# Front vs Rear Brake... Which Do You Use Most?



## PoorInRichfield (Nov 30, 2013)

In reading Sheldon Brown's article on "Braking and Turning Your Bicycle", he pretty much states that if you're not using your front brake for 90% of your braking, you must be a "newb".

I've been road and mountain biking for ~30 years (yikes) and was into BMX freestyle before that, so I think I know how to handle a bike pretty well... yet I rarely ever just use the front brake as suggested in the article. Am I a "braking newb"!?!?

While the suggestions in the article make sense, I wonder if they still apply in the age of disc brakes. I have two bikes with disc brakes and if I have my weight over the rear wheel when braking, it's pretty hard to lock-up the rear wheel. Hence I don't see why I wouldn't apply both the front and rear brakes most of the time.

In addition, I know what it's like to apply the front brake and have the front tire slip out from underneath me. (It sucks.) As such, unless I'm riding in a straight line in perfect conditions, using the front brake solely seems like a recipe for disaster... even a little bit of sand or unseen gravel could land you on your doompa.

Thoughts? Am I the only one on the planet who is still a "braking newb" after 30 years of riding?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

There is only one correct answer if you take the question literally. In certain situations you'll use more rear brake or use them evenly but on the whole the front brake should be used more. All you have to do is look at car and moto brake systems. It will become instantly obvious which brake should be used more.


ETA: 3...2...1 til @waspinator shows up asking why anyone would ever use the front brake.


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Aug 21, 2004)

cxwrench said:


> There is only one correct answer if you take the question literally. *In certain situations you'll use more rear brake or use them evenly but on the whole the front brake should be used more.* All you have to do is look at car and moto brake systems. It will become instantly obvious which brake should be used more.
> 
> ETA: 3...2...1 til @waspinator shows up asking why anyone would ever use the front brake.


Agreed.


----------



## Jwiffle (Mar 18, 2005)

Pretty much as the others have said. It's not that you wouldn't use the rear brake, just that you don't ONLY use the rear brake line many people do. The front brake is what stops you, the rear brake is used for control. 

Road biking, I use the brakes pretty evenly most of the time. Mountain biking, I use a whole lot more front brake.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

PoorInRichfield said:


> In reading Sheldon Brown's article on "Braking and Turning Your Bicycle", he pretty much states that if you're not using your front brake for 90% of your braking, you must be a "newb".
> 
> I've been road and mountain biking for ~30 years (yikes) and was into BMX freestyle before that, so I think I know how to handle a bike pretty well... yet I rarely ever just use the front brake as suggested in the article. Am I a "braking newb"!?!?
> 
> ...


First, It's hard to impossible to evenly distribute your weight on steep downhills and just hard to do so in nearly any braking situation since simple physics moves much of the load to the front wheel (all else remaining the same). 

You can mitigate some of this by moving your ass as far behind the seat as possible but even on flat ground you'll be hard pressed to match the load on the front wheel on a road bike while braking hard. 

If you could build a bike with very large wheels so you could keep you body mass centered below the front axle your theory would be mostly correct.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> First, It's hard to impossible to evenly distribute your weight on steep downhills and just hard to do so in nearly any braking situation since simple physics moves much of the load to the front wheel (all else remaining the same).
> 
> You can mitigate some of this by moving your ass as far behind the seat as possible but even on flat ground you'll be hard pressed to match the load on the front wheel on a road bike while braking hard.
> 
> If you could build a bike with very large wheels so you could keep you body mass centered below the front axle your theory would be mostly correct.


Well said, Swift! :thumbsup: 

Braking the front wheel stops the bike very efficiently. So in hard braking, as you say, move way back, pressing the rear tire on the tarmac. The inertial mass of the bike and rider wants to flip over the handlebars. The rear tire lightens up considerably and loses its grip! This could happen at any time. Gotta be ready!

Sure, use the front brake 90% of the time and the rear mainly to keep the rear wheel on the tarmac and the bike on track. If I brake at the rear stronger than the front, the front wheel gets wishy-washy.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

PoorInRichfield said:


> While the suggestions in the article make sense, I wonder if they still apply in the age of disc brakes.


Of course it still applies. Physics hasn't changed in the last 30yrs... or 30 million.





> Thoughts? Am I the only one on the planet who is still a "braking newb" after 30 years of riding?


Nope. I got a buddy riding longer than that and I can't get him to comprehend most of your braking comes from the front wheel.


----------



## No Time Toulouse (Sep 7, 2016)

Too many MTB riders base their braking preference on a skill they learned as a 10 year old, namely the lock-up skid. It may LOOK cool, but a sliding tire has less braking traction than a rolling tire.


----------



## Bob Ross (Apr 18, 2006)

Incremental slowing/scrubbing speed while cruising? Rear Brake
Anything else, including (especially) stopping? Front Brake.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Some beginner riders are inherently afraid to use the front brake for fear of flipping over the handlebars. And sure, if you use only the front brake and don't re-distribute your body weight to compensate, you can do this for sure.

But your rear brake in some situations will not have enough braking power to stop without skidding your rear tire. While doing an endo is no fun, neither is hitting a large object because you couldn't brake in time.

One of the advantages to hydraulic disc brakes is better predictability and even modulation. It is much more difficult to lock up your brakes by accident. Note that is is much easier to overheat your rear brake on a disc bike as you need more pressure to apply the same amount of braking than you do on your front.

