# Single pivot and brake jack....



## jubilee (Apr 16, 2004)

Hey all, I am looking at the Yeti AS-X and Transition Dirtbag and Gran Mal.

I've seen some of you guys mention "brake jack" as a possibility on the Gran Mal.

Is that a potential problem on the AS-X too?

I'm not sure what brake jack even is.

Someone please school this child.


----------



## RED5 (Jan 4, 2004)

*brake jack /squat*

A better explanation...



zedro said:


> repeat after me everyone (for the 18989323th time): *ALL SINGLE PIVOTS SQUAT!!!!*
> 
> ok now before people start squealing, the reason why it feels like they jack (moreso higher pivots) is because when they squat, the suspension compresses, or loads up. Now by virtue of the design, they will also lose traction; if they lose traction, the forces can no longer sustain the squat, the energy of the compressed suspension is released and BAMMO! the rear end kicks up _which feels like brake jack.
> 
> ...


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

jubilee said:


> Hey all, I am looking at the Yeti AS-X and Transition Dirtbag and Gran Mal.
> 
> I've seen some of you guys mention "brake jack" as a possibility on the Gran Mal.
> 
> ...


jub you might want to look into the Azonic Saber...an FSR suspension trail bike with a great price....no brake jack


----------



## matt (Feb 2, 2004)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> jub you might want to look into the Azonic Saber...an FSR suspension trail bike with a great price....no brake jack


i always thought the saber was a single pivot? maybe i'm mistaken, but i think they are and do brake jack...


----------



## jubilee (Apr 16, 2004)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> jub you might want to look into the Azonic Saber...an FSR suspension trail bike with a great price....no brake jack


SMT, I've got a 5" trail bike.

I needs me some FR/DH love, baby!


----------



## free-rider_down-hiller (Jun 1, 2005)

well if your looking to spend 1000-1300 and want a FR/DH i would go with an azonic elimanator 2 http://www.adrenalinebikes.com/stor...1656&ParentID=0&categoryname=FRAMES, MOUNTAIN


----------



## BikeMk (Mar 2, 2004)

matt said:


> i always thought the saber was a single pivot? maybe i'm mistaken, but i think they are and do brake jack...


You are very very wrong.


----------



## KennyO (Apr 21, 2004)

*Saber is a Horst-link 4-bar.*



matt said:


> i always thought the saber was a single pivot? maybe i'm mistaken, but i think they are and do brake jack...


 Azonic pays for that Horst Link...


----------



## matt (Feb 2, 2004)

BikeMk said:


> You are very very wrong.


okay, i wasn't sure. i don't know where i got it from...


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

matt said:


> i always thought the saber was a single pivot? maybe i'm mistaken, but i think they are and do brake jack...


not at all

http://wheelworld.com/site/itemdetails.cfm?ID=2683


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

jubilee said:


> SMT, I've got a 5" trail bike.
> 
> I needs me some FR/DH love, baby!


welcome to the darkside.....why don't you look at one of these...probably get it for 1500

http://www.azonicusa.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=52_30&products_id=93


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

free-rider_down-hiller said:


> well if your looking to spend 1000-1300 and want a FR/DH i would go with an azonic elimanator 2 http://www.adrenalinebikes.com/stor...1656&ParentID=0&categoryname=FRAMES, MOUNTAIN


why would you post about a bike that is prone to brake jack when the original thread starter didn't want a bike like that???? makes you wonder why you write these suggestions


----------



## Raptordude (Mar 30, 2004)

The ASX is essentially a single pivot, and the pivot is right in the range for bikes that have brake jack. I never really noticed it on my bike, but I'm sure it happens. Usually when I reach the areas of suspension, and breaking hard at the same time...I'm proabobly going to crash or something.

You could get the floating brake, but I doubt you'll notice it. I don't notice it at all, and my Juicy's are wicked powerful also. (One finger lockey lockey!)


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

Raptordude said:


> The ASX is essentially a single pivot, and the pivot is right in the range for bikes that have brake jack. I never really noticed it on my bike, but I'm sure it happens. Usually when I reach the areas of suspension, and breaking hard at the same time...I'm proabobly going to crash or something.
> 
> You could get the floating brake, but I doubt you'll notice it. I don't notice it at all, and my Juicy's are wicked powerful also. (One finger lockey lockey!)


So the argument is whether or not a large amount of brake squat is bad thing, not whether or not brake squat exists on single-pivots.

Original poster: All of the bikes you mentioned will brake very similarly.

It's about time for another "brake jack" lesson, people are forgetting what was taught the last time...


----------



## ebxtreme (Jan 6, 2004)

*Jubilee....are you planning to race?*

If not, I'd worry less about brake jack and more about bike fit and proper suspension setup. You know how many DH bikes I've ridden that were set up horribly for their owner? Half the time, they've got too little sag, too slow of rebound, too much compression, etc. It's funny to me how many people spend $4-5k on a bike and don't know d!ck about setting them up properly. But I digress...

If you are planning to race, then I'd go with something with more of an initial rearward axle path like a VPP design. The horst link has been around a long time and refined for over a decade and it's 100% proven, but racers like Barel, Gracia, Peat, Rennie, Hill and Minaar are dominating on non-horst link bikes. Granted, most of those guys combat brake jack using a floating rear brake.... On that tip, this might be one of the best deals out there today on a FR/DH bike.
http://wheelworld.com/site/itemdetails.cfm?ID=3456&Catalog=39&sort=Price

So does brake jack happen to me on my faux-bar Kona (very similar design to the Dirtbag)? I only notice it on the fastest trails around - namely the brake bumps at Whistler and that's hauling serious arse. I think that brake jack is simply not that important for the type of riding *I do*. I ride with folks on VPFree's, Demo 9's, a Giant Faith, Big Hits, an Ellsworth Dare, etc. and keep up just fine on fast stuff and arse-on-the-rear-tire tech stuff. Would I ride faster or better with a pivot on my chain stay? As a good buddy says, "it's the horses, not the chariot"......

Bikes like the ASX and the Dirtbag are going to ride very well on the majority of the terrain that people on this forum ride. Are they DH bikes? No. Would I race them? Yeah, but probably not if I was very competitve. For racing, I'd get something with a lower center of gravity and a longer wheelbase. For climb and drops or occasional bike park stuff, they'd be fine.

Cheers,
EB

P.S. I saw the proto Gran Mal in August and that bike's gonna be sick....might be my next bike.


----------



## free-rider_down-hiller (Jun 1, 2005)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> why would you post about a bike that is prone to brake jack when the original thread starter didn't want a bike like that???? makes you wonder why you write these suggestions


sorry i mistaked that for the recoil


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

free-rider_down-hiller said:


> sorry i mistaked that for the recoil


ok...i will give you that


----------



## imridingmybike (Jan 16, 2005)

*More Than You Ever Wanted To Know About Jack*



jubilee said:


> Hey all, I am looking at the Yeti AS-X and Transition Dirtbag and Gran Mal.
> 
> I've seen some of you guys mention "brake jack" as a possibility on the Gran Mal.
> 
> ...


http://forums.farkin.net/showthread.php?t=35572

This guy gives lots of info on the subject - to summarize him - if I may - you should be fine with any of those bikes...


----------



## RobsterCraw (Oct 19, 2004)

Brake Jack is pretty negligable. I have a buddy who rides pro biker mountain X and he thinks brake jack is just a made up word to sell things. I figure if I never notice it on my single pivot and he never notices it enough to have it matter when trying to shave hundredths of a second off a 4x race upon which his salary depends, it can't be much of a big deal.


----------



## KennyO (Apr 21, 2004)

RobsterCraw said:


> Brake Jack is pretty negligable. I have a buddy who rides pro biker mountain X and he thinks brake jack is just a made up word to sell things. I figure if I never notice it on my single pivot and he never notices it enough to have it matter when trying to shave hundredths of a second off a 4x race upon which his salary depends, it can't be much of a big deal.


Negligible isn't the word I'd use, unless I was riding a 4x bike. The less travel, the less the issue. The less the braking, the less the issue. However, on a DH bike, negligible doesn't fit at all. I have two identical bikes, one with a floating brake, and one without. Hell of a difference under braking. To say that brake jack is made up is to say that pivot points don't mean anything, don't change the way a wheel is crammed against the ground under suspension force when it is in a locked position.

Hell, lots of guys race 4x on hardtails. No brake jack there....


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

KennyO said:


> Negligible isn't the word I'd use, unless I was riding a 4x bike. The less travel, the less the issue. The less the braking, the less the issue. However, on a DH bike, negligible doesn't fit at all. I have two identical bikes, one with a floating brake, and one without. Hell of a difference under braking. To say that brake jack is made up is to say that pivot points don't mean anything, don't change the way a wheel is crammed against the ground under suspension force when it is in a locked position.
> 
> Hell, lots of guys race 4x on hardtails. No brake jack there....


No kidding.

Because 4x courses are generally very smooth and groomed, brake squat would not cause the same negative effects that it does while riding on a trail. In fact, I would say that brake squat might actually be desireable on a 4x bike, it would lower the bottom bracket which can help cornering.


----------



## sortafast (Feb 12, 2004)

I like the way the the dirt bag feels. The brake jack never really bothered me on my dirt bag. Its a fairly nimble bike and you can pop it up and over things and use style to over come the issue of brake jack. The one thing that i have learned is that if you stay off the brakes you dont get brake jack, very simple principle. I seemed to notice brake jack more on higher pivot bikes more so than on the fauw bar designs like the stinky's and the dirt bag. Plus i like the feel of the lower pivots like on the konas and transitions. They just seem to make the front come up easier and seem to sit lower. Even my wife who is just now progressing past a novice noticed a huuuge difference going from her mtn cycle san andreas to a kona stinky. granted they are 2 totally different bikes intended for some what different types of riding, she even fond that they front end on a stinky was easier to get into the air over her san andreas (even with gaining 5-7lbs on the stinky). Food for thought.


