Rear brake usage?

[Ixion]

...
Have you riden trail bikes?
thats where you learn this

You'd never get me to ride one of those ugly chook chasers!

That's got to go into the 'Quote of the year'. Or the "Putting your foot in it' award.

Should I tell him about the Ducati in your gargre?

[Mikkel]

Also, there's the fact that I started the thread (so presumably I know what it's about).

Yeah, that's a mistaken assumption I also have made on several occassions

Next time you are out riding, try using both brakes when doing a hard stop at a set of traffic lights. As you have come to a complete stop, keep both brakes applied for a few seconds... then release the rear brake *first* while still holding the front brake on - and you should feel the rear of the bike rising up.

Using rear brake as well has pulled your bike down.

When you use front brake only, you are lifting the rest of the bike up.

One way creates a more stable bike under brakes... while the other way creates a more twitchy and nervous bike under brakes.

The question you quoted was actually meant as a rethorical question.

However, I have indeed noticed this. Seeing as when you are stationary on a flat surface I always assumed that this movement was due to the fact that the wheelbase changes slightly when you compress your suspension. While the brakes are applied the wheels can not move the slightest and the tension will remain until either of the brakes are released.
I could be wrong though...

It is also pretty easy to acheive the same situation if you stop on a steep slope and try playing around with holding the bike on front, rear and both brakes and letting go of either in different combinations.

[howdamnhard]

What R6 said.

Depending on the circumstances (how hard you are braking) and the bike you are riding (i.e bike configuration) it can sometimes be rendered 'useless'.

At the RRRS course we show the difference between using only the front, and only the rear, and that when applied correctly using both is the most efficient. It's all about contact patch (tyre) and weight transfer.

Some say that on a sportsbike you're braking is distrubuted as much as 90% front and 10% rear, and given the orientation of a sportsbike under hard braking you may find the rear wheel is a few mm or even a few centimetres or more off the ground (so yes, it's useless for now).

'correct' theory would have you initiate the rear brake momentarily before (practically the same time as) the front, and you are basically applying pressure to the levers exponentially until the point just before loss of grip/lockup (which can only be learnt through experience). And the main thing is that you dont let the wheel lock up of course!

Best thing to do is to get out and practice, and find what works for you... our bikes may all be 'the same', but one thing that works for one person may not work so well for you.

[dipshit]

The question you quoted was actually meant as a rethorical question.

No, you were just talking bollocks again trying to confuse matters...

DEATH_INC:
"Nope, you've missed it. Using the rear first compresses the REAR suspension as well as the front thereby lowering the cog, where using just the front extends the rear and compresses the front, moving the cog up and forwards. It works, on my old beast I hammer the rear to the point of overheating it, as the rear is so high that it stoppies too much without it"

You:
"Could you please explain to me how you can compress the front fork without raising the centre of mass (in relation to the centre of the front wheel of course)?
You just did - indeed that isn't possible without the rear suspension being compressed. Bearing that in mind I think you didn't read what you quoted. Or, have I missed the point again?"


...What I described is a practical real world example of what death_inc was talking about.

[Mikkel]

No, you were just talking bollocks again trying to confuse matters...

I then bow in deference to your greater wisdom.

That's sarcasm if you were in doubt.