I would say that generally, I apply my front and rear brakes almost equally and slightly favor the front brake.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

as a Harley rider would say: don't use the front brake or you'll flip!
lol that was a joke

Seriously, there is only 1 situation where you'd want to use more rear brake then front. And that 1 situation is where there is no traction on the front!! duh, makes sense right. As long as the front has more traction than the rear, then braking should be front bias.

look at the cars and motorcycles, their biggest brakes are on the front, not the rear. This should tell us that front braking is where braking takes place.

so what would be the situation that the front has less traction than the rear? Wet and muddy, gravely, snowy, icey. In these conditions, the front as little traction, the rear has more traction (because your weight is more on the rear wheel), thus you'd use more rear brakes in these situation. BUT... keep in mind that braking in these situations is still very very limited and it is no where near the same as braking in the dry on the front.

on the topic of mtb, i've seen so many mtbers who don't know jack about braking techniques. Many of them, even the experienced ones, would rather lock their rear wheel and slide around, seems like that's their go-to technique. And I don't blame them really, because worse this can happen is they slide out, and sliding out due to rear slippage is less painful than sliding out due to front slippage. But this is far from optimal. The correct braking technique in mtb is still to use the front brake more, however because mtb condition is on dirt and loose gravel, then these conditions do warrant the use of rear braking a little more then compared to braking on the road. However, this is not to say use only rear braking to the point of sliding out. The proper braking in mtb (as you come into a corner) is to brake using the front real hard when the bike is in a staightline and upright, then as you lean over and transition into the corner you still maintain the same brake pressure, then as your speed decrease as you go thru the corner you can ease up on brake pressure. All this happens really fast, within less than 1 seconds on short corner. What you don't want to do is while negotiating a corner to brake really hard (which compresses the fork) and then suddenly completely let off on the front brake, because letting off on the front drastically like that unloads the fork suspension and causes a change in front traction in a negative way, so let off slowly as you go around a corner.

Another issue that many mtbers don't get is that on full suspension bikes, using the rear brake has the effect of restricting the movement of the rear suspension, and this restriction will decrease bump absorption and thus decrease in traction at the rear. Rear suspension is more finicky than the front, so it's better to just use more braking at the front and let the fork handles the suspending. 

Honestly I think learning to brake in the dirt is harder because you have to deal with suspension both at the front and rear so you'd always have to juggle between front and rear, but still the front should get more bias. But on the road bikes, where there is virtually no suspension movement to account for (except the little gives from skinny tires at 80-100 psi), the almost all braking should be done at the front unless road conditions are like those mentioned above.


----------



## davesupra (Jun 19, 2017)

In spring/summer/fall I use the front brake almost exclusively.

But in the winter I use my rear brake almost exclusively because it's nearly impossible to see when there is ice under the snow. I only use the front in the winter when I can clearly see that I'm on dry pavement.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

I use the rear brake primarily for laying rubber when coming to a dramatic screeching halt, to impress the ladies.


----------



## mfdemicco (Nov 8, 2002)

I used to use my rear brake more, as evidenced by the rear pads wearing down faster than the front. I may have changed my behavior because I'm trying to use the front brake more, but haven't checked the pads on my bike in a while. I usually brake lightly to control my speed. As such, it probably doesn't matter what brake I use more. I try not to brake in corners, but am pretty wary of giving too much front brake in a corner because a front wheel skid will usually result in a crash.


----------



## PoorInRichfield (Nov 30, 2013)

davesupra said:


> But in the winter I use my rear brake almost exclusively because it's nearly impossible to see when there is ice under the snow. I only use the front in the winter when I can clearly see that I'm on dry pavement.


For this reason I typically favor a 50/50 split between front and rear braking (i.e., both at the same time). I don't want to have to think, "Hmm... is my front tire going to get proper traction on the surface I'm on?" before braking, I just default to hitting both brakes. That's not to say that front braking isn't more efficient, I just think that real-world riding makes it more difficult (and sometimes not safe) to depend so much on the front only. Unless you're traveling a straight line on fresh asphalt, there's a pretty good chance your front tire will lose traction on gravel, sand, etc., and down you go!


----------



## J.R. (Sep 14, 2009)

If you're in a group following wheels at speed and don't have your fingers on your front brake then you're definitely a newb.


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

I mostly use the rear because most of my braking is just minuscule speed adjustments. When it comes to coming to a stop both brakes are used but that happens even less than the minuscule speed adjustments.


----------



## frdfandc (Nov 27, 2007)

aclinjury said:


> Seriously, there is only 1 situation where you'd want to use more rear brake then front. And that 1 situation is where there is no traction on the front!! duh, makes sense right. As long as the front has more traction than the rear, then braking should be front bias.
> 
> look at the cars and motorcycles, their biggest brakes are on the front, not the rear. This should tell us that front braking is where braking takes place.
> 
> so what would be the situation that the front has less traction than the rear? Wet and muddy, gravely, snowy, icey. In these conditions, the front as little traction, the rear has more traction (because your weight is more on the rear wheel), thus you'd use more rear brakes in these situation. BUT... keep in mind that braking in these situations is still very very limited and it is no where near the same as braking in the dry on the front.



Actually weight is still biased towards the front even in the wet. Can't change weight transfer regardless of it being wet or dry.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

frdfandc said:


> Actually weight is still biased towards the front even in the wet. Can't change weight transfer regardless of it being wet or dry.


i didn't say just wet, but wet and muddy. 
But if it's just wet but pavement is relatively clean, then go for the front (but while keeping a watch for road lane painting and potential oily spots at intersection.)


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

cxwrench said:


> There is only one correct answer if you take the question literally. In certain situations you'll use more rear brake or use them evenly but on the whole the front brake should be used more. All you have to do is look at car and moto brake systems. It will become instantly obvious which brake should be used more.


I'm always confused by people who are apparently able to determine how much braking force they are developing in each wheel. And they are apparently able to determine this to the nearest 5%. Me, I nearly always use both brakes and modulate them depending on how fast I need to stop and what the road surface is like. While sliding off the back of the saddle is certainly the right technique for emergency stops, I would submit that if you need to use this often then there is something seriously wrong with your overall riding skill set.

When I used to commute year round, I had my road bike and my commuter set up with opposite brake levers - hitting the front brakes hard makes the most sense on dry roads but on snow/ice you want to rely on the rear brake much more.


----------



## BigTex91 (Nov 5, 2013)

As someone who does most of his riding on mtb and dirt in general, I probably approach this differently, but I often use only rear brake if I need to scrub some speed in a turn. I can't think of any scenario short of a flat rear tire where I would use only front brake. For actually slowing down in a straight line, though, yes, it's both with emphasis on the front. Because of weight transfer, the front is where the power is. That's why most MTBs have a bigger disc up front than at the rear.

The comparison to cars is only partially valid. Weight transfer to the front still occurs under braking whether it's a car or a bike, but there are still some pretty big differences.

