Cyclecraft - I totally disagree!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Tynan

Veteran
Location
e4
on a scooter there's a tendency to cover the rear brake and hammer that in an emergency while the right hand is still on the throttle, the back locks and then you're holding for dear life and you never get to the front brake lever

I know from bitter experience

you're not supposed to cover the back brake lever but it's a concious effort or was for me not to cover a brake lever when filtering
 
OP
OP
Jacomus-rides-Gen

Jacomus-rides-Gen

New Member
BentMikey said:
Um, would not applying the front fractionally after the rear mean that there is no significant delay? Unless you interpret fractionally as more than a second, say.

I really can't see what you find wrong with JF's approach. Rear wheel locking *is* a useful indicator of being about to lift it, under certain conditions. Think of why a fixed wheel is so great at feeling the road!

I do agree with both your points there BM, but in more situations than not, rear wheel locking is not an indicatior of it about to rise, it is just a symptom of too much power. IMO that is likely to scare the rider into thinking they are about to stoppie, when actually they just have too much left hand on the go.

I have less of a problem with his description of rear-first braking than I do with his off the bike demo.

Without a rider on it a bike will stoppie with a tiny amount of pull on the brake lever, an amount that relates to a very gentle pull with rider on the bike.

I feel one of the most important things to tell new cyclists is not to be scared of using the front brake. Tell them to brace themselves with bent arms and against the pedals, and to shift their weight back a little. To progressively squeeze the levers both on and off to control their stop, and to cover the brakes in a threatening situation to reduce the impact of panic braking.
 

LLB

Guest
I very rarely use the back brake on my motorcycle. It has bigger twin disks and twin 6 pot calipers on it than a Subaru Imprezza has on the front end

As soon as the weight is transfered to the front wheel, the back end only serves to keep it in a straight line.

I have practiced stoppies from 50mph on it as well, and it takes a lot of braking force to lift the back wheel on a motorbike.
 
Clutch left, throttle front brake right.
feet - Gears left, rear brake right, unless it's a British bike in which case the feet are reversed, as I found out once as I shot straight through a junction!
 

PrettyboyTim

New Member
Location
Brighton
Perhaps the advantage of braking on the rear first is that as the bike slows down it causes you to brace without danger of the bike pitching forwards. Then as you brake with the front you're already braced and putting your weight back.

Certainly I remember that that was the way I was taught to brake as a child - rear brake slightly before the front one. Possibly this is a piece of 'recieved wisdom' that has made it into the book. And after all, it's not really bad advice. At worst it's slightly sub-optimal.
 

bonj2

Guest
it probably largely depends on the bike tbh.
my road bike for instance the front brake is probably about 5 times more powerful than the rear, part of the reason being that the pads are worse (not sure what the rest of the reason is?)
So i will often go a whole ride without even bothering using the rear brake. It only really gets used when i need to stop quite quickly or more usually when need to slow down and do a right hand signal at the same time.

my MTB however, and the proportion of rear brake use is higher as braking force needs to be even as the terrain often is anything but even.

I remember when i was about 7 and my bro was 5, and we both got MTBs with cantilever brakes whereas we'd previously had BMXs with quite weak brakes, he was riding his and slammed the front brake on and faceplanted and smashed his teeth out, he didn't realise how powerful the brakes were in comparison.
However, on my current MTB i would probably be able to do that same thing quite easily, but it would be more difficult on my road bike, i.e. i would have to go at a faster speed in order to do it. not that i'd want to, obviously
 

Maz

Guru
Jacomus - Why not contact JF for clarification? It may be a genuine mistake on his part or a misunderstanding on yours.
 

LLB

Guest
Tynan said:
different though init because a motorbike has the clutch with the throttle, yeah?

You have lost me with this one. We are talking about the braking system, not the propulsion system.

To do a stoppie on a motorcycle, you get up to speed (anywhere between 30 and 50), grip the tank hard with your knees, shut off the throttle, pull the clutch in as you don't want the engine to stall when you stop, and squeeze the front brake until it compresses the forks, when they reach the bottom of their travel, the back end begins to rise, but it takes a lot of braking effort, and the brakes on a modern sports bike are capable of lifting the back wheel at 100mph if applied with enough force.

You have to weigh it up as cycle brakes are nowhere near as strong as motorcycle brakes and you don't have the rubber on the road either, but then it is a lot easier to alter the COG of a cycle than a motorcycle.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPpiH3uOiHc&NR=1
 

yello

Guest
Is it only me that just brakes? I couldn't even tell you which lever is front and which is rear. I'm sure one of my bikes is different anyway and t'other way around.

It's different on the motorbike. With that, as a rule, it's front brake first. Slow speed work is rear brake. But, to be honest, I do a lot of engine braking... just as a fixie would do!
 
Perhaps there's a newbie/experienced rider distinction to be made. During the CBT, we were definitely taught to apply rear brake first - made to practise over and over again. However the more experienced motorbikers on this forum are saying front first. Is JF doing the same thing for cyclists?
 

davidwalton

New Member
The purpose of rear brake first is to transfer the weight forwards. You don't just grab the rear brake, you apply it gently, and only a fraction of a second prior to applying the front brake. Whether a cycle, or motorbike, this breaking law is the same.