----------



## jubilee (Apr 16, 2004)

ebxtreme said:


> If not, I'd worry less about brake jack and more about bike fit and proper suspension setup. You know how many DH bikes I've ridden that were set up horribly for their owner? Half the time, they've got too little sag, too slow of rebound, too much compression, etc. It's funny to me how many people spend $4-5k on a bike and don't know d!ck about setting them up properly. But I digress...
> 
> If you are planning to race, then I'd go with something with more of an initial rearward axle path like a VPP design. The horst link has been around a long time and refined for over a decade and it's 100% proven, but racers like Barel, Gracia, Peat, Rennie, Hill and Minaar are dominating on non-horst link bikes. Granted, most of those guys combat brake jack using a floating rear brake.... On that tip, this might be one of the best deals out there today on a FR/DH bike.
> http://wheelworld.com/site/itemdetails.cfm?ID=3456&Catalog=39&sort=Price
> ...


Thnaks to everyone for the responses. But I have to say, eb taking the time to thoroughly answer my question like this is very much appreciated. Thank you sir!


----------



## RobsterCraw (Oct 19, 2004)

WheelieMan said:


> No kidding.
> 
> Because 4x courses are generally very smooth and groomed, brake squat would not cause the same negative effects that it does while riding on a trail. In fact, I would say that brake squat might actually be desireable on a 4x bike, it would lower the bottom bracket which can help cornering.


Its not like the guy never rode a trail. He rides a Demo on DH


----------



## KennyO (Apr 21, 2004)

RobsterCraw said:


> Its not like the guy never rode a trail. He rides a Demo on DH


Well no kidding, a Demo (no brake jack). Maybe if he threw a leg over a Bullit or something, maybe he'd learn a new vocabulary word, like "brake jack".


----------



## RobsterCraw (Oct 19, 2004)

I ride a bullit, no complaints. If you notice brake jack and want to spend the money to get rid of it, then go for it. Personally I've never noticed a problem with it and it's not the first upgrade I have in mind for my bike.


----------



## GGAllen (Jul 18, 2004)

*Not needed...*

Single pivots _*do*_ in fact encounter "brake jack". Is it an actual hindrance though? I doubt it.

Motorcycle designers were debating this topic 25 years ago. What came of it you ask?? It lasted only a few years. About the time it takes for a good marketing pitch to wear off.

It's been well over a decade since they fit one to a motocross bike and they deal with (obviously) greater speeds as well as much more dynamic terrain than your average DH course.

Design engineers _*and*_ test riders have long since outgrown the "notion" of curing brake jack.

Another few years and the "floating brake arms" will be stacked next to the Flexstems and Biopace chainrings. 

Mid Eighties technology Vs. 2006 technology..


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

GGAllen said:


> Single pivots _*do*_ in fact encounter "brake jack". Is it an actual hindrance though? I doubt it.
> 
> Motorcycle designers were debating this topic 25 years ago. What came of it you ask?? It lasted only a few years. About the time it takes for a good marketing pitch to wear off.
> 
> ...


Motorcycles and bicycles are so different that I don't think it is fair to compare them in this situation. Not only are motorcycles powered by an engine, but traction and overall weight distribution/center of gravity are very different from the human powered bicycle.


----------



## Fool's Gold (Sep 4, 2005)

*I dunno*



WheelieMan said:


> Motorcycles and bicycles are so different that I don't think it is fair to compare them in this situation. Not only are motorcycles powered by an engine, but traction and overall weight distribution/center of gravity are very different from the human powered bicycle.


I think GGAllen makes a pretty good point. I ride a YZ and just took a looksie in the garage.

I'm sure you'll get some guff from some MX guys who don't find mtb and db "so different", but I'll grant you that uphills is massively different. 

......If we were talking cantilevers vs. discs now................


----------



## GGAllen (Jul 18, 2004)

WheelieMan said:


> Motorcycles and bicycles are so different that I don't think it is fair to compare them in this situation. Not only are motorcycles powered by an engine, but traction and overall weight distribution/center of gravity are very different from the human powered bicycle.


In this case they are nearly _*identical*_. Brake jack has little to due with overall weight and _*nothing*_ to do with the engine. In fact you could *remove the engine* and it would not effect the sensation.

Same goes for bicycles. You could remove the chain altogether and still experience brake jack.

In fact, it's WAY more pronounced on a motorcycle than it is on a bicycle.. and it's still a non-issue.


----------



## e<i>o (May 22, 2004)

jubilee said:


> Thnaks to everyone for the responses. But I have to say, eb taking the time to thoroughly answer my question like this is very much appreciated. Thank you sir!


EBX is right.

Be more concerned with fit & function 1st.
If you go with a "brake-jack prone" choice, then you can spend a little xtra on a floating brake kit.

www.therapycomponents.com will probably have one for whatever frame you decide on.


----------



## KennyO (Apr 21, 2004)

I'm not going to say that you are talking apples and oranges here, because you aren't, but there are plenty of differences between braking on a dirtbike vs. a DH bike. First of all, let me say that I have done a lot of riding on an old Yamaha that had the floating drum brake on it, as well as a newer YZ250 that just had a fixed caliper.

The first major difference is the weight of the bike. The dirtbike is 5 times as heavy, which is going to affect the behavior of the rear tire against the ground very differently than a DH bike. 

The second difference is the pivot location of the swingarm. Once you throw a motor onto a bike (or a gearbox for that matter), you are able to put the main swingarm pivot in the #1 optimal location, without regard to a moving chainline, because your chainline is now fixed. (no derailleurs.) Not that the placement of your chain affects brakejack, just that bicycle designs have to consider it when they design a swingarm pivot. The location of the swingarm pivot will determine how severe brake jack will be. In the Motocross world, everyone has more or less gone to the same basic pivot placement, only tweaking the linkage to push the shock one way or another. The main pivot on a dirtbike is in a location that will not experience severe brake jack. This is why I don't feel anything terribly different between the two dirtbikes, even though one has a floating brake and one doesn't.

However, how many dirtbikes out there do you see with a main pivot high and forward, like a Bullit, or an Orange, or some of the other high pivot bikes? This is where I come to my point. I have two DH bikes, basically identical to one another in components, same frame, same fork, same brakes, same tires, except one of them has a floating brake while the other doesn't. Anyone who has ridden both of these bikes notices the difference under braking, even before they notice that one doesn't have the floater. Once they ride it, they notice. Now, I'm not saying that every single pivot bike needs a floater, but some designs will definitely benefit from it over others.

As far as those people who think that a floating brake is a gimmick, or some kind of sales technique, or is made up, or whatever, then go design a bike, performance first, looks second, and you will run into braking induced forces on suspension before too long. It will be staring you in the face. Or maybe just go look at an Indy car.

Some riders and some riding styles don't need one. If you don't lock up your brakes, you really don't get brake jack like you do when you lock them up through rough terrain. If you're tearing through loose, loamy soil on a dirtbike, you're not going to feel brake jack in there. Now go lock up the brakes through a hard, whooped-out, rocky section, and if brake jack is there, you will feel it.

As far as those guys who drop a floating brake simply because of weight, then go take a good healthy dump before a race. I'm sure you'll shed more than 350 grams of useless weight that way.


----------



## Locoman (Jan 12, 2004)

From the above posts you know what it is, but keep this in mind. On shorter travel (say sub 5") you really won't notice this, but it may be an issue for longer travel. BUT keep in mind when you'd experience this... traveling downhill and hitting your rear brake. You should be relying on the front brake in this situation anyway. 

I'd really try the bikes in question before getting all academic with this problem. 

Personally I prefer my 4bar-horst over my single pivot, but the SP bike is still great.


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

GGAllen said:


> In this case they are nearly _*identical*_. Brake jack has little to due with overall weight and _*nothing*_ to do with the engine. In fact you could *remove the engine* and it would not effect the sensation.
> 
> Same goes for bicycles. You could remove the chain altogether and still experience brake jack.
> 
> In fact, it's WAY more pronounced on a motorcycle than it is on a bicycle.. and it's still a non-issue.


You're right, but I'm not stupid. You don't understand my point. The increased weight/lower overall center of gravity (including rider) must be taken into consideration as it affects stability, momentum, etc...

Brake squat is a huge issue on my bike. (extremely high and rearward pivot) Without the floater it's a completely different bike. I like the increased traction and suspension compliance that result from the floating brake. To dismiss brake squat as a non-issue simply because motorcycles do not use floaters is illogical.


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

Locoman said:


> From the above posts you know what it is, but keep this in mind. On shorter travel (say sub 5") you really won't notice this, but it may be an issue for longer travel. BUT keep in mind when you'd experience this... traveling downhill and hitting your rear brake. You should be relying on the front brake in this situation anyway.


I disagree, just because the front brake provides more stopping power than the rear doesn't mean you should be "relying" on the front brake. There is a reason why we have both a front and a rear brake. You should never "avoid" using the rear brake, simply because using it causes the suspension to squat. There are situations in which brake squat can be desireable, however there can also be a loss of traction/suspension compliance.


----------



## KennyO (Apr 21, 2004)

Locoman said:


> From the above posts you know what it is, but keep this in mind. On shorter travel (say sub 5") you really won't notice this, but it may be an issue for longer travel. BUT keep in mind when you'd experience this... traveling downhill and hitting your rear brake. You should be relying on the front brake in this situation anyway.
> 
> I'd really try the bikes in question before getting all academic with this problem.
> 
> Personally I prefer my 4bar-horst over my single pivot, but the SP bike is still great.


Sometimes, you can't use your front brake or else you wash out your front tire. As far as Horst link goes, there are a lot of mechanical advantages that I like about Horst links, but I'm not willing to pay royalties to Specialized to use it.


----------



## Max_winner1 (Feb 11, 2004)

jubilee said:


> Hey all, I am looking at the Yeti AS-X and Transition Dirtbag and Gran Mal.
> 
> I've seen some of you guys mention "brake jack" as a possibility on the Gran Mal.
> 
> ...


Brake Jack eh... Well I got a single pivot sort of... But by all means, So many Elite racers out there are having fun with different bikes that these kids here think that brake jack is a big issue. No it is not kids. Steve pete single pivot Orange he will give you a piece of his mind any day on what's all about brake jack. Jubille its the rider not the bike. You can go fast and ride better with somone with any VPP bike its all up too you.
When I bought my single pivot I could have cared less about these Vpp bikes because they arn't worth the extra 500 bucks that you have to pay because you need to pay Tribute to the man who patend the design.