1. Most cars are considerably heavier at the front. That's why, along with the weight transfer that occurs under braking, the front brakes are bigger and vented. "More wight at the front" doesn't apply if you're driving a 911. 

2. Weight distribution and transfer in a car is fixed. You're not going to alter weight distribution by leaning forward in your seat, and you can't go back without laying it down. Even if you could move back and forth more, the effect on overall weight distribution percentage is not going to change appreciably. On a bike, this is very different - your body position can affect weight distribution immensely.

3. Brake bias in a car is fixed. Even in a racecar with adjustable brake bias, a driver isn't changing it mid-braking event. On a bike, brake bias can be changed instantly and constantly.

4. In a car (and this is a racing scenario, not something most people would use, or know how to use, on the street), the only way to change weight balance and thus traction on the front wheels vs. rear wheels is through application of the brake or throttle. On a bike, if you need more traction on the front or rear, you're going to influence that with body position or pumping - braking, not so much.

As I said, the only time I can think of that I would use only front brake is a flat rear tire. But there seem to be plenty of people who often use only front brake. May I ask why? It seems to me that 1) you are greatly reducing your stopping power by using only the front; and b) putting a lot more heat into the front brake/rim.

(Edit: I've read the Sheldon Brown article where he says the rear tire should have almost no traction because of the weight transfer. "Almost" isn't "none." I also question using the arms to brace against the handlebars under hard braking to keep the body from moving forward ... by doing so, you're putting more weight on the bars, making an OTB more likely. If you have little or no weight on the bars, you're not going OTB. The legs and core should be keeping your body from moving forward under braking, not your arms.)


----------



## No Time Toulouse (Sep 7, 2016)

Well, the poll is showing that 80% do NOT use the rear brake as their only brake. This corresponds to a general observation about our society in general, namely that about 20% of people are opinionated ignoramuses.......


----------



## PoorInRichfield (Nov 30, 2013)

BigTex91 said:


> 1. Most cars are considerably heavier at the front. That's why, along with the weight transfer that occurs under braking, the front brakes are bigger and vented. "More wight at the front" doesn't apply if you're driving a 911.


Being a Porsche fan, I was going to cite this exact same example. However, I deleted that portion of my post because I noticed that on the 911 GT3, the front and rear rotors are the same size, _*however*_, the front brake is a 6-piston caliper and the rear is a 4-piston caliper... hence still give more braking power to the front than the rear. 

[FONT=Tahoma,Calibri,Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif]
[/FONT]
_380 mm internally vented and cross-drilled brake rotors front and rear with 6-piston aluminum monobloc fixed calipers front and 4-piston aluminum monobloc fixed calipers rear_​​


No Time Toulouse said:


> namely that about 20% of people are opinionated ignoramuses.......


Or maybe smarty-pants like yourself aren't doing a good job of educating other riders.  (I'm just kidding, of course)


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

BigTex91 said:


> As someone who does most of his riding on mtb and dirt in general, I probably approach this differently, but I often use only rear brake if I need to scrub some speed in a turn. I can't think of any scenario short of a flat rear tire where I would use only front brake. For actually slowing down in a straight line, though, yes, it's both with emphasis on the front. Because of weight transfer, the front is where the power is. That's why most MTBs have a bigger disc up front than at the rear.
> 
> The comparison to cars is only partially valid. Weight transfer to the front still occurs under braking whether it's a car or a bike, but there are still some pretty big differences.
> 
> ...


You don't understand weight transfer like you think you do.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

BigTex91 said:


> It seems to me that 1) you are greatly reducing your stopping power by using only the front; and b) putting a lot more heat into the front brake/rim.


Sure you are reducing your stopping power by only using the front rather than both. But you will still have much more stopping power than if you use only the rear. This is regardless of weight distribution. Don't believe me? Stand along side your bike. From a stand still, grab your front brake as hard as you can and try to move your bike forward. It won't move, right? Now grab your rear brake as hard as you can and try to move your bike forward. It will still slip forward!

So, given the same amount of grip, your front brake has the greatest amount of stopping power. Would you agree?


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

On a bike, if you're not distributing your weight differently for different power and braking conditions... climbs, descents, accelerating or slowing on either, you're doing it wrong.

Before I started being a roadie during the mid 1990s, when I first started mtb'ing in the mid 1980s...

I was doing technical single track trails that included descents that I describe as controlled falling down a hill. 

There I learned, with the assistance of my Hite-Rite seatpost spring, that on gnarly technical descents, laying on my seat with my butt over my rear axle or even farther back, my front brake was king.

Even now, on the road, I could live without a back brake, but not without a front brake.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

BigTex91 said:


> As someone who does most of his riding on mtb and dirt in general, I probably approach this differently, but I often use only rear brake if I need to scrub some speed in a turn. I can't think of any scenario short of a flat rear tire where I would use only front brake. For actually slowing down in a straight line, though, yes, it's both with emphasis on the front. Because of weight transfer, the front is where the power is. That's why most MTBs have a bigger disc up front than at the rear.
> 
> The comparison to cars is only partially valid. Weight transfer to the front still occurs under braking whether it's a car or a bike, but there are still some pretty big differences.
> 
> ...


for a 2 wheel vehicle in dry and fairly clean pavement, maximum braking power is achieved when the rear wheel is barely lifting off the ground. And when this happens, you will feel like you're doing handstand on the handbar because your arms act as a weight transfer limbs (and besides you're not going to be able to just use your legs alone to push yourself back). If you were to use your rear brake while under maximum braking (i.e., with rear wheel slightly lifted) then you will run a great risk of locking the rear and causing a rear slid/highside when the rear touches back on the ground. Here, I'm talking about maximum braking on dry pavement.

Now, you do have point about using both brakes. My opinion about using both brakes is that if you're NOT attempting (or don't want to attempt) to apply MAX braking power in dry condition, then it's perhaps better off if you do use BOTH brakes as this distribute rim wear (or disc wear), and this may be especially good for carbon rims braking. But you would this to distribute rim/disc wear, not because you want maximum braking power. For max braking, it's still all front wheel (in the dry).

