Fair weather rider
Recently, I've seen quite a few people saying they don't even bother with the rear brake--the argument being that, under hard braking, most of the weight will be on the front wheel, thus rendering the rear brake almost useless. Do you agree with this?
The dude that taught me to ride said that you get more stopping power using both.
Out of interest, does anyone know what the general racing practice is regarding the use of the rear brake?
Forum whore
Nope.Originally Posted by All
And he would be right.The dude that taught me to ride said that you get more stopping power using both.
For whom the bell tolls
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.
I like to ride naked!
I use both but tend to use the rear the most. I use the front to stop in a hurry and use both at the same time, but on the open road tend to mainly use the rear and I often just trail the rear in the corners too.
Get rid of those NANA knickers, and FIGHTER it!
You can pick your nose and you can pick your friends, but you cant eat your friends!
Not just another revolutionary
Seen this question before Do I Need My Rear brake - so check that out for wide and varied opinions there.
If someone says you don't need them then smile and nod like you are agreeing - and pass them under brakes on a track day. Its the only way they will accept the fact that while the rear only may increase breaking by 10-15% it increases contol immeasurably. And how much would we pay for a 10-15% improvement in power or handling????
Fair weather rider
Does it follow that, if your rear tyre breaks contact with the road, you're using too much front brake?
Fair weather rider
Geez, I've done it again! I even ran a search to check if this topic had been covered, but didn't see that thread. Cheers for the link.
Fair weather rider
Wow, that's the first time I've ever heard of anyone doing that.
no more pies
I didn't think I used the rear much until mine malfunctioned on one bike at paeroa....
Yes, both are very useful for control, and funnily enough, keeping the rear on the ground under hard braking is a function of a well modulated rear brake.
They are there for a damn good reason.
Boyd hh er Suzuki are my heroes!
The best deals, all the time!
Tsar Bomba
Yes. You said "almost useless" and that is correct on sporty bikes.
If you're getting stopping power out of the rear on a sports bike then you probably have more front stopping power left.
Don't think there is one. Personally I use my front for stopping power and my rear for low speed manoeuvring. You hear of racers using both and racers using front only.
On the track I'm front only. Rear locks up instantly under heavy braking. I figure engine braking gives me as much a I can expect from the rear.
If I have to stop in an emergency the last thing I want to worry about is modulating my rear and I'm willing to give up 5% of my potential max stopping power to get the 95% done right. Why get 80% out of the front while you worry about the rear locking up.
That said, if you're in a perfect world and you're a perfect person you can probably stop slightly quicker using all the rubber you have on the road. Likewise if you're on a cruiser your rear will help heaps.
Can see the 2-finger vs 4-finger debate on the horizon now
For whom the bell tolls
No. It could also be too much rear brake.
I tend to say its better be near max of front braking potential, and only be using say 3/4 rear brake than, near max of rear and only enough front to keep the rear at full.
Physics (and practice) says that the front brake is generally* the most efficient out of the two when only one is used.
This is for straight line emergency braking where wiping off as much speed is your main goal.
*will vary dependant on bike type and braking equipment.
Forum whore
Agreed. I don't use brakes much. Front is for when I NEED to stop , like , NOW. With the rear added to help keep things steady. The argument that the rear has less effect than the front ignores the fact that the front brake destabilises, whereas the rear stablises.
Normal riding I just use the brakes to adjust speed on entry a wee bit, or to steady the bike through the corner (exspecially the old style hinged frame bikes, by now the hinge is usually well worn). And for that the rear brake is much better.
And the "ignore the rear" argument 'may' be valid on sprots bikes, in the dry. But the wet is another matter. Especially wet and oil in town. So I think it wise to get in the habit of using the front and rear for serious stopping, and the rear for fine adjustment.
I like to ride naked!
My bike has fairly heavy engine braking so can wash off speed just by backing off the throttle. I also have a dirt bike back ground so tend to ride my bike that way to a degree. I do find though that late model litre bikes need the front brake alot more than my bike.
Get rid of those NANA knickers, and FIGHTER it!
You can pick your nose and you can pick your friends, but you cant eat your friends!
Tsar Bomba
Totally agree. Kinda forget about riding in the wet with such lovely weather.
Low speed, downhill corners, wet riding all benefit from judicious use of the rear brake.
Forum whore
Siiigghhh!
Answer = It depends....
If you are riding a modern sports bike - the rear is no more than a parking lot brake because an any velocity above walking speed the weight trasfer would lock up the rear IF it had a decent brake. (modern technology allows bikes to carry the weight higher so that weight transfer is encourage mainly so the rear tyre does not cut loose under acceleration)
Go back to pre WW2 and most makers did the opposite - had a deliberately weak front brake so it would never lock up on the crap roads they enjoyed... The rear was your main stopper and the weight was carried low as most bikes were slim singles or V twins..
So - on a cruiser - your rear brake is VITAL to fast stops BUT don't try in on a modern sports bike steaming into a down hill hairpin beacuse your rear wheel will have left terra firma about a half clenched buttock before you event thought of slowing down
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks