Why no rear brakes?

[RMurphy195]

Why do so many trikes have no rear brakes? To my mind, having just the front wheel with brakes (even on relatively expensive trikes such as the Pashley offerings) is plain silly!

 

[Jobro]

Why do so many trikes have no rear brakes? To my mind, having just the front wheel with brakes (even on relatively expensive trikes such as the Pashley offerings) is plain silly!

It's cos even the best tyres won't grip on air.................on a recumbent trike braking hard lifts the rear wheel off the ground!

 

[numbnuts]

My el-cheapo trike which some people call “agricultural” and a “trike shaped object” has disc brakes all round.

 

[Tigerbiten]

On a trike there's normally not enough weight on the rear wheel to give you any decent braking effort before the wheel starts to slide.

Both my front brakes are worked off a single level, so if they fail I'm left with only the back.
If that happens then my braking distance is at least twice as far and can be upto ten times longer if the surface is very smooth.

It's also why you can spin the back wheel going up a hill if it's wet.

 

[Profpointy]

It's cos even the best tyres won't grip on air.................on a recumbent trike braking hard lifts the rear wheel off the ground!

that's not really the point of the 2nd brake though. On a normal bicyle maximum stoppage (techncial term?) is when the back wheel just lifts and all braking is on the front. Reason for back brake is in case front brake pads ping off when descending a steep hill just after you've gone out on a ride with only front brakes working - not that I'd ever be so silly, not me ! More everyday, allows controlled slowing on a poor surface - maybe not so i.portant on a trike

 

[Smokin Joe]

I never used the rear brake on either a cycle or motorcycle unless I was on loose or slippery conditions and wanted to "steady the ship", as it were. Rear brakes on bikes have little or no stopping power and I don't miss not having one on the trike.

I did wonder about the UK legal requirements on trikes however, mine is made in Taiwan and imported from Australia.

 

[ufkacbln]

Just to be difficult....

My Kettwiesel has twin rear brakes, but no front brake

 

[BlackPanther]

My Trice brakes a lot better than a df with front and rear brakes, and even stops safely if I lock a wheel. The rear does have a disc brake, but locks too easily to be of any use other than as a handbrake or drag brake.

 

[starhawk]

Even on a DF the rear brake isn't of much use, on the tadpole you have two front brakes which isn't double as efficient as one, it's much better than that, I can actually stop on a dime with my trusty front drumbrakes. So the bottom line is: having a rear brake only on a tadpole is plain silly. Now I actually have a discbrake on the rear but that is a parking brake, not for use while riding.

 

[sidevalve]

Most of the posts seem to miss the point though - a poor brake, even on the rear is 100% better than no brake at all

my braking distance is at least twice as far and can be upto ten times longer if the surface is very smooth.

Better twice as long than none at all

unless I was on loose or slippery conditions and wanted to "steady the ship",

Sort of proves the point really

 

[arallsopp]

Most of the posts seem to miss the point though - a poor brake, even on the rear is 100% better than no brake at all

I think the idea is to have two independent braking systems. Consider a two wheeler, independent levers run to the front and rear wheels:

• If the front brake fails in isolation, you still have the back brake. Its not as effective as the pair, but it works.
• If the back brake fails in isolation, you still have the front brake. Its not as effective as the pair, but it works.
• If both fail at the same time, you are the victim of rare and unfortunate happenstance.

Consider most tadpole trikes. Independent levers run to the front left and front right wheels

• If the front right brake fails in isolation, you still have the front left brake. Its not as effective as the pair, but it works.
• If the front left brake fails in isolation, you still have the front right brake. Its not as effective as the pair, but it works.
• If both front brakes fail at the same time, you are the victim of rare and unfortunate happenstance.

There are trikes (some adapted, some native) that have both brake runs from the same lever. There's an increased potential to end up in unfortunate happenstance, but that risk is normally outweighed by the freedoms it offers the rider.