Now switching over to mtb. Like you, I personally like to initiate braking with the rear brake slightly to make the rear end squat down a bit, then immediately release the rear brake as I transition over to heavily bias front braking. I do this for a couple reasons. One, by making the rear squat before I initiate the front brake, it will make the weight transition to the front wheel less distance to travel (thus less chance of upsetting the suspension). Two, using the rear brake at this point may be more preferable than trying to use it mid-corner as using it mid-corner would necessarily stiffen up the rear suspension and thus rob out of rear traction. Three, from a rider perspective, there is more of a direct connect from his arms to the fork than from his legs thru the rear suspension. Thus, riders will amost always have a more direct feedback from front braking than rear braking; it's why so many riders slid out their rear so much compared to the front. Also, many riders think that they're "play it safe" by sliding the rear than try to learn proper front braking technique.. because the consequence of sliding the rear is a low side simple crash, but sliding the front usually means a harder crash. Because of this fear, people just continue to use bad technique. Front braking is GREAT, but it does require PRACTICE. Rear braking is generally safe and doesn't require much practice, but far from optimal.

now if I have to put the bike down in an emergency, then hell yeah lock up the rear and twist the body sideway, because it's the most assured way of going down with the least possible damage.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

SPlKE said:


> Even now, on the road, I could live without a back brake, but not without a front brake.


You could probably get away with just either, but you better never need to stop on a dime if you only have a rear.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

Inexperienced riders are the only ones who think about this when needing to brake. IMO, braking is automatic - without thinking my butt slides back, both hands apply pressure to the brakes, modulating as necessary to keep control of the bike. Conscious thought is applied only to figuring out the direction I am steering the bike to avoid whatever is causing the need to brake.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

To be totally honest, I don't think I've ever paid attention to which brake I use more, but I suspect I use them evenly. I squeeze both levers evenly until I stop as quickly as I want. I can't think of any situation, ever, where I'd want just one brake doing all the work. It just makes sense to me to divide the energy between two brakes as evenly as possible, without causing my rear tire to skid and fishtail or without causing my rear tire to lift off the ground (or worse, send me over the handlebars). It's just physics that the front tire is able to provide more braking force than the rear, but from the rider's perspective, I think both brakes should be used to the fullest of their ability.

And no, I don't think disk vs rim brakes makes a bit of difference. In wet weather, both front and rear rim brakes will suck equally.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

The poll doesn't say "only".....When I ride by myself, I obviously use both brakes, but when riding in a tight group, I use the rear brake to make minor adjustments in speed. I do that so that the person behind of me can see the calipers move. I'll do that, much more often than coming to a stop, when I'll use both brakes. The exception is if I'm in a turn when I have to adjust speed. In a turn, using the rear brake will cause the bike to "stand up", instead of continuing the lean.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> The poll doesn't say "only".....When I ride by myself, I obviously use both brakes, but when riding in a tight group, I use the rear brake to make minor adjustments in speed. I do that so that the person behind of me can see the calipers move. I'll do that, much more often than coming to a stop, when I'll use both brakes. The exception is if I'm in a turn when I have to adjust speed. In a turn, using the rear brake will cause the bike to "stand up", instead of continuing the lean.


You got it backwards...the rear brake can help hold a bike down in a corner, using the front brake in a corner will stand the bike up and/or cause the front to then lose traction and slide out. Rear brake helps control, front brake helps to lose control in a corner.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

cxwrench said:


> There is only one correct answer if you take the question literally. In certain situations you'll use more rear brake or use them evenly but on the whole the front brake should be used more. All you have to do is look at car and moto brake systems. It will become instantly obvious which brake should be used more.
> 
> 
> 
> ETA: 3...2...1 til @waspinator shows up asking why anyone would ever use the front brake.


Nope. But I will show up and explain the following:

I don't think you understand why cars have larger disks up front.

It's not because the front brakes are "used more" per se. It's because when braking occurs, the weight of the car is shifted forward and the normal force on the front tire is greater, and thus the force of friction is greater on the front tire than the rear (eg, force of friction is normal force X coefficient of friction). So, the front brakes _potentially_ have a bigger job to do. Keep in mind, though, that as long as neither the front nor rear tires are skidding against the pavement, they are applying equal braking force. The force that the rear brakes can apply is limited, because the normal force over the rear tires decreases as the weight of the car shifts forward and thus the force of friction decreases. If the force of friction between rear tire and road is exceeded by the braking force of the rear brake, then the rear tire will begin to skid. With the front brake, the normal force over the front tire increases as weight is shifted forward, and thus the force of friction between the road and front tire increases, thus increasing the amount of force the brake can apply before skidding occurs.

Consider this: if someone designed a car that somehow shifted its weight to the rear tires when braking, you can be sure they'd make the rear rotors larger than the front.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> for a 2 wheel vehicle in dry and fairly clean pavement, maximum braking power is achieved when the rear wheel is barely lifting off the ground. And when this happens, you will feel like you're doing handstand on the handbar because your arms act as a weight transfer limbs (and besides you're not going to be able to just use your legs alone to push yourself back). If you were to use your rear brake while under maximum braking (i.e., with rear wheel slightly lifted) then you will run a great risk of locking the rear and causing a rear slid/highside when the rear touches back on the ground. Here, I'm talking about maximum braking on dry pavement.
> 
> Now, you do have point about using both brakes. My opinion about using both brakes is that if you're NOT attempting (or don't want to attempt) to apply MAX braking power in dry condition, then it's perhaps better off if you do use BOTH brakes as this distribute rim wear (or disc wear), and this may be especially good for carbon rims braking. But you would this to distribute rim/disc wear, not because you want maximum braking power. For max braking, it's still all front wheel (in the dry).
> 
> Now switching over to mtb. Like you, *I personally like to initiate braking with the rear brake slightly to make the rear end squat down a bit, *then immediately release the rear brake as I transition over to heavily bias front braking. I do this for a couple reasons. One, by making the rear squat before I initiate the front brake, it will make the weight transition to the front wheel less distance to travel (thus less chance of upsetting the suspension). .