The front brake is for stopping you. The rear brake is for keeping you in control of the stop.

Yes, you can stop using just front or just rear brake. Nowhere near as effective though.

As a general rule, the BEST braking will be with around 75% front and 25% rear (give or take 5%ish) That changes to 50/50 in the wet, and braking much more gently. The road conditions dictate what percentage front/rear.
 

yello

Guest
David, I've been told and read many many times in many different places advice that contradicts what you are saying.

The front brake is the stopper, agreed. On a motorcycle the front brake transfers weight forwards and compresses the forks. This has the effect of making the rear almost (note "almost") useless. Braking with weight forward can lock the rear wheel. Once the bike has settled (or at slow speed), the rear brake can be used effectively. Some bikers hardly bother with the rear brake. Especially these days when, as LLB says, the modern bike has superb front brakes.

Braking in the wet, I would agree with you, you do want to be a little more balanced and careful... but, again, I have read that even in the wet, the most effective way of stopping a motorbike is still majority front braking.
 

davidwalton

New Member
yello said:
David, I've been told and read many many times in many different places advice that contradicts what you are saying.

The front brake is the stopper, agreed. On a motorcycle the front brake transfers weight forwards and compresses the forks. This has the effect of making the rear almost (note "almost") useless. Braking with weight forward can lock the rear wheel. Once the bike has settled (or at slow speed), the rear brake can be used effectively. Some bikers hardly bother with the rear brake. Especially these days when, as LLB says, the modern bike has superb front brakes.

Braking in the wet, I would agree with you, you do want to be a little more balanced and careful... but, again, I have read that even in the wet, the most effective way of stopping a motorbike is still majority front braking.

The rear brake is not a stopping brake, it is to help you control the bike and keep it from wanting to swap ends. If you are anything except absolutely straight when braking, then the rear brake is a must. If not used, and the front is applied heavily, you will be off.

I trained as a Motorcycle instructor. As an advanced rider, I was also taught to use the brakes the way I have stated, and by Police riders. It works, and works very well. Anything else IMHO is just not doing it right, or being lazy (in both cases an off will happen as a result one day).

It doesn't matter how good your front brakes are, the back of the bike has to be kept under control, or it will want to be the front; and quickly.
 

gbb

Legendary Member
Location
Peterborough
Jacomus-rides-Gen said:
This book is amazing, gives brilliant advice, and since reading it I have found my cycling so much safer and more comfortable. I have just recieved my 2007 edition book, as I gave my last one away to a friend. I was leafing through it last night to check on my approach to a gyratory system, and found that I was correct ;)

I noticed a section I hadn't read before, the stopping and braking section at the front (Page 46/47 in the 2007 edition). I was none too pleased to read what JF has to advise new cyclists about braking.

He instructs readers to run with their bikes and jam on first their front then their rear brakes to see what effect it has, noting underneath that the front brake stops the bike fast, but may throw you over the bars, and the rear stops you slowly but safely.

He then goes on to say that the correct braking technique is rear brake first, then the front fractionally after the rear has been applied, "so that the rear wheel does not start to lift."!!!

I can see a few things wrong with this immidiately - the rear brake has absolutely nothing to do with keeping the rear wheel on the ground, that is only affected by the riders body position and use of the front brake. Secondly it could well instill a dangerous fear of the front brake into new riders, as of course, if a rider is not sat on the bike it will tip up onto its front wheel with barely any effort.

I don't think that there is any value in teaching a beginner a sub-optimal braking technique, the rest of his book is so good I am genuinely puzzled as to the reason behind this incorrect technique, and strange teaching.

Has anyone else noticed this? Or disagrees with me? Its just that I want my gf to read Cyclecraft, but don't want to have her bike handling skills affected by this cooky advice.

Several thoughts...
I dont think this advice will instill fear into new riders. Most of us learned how to ride as kids, and all have a healthy respect of how easy it is to lift the rear wheel if you brake using the front first..too hard.

Theres a huge difference between 'optimal' and 'safe' braking.

Yes, you can stop faster using the front brake first, but an inexperienced rider will risk going over the handlebars. No book, primarily concerned with inexperienced riders will give advise on 'advanced' techniques, for want of a better word.

Then, for 99% of braking situations, the rear brake first method is more than adequate. The difficulty arises when you have to make a REAL emergency stop. I suspect the milliseconds you have, mean it's just 'haul the anchors on' for most people. I remember once a car pulled across me without warning. I didnt have time to rationalise which brake to pull first etc etc. I wasnt prepared for the situation, but accept the warning signs were there in the run-up, i could have seen it coming. Good use of brakes is just as much about being prepared mentally.
That in mind, i'm surprised this section in cyclecraft doesnt make some play on anticipation and preparation.

If the book makes a mistake, it's the advice is a bit fractured. Look on page 48...after a different paragraph re 'starting off'...it then goes back to braking techniques, ie 'covering the brakes'. Would it not have been better to cover braking in one chapter and not bits and pieces here and there.
 
Top Bottom