 

[numbnuts]

.....and with a rear brake you can do handbrake turns

 

[ufkacbln]

I never used the rear brake on either a cycle or motorcycle unless I was on loose or slippery conditions and wanted to "steady the ship", as it were. Rear brakes on bikes have little or no stopping power and I don't miss not having one on the trike.

I did wonder about the UK legal requirements on trikes however, mine is made in Taiwan and imported from Australia.

All you need to know (and more) from the CTC's Construction and Use advice

It should be noted that this legislation applies only in Britain, meaning England, Wales and Scotland. Other parts of UK have their own subtly different versions of the Road Traffic Acts and are for this purpose: abroad. (See Bells below.)

Brakes
In the case of a pure pedal cycle (no electrical assistance) these regulations are so simple, that the only parts that matter are the brakes.

The basic requirement is for two efficient braking systems, by which the front wheel (or wheels) can be braked independently of the rear wheel (or wheels). This means that if there are two wheels at the front and/or the rear, the relevant system must act on the pair. It also means that the combined operation of front and rear brakes from one lever is not allowed - except as an extra braking system: additional to the two independent front and rear braking systems required by this law.

Each braking system is required to be in efficient working order, but apart from saying that a brake that bears directly upon a pneumatic tyre in not efficient, these regulations do not define how the brakes work or how they are operated. So back-pedal brakes are just as legal as the usual hand-levers. (You could even brake with your teeth if you could invent a way to do it efficiently!)

A lot of words are nevertheless devoted to wheels that cannot rotate independently of the pedals (i.e. no freewheel), the upshot of which is very simply that a fixed wheel drive counts as a braking system – on that wheel or wheels.

Exceptions
Tricycles and quadricycles are allowed many and various deviations from the above requirements, depending on age, purpose and wheel size.

The most important exception applies to any normal tricycle, with at least one wheel bigger than 460mm diameter and 'not constructed or adapted for the carriage of goods'. (By goods they mean unusual heavy loads, not ordinary shopping or touring luggage.) A normal tricycle, with two rear wheels, is allowed to have both braking systems acting upon the single front wheel, or if the tricycle has two front wheels: on the single rear wheel.

And a normal tricycle manufactured before 1st August 1984, with two rear wheels, is allowed to have its rear braking system acting upon just one of those wheels.

If the highest part of the 'seating area' of a bicycle or tricycle cannot be raised above 635mm from the road surface, the minimum requirement falls to just one efficient braking system. This is clearly intended for (very) small children's cycles, but inadvertently lets most recumbents under the bar!

A pedal cycle with four or more wheels, none of which exceed 250mm diameter (i.e. a tiny-wheeled quadricycle+) is allowed to have brakes that operate directly on its pneumatic tyres without them being deemed inefficient.

I've already noted that fixed wheel counts as a brake. Taking that a stage further: if one wheel is not only incapable of rotating independently of the pedals, but the pedals are fixed directly to it without any intervening chain or gears, the cycle does not have to be equipped with any actual brakes at all. This is obviously designed to allow various antique machines to be exercised on the highway without adding incongruous modern accessories!

 

[starhawk]

Most of the posts seem to miss the point though - a poor brake, even on the rear is 100% better than no brake at all

Better twice as long than none at all

Sort of proves the point really

What kind of point are you trying to prove? The most unlikely situation that if all other braking systems breaks down a rear one is good to have? The regulations says that two independent brakes are enough because the situation that both of them failing is a most unlikely occurrence. And having the two independent brakes on the front wheels is undeniable the best solution.

If you on the other hand have a Delta, well you can't put two brakes on the same wheel so omitting the second brake just because regulations says you can is not plain silly it is lunacy!

 

[Tigerbiten]

Most of the posts seem to miss the point though - a poor brake, even on the rear is 100% better than no brake at all

Better twice as long than none at all

Sort of proves the point really

It's a question of trust.
I trust my front brake will stop me quickly under most conditions.
I don't trust my back brake will.
It's a bit like when wheel rims where chrome plated, a bit 50-50 if you could stop in the wet ......