Braking with the rear brake doesn't cause the bike (or car, or motorcycle) to squat. The center of gravity of the vehicle is always above the contact patch of the tire, and thus the weight of the vehicle will shift forward, regardless of which brake is applying the braking force.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Waspinator said:


> Braking with the rear brake doesn't cause the bike (or car, or motorcycle) to squat. The center of gravity of the vehicle is always above the contact patch of the tire, and thus the weight of the vehicle will shift forward, regardless of which brake is applying the braking force.


This will likely be the only time I completely agree w/ you. Any time you initiate braking on any wheeled vehicle the weight will shift forward. Not possible for rear brake to make a bicycle 'squat'.


----------



## mik_git (Jul 27, 2012)

I think they are referring to full suspension mtb's where depending on the the suspension design, braking can cause the rear to squat, which is why people talk about different designs having "X" amount of anti-squat and also anti-rise (brake jack). You want good (high) anti-squat under acceleration and good (low/high? dunno one of them) anti-rise when braking.

Or something like that, not really sure how it works, I just ride. EIther way mtb suspension bikes do not work like moto's and cars


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

mik_git said:


> I think they are referring to full suspension mtb's where depending on the the suspension design, braking can cause the rear to squat, which is why people talk about different designs having "X" amount of anti-squat and also anti-rise (brake jack). You want good (high) anti-squat under acceleration and good (low/high? dunno one of them) anti-rise when braking.
> 
> Or something like that, not really sure how it works, I just ride. EIther way mtb suspension bikes do not work like moto's and cars


There is NO way a rear suspension can 'squat' once braking has been started. The weight shift to the front is instantaneous. It's not possible. If you think it is it's on you to provide the proof and post it.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Waspinator said:


> Nope. But I will show up and explain the following:
> 
> I don't think you understand why cars have larger disks up front.
> 
> ...


I know exactly why they have larger front brakes. They are not providing equal braking force unless the brakes themselves are the same, the wheels/tires are the same, and the weight on each corner is the same. The only way this could happen would be if the weight distribution was biased so much to the rear that you ended up w/ a perfect 50/50 distribution of weight under braking...and it could only happen at one rate of deceleration. Your 911 example is close, but they still use larger front brakes even though they have smaller tires.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

cxwrench said:


> There is NO way a rear suspension can 'squat' once braking has been started. The weight shift to the front is instantaneous. It's not possible. If you think it is it's on you to provide the proof and post it.


It's possible. If the moment of inertia of the bike/rider is lower than the handlebars, I'd imagine, it is very possible. I'm not entirely sure about the handlebars. But lower than some point from which the front suspension would be compressed.


----------



## mik_git (Jul 27, 2012)

cxwrench said:


> There is NO way a rear suspension can 'squat' once braking has been started. The weight shift to the front is instantaneous. It's not possible. If you think it is it's on you to provide the proof and post it.


Hey I'm not saying anything about it, I have no idea how it works, I neither care nor worry about, just know that its a thing, if you want to know more or want to disprove it, feel free to look it up yourself; Anti-rise.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> There is NO way a rear suspension can 'squat' once braking has been started. The weight shift to the front is instantaneous. It's not possible. If you think it is it's on you to provide the proof and post it.


Maybe Sir Isaac Newton can enlighten some people in this thread:

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/Physics-Tutorial/Newton-s-Laws


----------



## No Time Toulouse (Sep 7, 2016)

Waspinator said:


> ...
> And no, I don't think disk vs rim brakes makes a bit of difference. In wet weather, both front and rear rim brakes will suck equally.


I used to think the same, but now having spent some time in wet riding with disks, I can confirm that in the wet, disks are MUCH better.

Also, back to the front/rear debate raging; when I come into a turn REALLY hot, I'm generally using at least 3/4 front to 1/4 rear APPROACHING the turn, then only using a slight drag to the rear while IN the turn.

I have considerable experience in automotive rallying, and I'm quite versatile in 'controlled sliding', which is something that the MTB community does a lot, but rarely is it done on a road bike.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

No Time Toulouse said:


> I used to think the same, but now having spent some time in wet riding with disks, I can confirm that in the wet, disks are MUCH better.
> 
> Also, back to the front/rear debate raging; when I come into a turn REALLY hot, I'm generally using at least 3/4 front to 1/4 rear APPROACHING the turn, then only using a slight drag to the rear while IN the turn.
> 
> I have considerable experience in automotive rallying, and I'm quite versatile in 'controlled sliding', which is something that the MTB community does a lot, but rarely is it done on a road bike.


I'm speaking of rim brakes having trouble in went conditions. Disc brakes work reliably all the time. It's why any new road bike I use will have disc brakes.

As for turning, that's a different ballgame. To avoid fishtailing, yes, you might consider going easy on the rear brake.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

There is one aspect of wet weather braking that most people seem to overlook. On road bikes we have a very narrow patch of rubber meeting the pavement, so both rim brakes and disc brakes will put the wheel into a skid rather quickly. Since disc brakes do grab more quickly in wet conditions than do rim brakes, they will cause the skid that much more quickly - but a skid is not the fastest method of stopping a bike. 

Luckily we now have hydraulic disc brakes for road bikes so that it is easier to modulate the power being applied - even more so than with rim brakes (but those modulate better than mechanical disc brakes, IMO) - thus exacerbating the issue. However, I am of the belief that the beginning cyclist is far more likely to go down in an uncontrolled skid with a disc brake bike than with a rim brake bike. This makes me even more reticent to join large group rides on rainy days than I was in the 80s. I am not fond of being taken down because someone else can't control their bike (this is why I quit racing in the mid-80s - with the sudden influx of triathletes who were strong enough to keep up with experienced riders we had a vast increase in crashes because they didn't know how to handle their bikes).


----------



## tomato coupe (Nov 8, 2009)

bradkay said:


> Luckily we now have hydraulic disc brakes for road bikes so that it is easier to modulate the power being applied - even more so than with rim brakes - thus exacerbating the issue.


Did you mean the opposite of exacerbate?


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

tomato coupe said:


> Did you mean the opposite of exacerbate?


Oops, yes, I meant to write "alleviating" but the brain short-circuited... thanks.


