional stop, all cars built in the last 50 years at least, have 4
> wheel brakes (usually front disc, rear drum). Best, if your driving in
> winter, is to make sure your tires and brakes are in good condition. One
> car I had, I bought an extra set of used rims, they looked like ****, but
> they fit. Had a set of good snow tires mounted and balanced on those
> rims. In the fall, I would jack the car up, and put the winter wheels on.
> In the spring, I put the summer tires, with the fancy wheels back on.
> Because I had the extra rims, this was something I could do myself. Even
> though the car was rear wheel drive, I took it everywhere, and in 4 years
> got stuck once.
>
> Thinking about brakes, I wonder something, brake performance wise, would a
> bike with front disc and rear rim brake be just as effective as disc both
> front and rear?
>
> W
>
>
>
>


Yes, I had a friend that had a 4x4 that felt so much safer in the snow. I
felt a lot safer in my Corolla. FWD and I was used to the way it handled on
bad roads. The lack of height on snow was about the only problem I had with
it. If the snow got THAT bad, I whipped out the Previa. It's got a little
more height, a lot more weight and 4 wheel disc brakes. And it has enough
power in the engine it runs to dig out of snow, I've done it!

Though I do miss my RWD 80 Corolla. Until I got the 93, I had owned nothing
but front-engine, rear drive cars. I'd even driven them in the snow in
Arkansas and amazed the locals. . . . (Looky that thar Yankee boy, he
thinks he can drive in that stuff. Wowee lookatthatdamnyankee go.) I grew
up driving them in Illinois' winter snow. The last RWD vehicle I had was a
95 S-10 which was the WORST RWD vehicle I've ever owned. Not only was the
back end too light on slick roads, but the thing had rear-wheel-only ABS,
which meant, while I had the disc brakes in front actually stopping, the
rear brakes would let loose and try to pass the front! Asinine. It's like
having only front wheel brakes on a bicycle.

Charles of Schaumburg

Charles of Schaumburg.
 
R

Rich

Guest
n5hsr wrote:
> The last RWD vehicle I had was a
> 95 S-10 which was the WORST RWD vehicle I've ever owned. Not only was the
> back end too light on slick roads, but the thing had rear-wheel-only ABS,
> which meant, while I had the disc brakes in front actually stopping, the
> rear brakes would let loose and try to pass the front! Asinine.


Actually, if the back ends light (as it is on all trucks), having ABS
there makes sense, and is quite common. Auto engineers are actaully
pretty smart people.

> It's like
> having only front wheel brakes on a bicycle.


That too isn't really a problem. Brake hard enough and the front
brake's the only one that matters.

> Charles of Schaumburg
>
> Charles of Schaumburg.


Rich
Rich
 
N

n5hsr

Guest
"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> n5hsr wrote:
>> The last RWD vehicle I had was a 95 S-10 which was the WORST RWD vehicle
>> I've ever owned. Not only was the back end too light on slick roads, but
>> the thing had rear-wheel-only ABS, which meant, while I had the disc
>> brakes in front actually stopping, the rear brakes would let loose and
>> try to pass the front! Asinine.

>
> Actually, if the back ends light (as it is on all trucks), having ABS
> there makes sense, and is quite common. Auto engineers are actaully
> pretty smart people.
>
> > It's like
>> having only front wheel brakes on a bicycle.

>
> That too isn't really a problem. Brake hard enough and the front brake's
> the only one that matters.
>
>> Charles of Schaumburg
>>
>> Charles of Schaumburg.

