View Single Post
Old 07-24-19, 09:35 AM
  #36  
79pmooney
Senior Member
 
79pmooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,906

Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder

Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4806 Post(s)
Liked 3,929 Times in 2,554 Posts
Originally Posted by Wilfred Laurier
... and an emergency stop is necessary, you generally stop with an uncontrolled skid in twice the distance that you would with a front brake.

...
+1 I'm an engineer type. I have several times sat down and calculated stopping distances. Simple physics. (No, I do not claim that you can stop in X feet from Y speed. I just calculate the relative distances it takes to stop using full possible braking using just the front, just the back and both. But both is a no-brainer. Exactly the same as front alone. As said above, in a really hard stop, the rear tire is barely touching the ground and completely useless for slowing.)

Every time I do those calcs using a typical rider on a typical bike, I get the same results. A ratio very close to 2:1. Front brake stopping the bike in half the distance of just a rear. (Rider height, center of gravity and the front-center distance of the bike vary the end result a little. Getting the front wheel further forward helps as does getting rider weight back and down.)

And an observation re: the rear wheel skid (popularized by the brakeless fixie crowd). Anyone here recall the competitions we had as kids to see who could skid the furthest? One rear-brake-only coaster bikes? We used to get 25-50 ' coming down not-so-long hills. (Something to consider long before you see those brakelights.)

Ben
79pmooney is offline