----------



## tomato coupe (Nov 8, 2009)

bradkay said:


> Oops, yes, I meant to write "alleviate" but the brain short-circuited... thanks.


It happens ...


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

cxwrench said:


> There is NO way a rear suspension can 'squat' once braking has been started. The weight shift to the front is instantaneous. It's not possible. If you think it is it's on you to provide the proof and post it.


yes rear suspension can squat under braking

https://polebicycles.com/what-is-anti-squat-and-pedal-kickback/


----------



## DaveRider (Jul 29, 2016)

I pull rear brake first (never locking up) & then pull front brake within a cunch hair of a second, modulating front brake as needed.


----------



## BigTex91 (Nov 5, 2013)

Lombard said:


> Sure you are reducing your stopping power by only using the front rather than both. But you will still have much more stopping power than if you use only the rear. This is regardless of weight distribution. Don't believe me? Stand along side your bike. From a stand still, grab your front brake as hard as you can and try to move your bike forward. It won't move, right? Now grab your rear brake as hard as you can and try to move your bike forward. It will still slip forward!
> 
> So, given the same amount of grip, your front brake has the greatest amount of stopping power. Would you agree?


Yes. I agree. In fact, that's exactly what I said - "The front brakes are where the power is."


----------



## BigTex91 (Nov 5, 2013)

cxwrench said:


> You don't understand weight transfer like you think you do.


Then feel free to enlighten me. 

What part of what I said do you disagree with? I assume it's the part you put in bold, all of which is correct - most cars (not all) are heavier at the front, and there is significant weight transfer under braking. Hence larger, vented discs and more powerful calipers on the front in most cars. 

I look forward to your response. Otherwise, just saying, effectively, “you're wrong." without elaboration give the appearance of being an ignorant douchebag. I'll assume you were just short on time.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

BigTex91 said:


> Then feel free to enlighten me.
> 
> What part of what I said do you disagree with? I assume it's the part you put in bold, all of which is correct - most cars (not all) are heavier at the front, and there is significant weight transfer under braking. Hence larger, vented discs and more powerful calipers on the front in most cars.
> 
> I look forward to your response. Otherwise, just saying, effectively, “you're wrong." without elaboration give the appearance of being an ignorant douchebag. I'll assume you were just short on time.


You're correct about the 911 and other rear engine cars having more weight at the rear of the car. If that's the extent of what you were saying I stand corrected. If you meant that they don't need larger brakes at the front because of the rear engine layout and it's weight bias, that would be incorrect. The car would still experience enough weight shift to the front under hard braking to take advantage of a larger brake on the front wheels, that explains why Porsche uses 6 piston calipers on the front and 4 piston on the rear of the 911. The rotor sizes are generally the same.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

cxwrench said:


> The car would still experience enough weight shift to the front under hard braking to take advantage of a larger brake on the front wheels, that explains why Porsche uses 6 piston calipers on the front and 4 piston on the rear of the 911. The rotor sizes are generally the same.


The GT and Turbo models have the larger front rotors


----------



## BigTex91 (Nov 5, 2013)

cxwrench said:


> You're correct about the 911 and other rear engine cars having more weight at the rear of the car. If that's the extent of what you were saying I stand corrected. If you meant that they don't need larger brakes at the front because of the rear engine layout and it's weight bias, that would be incorrect. The car would still experience enough weight shift to the front under hard braking to take advantage of a larger brake on the front wheels, that explains why Porsche uses 6 piston calipers on the front and 4 piston on the rear of the 911. The rotor sizes are generally the same.


Then we're in agreement. I was only citing the 911 as one example of a car that was not front heavy in static conditions. The contact patch on the front tires of a 911 still grows significantly under braking.


----------



## siclmn (Feb 7, 2004)

Cars and motorcycles have shock absorbers which allow the body to shift forward and put more weight on the front wheels. That is why the front brakes are bigger. I always use both brakes because there is always some weight on the rear and I am going to stop better because of that weight on the rear wheel. It is just common sense.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

siclmn said:


> *Cars and motorcycles have shock absorbers which allow the body to shift forward and put more weight on the front wheels*. That is why the front brakes are bigger. I always use both brakes because there is always some weight on the rear and I am going to stop better because of that weight on the rear wheel. It is just common sense.


You're kidding, right? Tell me you're kidding...


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

cxwrench said:


> You're kidding, right? Tell me you're kidding...


Seems like we learn something new everyday here on RBR.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

SwiftSolo said:


> Seems like we learn something new everyday here on RBR.


I can read that as 'the laws of physics changes daily here on RBR?


----------



## mackgoo (Mar 2, 2004)

It's funny, you read something, you think you know what they've asked and you answer. Then you read commentary and realize your an idiot as you in no way understood what the question was.
When ever I brake i'm always using the front and rear brake. I'm alway squeezing the front more. This is the case even on my cross bike on a 20% decline single track. Thus I answered I use my front brake the most. It would appear maybe that was incorrect, but I'm sticking with it.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

Smart people stay out of these discussions.... they are more entertainment!


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

mackgoo said:


> It's funny, you read something, you think you know what they've asked and you answer. Then you read commentary and realize your an idiot as you in no way understood what the question was.
> When ever I brake i'm always using the front and rear brake. I'm alway squeezing the front more. This is the case even on my cross bike on a 20% decline single track. Thus I answered I use my front brake the most. It would appear maybe that was incorrect, but I'm sticking with it.


No, you're definitely correct. There a very few times when using the rear brake alone can be beneficial but it's definitely not necessary to do it that way. If you're 'doing it the right way' you can pretty use only the front brake.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

cxwrench said:


> No, you're definitely correct. *There a very few times when using the rear brake alone can be beneficial* but it's definitely not necessary to do it that way. If you're 'doing it the right way' you can pretty use only the front brake.


Exactly as I said: 

Rear brake only when you're laying rubber to impress the ladies, or your buddies, or just to impress yourself. 