>
> Rich
> Rich
>


Sorry, Rich, if that's what ABS is like, I'll 'liberate' the ABS module.
Upon hitting the brakes, I would have control of the front, but if the back
was on any kind of slick, wet or icy pavement, the brakes basically stopped
working in back, and the back, now basically unbraked, would try to pass the
front, which was under control. If I had any angle on the body at all,
(i.e. not a straight line stop such as on a curve or something like that.)
the back end would actually start coming around. BAD IDEA. Once I nearly did
a 180, thank God it was in a near empty parking lot. It means I have LESS
control and LESS chance of preventing an accident, not more. I've been
driving over 30 years and have managed to deal with most of Detroits
mandated stupidities, but that one is one I think is just plain DUMB. 4
wheel ABS makes sense, but not stopping the back end while the front end
still has 'normal' brakes is dangerous. Espescially with the ABS they had
at that time, which basically just stopped braking entirely in that circuit.
Just because I don't have a sack of cement in the back doesn't mean it
doesn't have inertia. Ya cannot break the laws of physics. And I think the
guys that thought up that one need a physic.

Charles of Schaumburg
 
R

Rich

Guest
n5hsr wrote:

> Sorry, Rich, if that's what ABS is like, I'll 'liberate' the ABS module.
> Upon hitting the brakes, I would have control of the front, but if the back
> was on any kind of slick, wet or icy pavement, the brakes basically stopped
> working in back, and the back, now basically unbraked, would try to pass the
> front, which was under control.


You're confused. Without ABS the back tires would have locked up. ABS
keeps them from locking up, although givn there's almost no weight in
the back of a truck, you have minimal breaking from the back tires anyway.

I driven trucks without ABS and with ABS on a variety of surfaces. It's
actually a pretty good technology. If it weren't, it wouldn't be on
just about every truck made today.
 
N

n5hsr

Guest
"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> n5hsr wrote:
>
>> Sorry, Rich, if that's what ABS is like, I'll 'liberate' the ABS module.
>> Upon hitting the brakes, I would have control of the front, but if the
>> back was on any kind of slick, wet or icy pavement, the brakes basically
>> stopped working in back, and the back, now basically unbraked, would try
>> to pass the front, which was under control.

>
> You're confused. Without ABS the back tires would have locked up. ABS
> keeps them from locking up, although givn there's almost no weight in the
> back of a truck, you have minimal breaking from the back tires anyway.
>
> I driven trucks without ABS and with ABS on a variety of surfaces. It's
> actually a pretty good technology. If it weren't, it wouldn't be on just
> about every truck made today.


Rich, READ MY LIPS.

The rear-only ABS on the S-10 SUCKED OUT LOUD. I've been driving since 1974
on good and bad roads and that's the only time I was unable to reasonably
control the vehicle. Rear-Only ABS is dangerous and stupid, at least the
way Chevy did it on the 4 cylinder S-10's. 4 wheel ABS may be fine, I've
yet to drive a vehicle that had 4 wheel ABS. My current Corolla has the
Mark 1 Human Foot ABS system, and it's worked much better so far.

If you think the S-10 with rear only ABS is so much better, I'll find the
guy I sold it to, buy it back and sell it to you and let YOU deal with the
damned thing. That's one of the reasons I sold it, the other being it
started needing a lot of shop time at 50,000 miles. I sold it over 7 years
ago.

Charles of Schaumburg
 
P

Peter Cole

Guest
n5hsr wrote:
> "Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>n5hsr wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sorry, Rich, if that's what ABS is like, I'll 'liberate' the ABS module.
>>>Upon hitting the brakes, I would have control of the front, but if the
>>>back was on any kind of slick, wet or icy pavement, the brakes basically
>>>stopped working in back, and the back, now basically unbraked, would try
>>>to pass the front, which was under control.

>>
>>You're confused. Without ABS the back tires would have locked up. ABS
>>keeps them from locking up, although givn there's almost no weight in the
>>back of a truck, you have minimal breaking from the back tires anyway.
>>
>>I driven trucks without ABS and with ABS on a variety of surfaces. It's
>>actually a pretty good technology. If it weren't, it wouldn't be on just
>>about every truck made today.

>
>
> Rich, READ MY LIPS.
>
> The rear-only ABS on the S-10 SUCKED OUT LOUD. I've been driving since 1974
> on good and bad roads and that's the only time I was unable to reasonably
> control the vehicle. Rear-Only ABS is dangerous and stupid, at least the
> way Chevy did it on the 4 cylinder S-10's. 4 wheel ABS may be fine, I've
> yet to drive a vehicle that had 4 wheel ABS.


