Which brake first?

[Chargeride]

Whichever one is working that day

 

[GMA52]

Whichever one is working that day

Wait till they both fail then you won’t have to worry about hitting the brakes

 

[Gionnirocket]

Wait till they both fail then you won’t have to worry about hitting the brakes

But when they both fail.... which one should you use first?

 

[GMA52]

But when they both fail.... which one should you use first?

I am sure I would have a heart attack and not have to worry about it

 

[PedalUma]

The worst are MacFox. Most cannot stop and parents do not know how to adjust them, so the kids use their shoes.

 

[edobici_forza]

It depends.

Steep downhill:
Yesterday, riding my Creo down a short, but steep, gravel road (range of 6% - 23%) with ruts...first time riding that trail, I had my dropper down, gripping the drops, and standing on pedals... Initially I slow with light rear braking, to see the looseness of the Category 3 gravel/dirt. then lighten up the rear a bit and add front brake to control my speed (max 12mph) to navigate the ruts crossing the trail. some of the loosest steep stuff I've ridden on the Creo so far. Then I modulated front and rear, as needed.

Mild downhill: Usually I tap the rear brake first, then add the front, modulating it as needed.

Flat: First light rear braking, then finish with the the front brake.


Here is that steep loose section (thanks to Garmin + Strava):

- - - -

I was paying extra attention on the loose gravel, since I slid out on loose dirt, over hardpack dirt on a downhill off-camber turn, riding my MTB, two days prior.

 

[JL0256]

On dry pavement the front brake does most of the stopping, because weight transfers forward under braking. So for a quick stop you generally want both brakes, with a smooth squeeze on the front and the rear used to stabilize.

I don’t really think in terms of “which first” — I feather the rear, then progressively load the front. In low traction (wet/gravel) you use less front and keep everything smooth to avoid lockups. Rear-first as a habit can mean longer stopping distances, but grabbing front too hard is what sends people over the bars.

Rule of thumb: both brakes, smooth + progressive, adjust front/rear bias to conditions.

 

[stompandgo]

Whichever one is working at the time.

 

[Gionnirocket]

On dry pavement the front brake does most of the stopping, because weight transfers forward under braking. So for a quick stop you generally want both brakes, with a smooth squeeze on the front and the rear used to stabilize.

I don’t really think in terms of “which first” — I feather the rear, then progressively load the front. In low traction (wet/gravel) you use less front and keep everything smooth to avoid lockups. Rear-first as a habit can mean longer stopping distances, but grabbing front too hard is what sends people over the bars.

Rule of thumb: both brakes, smooth + progressive, adjust front/rear bias to conditions.

Exactly... anything else is just plain stupid

 

[BEC111]

Brakes, who needs them; they only slow you down.

You must be a NYC bike messenger

 

[JGcycle]

 

[TR.Brummer]

Mash both to handlebars at same time. 20 to zero in 15 feet. Low seat/CG.

 

[Cedotze2002]

How about learning YOUR vehicle start with practicing emergency braking so will learn your capabilities and your bike's capability. Everyone is different my reaction timing maybe different from yours. We all know practice makes perfect and muscle memory is the hardest to unlearn.

 

[gromike]

...and practice sober, and then after a few drinks. The computer doesn't react the same and it's good to know, if you're not wanting to kiss the pavement.

 

[Cedotze2002]

...and practice sober, and then after a few drinks. The computer doesn't react the same and it's good to know, if you're not wanting to kiss the pavement.

Factz

 

[fauconnier]

View attachment 204764

Brakes are for wimps.

In the 1910s/1920s, board track racer motorcycles traveled at 100 mph and had no brakes! Unthinkable today.

 

[spokewrench]

View attachment 204764

In 1969, BMW motorcycles adopted Porsche fade-proof brake linings. That was a disgusting marketing decision. I've never heard of brake fade on a motorcycle, and if these linings absorbed moisture from the air, touching them could lock the wheel, especially the front wheel, with dual leading shoes. I had to be ready to release a brake in milliseconds, before the situation proved fatal. A couple of very brief locks would dry the linings so I could use the brake.

Sometimes I'd crank the bike, ride several miles through city traffic to I-95 in Pawtucket, and take an off ramp in New London, 70 miles down the road. There was a stop sign at the bottom of the ramp, so I'd touch the brakes. Often, they'd lock. I'd give them another couple of quick touches and they'd be dry.

It meant they'd absorbed moisture overnight, and I hadn't yet touched them. I hadn't used them on the interstate because at those speeds, air pressure slowed me fast. I hadn't needed them on the way to the interstate because the intersections had traffic lights, not stop signs. The motor would easily slow me to 5 mph, allowing me to catch green lights by varying my speed. If it weren't for stop signs, I wouldn't have needed brakes!

 

[spokewrench]

Brakes are for wimps.

In the 1910s/1920s, board track racer motorcycles traveled at 100 mph and had no brakes! Unthinkable today.

That was the least of their problems. Some tracks were only 1/2 mile and banked at 50 degrees. A racer who went down would be impaled with large splinters, often fatally. Control of a motorcycle was tenuous, and when one flew over the rim, there could be mass decapitations. I wonder if any champions lived to see 1930, when maintenance costs drove wood tracks out of business.

 

[fauconnier]

Those were the good old days!