Extra points if you can do a side-slide and still come halting to a stop without doing something stupid.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

I use both. 
The only time I use just the rear is coming into a corner and need to bleed some speed, kinda just drag brake style. You need to do this before the corner is on. I don't like using the front brake on turn in, it just can go so wrong.
... and just rolling along and need to slow a little.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

mackgoo said:


> Then you read commentary and realize your an idiot as you in no way understood what the question was.


It's you're as in you are, not your. Speaking of idiots.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Lombard said:


> It's you're as in you are, not your. Speaking of idiots.


It truly boggles my mind that so many people can't get that figured out. There/they're/their...were/we're...people that randomly insert apostrophes. And many of them get all pissy when you call them out on it. C'mon people, you should have that mastered in 4th grade. How are we supposed to take you seriously when you can't handle basic grammar?


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> It truly boggles my mind that so many people can't get that figured out. There/they're/their...were/we're...people that randomly insert apostrophes. And many of them get all pissy when you call them out on it. C'mon people, you should have that mastered in 4th grade. How are we supposed to take you seriously when you can't handle basic grammar?


And let's not forget to/too/two. What's more mind boggling is there are people with much higher formal education than me who make all the errors stated above. And they don't even have the excuse of English being a second language.


----------



## MaxKatt (May 30, 2015)

Lombard said:


> And let's not forget to/too/two. What's more mind boggling is there are people with much higher formal education than me who make all the errors stated above. And they don't even have the excuse of English being a second language.



Bravo. Could either you or cxwrench visit "Cycling Cleanest Sport" thread currently up. Thanks. OP "could care less."


----------



## mackgoo (Mar 2, 2004)

I grew up on the South Shore, you shood heah me tock.
Thankfully we have members here who truly know what's important.
Oh, and I never use exclamation points.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

cxwrench said:


> I can read that as 'the laws of physics changes daily here on RBR?


It's a bit like the past. It's getting harder and harder to predict history. It makes you wonder if the same folks are the ones revising both.


----------



## AndreSF (Sep 23, 2013)

I live in hilly San Francisco and almost exclusively use the front brake. I have way more control with that. When I need to stop more quickly than a controlled front brake application will allow, I'll employ the rear brake. This pretty much only happens on the steepest descents. I never use the back brake in a turn. That's asking for a rear wheel skid. If you're bombing the hill, you gotta slow it down before you're in the turn anyway. Same for both disc and rim brakes.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

AndreSF said:


> I live in hilly San Francisco and almost exclusively use the front brake. I have way more control with that. When I need to stop more quickly than a controlled front brake application will allow, I'll employ the rear brake. This pretty much only happens on the steepest descents. *I never use the back brake in a turn. That's asking for a rear wheel skid.* If you're bombing the hill, you gotta slow it down before you're in the turn anyway. Same for both disc and rim brakes.


Not always true...as with anything it's all about control.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

cxwrench said:


> It truly boggles my mind that so many people can't get that figured out. There/they're/their...were/we're...people that randomly insert apostrophes. And many of them get all pissy when you call them out on it. C'mon people, you should have that mastered in 4th grade. How are we supposed to take you seriously when you can't handle basic grammar?


Jeez, not you too? I'm a little shocked!

Has your life become so boring that you have nothing better to do than critique punctuation on internet forums (notice the period rather than a question mark). Have you never been in a hurry and made spelling errors or used _your_ instead of _you're_ in a moment of haste. 

Consider that these are not be thesis level premises being espoused/spewed here on RBR. For many, this is something we do to piss away time between important matters. If we can help someone with a problem, question, or misinformation and not use more than a few minutes, we throw a response together.

Does RBR have so many contributors that we can afford to piss folks off with petty bullsh!t?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

SwiftSolo said:


> Jeez, not you too? I'm a little shocked!
> 
> Has your life become so boring that you have nothing better to do than critique punctuation on internet forums (notice the period rather than a question mark). Have you never been in a hurry and made spelling errors or used _your_ instead of _you're_ in a moment of haste.
> 
> ...


Obviously I don't care if I piss off someone that didn't pay attention from 1st thru 8th grade. I guess we'll both just have to deal with it.


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> Consider that these are not be thesis level premises...."


There should be a hyphen between "thesis" and "level," i.e., "thesis-level," to denote that the phrase modifies "premises" as a compound modifier (cf. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/hyphen/).

I can certainly make clear what you meant, but think of RBR's foreign readers, many of whom may not be reading in their native language, and who might be confused by your gibberish.




cxwrench said:


> Obviously I don't care if I piss off someone that didn't pay attention from 1st thru 8th grade. I guess we'll both just have to deal with it.


Word.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

xxl said:


> There should be a hyphen between "thesis" and "level," i.e., "thesis-level," to denote that the phrase modifies "premises" as a compound modifier (cf. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/hyphen/).
> 
> I can certainly make clear what you meant, but think of RBR's foreign readers, many of whom may not be reading in their native language, and who might be confused by your gibberish.
> 
> ...


Well help me out. Is it kiss-my-ass or kiss my ass?


----------



## mackgoo (Mar 2, 2004)

I agree. Brifter is a lame word. But man, you need a life.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

I don't think hypen's are required ever. If you want to link the words just forget the space!

I learned to read in the 3rd grade, so booger off.


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> Well help me out. Is it kiss-my-ass or kiss my ass?


You'd know far better than me, given how much practice you've devoted to it, not to mention that second-grade education of yours.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

duriel said:


> I don't think hypen's........


I have to ass-u-me that was intentional.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

mackgoo said:


> I agree. Brifter is a lame word. But man, you need a life.


I see what you did there. And I have quite a nice life at this point, no extra life is needed. If people don't want to get corrected they should have paid attention in grade school. They should be able to construct coherent sentences and use the correct forms of commonly used words. How can I take someone seriously when they're (not there, not their) unable to communicate at a basic level?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

cxwrench said:


> I see what you did there. And I have quite a nice life at this point, no extra life is needed. If people don't want to get corrected they should have paid attention in grade school. They should be able to construct coherent sentences and use the correct forms of commonly used words. How can I take someone seriously when they're (not there, not their) unable to communicate at a basic level?


Let me start by pointing out that I mean no disrespect to you. You have been a valuable contributor to this forum.

The thing that you're overlooking is the stereotypical image you're painting of yourself as a typical know-nothing BA graduate with no marketable skills beyond english composition. Lacking intelligent rebutal to points of disagreement, they deal with their insecurity by attempting to illustrate the relative minutiae of punctuation errors.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

SwiftSolo said:


> The thing that you're overlooking is the stereotypical image you're painting of yourself as a typical know-nothing BA graduate with no marketable skills beyond english composition. Lacking intelligent rebutal to points of disagreement, they deal with their insecurity by attempting to illustrate the relative minutiae of punctuation errors.


People love to bash BA graduates as being unmarketable. Dude, we all fill a niche in society. I think CX makes a very good point that without certain skills that should have been learned in grade school, communication would be less than effective.

I can tolerate errors on this level from people who speak English as a second language. For the rest of us, it's inexcusable.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Lombard said:


> People love to bash BA graduates as being unmarketable. Dude, we all fill a niche in society. I think CX makes a very good point that without certain skills that should have been learned in grade school, communication would be less than effective.
> 
> I can tolerate errors on this level from people who speak English as a second language. For the rest of us, it's inexcusable.


First, you misunderstood what I said. 

To help you along, educated folks should know that you need to read an entire statement to understand context. Consider that a "BA graduate with no marketable skills" may be, and often is, an entirely different individual than a "BA graduate". Further, a BA degree has little to do with an individuals ability to contribute value to this forum (beyond providing the all important punctuation correction that folks looking for answers to cycling question so desperately seek) 

I'd suggest that deductive reasoning skills are more important to understanding on this forum than punctuation. Further it is lacking in a more seriously significant way.

Do let me know if it was punctuation that confused you (or my failure to add an "s" to "question").

A good suggestion might be to simply withhold your valuable response to those ignorant people who forget periods at the end of sentences. Why would you waste your valuable time on these inferior and uneducated losers?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

No need to over think this. A single mistake every now and then is going to happen. Members that continually misuse common words every time they post and use poor grammar as a rule rather than the exception are what I'm complaining about. How can I believe any technical point they are trying to make when they can't write in their native language at the level of a 10 year old kid that pays attention in class? 
I don't have any problem understanding the context of the post, I just find it annoying when I have to read through all the mistakes along the way. It's so easy to get these things right...just make the minimum effort. You don't care, I get it. They don't care. There's a little too much of 'I don't care'.


----------



## mackgoo (Mar 2, 2004)

cxwrench said:


> No need to over think this. A single mistake every now and then is going to happen. Members that continually misuse common words every time they post and use poor grammar as a rule rather than the exception are what I'm complaining about. How can I believe any technical point they are trying to make when they can't write in their native language at the level of a 10 year old kid that pays attention in class?
> I don't have any problem understanding the context of the post, I just find it annoying when I have to read through all the mistakes along the way. It's so easy to get these things right...just make the minimum effort. You don't care, I get it. They don't care. There's a little too much of 'I don't care'.


I'm confused. What did you omit without altering its meaning?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

cxwrench said:


> No need to over think this. A single mistake every now and then is going to happen. Members that continually misuse common words every time they post and use poor grammar as a rule rather than the exception are what I'm complaining about. How can I believe any technical point they are trying to make when they can't write in their native language at the level of a 10 year old kid that pays attention in class?
> I don't have any problem understanding the context of the post, I just find it annoying when I have to read through all the mistakes along the way. It's so easy to get these things right...just make the minimum effort. You don't care, I get it. They don't care. There's a little too much of 'I don't care'.



Your time is better served when you call out zealots who render their uneducated observations on new products without ever suffering the inconvenience of actually trying them first.

Punctuation violators are unlikely to mislead those looking for valid opinions.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

I realized I made a grammatical error in post #66. Let's see who can find it.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> No need to over think this. A single mistake every now and then is going to happen. Members that continually misuse common words every time they post and use poor grammar as a rule rather than the exception are what I'm complaining about. How can I believe any technical point they are trying to make when they can't write in their native language at the level of a 10 year old kid that pays attention in class?
> I don't have any problem understanding the context of the post, I just find it annoying when I have to read through all the mistakes along the way. It's so easy to get these things right...just make the minimum effort. You don't care, I get it. They don't care. There's a little too much of 'I don't care'.


This is so well said... I have taught grad students for years... pushing 2 decades. Laziness in grammar and structure is rampant and I suspect it is from lazy faculty more than anything. The first round of failing assignment grades tied to the mechanics of their writing does wonders. After a wake-up call their writing generally improves dramatically. Hence, lazy, not lacking... Yes, of course there are students that need help and I’ve always been happy to do that, but simply demanding professional standards fixes an amazing amount of poor writing. In the immortal words of Truman Capote, “good writing isn’t written... it is re-written.”


----------



## Methodical (Jul 21, 2012)

I use them evenly mostly, especially if I need to stop quickly. I typically use both when stopping. I've been doing ever since I've been riding a bike and won't stop now; it works for me.


----------



## Methodical (Jul 21, 2012)

J.R. said:


> If you're in a group following wheels at speed and don't have your fingers on your front brake then you're definitely a newb.


I usually catch the wind to slow down as oppose to braking when possible when in a paceline. That sudden braking wreaks havoc for those behind you. I've had folks do that and had to quickly swerve out into the roadway to avoid the fool.


----------



## J.R. (Sep 14, 2009)

Methodical said:


> I usually catch the wind to slow down as oppose to braking when possible when in a paceline. That sudden braking wreaks havoc for those behind you. I've had folks do that and had to quickly swerve out into the roadway to avoid the fool.


Yes, good point. I was thinking more along the line of a quick pulse on the brake when riders ahead slow unexpectedly. If I hit the rear brake instead the rear tire will likely skid and slowing will be slower.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

There are two brake levers. I use both.


----------



## Methodical (Jul 21, 2012)

J.R. said:


> Yes, good point. I was thinking more along the line of a quick pulse on the brake when riders ahead slow unexpectedly. If I hit the rear brake instead the rear tire will likely skid and slowing will be slower.


Got it.


----------



## tabl10s (Nov 13, 2002)

I use both at the same time.


----------