I agree with Rich, you're confused about the way brakes work. A locked
rear wheel, or unbalanced rear wheel braking, can cause spins. An easy
way to verify this is to apply the parking brake hard at speed.

On a bicycle, the front brake is the only important brake (the rear only
there for redundancy, typically). At the limit of braking, there is
minimal weight on the rear tire, so it is ineffective for braking. When
the rear wheel is completely unweighted, there is nothing to prevent the
onset of spin.
 
D

David L. Johnson

Guest
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 18:47:08 -0600, n5hsr wrote:

> Haven't found a bike shop here yet, so I was at Wally-World looking for
> other things for the new place and waltzed past the bike rack. I just about
> had a major cow when I saw Schwinn on their rack.


But the only thing in common with old Schwinns is the name. These are
cheap, poorly-assembled bikes manufactured by prison labor in the far
East. (OK, I don't know that last bit, but it sounds better)

Go to a real bike shop. It will cost more initially, but it will be worth
it.

> pretty much a straight ride. I was thinking of maybe getting an old
> ladies Varsity or something like that to ride, so I don't have to get
> 'over' the bar because of my hip.


"ladies" bikes are hard to find any more. You have several options
regarding your hip:

1) Learn to get on the bike without swinging your leg over. This still
does require some movement of the hip that may not work for you.

2) Look into some of the "cruiser" style bikes. Many of them place the
seat considerably further back than a road bike, and so position it lower.
They also have lower frames that will be easy to get your leg over.

3) A used ladies' or mixte bike -- go this route only if you are good
mechanically and know what you are buying. Many used bikes have hundreds
of dollars worth of repairs needed, and are overpriced. But, don't go
looking for a Schwinn Varsity. Those are ancient now, likely to be badly
rusted with components that don't work, and, they weigh a ton and a half.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I can
_`\(,_ | assure you that mine are all greater. -- A. Einstein
(_)/ (_) |
 
P

Pat in TX

Guest
">
> Well, I don't see people my age riding bikes much. They're too busy
> driving their SUV's. As for me, I lost 25 lbs in 5 weeks, but I don't
> recommend what I did to lose it. Being in traction for 5 weeks is not a
> lot of fun.
>
> Charles of Schaumburg


I don't know what age you are, but our bicycling group has an entire section
with people in their 70's who ride 3 days a week. One guy is 82 and another
is 80....you might be suprised who rides if you contacted a bike club in
your area.

Pat in TX
>
>
 
N

n5hsr

Guest
"Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> n5hsr wrote:
>> "Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>>n5hsr wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sorry, Rich, if that's what ABS is like, I'll 'liberate' the ABS module.
>>>>Upon hitting the brakes, I would have control of the front, but if the
>>>>back was on any kind of slick, wet or icy pavement, the brakes basically
>>>>stopped working in back, and the back, now basically unbraked, would try
>>>>to pass the front, which was under control.
>>>
>>>You're confused. Without ABS the back tires would have locked up. ABS
>>>keeps them from locking up, although givn there's almost no weight in the
>>>back of a truck, you have minimal breaking from the back tires anyway.
>>>
>>>I driven trucks without ABS and with ABS on a variety of surfaces. It's
>>>actually a pretty good technology. If it weren't, it wouldn't be on just
>>>about every truck made today.

>>
>>
>> Rich, READ MY LIPS.
>>
>> The rear-only ABS on the S-10 SUCKED OUT LOUD. I've been driving since
>> 1974 on good and bad roads and that's the only time I was unable to
>> reasonably control the vehicle. Rear-Only ABS is dangerous and stupid,
>> at least the way Chevy did it on the 4 cylinder S-10's. 4 wheel ABS
>> may be fine, I've yet to drive a vehicle that had 4 wheel ABS.

>
> I agree with Rich, you're confused about the way brakes work. A locked
> rear wheel, or unbalanced rear wheel braking, can cause spins. An easy way
> to verify this is to apply the parking brake hard at speed.
>
> On a bicycle, the front brake is the only important brake (the rear only
> there for redundancy, typically). At the limit of braking, there is
> minimal weight on the rear tire, so it is ineffective for braking. When
> the rear wheel is completely unweighted, there is nothing to prevent the
> onset of spin.


Although I had to learn how to ride on bikes with rear-only brakes . . .
Back braking without front braking is a lot easier to control than front
braking with no way of controlling what the rear is doing . . . .

Charles of Schaumburg
 
N

n5hsr

Guest
"Pat in TX" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> ">
>> Well, I don't see people my age riding bikes much. They're too busy
>> driving their SUV's. As for me, I lost 25 lbs in 5 weeks, but I don't
>> recommend what I did to lose it. Being in traction for 5 weeks is not a
>> lot of fun.
>>
>> Charles of Schaumburg

>
> I don't know what age you are, but our bicycling group has an entire
> section with people in their 70's who ride 3 days a week. One guy is 82
> and another is 80....you might be suprised who rides if you contacted a
> bike club in your area.
>
> Pat in TX
>>
>>

>
>


I'm only 48, but I shattered my acetabulum 3 years ago. Do you know Will,
K9FO? He's supposedly done several 'centuries'.
 
R

Rich

Guest
n5hsr wrote:
> "Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>n5hsr wrote:
>>
>>>"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>>n5hsr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, Rich, if that's what ABS is like, I'll 'liberate' the ABS module.
>>>>>Upon hitting the brakes, I would have control of the front, but if the
>>>>>back was on any kind of slick, wet or icy pavement, the brakes basically
>>>>>stopped working in back, and the back, now basically unbraked, would try
>>>>>to pass the front, which was under control.
>>>>
>>>>You're confused. Without ABS the back tires would have locked up. ABS
>>>>keeps them from locking up, although givn there's almost no weight in the
>>>>back of a truck, you have minimal breaking from the back tires anyway.
>>>>
>>>>I driven trucks without ABS and with ABS on a variety of surfaces. It's
>>>>actually a pretty good technology. If it weren't, it wouldn't be on just
>>>>about every truck made today.
>>>
>>>
>>>Rich, READ MY LIPS.
>>>
>>>The rear-only ABS on the S-10 SUCKED OUT LOUD. I've been driving since
>>>1974 on good and bad roads and that's the only time I was unable to
>>>reasonably control the vehicle. Rear-Only ABS is dangerous and stupid,
>>>at least the way Chevy did it on the 4 cylinder S-10's. 4 wheel ABS
>>>may be fine, I've yet to drive a vehicle that had 4 wheel ABS.

>>
>>I agree with Rich, you're confused about the way brakes work. A locked
>>rear wheel, or unbalanced rear wheel braking, can cause spins. An easy way
>>to verify this is to apply the parking brake hard at speed.
>>
>>On a bicycle, the front brake is the only important brake (the rear only
>>there for redundancy, typically). At the limit of braking, there is
>>minimal weight on the rear tire, so it is ineffective for braking. When
>>the rear wheel is completely unweighted, there is nothing to prevent the
>>onset of spin.

>
>
> Although I had to learn how to ride on bikes with rear-only brakes . . .
> Back braking without front braking is a lot easier to control than front
> braking with no way of controlling what the rear is doing . . . .


If your tires aren't locked up, they're going the way they're pointed.
And if they're locked up, you're not braking properly. Have you ridden
a bike lately?
 
D

Dave Larrington

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Pat in TX ([email protected])
wrote:
>
> ">
> > Well, I don't see people my age riding bikes much. They're too busy
> > driving their SUV's. As for me, I lost 25 lbs in 5 weeks, but I don't
> > recommend what I did to lose it. Being in traction for 5 weeks is not a
> > lot of fun.
> >
> > Charles of Schaumburg

>
> I don't know what age you are, but our bicycling group has an entire section
> with people in their 70's who ride 3 days a week. One guy is 82 and another
> is 80....you might be suprised who rides if you contacted a bike club in
> your area.


Consider also 2002 Audax UK points champion Jack Eason who, I am semi-
reliably informed, is currently 76 and has been for the past ten years
:)

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
I am Wan, for I am pursued by the Army of Plums.
 
N

n5hsr

Guest
"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> n5hsr wrote:
>> "Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>>n5hsr wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>n5hsr wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, Rich, if that's what ABS is like, I'll 'liberate' the ABS
>>>>>>module. Upon hitting the brakes, I would have control of the front,
>>>>>>but if the back was on any kind of slick, wet or icy pavement, the
>>>>>>brakes basically stopped working in back, and the back, now basically
>>>>>>unbraked, would try to pass the front, which was under control.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're confused. Without ABS the back tires would have locked up. ABS
>>>>>keeps them from locking up, although givn there's almost no weight in
>>>>>the back of a truck, you have minimal breaking from the back tires
>>>>>anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>I driven trucks without ABS and with ABS on a variety of surfaces.
>>>>>It's actually a pretty good technology. If it weren't, it wouldn't be
>>>>>on just about every truck made today.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Rich, READ MY LIPS.
>>>>
>>>>The rear-only ABS on the S-10 SUCKED OUT LOUD. I've been driving since
>>>>1974 on good and bad roads and that's the only time I was unable to
>>>>reasonably control the vehicle. Rear-Only ABS is dangerous and stupid,
>>>>at least the way Chevy did it on the 4 cylinder S-10's. 4 wheel ABS
>>>>may be fine, I've yet to drive a vehicle that had 4 wheel ABS.
>>>
>>>I agree with Rich, you're confused about the way brakes work. A locked
>>>rear wheel, or unbalanced rear wheel braking, can cause spins. An easy
>>>way to verify this is to apply the parking brake hard at speed.
>>>
>>>On a bicycle, the front brake is the only important brake (the rear only
>>>there for redundancy, typically). At the limit of braking, there is
>>>minimal weight on the rear tire, so it is ineffective for braking. When
>>>the rear wheel is completely unweighted, there is nothing to prevent the
>>>onset of spin.

>>
>>
>> Although I had to learn how to ride on bikes with rear-only brakes . . .
>> Back braking without front braking is a lot easier to control than front
>> braking with no way of controlling what the rear is doing . . . .

>
> If your tires aren't locked up, they're going the way they're pointed. And
> if they're locked up, you're not braking properly. Have you ridden a bike
> lately?


Not since I broke my hip. But it seems to me the elemental physics of the
thing is that if you have a rear end that is still trying to move and a
front end that's stopping, there's going to be a problem if the front isn't
in front of the rear. I spilled a moped that way once. The throttle went
the wrong way, and I hit the front brake and the rear throttle at the same
time I was trying to make a corner. Naturally the rear wheel took off and
left me in the street. And the truck did the same thing without me hitting
the throttle! The wheels didn't lock up, they basically had no brakes at
all thanks to the ABS on the rear only. The front had normal brakes.

Charles of Schaumburg.
 
P

Pat in TX

Guest

>>>

>>
>>

>
> I'm only 48, but I shattered my acetabulum 3 years ago. Do you know Will,
> K9FO? He's supposedly done several 'centuries'.


No, sorry, but I don't. Talking about injuries, though, one time I looked
around and noticed a lot of knee scars on people. I asked a couple of the
guys and it seems that many people after knee surgery start cycling.

Pat in TX
>
>
 
P

Peter Cole

Guest
n5hsr wrote:
> "Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote


>>On a bicycle, the front brake is the only important brake (the rear only
>>there for redundancy, typically). At the limit of braking, there is
>>minimal weight on the rear tire, so it is ineffective for braking. When
>>the rear wheel is completely unweighted, there is nothing to prevent the
>>onset of spin.

>
>
> Although I had to learn how to ride on bikes with rear-only brakes . . .
> Back braking without front braking is a lot easier to control than front
> braking with no way of controlling what the rear is doing . . . .


The only problem with rear-only braking is actually stopping in time.
See Sheldon Brown's article on bike braking for a brief description of
the physics involved.