2 ms·
> this had me wondering if the writer actually cycles in a city or not Yeah, the whole business of dispensing with brakes is absurd. For one, the engine (usual
by bambax 5y ago
> this had me wondering if the writer actually cycles in a city or not
Yeah, the whole business of dispensing with brakes is absurd. For one, the engine (usually) only powers the rear wheel; if you use only engine braking that means you don't have a brake on the front wheel, which is the one that does most of the job! And two, sometimes you need to brake super fast and I doubt any engine can react or go into reverse fast enough for that.
- somerandomqaguy 5y agoIt's more then that. At least for motorcycles, and depending on the geometry of the bike, your front represents 70% of your total braking capability on a heavy cruiser vs 90% of your total braking capability on a sports bike. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDGvzy038Eo&t=59s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDGvzy038Eo&t=59s <-- demonstrates it rather clearly. From 80kph, braking distances are: Rear brake only: 40m (131 ft) Front brake only: 17m ( 55 ft) Combined: 13m ( 42 ft) The issue that braking capability is a function of friction of the tires against the road surface, which is in turn a function of force pushing the tire into the ground. When you begin to decelerate there's a weight transfer to the front tires, increasing the weight on the front and decreasing the weight on the rear. In other words, increasing the effectiveness of the brakes in the front and decreasing the effectiveness of the brakes in the rear. In the extremes with (im)proper body position, you can lift the rear tire clear off the ground: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BqCJgTpEf0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BqCJgTpEf0 So someone suggesting that you remove your most powerful brakes seems... odd?