As for that guy mentioning somthing about riders not knowing how to fine tune there 3-4 K DH bikes. Think again Mr know it all... All riders have different riding styles for different terrain ect.. However some people are plugs and are * bike stupid * in a certain sense.


----------



## KennyO (Apr 21, 2004)

Max_winner1 said:


> Brake Jack eh... Well I got a single pivot sort of... But by all means, So many Elite racers out there are having fun with different bikes that these kids here think that brake jack is a big issue. No it is not kids. Steve pete single pivot Orange he will give you a piece of his mind any day on what's all about brake jack. Jubille its the rider not the bike. You can go fast and ride better with somone with any VPP bike its all up too you.
> When I bought my single pivot I could have cared less about these Vpp bikes because they arn't worth the extra 500 bucks that you have to pay because you need to pay Tribute to the man who patend the design.
> 
> As for that guy mentioning somthing about riders not knowing how to fine tune there 3-4 K DH bikes. Think again Mr know it all... All riders have different riding styles for different terrain ect.. However some people are plugs and are * bike stupid * in a certain sense.


You should re-read the posts here, I think you missed it. Nobody here is arguing about what is the "best" bike design, or what racer sucks or rocks or what, we are arguing over the existence of said brake jack in different designs. Sure, Steve Peat wins on an Orange with no floater, he's a fast dude. He gets around brake jack. It doesn't mean he doesn't experience brake jack, watch his rear wheel when he races, and you'll see brake jack. Just because you rip with the best of them, doesn't mean your single pivot bike doesn't brake jack, it just means you don't care. No one here is arguing that. When it comes down to winning races, it has everything to do with when and how much you brake, more than whether you have brake jack at all or not. That's not the argument here.

As far as bike setups, just go around and ask people why they have their bikes set up the way they do, and you'll find out how many people have no clue about why. That is true, you see it every day. People with no rebound damping, or too much rebound damping, too stiff of a spring, too soft of a spring, derailleur out of adjustment, shock air pressure to high or low, tire pressure to high. Lots of people don't have a clue. It is one thing if they can tell you why, but they usually just don't know. That's not everyone, just a lot of people.


----------



## GGAllen (Jul 18, 2004)

WheelieMan said:


> ..You don't understand my point. The increased weight/lower overall center of gravity (including rider) must be taken into consideration as it affects stability, momentum, etc....


Stability, momentum, weight, and COG have nothing to due with brake jack. _*Pivot design * _ and _*location*_, coupled with brake tourqe are what determine brake jack.


> Brake squat is a huge issue on my bike. (extremely high and rearward pivot) Without the floater it's a completely different bike. I like the increased traction and suspension compliance that result from the floating brake.


Don't get me wrong. I own a Gemini (not the DH) _*and*_ a Foes Fly. I can get my Gemini to brake jack at will in certain sections. For example, locking up the rear brake at speed over braking bumps on the entrance of a turn will cause it to jack every time.

However, That's not the fastest method to get through a turn. Smooth, hard braking using mostly the front gets me in deeper and faster than skidding all over the place. I try not to lock the brake and skid over braking bumps so I don't experience the effect in "real world" riding.

In fact, I use the rear brake very little on a DH course. More as a "handling tool" than a "slowing device". Mostly to initiate a slide, square up the exit of a turn, in a slow technical section or the occasional off camber. It's pretty much useless IMO for slowing the bike in high speed downhill sections.

If traction is available (most of the time it is on a DH course), a quick hard pull of the front brake will slow you nearly instantly. Anytime you are on the brakes the suspension suffers, front or rear, so the less time you are on the better.

_*i.e. braking harder and for shorter periods is the fastest way down the mountain.*_ Dragging the rear brake (causing brake jack) and locking it up on the corner entrance (really causing brake jack) is the least effective way to get down the mountain IMO.

So to me, My (floating brake) Fly and (non floating) Gemini are very similar feeling on the mountain, in that respect..

Some people rely on the rear brake more than others and I suspect it's those who complain mostly about brake jack.

I'm not trying to call anyone out or even suggest I'm faster than the average guy but it seems to be the beginners and novice riders who rely so much on the rear brake.


----------



## GGAllen (Jul 18, 2004)

WheelieMan said:


> ..You should never "avoid" using the rear brake, simply because using it causes the suspension to squat..


Agreed, you should avoid it because the _*front*_ brake slows the bike _*faster*_ and it does so in a much _*shorter*_ distance.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

*What is brake jack...*

... one very, very small part of the picture. IMO don't choose one bike over another based on the absence or presence of "jack".

A multitude of other issues will determine ride quality of a given bike much more than whether it has "break jack" or not.

Pay more attetion to things like tires. Instead of debating "jack" worry about what rubber you're running; what PSI. That's where it's at. Spend some time tuning a fork with different oil weight and heights. That will get you somewhere. Lean to dial your rear suspension's sag, compression and rebound settings. Learn how to true and tension a rim. Those are the things that will get you some real returns on your time and money. Brake jack... bah... I'd take a high single pivot with nice cable routing over a horst with sloppy routing anyday.

We all want to get the most out of our bikes but there are far more important things to be concerned about than break jack.

MIke


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

GGAllen said:


> Stability, momentum, weight, and COG have nothing to due with brake jack. _*Pivot design * _ and _*location*_, coupled with brake tourqe are what determine brake jack.
> Don't get me wrong. I own a Gemini (not the DH) _*and*_ a Foes Fly. I can get my Gemini to brake jack at will in certain sections. For example, locking up the rear brake at speed over braking bumps on the entrance of a turn will cause it to jack every time.
> 
> However, That's not the fastest method to get through a turn. Smooth, hard braking using mostly the front gets me in deeper and faster than skidding all over the place. I try not to lock the brake and skid over braking bumps so I don't experience the effect in "real world" riding.
> ...


I understand what causes brake squat. Obviously weight does not cause it. I do however believe that there is a reason why floating brakes are very common on downhill bikes, but are extremely rare on motorcycles.

You don't have to lock the rear brake in order for brake squat to occur...

So you believe that brake squat is a negative thing, and if you ever experience it, you are braking improperly?


----------



## keen (Jan 13, 2004)

I think it has been established that brake squat exists, that some don't really mind or work around it, people with poor braking habits experience it more. I feel if someone adds a floater and feels more comfortable with his ride then great. If you feel a floater is an unnecessary $$$ band-aid then don't buy one. Everyone has there own method to reach the bottom of the hill. It is easy to say " you need to keep off the rear brake & you won't have as much of a problem - Well so what if someone wants a mechanical advantage.


----------



## Shepherd Wong (Apr 24, 2005)

And maybe in addition that people who know what they are doing and have almost certainly spent time testing with a floater have decided that they're faster without it and with a bike that squats.


----------



## ebxtreme (Jan 6, 2004)

Max_winner1 said:


> As for that guy mentioning somthing about riders not knowing how to fine tune there 3-4 K DH bikes. Think again Mr know it all... All riders have different riding styles for different terrain ect.. However some people are plugs and are * bike stupid * in a certain sense.


Whoah, someone's a little sensitive, eh?  I agree that some people simply aren't mechanically inclined and those people should NOT be riding bikes with Answer 6-way shocks, IMO. Those folks should get something that's easy to adjust (Romic twin tube, for example) so they can set and forget. Also, I didn't know how to set up my bikes properly at first, but I dug into it and read all there was to read and I messed around until I found the "sweet spot". As for various bike setups, that's true to a point.....but there are generally recommended ranges that work best (e.g. 25-40% sag in the rear, achieving full travel on your fork, etc.) that many people simply don't take the time to figure out.

I don't in fact know it all and I try to ask intelligent questions when I speak to those that know waaaay more like Darren Murphy, etc. In fact, I just picked up a couple of tips from a recent article in MBA that discussed shock setup with the head of the Fox racing program. Very insightful and I recommend everyone reads it if they can find a copy.

My point is this. Everyone debates the finer points of various designs (SP, HL, VPP, faux bar) and how they react to pedaling feedback, brake 'jack', etc....just look at the Turner forum as of late. That's all well and good, but quality suspension components that are properly setup on a bike with proper fit are more important than having a HL bike that's totally wrong for the rider and application in question. A HL on it's own does not make a bike perform better than any other design.

I was trying to point out to Jubilee (the originator of this thread, btw) that he's going to hear the "SP/Faux bar brake jack...blah, blah, blah" stuff about some of the bikes he mentioned, but if he were to select one of those bikes and take the time to set it up correctly, it should be a capable rig for him. As others have said and I firmly believe this as well....the skills of a rider almost always supercedes the design of any bike.

Cheers,
EB


----------



## FULL_AWN (Jul 27, 2005)

I ride a Bullitt. When I hit up N* or Mammoth I notice "Brake Jack" in the corners. Especially really wash-board corners. You can ride through it, but if I could choose, I would rather not have brake jack.

And I agree with the poster in the beginning that was saying that some single pivots load up the rear suspension. I can feel the Bullitt load up the suspension, it basically locks up the rear shock and when I release the brake, the shock rebounds. 

Just thought I would add to the argument.

A single pivot bike is a great beginning bike, it is easy to maintain, it is fairly light, and you will have a ton fun learning on it. In the future you may decide to get a bike with plusher suspension when the time comes. But I bet you will keep the single pivot around to ride ever so often.


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

Raptordude said:


> The ASX is essentially a single pivot, and the pivot is right in the range for bikes that have brake jack. I never really noticed it on my bike, but I'm sure it happens. Usually when I reach the areas of suspension, and breaking hard at the same time...I'm proabobly going to crash or something.
> 
> You could get the floating brake, but I doubt you'll notice it. I don't notice it at all, and my Juicy's are wicked powerful also. (One finger lockey lockey!)


Hey Raptordude, I wanted to ask you for some clarification: when you say in your above comment that you don't notice it at all, does that mean that you bought a floating brake and didn't notice any difference? That's what it sounds like.


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

RobsterCraw said:


> Brake Jack is pretty negligable. I have a buddy who rides pro biker mountain X and he thinks brake jack is just a made up word to sell things. I figure if I never notice it on my single pivot and he never notices it enough to have it matter when trying to shave hundredths of a second off a 4x race upon which his salary depends, it can't be much of a big deal.


Tell your buddie the pro 4xer that I'll bet him (and you) the price of a floating brake that that "brake jack", although a somewhat inaccurate term, is very real.

And we don't make anything up to sell things, we offer a money back guarantee on the floaters, and NEVER get asked for a refund. $295 is a lot to spend on a problem that doesn't exist....

By the way, groomed 4x courses don't count, think rock gardens, sketchy rocky chutes, nasty braking bumps before corners....

Brian, [email protected]

www.therapycomponents.com


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

GGAllen said:


> Single pivots _*do*_ in fact encounter "brake jack". Is it an actual hindrance though? I doubt it.
> 
> Motorcycle designers were debating this topic 25 years ago. What came of it you ask?? It lasted only a few years. About the time it takes for a good marketing pitch to wear off.
> 
> ...


Be careful, the floater is back for mx



And it's no marketing pitch. have you watched an outdoor national lately and watched the riders get HAMMERED in the square edged, knee deep braking bumps? No imagine blowin by the guy you're trying to pass because you can go deeper braking without the backend slammin you when it loses half its travel.

We don't plan on being put on the shelf with the Unified triangle any time soon...in fact look for more oe spec this year (and in the future)


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

GGAllen said:


> Agreed, you should avoid it because the _*front*_ brake slows the bike _*faster*_ and it does so in a much _*shorter*_ distance.


And that statement's just goofy! avoid your rear brake? How bout use both as hard as you can for maximum stopping ability? or use the rear when your at such a steep angle that the front brake would throw you over the bars? or wash out the front? Sure just grab a handful of front brake, there are times when I don't dare touch the front brake, but still need to slow down.

Again, I'll bet anyone posting on this thread (including you fsr and vpp guys) the price of a floating brake that if you put one on your bike, you won't want to take it off. And if you really don't like the floater, you can be the first to post on this board how you got money back from me....

Couple random comments...many of our customers claim it's the best upgrade they ever made...

And just because you don't think you notice it now doesn't mean it's not there. You're just used to it. If you put the floater on you'd realize how much negative effect it was having.

Brian, [email protected]

www.therapycomponents.com


----------



## Brian Peterson (Feb 20, 2004)

On my 9.5, I never really notice the effect of braking on the suspension until I put the floating brake on... If you are a pro level rider, you are less likely to notice the effects of braking on the rear suspension.. Why? Because pros are off the brakes when us mortals are grabbing.... But there are areas where I might drag the rear brake and that is where I noticed the difference....

Brian


----------



## GGAllen (Jul 18, 2004)

shock said:


> Be careful, the floater is back for mx


 No disrespect, but who besides your company is embracing this dated technology for MX/SX use? It seems highly unlikely that anyone would return to a system long since retired. What top MX teams and/or riders are using this?



> Now imagine blowin by the guy you're trying to pass because you can go deeper braking without the backend slammin you when it loses half its travel.


That's a nice bit of misleading, marketing talk.. You forgot to add to that sentence that you would have had to lock your rear brake completely for the suspension to suffer as described above. Who does that? Beginners, maybe some Novices? Certainly not Intermediate, Expert or Pro level riders.

Are you impling people are winning using your setup? If so, who?

_Just sparking friendly discussion...._ 

_***I own bikes with and without floating rear brakes.*_


----------



## GGAllen (Jul 18, 2004)

shock said:


> And that statement's just goofy! avoid your rear brake? How bout use both as hard as you can for maximum stopping ability? or use the rear when your at such a steep angle that the front brake would throw you over the bars? or wash out the front? Sure just grab a handful of front brake, there are times when I don't dare touch the front brake, but still need to slow down.


You either didn't read my entire post or are unaware of the actually usefulness (or lack thereof) of the rear brake on a MX bike.

On any two wheel vehicle, MX or Sportbike, the rear brake is more of a "handling" tool than a slowing device.



> You're just used to it. If you put the floater on you'd realize how much negative effect it was having.


 Again, typed clearly in my previous post, I own a bike with a floating rear brake. I'm aware of the "effect". However, eliminating it isn't going to get you down the mountain any quicker.

If you depend heavely on the rear brake for your slowing needs and you have some difficulty modulating rear wheel lockup, then a floating arm can help mask some of the _*self induced*_ "problems" associated with brake jack.

A smarter recommendation is to learn better brake control through established "brake zones" and learn the limits of your front brake.

Just my $.02


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

GGAllen said:


> No disrespect, but who besides your company is embracing this dated technology for MX/SX use? It seems highly unlikely that anyone would return to a system long since retired. What top MX teams and/or riders are using this?
> 
> That's a nice bit of misleading, marketing talk.. You forgot to add to that sentence that you would have had to lock your rear brake completely for the suspension to suffer as described above. Who does that? Beginners, maybe some Novices? Certainly not Intermediate, Expert or Pro level riders.
> 
> ...


Stay tuned on who is using/going to use floaters on mx bikes. And try not to be so negative on what is or isn't "outdated technology". People/companies return to/retry technologies all the time. Maybe it's because a new approach or feature lets something that has been forgotten reappear and/or become viable again.

By the way, your comment about the wheel having to be locked is completely wrong. The brake force interaction with the suspension occurs whenever there is brake force, not just when the wheel is locked. Part of your misunderstanding might be due to the fact that, with or without a floating brake, the wheel will momentarily lock when it is in the air, which BTW, occurs much more on a non-floater bike.

Let's see, what else, just on the comment of who locks their brakes, have you ever heard of setting up a corner by inducing a slide with the rear brake? Again, kind of irrelavant to the discussion, but there is certainly a time/place for rear brake locking, even on mountain bikes!!!

Oh, and I don't do marketing talk. I don't even know how. If I did I'd be rich I tell ya, rich.

I'm one of those designer guys you're talking about, except I didn't give up on the idea of removing the brake suspension interaction. I have made my entire carrer out of solving problems, and this is a problem worth solving, and I have to say, thousands of customers seem to agree.


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

GGAllen said:



> You either didn't read my entire post or are unaware of the actually usefulness (or lack thereof) of the rear brake on a MX bike.
> 
> On any two wheel vehicle, MX or Sportbike, the rear brake is more of a "handling" tool than a slowing device.
> 
> ...


Um, I did read your entire post. My comments about the rear brake that you quoted were actually more aimed at the mountain bike application, where steep nasty descents are a bit more common, but certainly they would apply to MX as well.

As for my understanding of the rear brake use on an MX bike, I raced motocross for 15 years, so I have used my share of rear brake. In fact, since usually you are not descending, there is much more weight on the rear wheel in MX, making the rear brake potentially much more usefull. Perhaps what keeps you from using it so much is the fact the rear suspension doesn't work so well, and the rear brake doesn't stop you so well because of it.

Hey, next time you're out on your mx bike, try riding the course without touching the rear brake, just to see. Let me know what happens. Really. Maybe throw a stopwatch on just for laughs. If it doesn't do you any good, take it off and save a few pounds.

I still don't understand why you have a resistance to the extra braking available from a rear brake. In ANY kind of racing, you want to brake as hard as possible, and slow down in the shortest possible distance. This means using the front and rear brake to the max. Unless it screws up your rear suspension.....

As for your recommendation of "better braking control in established braking zones" and learning the limits of the front brakes, again, that just seems a little narrow minded. Why not use the rear brake to its maximum? why not?

Interesting side note, floating brakes seem to be making an appearance on road racing motorcycles, hmmm.

And I really don't think the DH pros that are using them have them on their bikes because they don't work....or our customers that have the option of returning their floating brake for a full refund if they don't like them.

Keep an open mind. The one thing that always strikes me when a floater discussion comes up is the negativity. It doesn't serve any positive purpose to an engineering discussion....but I guess that's part of the problem with internet/posting...

Just me 1 cent

Brian


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

Yep, any amount of braking can cause brake squat. Locking the wheel just makes it most obvious. I do not believe at all that the rear brake is "more of a handling tool than a slowing device." If you are not using both brakes to slow your bike, you are missing out on alot of braking power.

As shock said, locking the rear wheel is not something that only novices do. Sometimes it is necessary to intentionally lose traction in the rear to change direction of the bike quickly.


----------



## Stinky Wiz (Jan 27, 2004)

It makes sense to me to remove at least the torsion forces from the swingarm that a disk brake applies. Anything that allows the rear to more effectively remain in contact with the ground under braking reduces ones dependence on the front and hence give more leeway in ones decision making at critical junctures. 

I'm a sorta ex sportbike guy (ricerockets) and learned how to use the front almost exclusively in that game. I try to apply those principles to MTB with good success, but a more effective (useful deeper into the mess and under harsher conditions) rear brake would seem to me to be a good thing.

I suspect the stiffer/beefier swingarms on most of the modern sportbikes better handles a lot of the stress a swingarm mounted caliper used to cause with more dated designs.


----------



## jfl (Aug 30, 2005)

*a floater add-on to my Bullit would be awesome;*

however, 300 dollars seems rather steep. Does any place sell one for less than $200?


----------



## GGAllen (Jul 18, 2004)

shock said:


> As for my understanding of the rear brake use on an MX bike, I raced motocross for 15 years, so I have used my share of rear brake. In fact, since usually you are not descending, there is much more weight on the rear wheel in MX, making the rear brake potentially much more usefull. Perhaps what keeps you from using it so much is the fact the rear suspension doesn't work so well, and the rear brake doesn't stop you so well because of it.


I as well. Grew up on motorcycles _*and*_ bicycles. Raced BMX at Ascot park in Gardena, CA. 77-83. MX from 83-93. Qualified for two Supercross main events in '89 (didn't crack the top twelve at the finish. But still qualified.  ). Participated in dozens of track days (roadracing) in the last decade and currently race Supermoto monthly. Throughout that time I've always had a mountain bike.

Nothing wrong with the rear suspension, or it's interaction with the brakes. I just prefer to use the brake that will stop me in the shortest distance, on the wheel with the most traction.



> Hey, next time you're out on your mx bike, try riding the course without touching the rear brake, just to see. Let me know what happens. Really. Maybe throw a stopwatch on just for laughs. If it doesn't do you any good, take it off and save a few pounds.


Youv'e misquoted me, again. As I stated in other posts, it's very useful as a _*handling*_ tool (help prevent wheelspin, initiate a slide, square up a corner, mid air attitude adjustments..). The rear brake is essential in these situations. It is *not* essential for quickly slowing the bike.

I wonder how your test would fare if we ran it using ONLY the rear brake for slowing?? A stopwatch? We would need a calendar. 



> I still don't understand why you have a resistance to the extra braking available from a rear brake. In ANY kind of racing, you want to brake as hard as possible, and slow down in the shortest possible distance. This means using the front and rear brake to the max..


If you are braking as hard as possible with your strongest brake (front), your rear wheel will become unweighted and unsuitable as a slowing tool.



> As for your recommendation of "better braking control in established braking zones" and learning the limits of the front brakes, again, that just seems a little narrow minded. Why not use the rear brake to its maximum? why not?


Great question. The reason is, the more brake you apply to the front wheel, the less traction the rear wheel has, rendering it nearly impossible to predict the lock up point and therefore making it a poor choice for quick, controlled slowing.

I think my recommendation is solid. Master the front brake. Pick the line with the most traction when approaching a turn and brake as hard as possible using the front brake. If AFTER you have slowed to your desired entrance speed and you need to square up the turn, then the rear brake should be used, again, as a handling tool.. Guaranteed to get you in deeper than the guy trying to modulate the rear brake and skidding all over the entrance to the turn.



> Interesting side note, floating brakes seem to be making an appearance on road racing motorcycles, hmmm.


Where? I haven't seen a sport bike with a floating brake arm for many years.. I know for certain it's not used in top level roadracing. Can you provide a picture?



> And I really don't think the DH pros that are using them have them on their bikes because they don't work....or our customers that have the option of returning their floating brake for a full refund if they don't like them.


Many of the _fastest_ pros _do not_ use a floating brake arm. Those that do are using them on a (sponsored) frame that came with one. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the aftermarket.

However, I believe floating brake arms work 100% as advertised. They are best in _*short*_ steep rocky sections where the front brake must be used gingerly, if at all. *However*, these sections are few and far between when dissecting a downhill course. Even when presented with said section, it's not very difficult to modulate the rear brake to mimic a floating arm. *IMO they address a sensation that exist but doesn't warrant bolting additional arms and linkages to the bike.*



> Keep an open mind. The one thing that always strikes me when a floater discussion comes up is the negativity.....but I guess that's part of the problem with internet/posting...


I'm honestly not trying to be negative. These are my experiences using a fixed caliper after growing up with many floating rear brakes.

It's hard to be a Yin to a Yang.


----------



## GGAllen (Jul 18, 2004)

shock said:


> Stay tuned on who is using/going to use floaters on mx bikes. And try not to be so negative on what is or isn't "outdated technology". People/companies return to/retry technologies all the time. Maybe it's because a new approach or feature lets something that has been forgotten reappear and/or become viable again.


It's not negative or positive. It is what it is. Outdated. What new approach have you brought to this technology? It looks/fuctions just like it did in the late Seventies..



> By the way, your comment about the wheel having to be locked is completely wrong. The brake force interaction with the suspension occurs whenever there is brake force, not just when the wheel is locked.


I know that. Reread my post. I was directly reffereing to *your* comment about losing *HALF* of your travel through brake jack. That doesn't happen by just applying the brakes. You have to lock them in order to loose that much travel.



> Part of your misunderstanding might be due to the fact that, with or without a floating brake, the wheel will momentarily lock when it is in the air, which BTW, occurs much more on a non-floater bike.


 ??? Not sure what your logic/point is here...



> Let's see, what else, just on the comment of who locks their brakes, have you ever heard of setting up a corner by inducing a slide with the rear brake? Again, kind of irrelavant to the discussion, but there is certainly a time/place for rear brake locking, even on mountain bikes!!!


Now I know you didn't read my post in it's entirety..  That's what I have been saying all along.


----------



## kawboy8 (May 5, 2004)

*I have an ASX and...*

I don't have any problems with brake jacking. Brake late and skate over the breaking bumps...all the fancy linkage on the back will do no good if you go too slow. Work on your corner speed and...so you can enter faster...and things will smooth out. The ASX works really well and corners like a champ. go faster!!


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

GGAllen said:


> Even when presented with said section, it's not very difficult to modulate the rear brake to mimic a floating arm. *IMO they address a sensation that exist but doesn't warrant bolting additional arms and linkages to the bike.*
> 
> I'm honestly not trying to be negative. These are my experiences using a fixed caliper after growing up with many floating rear brakes.
> 
> It's hard to be a Yin to a Yang.


Huh? If you don't like neutral braking then why are you running a floater on your Fly???

Modulate the rear brake to mimic a floating arm? The only way to do that is not use the rear brake at all...

This brings up a question: Pretend there are two lawwil type bikes. One has a parallel linkage (Instant Center infinite distance in front of the bike), similar to what a floating brake provides, and the other has an Instant Center within the front triangle, causing it to brake exactly like a single-pivot. So both frames will weigh similar, and neither frame will have an extra "arm or linkage." In this case, which design would you rather have as far as braking?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

kawboy8 said:


> I don't have any problems with brake jacking. Brake late and skate over the breaking bumps...all the fancy linkage on the back will do no good if you go too slow. Work on your corner speed and...so you can enter faster...and things will smooth out. The ASX works really well and corners like a champ. go faster!!


Well, how many people riding a Jr T thought it felt like crap untill they tried something else? If it was their first long travel fork, probably none of them.

The faster you can slow down, the faster you will go, and being in control when slowing down=faster braking. Faster braking in turns means you will be faster to get back on the power and accellerate out of the turn.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

WheelieMan said:


> This brings up a question: Pretend there are two lawwil type bikes. One has a parallel linkage (Instant Center infinite distance in front of the bike), similar to what a floating brake provides, and the other has an Instant Center within the front triangle, causing it to brake exactly like a single-pivot. So both frames will weigh similar, and neither frame will have an extra "arm or linkage." In this case, which design would you rather have as far as braking?


I know what you are getting at, and it's a valid point, but the lawill design is a poor choice for an example, as the brake caliper rotates BACKWARDS under compression, and that causes the "stinkbug" or true "brake jack" effect. This is why the latter lawill bikes had a linkage arrangement to keep the caliper from rotating.

I'd rather have the lawill bike that brakes like a single pivot, as compared to a lawill bike with the caliper just bolted to the rear member where the wheel is. Squatting is better than extending in this case.

A lot of people don't notice the rear end stiffening when using the brakes because they ride very smooth terrain, or have a shorter travel bike. The other big reason is because they've never spent much time on a bike that is "fully active" in terms of braking. On the other hand, there are those of us that do not fit into these catagories and we can detect when the brake is interfearing with the suspension.

Pros without floating brakes are faster because their bikes are lighter and they can pedal more. Pedaling still wins races. Is the high pivot of an orange 224 a good suspension design? It is semi-active, will be harsh under smaller impacts, have tons of pedal feedback due to an extending chainline, but it's light and the pros can take advantage of this fact and overcome the disadvantages due to their skill.


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

Jayem said:


> I know what you are getting at, and it's a valid point, but the lawill design is a poor choice for an example, as the brake caliper rotates BACKWARDS under compression, and that causes the "stinkbug" or true "brake jack" effect. This is why the latter lawill bikes had a linkage arrangement to keep the caliper from rotating.
> 
> I'd rather have the lawill bike that brakes like a single pivot, as compared to a lawill bike with the caliper just bolted to the rear member where the wheel is. Squatting is better than extending in this case.


You're right, lawwil designs almost always have the Instant Center located behind the rear wheel, causing true brake jack. Which is definitely a negative trait.

But I'm talking about a design _similar_ to lawwil with parallel links for my comparison, so the floating link would not rotate backwards. I would most definitely rather have a neutral bike over a bike that squats a great deal.


----------



## GGAllen (Jul 18, 2004)

WheelieMan said:


> Huh? If you don't like neutral braking then why are you running a floater on your Fly???


Not sure what you mean by "neutral braking", but I never said I didn't like the floater. Nor do I think it negatively affects handling. I'm of the opinion that it addresses a sensation that is *rider induced*  and can be easily "corrected" through technique, not a $300.00 part, if need be.

Regarding the Foes Fly, the bike comes with a floater from the factory. I would have bought the frame with or without the floater. _****See below*_



> Modulate the rear brake to mimic a floating arm? The only way to do that is not use the rear brake at all...


 Let me rephrase. I can modulate the rear brake to the point that any noticeable affect on the suspension is negligible.


> This brings up a question: Pretend there are two lawwil type bikes. One has a parallel linkage (Instant Center infinite distance in front of the bike), similar to what a floating brake provides, and the other has an Instant Center within the front triangle, causing it to brake exactly like a single-pivot. So both frames will weigh similar, and neither frame will have an extra "arm or linkage." In this case, which design would you rather have as far as braking?


Without taking this thread in a different direction.. I don't have a problem with most current SP designs. Simple, stiff and it works as intended.

That said, I wouldn't choose a frame based on assumed rear brake performance. That's not a factor that is important to me. I realize it may be to some though..


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

GGAllen said:


> Not sure what you mean by "neutral braking", but I never said I didn't like the floater. Nor do I think it negatively affects handling. I'm of the opinion that it addresses a sensation that is *rider induced*  and can be easily "corrected" through technique, not a $300.00 part, if need be.
> 
> Regarding the Foes Fly, the bike comes with a floater from the factory. I would have bought the frame with or without the floater. _****See below*_
> 
> ...


Neutral braking would be when the suspension does not jack, or squat.

If this sensation is so easily corrected through technique, why don't you use this technique and ditch the floater??? Can you not remove the floater from the Fly?

Once again, any time the rear brake is used on a single-pivot, the suspension will squat, no way around it. The only way to reduce brake squat on a single-pivot without adding a floating brake, is to brake less often or softer. This is obviously not the solution...

This is definitely a personal preference issue.


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

GGAllen,

I'm going to assume from your stated SX history that you are damn nearly as old as I am. But for some reason you keep wanting to take this discussion down a level, accusing me of misquoting you, and questioning my reading/comprehension skills.

The first quote from you that I really objected to was 

"Originally Posted by GGAllen
Agreed, you should avoid it because the front brake slows the bike faster and it does so in a much shorter distance. 

Was this not you? Were you not refering to avoiding the rear brake? 

Next quote:

Originally Posted by GGAllen
"You forgot to add to that sentence that you would have had to lock your rear brake completely for the suspension to suffer as described above. Who does that? Beginners, maybe some Novices? Certainly not Intermediate, Expert or Pro level riders"

Was this not you? asking who locks their rear brake other than beginners?

And as I mentioned previously, brake lock is NOT a precondition for the suspension to act adversly due to those forces. And by adversly, I mean not as well as it would to absorb bumps and maintain traction. Traction which can be used to stop or turn the vehicle, and/or maintain control.

And another quote"

Originally Posted by GGAllen
"I just prefer to use the brake that will stop me in the shortest distance, on the wheel with the most traction."

Again, why not use the rear brake to it's maximum? Why not? 

Your following explanation:

Originally Posted by GGAllen
"If you are braking as hard as possible with your strongest brake (front), your rear wheel will become unweighted and unsuitable as a slowing tool."

and

Originally Posted by GGAllen
"The reason is, the more brake you apply to the front wheel, the less traction the rear wheel has, rendering it nearly impossible to predict the lock up point and therefore making it a poor choice for quick, controlled slowing."

These comments just don't make any sense. Why on earth would you give up ANY braking effort. Because the rear brake is too hard to modulate? Hell I can modulate a rear brake lockup with ease. And I do, to make sure I'm getting every available bit of braking possible, and/or to use it for handling/control, which is pretty dependant on modulating that rear brake. Right?

Would you agree or disagree that the lockup of the front brake is MUCH harder to modulate? For me it certainly is, and I would guess for the majority of riders in the world. Especially if 1) the tire is leaned (or off camber), 2) the tire is turned, 3) the tire is traversing roots, rocks or other challenges to the suspension that may inhibit traction. 4) it's wet. 5) loose conditions 6) steep conditions. And a few more I'm too tired to think of.

Would you say that the likelyhood of crashing is worse when overusing the frontbrake, or overusing the rear brake?

Would you agree that a rear brake ads ANY braking? even 10 %? Why would you not want to use that just because the front brake offers a higher percentage? Do you think you can achieve 100% braking with the front brake in all conditions? Even if the rear brake only offers 10%, would that not be a benefit?

Your refusal to acknowledge that it is useful to use the rear brake to slow down (Ok, let me quote you "unsuitable as a slowing tool") is a SILLY argument, and does nothing for this discussion. 

I'm not misquoting you.

ANY vehicle, will stop quicker, with more control using all of the available traction from all it's wheels, and all the braking force available to those wheels. Period. Even if the rear wheel is completely locked, it is still going to stop quicker than if you don't use it at all. period. You can't escape that fact.


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

As for the road racing issue, I once had the fortune/pleasure of working with Eddie Lawson. He used to tell me in the bad old days they didn't use their rear brake because the back tire was off the ground. He also said that's not the case anymore. 

I don't really know why, but I have a tendancy to believe him. I've also heard recentlyof a clutch that is designed to intentionally slip on the overrun. Seems the braking effect of the engine can cause the rear suspension to skip in the braking bumps.

Bottom line. These guys are trying to get everything they can. If they can get 1% they'll take it, 5-10% is huge. That's what racing is about, maximizing everything you can get. Yes, and if you can't you try to ride around it.


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

Originally Posted by GGAllen
"However, I believe floating brake arms work 100% as advertised. They are best in short steep rocky sections where the front brake must be used gingerly, if at all. However, these sections are few and far between when dissecting a downhill course. Even when presented with said section, it's not very difficult to modulate the rear brake to mimic a floating arm. "

A few problems with this quote as well. Is this to say that if you were to use the front brake, say between 30 and 70%, that you wouldn't be using enough rear brake to make it a useful slowing device?

And how is it that it's so easy to modulate the rear brake to mimic a floating brake (which by the way is a violation of the laws of physics), but in your earlier quote 

Originally Posted by GGAllen
"rendering it nearly impossible to predict the lock up point and therefore making it a poor choice for quick, controlled slowing"

And I really have problems with 

Originally Posted by GGAllen
"They are best in short steep rocky sections where the front brake must be used gingerly, if at all. However, these sections are few and far between when dissecting a downhill course"

Off the top of my head, staring with Mt Snow, Mammoth (Velocity and Bullit), Park City, Squaw Vally WC, Schwietzer Mountain, all had plenty of these type of sections. 

Even Big Bear and the Kamakazi have plenty of opportunity to use the rear brake AS A SLOWING DEVICE. The last year I did the Kamakazi, Both my front and rear brake disc were blue at the bottom. And there was just about only one place that I was using the brakes, and I guarantee you I needed them both, hard. And they didnt get blue from locking up.

One very interesting difference between a mc and an mtb. You don't have the ability to get your weight as low and as far to the rear on any motorcycle, especially road. The ability to plant your butt on the back tire is one reason it's easier to survive nasty descents, and also to use the rear brake more.


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

I was going to attempt to summarize, but I know it will be in vain, but,

Most of the riders (that have posted on this thread) seem to agree that the rear brake is very useful to use in order to stop the bike faster, in shorter distance, with more control, as opposed to not using it. 

I would also say that ALL of our customers would tell you that our floating brakes make this easier, allowing them to descend quicker, with more control. Because their rear suspension is more able to follow the terrain.

That's not marketing talk, and these customers are not idiots. They range from beginners to pros (in most cases pros that paid me for their floating brake).

They didn't hang it on there for the bling factor, or because they wanted useless parts on their bikes.


Brian


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

And I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but what the hell. 

About this contention that the rear brake is only marginally useful in slowing the bike down, why has the 8" rear disc become standard equipment on DH bikes. A bit much for just a "handling tool"....


----------



## Steve from JH (Dec 30, 2003)

shock said:


> And I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but what the hell.


Shock, I've been following the debate here, as I always do on this subject, and I mostly agree with you.

But lately my understanding of the theory behind the braking advantage from a floater has changed. You talk, and I used to talk, about an advantage in traction resulting from better suspension performance with neutral braking. I've come to believe that there's probably no difference in suspension performance between the floater and non-floater as long as traction holds perfectly. The difference occurs when traction is momentarily lost. The floater is likely to regain traction with the rider hardly noticing anything has happened. The non-floater rear end, loaded up with a compressive force, suddenly extends, causing a serious loss of traction accompanied by an oscillation of the suspension unrelated to the terrain.

To put it simply: bad suspension performance with the non-floater is caused by a loss of traction, not the other way around.

What do you think?


----------



## TNC (Jan 21, 2004)

*I wondered about this.*



Steve from JH said:


> Shock, I've been following the debate here, as I always do on this subject, and I mostly agree with you.
> 
> But lately my understanding of the theory behind the braking advantage from a floater has changed. You talk, and I used to talk, about an advantage in traction resulting from better suspension performance with neutral braking. I've come to believe that there's probably no difference in suspension performance between the floater and non-floater as long as traction holds perfectly. The difference occurs when traction is momentarily lost. The floater is likely to regain traction with the rider hardly noticing anything has happened. The non-floater rear end, loaded up with a compressive force, suddenly extends, causing a serious loss of traction accompanied by an oscillation of the suspension unrelated to the terrain.
> 
> ...


Following this thread and my past interest in floaters had me wondering about that aspect you just mentioned...and in reality it's probably a little semantics involved also. I mean, isn't it really all about "traction" in the sense that whatever aids in keeping the rear tire in a controlled contact with the ground is a very good thing. I think this where Brian's mention of pavement racing bikes also benefiting from a floater has validity...though the dynamics aren't as obvious as compared to off road conditions.

Also some of these comments about staying off the brakes may be somewhat optimistic as a solution to brake squat. Obviously there are DH courses and gnarly trails where this is a plausible solution, but there are many more that come to mind where a floater could really be beneficial...Brian mentioned some of these. The one that always comes to my mind is Moab Rim DH course. That sucker has got to be one of the steepest and fastest rides around. I don't care who you are, you're going to use some heavy duty braking on that course. Traction is awesome, but the steepness and switchbacks let you gain so much speed and then require massive braking to make a turn. That's the only place I've ever "blued" my rotors. I was on a Bullit when riding it and would have appreciated a floater on that one for sure.

The only reason a floater is not on my big hit bike right now is that niggling issue of the floater having to be specific to the hub. Well, not the whole floater, but a very expensive part of it that makes the interface with the hub. I'm a whining weenie when it comes to proprietary parts for bikes, as I like to swap wheels and have maximum flexibility. Even at that, I'm still on the verge of getting one because I think the principle and function is sound.

On these dirt motorcycle comparisons, I've noticed something...whether it has any real engineering application. I've ridden/raced motorcycles since '70...still ride dirt motorcycles, but don't race. I was a fairly decent A-level enduro rider. When I started dirt biking, many high end bikes had factory floaters as a matter of course. They also only had about 4 to 6 inches of travel in many cases. I noticed floaters started going away as dirt bikes went into that 10-14 inch travel area. Since most here agree that travel is reduced or at least highly diminished by brake squat...or as Steve suggested, traction is diminished...maybe the longer travel bikes were able to maintain a better quality of rear wheel control for the benefit of traction and suspension action even in light of brake squat. I still think they would benefit from floaters, but perhaps that was an area where manufacturers could eliminate an item to save money, weight, etc., where extemely long travel suspension had improved an identified bugaboo to a more acceptable level.

I do feel that motorcycles and bicycles do have one extremely different aspect...weight. The biggest thing that I noticed when coming from motors to bicycles was how easily bicycles are upset, knocked off line, or influenced by a myriad of other inputs...good and bad. I can certainly see where a floater eliminates just one more negative issue that's trying to cause our bikes to lose traction and control.


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

Steve from JH said:


> Shock, I've been following the debate here, as I always do on this subject, and I mostly agree with you.
> 
> But lately my understanding of the theory behind the braking advantage from a floater has changed. You talk, and I used to talk, about an advantage in traction resulting from better suspension performance with neutral braking. I've come to believe that there's probably no difference in suspension performance between the floater and non-floater as long as traction holds perfectly. The difference occurs when traction is momentarily lost. The floater is likely to regain traction with the rider hardly noticing anything has happened. The non-floater rear end, loaded up with a compressive force, suddenly extends, causing a serious loss of traction accompanied by an oscillation of the suspension unrelated to the terrain.
> 
> ...


I think it's easy to get a little confused by the "chicken or egg" question. But why is traction lost? Typically this is because the brake force has upset the "perfect" suspension setup. 
That is to say, you spend a lot of time dialing in the spring, compression and rebound damping to match your weight, riding style and terrain. All of a sudden you hit the brakes and introduce several hundred pounds of brake force. This is like suddenly changing your suspension settings. That "perfect" compromise you had is no longer.

Keep in mind, there are two different phenomenon happening when you hit the brakes. one is the torque reaction from the caliper grabbing the spinning disc and wheel, and trying to slow it down. This happens whether or not the wheel is touching the ground.

We had a demo at Interbike this year (and I'm going to try to have a video of it soon).
The demo was simply a crank with a rear swingarm and wheel. On the swingarm, a brake caliper was mounted in the conventional sense. There was also a floating brake mounted on this apparatus. So you could spin the cranks, get the wheel going, and grab a handful of either brake.

When you hit the conventional brake, the rear wheel would jump up 6" (there was no spring on the shock). When you hit the floating brake, the swingarm didn't move at all, just instantly stopped the wheel.

It was a very dramatic demonstration, that really opened peoples eyes about brake force being introduced to the suspension. Note that this spinning wheel was not touching the "ground" at all, just spinning in mid-air. But when you hit the brakes on the trail, the same thing is happening, the rear wheel wants to compress. if at that very instant, the wheel needs to extend to follow the "backside" of a bump (say it's already compressed after hitting a bump) it will be unable to, so the tire will leave the ground, and traction will be lost.

So the extension you're talking about occurs after the wheel comes of the ground, typically resulting in the wheel extending into the "upside" of the next bump, when in fact it should be compressing again to follow that upramp. At this point, everything is out of sync, and the cycle can get worse with each succesive bump.

Now, that says nothing about the other interaction, that is the brake force transmitted through the wheel/ground interface. This force is trying to drag the wheel to the rear, and since the suspension pivot is in front of and above this interface (on just about everything but a lawill bike) , this tries to move the wheel up, compressing the suspension.

So in this case, it is the very existance of traction that causes this to happen, so by definition, the tire is on the ground in order for this to occur. When this occurs, and this force is removed (again, on the back side of the bump because the tire is off the ground), the supension suddenly extends after the tire leaves the ground. so you've already lost traction, and again the wheel is hitting the next bump with more violence than if it could roll up the bump like it should, like it's "slappping" into it. Again, suspension is out of sync, and the problem can get worse with each succesive bump. In the past, I have used a similarity to what can happen if you use waayyy too much rebound damping. The wheel can't react to the ground fast enough, and keeps hitting the next bump in a less than desirable state. It's not the same thing of course, but the feeling can be similar in that you don't have all of your travel available when you need it most.

It's this interaction with the ground that the clutch slipping on overrun (I mentioned earlier on road racing bikes) is being used, as there is no caliper to put force into the suspension in that example. There it's just the compression of the engine causing the problem.

BTW, you could also see this on out demo unit. When you held the conventional brake on, and pushed to the rear at the bottom of the wheel (mimicing the force at the ground), the supension would compress. it was weird, the rear wheel would just move up, when you were pushing 100% to the rear. When you did this with the floating brake applied, this wouldn't happen. Again, very dramatic to watch and feel.

Hope this helps clear some things up, and thanks for "rerailing" this thread. I'm afraid I derailled it a bit just talking about why you want to use the rear brake, but I guess it's all relevant.


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

TNC said:


> On these dirt motorcycle comparisons, I've noticed something...whether it has any real engineering application. I've ridden/raced motorcycles since '70...still ride dirt motorcycles, but don't race. I was a fairly decent A-level enduro rider. When I started dirt biking, many high end bikes had factory floaters as a matter of course. They also only had about 4 to 6 inches of travel in many cases. I noticed floaters started going away as dirt bikes went into that 10-14 inch travel area. Since most here agree that travel is reduced or at least highly diminished by brake squat...or as Steve suggested, traction is diminished...maybe the longer travel bikes were able to maintain a better quality of rear wheel control for the benefit of traction and suspension action even in light of brake squat. I still think they would benefit from floaters, but perhaps that was an area where manufacturers could eliminate an item to save money, weight, etc., where extemely long travel suspension had improved an identified bugaboo to a more acceptable level.


Yes, the hub compatibility issue is a giant pain. We're working on some floaters that don' have this issue, but more on that later.

Relative to the mx bikes again, if my faulty memory serves, Maicos (which i rode), some ktm's, and a couple of Yamahas were the only bikes I remember having floaters. And as you mentioned, much less travel (and lower "quality" travel due to limited shock technology). They also had drum brakes, which din't really work that well at all.

Certainly the "suspension revolution", starting with moving the "twin" shocks forward on the swingarm, and on to single shocks with linkages, took a majority of the development time, energy and money. At the same time, disc brakes were becoming common, so obviously suspension and braking performance were improving by leaps and bounds through the 80's and 90's. Sure, I'll take a modern bike's suspension and braking over my Maico's floating brake any day (although nothing can replace that sweet Maico handling, coupled with the whirr of the primary chain and ringing noise from the huge cylinder and head fins).

My take on this, there were much bigger fish to fry, and gains to be made. That has all settled down a bit. Can't get more travel, the bike gets too tall and handling goes to hell. Brakes are pretty dialled. Still more available in shock technology, but getting harder and harder to find. Now we are looking for other areas of improvement. How 'bout keeping that state of the art suspension working?

Again, watch a good outdoor national MX (it happens in SX, too, but it's not so apparent, the courses are too artificial and groomed). Think Red Bud, or (RIP?) Carlsbad. It's very easy to watch the back suspension"lock up" when the riders are braking. And watch the riders get pounded and fight for control in those braking bumps. Baking bumps, by the way, that are caused, and always get worse, by the "out of sync" suspension as it tries to fllow the bumps and deal with braking force at the same time.

At Carlsbad, with steep descents and rock hard "pavement" (blue groove at it's finest), these braking bumps got a square edged, pothole-like characteristic that would hammer you.

When discussing this with the local pro MXers, to a man, they know exactly what I'm talking about, and are very enthusiastic about making this problem better. The problem of floaters is a bit more complex with mx bikes. You really don't want the linkage hanging under the swingarm (look again at the picture of theYamaha posted earlier, the rod is beat to hell), and there are a lot of things in the way up top (exhaust system, subframes, airbox, rear brake pedal and mc). In addition, the caliper mount on an mx bike is actually part of the caliper. This all adds up to a giant pain for design and construction.

But we seem to be getting a handle on that. Our mx floaters are not yet ready for prime time retail sales, but they're close. They won't be cheap, but they'll work great. I suspect the manufactures will be all over this in years to come. Much easier to design this OE than make a retrofit kit.


----------



## GGAllen (Jul 18, 2004)

WheelieMan said:


> Can you not remove the floater from the Fly?


I suppose I could, but why? It's not a detriment in any way (save for a few oz's). I would never *NOT  * buy a frame because it included a floater. However, I wouldn't _*add*_ it to a bike that didn't come with one for any price, let alone $300.00..

I think I have a unique perspective opposed to some of the posters on this thread as I own and ride two SP bikes, one with a floater _*and*_ one without. I understand completely the mechanics/physics involved regarding brake torque applied on the end of a swingarm and I agree, there is a distinct *difference* between the two while on the rear brake over rough terrain.

However, while the "difference" is clearly felt, I can't honestly say that the addition of a floater will make you faster. Nearly every time I experience brake jack, it's because I missed my marker and was forced to panic brake in a section I shouldn't have been using the rear brake (or any brake for that matter) to begin with. I _can_ honestly say that a floating rear brake has very little to *no* tangible affect on my personal riding style.

If you like yours and you think it makes you faster, great.


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

Hey GGAllen,

First, If I showin' a bit of "tude in my responses to your responses, I really don't mean to. I like to be as objective and logical as possible when discussing an engineering topic.

Having said that, I suppose that's why you don't bother answering the questions I pose...

But as to your "unique perspective", consider this....Every one of my customers has an even better perspective...that is that they have ridden THE SAME bike, both with and without a floating brake...

In any engineering exercise, the back-to-back test is a far, far, far more worthwhile experience, and the only way to make a valid comparison. Saying you ride one bike with a floater and a different one without is like comparing a different shock on two different bikes, not really valid.

That's why I asked you to do the tests, to see for yourself, and give an objective report, on the differences of a floating brake on the same exact bike.

But I'm glad you at least admit to feeling a distinct difference, and the fact that when you get in trouble, it becomes more important.

If you keep an open mind and consider that the act of DH racing often involves "panic braking" and "missing your brake points", I guess I consider that progress.

Now if we could just get you to try your Fly without the floater, (or your Gemini with one), we'd really have a unique perspective...Keep in mind, full money back gaurantee always applies. You don't like it (for any reason), you give it back for a full refund.....


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

GGAllen said:


> I suppose I could, but why? It's not a detriment in any way (save for a few oz's). I would never *NOT  * buy a frame because it included a floater. However, I wouldn't _*add*_ it to a bike that didn't come with one for any price, let alone $300.00..
> 
> I think I have a unique perspective opposed to some of the posters on this thread as I own and ride two SP bikes, one with a floater _*and*_ one without. I understand completely the mechanics/physics involved regarding brake torque applied on the end of a swingarm and I agree, there is a distinct *difference* between the two while on the rear brake over rough terrain.


You're not the only one in this thread who has ridden a single-pivot with and without a floater. I myself have a bike that I purchased with a floater, and have taken it off before to see what it would feel like, but the floater is back on to stay. There is no better test than to use *the same bike* with a floater, and without.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

GGAllen said:


> I suppose I could, but why? It's not a detriment in any way


So you like dragging around excess weight? Why not just bolt a few more weights to the bike? Remove the floating brake and put something functional on your bike, like a saddle bag.


----------



## GGAllen (Jul 18, 2004)

shock said:


> ..But for some reason you keep wanting to take this discussion down a level, accusing me of misquoting you, and questioning my reading/comprehension skills.


 Well, you _*did*_ misquote me.. and you clearly _*didn't*_ read my prior posts as evidenced by your statement about using the rear brake to initiate a slide..


> The first quote from you that I really objected to was:
> Agreed, you should avoid it because the front brake slows the bike faster and it does so in a much shorter distance.


Although there is some truth in this statement, It was a single sentence, tongue in cheek comment directed to another poster. Lighten up.


> Next quote:
> You forgot to add to that sentence that you would have had to lock your rear brake completely for the suspension to suffer as described above. Who does that? Beginners, maybe some Novices? Certainly not Intermediate, Expert or Pro level riders
> Was this not you? asking who locks their rear brake other than beginners?


Again, this was in direct response to _*your*_ description of a technique used when entering a turn with braking bumps and like it or not, locking the rear brake over braking bumps approaching a turn _*IS*_ a beginner move and is definitely NOT the fastest way through the section.



> And another quote:
> 
> I just prefer to use the brake that will stop me in the shortest distance, on the wheel with the most traction.
> Again, why not use the rear brake to it's maximum? Why not?
> ...


Nothing to add. Your question and my answer are contained within.. 



> and
> "The reason is, the more brake you apply to the front wheel, the less traction the rear wheel has, rendering it nearly impossible to predict the lock up point and therefore making it a poor choice for quick, controlled slowing.
> These comments just don't make any sense. Why on earth would you give up ANY braking effort.


 You're not, And my above comment makes perfect sense. Look, to make it easier to understand let's say you have 100% of braking power available and you can split the ratio any way you want between the front and rear brake. You may choose 70f-30r, I choose to scan the trail for maximum traction, then use 95f-5r. No matter the ratio, it will always add up to 100%. i.e., I'm not "giving up" _any_ braking power to your method. In addition, I'm decreasing the slowing distance by using a higher front brake bias



> Would you agree or disagree that the lockup of the front brake is MUCH harder to modulate?


It absolutely _is_ harder to modulate the front brake at or near lockup. That's precisely why it's smart to practice. It was hard without training wheels the first time 'round too.


> Do you think you can achieve 100% braking with the front brake in all conditions?


Of course not.



> Would you say that the likelyhood of crashing is worse when overusing the frontbrake, or overusing the rear brake?


The front brake for sure. What's your point here?



> Would you agree that a rear brake ads ANY braking? even 10 %? Why would you not want to use that just because the front brake offers a higher percentage?


As described above, the percentage is dependent on the rider. It's a fluid ratio. The more bias towards the front, the _quicker_ you will slow.



> Your refusal to acknowledge that it is useful to use the rear brake to slow down (Ok, let me quote you "unsuitable as a slowing tool") is a SILLY argument..


Talk about turning negative.. As compared to the front, it _is_ unsuitable for slowing.



> Even if the rear wheel is completely locked, it is still going to stop quicker than if you don't use it at all. period. You can't escape that fact.


Fact? You're kidding right?  If I'm using 100% of my brake power on the front wheel, locking the rear will have ZERO effect on my stopping distance. _*That's*_ a _*scientifc*_ fact.


----------



## TNC (Jan 21, 2004)

*LOL! That's just mean.*



Jayem said:


> So you like dragging around excess weight? Why not just bolt a few more weights to the bike? Remove the floating brake and put something functional on your bike, like a saddle bag.


I thought you would have suggested an umbrella instead of a bag.


----------



## GGAllen (Jul 18, 2004)

shock said:


> It's this interaction with the ground that the clutch slipping on overrun (I mentioned earlier on road racing bikes) is being used, as there is no caliper to put force into the suspension in that example. There it's just the compression of the engine causing the problem..


Just for future reference, the slipper clutch you are referring to was first seen on MotoGP bikes around three or four years ago. They were designed to address engine torque induced wheel lockup while quickly downshifting. Not to address engine tourqe/suspension interaction "problems".


----------



## GGAllen (Jul 18, 2004)

Jayem said:


> So you like dragging around excess weight? Why not just bolt a few more weights to the bike? Remove the floating brake and put something functional on your bike, like a saddle bag.


I love sarcasm.. I seriously doubt it's more than a half pound in weight and in it's current build, it just wouldn't matter. (43+#)


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

GGAllen said:


> Fact? You're kidding right?  If I'm using 100% of my brake power on the front wheel, locking the rear will have ZERO effect on my stopping distance. _*That's*_ a _*scientifc*_ fact.


Ok, GG, I surrender. But excuse me while I drip a little sarcasm while humbling myself (my boss won't like it, but hell I own him).

You, and you alone on the planet, are able to achieve 100% braking from your front brake. While I realize of course, that I'm misquoting you, please understand that my simple mind cannot understand how you circumvent the laws of physics, so how can I be expected to understand your logic?

Funny, when we put the floater on a factory team of the world's best riders, one of the biggest effects they reported was the ability to get on the brakes hard in the braking bumps entering a corner, WITHOUT HAVING THE REAR END JUMP OUT ON THEM WHEN THE SUSPENSION STOPPED WORKING!!!! Damn rookies, can't learn 'em nothin...

but really, I'm burning up good computer time here, so let me leave you with this thought..

I don't get out much to DH race anymore, but on occasion, I manage to fall down the hill in the old man's class. If, by chance, you are on the same course at the same time, and you are in your braking zone (using your front brake for 100% of your braking), and you hear some crazy old man coming up behind you, please get out of the way, because chances are I haven't even hit the brakes yet.....

Come up and say hi at the nationals some day, I'll buy you a beer.

Brian


----------



## TNC (Jan 21, 2004)

*Allen, I was wondering...*



GGAllen said:


> I love sarcasm.. I seriously doubt it's more than a half pound in weight and in it's current build, it just wouldn't matter. (43+#)


Brent Foes is known for being pretty sharp and trying to optimize suspension performance...like with his Curnutt connection among other issues. Something struck me today while thinking about floaters. It's hard for me to believe that Foes would put a floater on a bike of his without a real reason. He has never struck me as being driven by marketing fluff and fads. No, I can't read his mind...just making a speculative observation.


----------



## GGAllen (Jul 18, 2004)

shock said:


> Having said that, I suppose that's why you don't bother answering the questions I pose...


What questions exactly, Brian?



> But as to your "unique perspective", consider this....Every one of my customers has an even better perspective...that is that they have ridden THE SAME bike, both with and without a floating brake...
> 
> In any engineering exercise, the back-to-back test is a far, far, far more worthwhile experience, and the only way to make a valid comparison. Saying you ride one bike with a floater and a different one without is like comparing a different shock on two different bikes, not really valid.


It's not exactly apples to oranges. But you are right. A more accurate comparison would be to temporarily remove the arm from the Fly.



> If you keep an open mind and consider that the act of DH racing often involves "panic braking" and "missing your brake points"..


I don't think so. We are talking racing here. If you are serious about winning, you _*must*_ know your braking points.


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

GGAllen said:


> You're not, And my above comment makes perfect sense. Look, to make it easier to understand let's say you have 100% of braking power available and you can split the ratio any way you want between the front and rear brake. You may choose 70f-30r, I choose to scan the trail for maximum traction, then use 95f-5r. No matter the ratio, it will always add up to 100%. i.e., I'm not "giving up" _any_ braking power to your method. In addition, I'm decreasing the slowing distance by using a higher front brake bias
> 
> As described above, the percentage is dependent on the rider. It's a fluid ratio. The more bias towards the front, the _quicker_ you will slow.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but that's incorrect. Just because you use the front brake more than the rear does not decrease the power of the rear brake. You are contradicting yourself. Using your logic, I wouldn't even need two brakes! I could stop my bike just as well with one brake as I could with two.

Locking a the rear wheel has no effect on stopping distance? The only way that could possibly be true, is if the rear tire is not in contact with the ground. As long as the rear tire has traction with the ground, applying the rear brake will help to slow the bike.


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

GGAllen said:


> As described above, the percentage is dependent on the rider. It's a fluid ratio. The more bias towards the front, the _quicker_ you will slow.


Oh, but hell, I just can't resist. How do you figure that 100% of the front brake will slow you quicker than 100% of the front and rear? like say 50-50, or 90-10, or 10-90? Sorry, your logic is only surpassed by your riding skill...

Bottom line, two tires will always have more grip, and potential to slow a vehicle, than one tire. If you could achieve 50-50, that would be the optimum. So you maximize both wheels potential.


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

And I have to say, I really have to stop, and limit my comments to those involving the original intent of this thread, i.e. floating brakes.

Any discussion of whether or not you can stop quicker using the front brake only, should really be addressed by an all new thread, but I really don't have time for it. It's flat earth society.

I know I get cranky in these situations, don't take my attitude too seriously (unless you're braking in front of me using only your front brake)

Bye for now


----------



## CraigH (Dec 22, 2003)




----------



## TNC (Jan 21, 2004)

*But you're uninformed!!!*



CraigH said:


>


Pfffft! Craig, you've only been running a floater since...what?...1898?...the year the first Bullit came out...  Cool international signage there, BTW. I missed that one in the uniform traffic control symbols manual.


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

GGAllen said:


> I don't think so. We are talking racing here. If you are serious about winning, you _*must*_ know your braking points.


Ok, this is the last one, I promise, but I just couldn't let this go...

The most predictable form of racing is probably F1 or Indy cars, i.e. pavement racing with four wheels. Lots of testing, driver adjustable brake bias, and the ability to do lap after lap after lap with the utmost consistancy.

But yet, in every race or qualifying session, you see the best drivers in the world misjudge their braking points, locking a front or rear wheel entering a corner, and having to make corrections for it. Why? because driving at 10/10ths is difficult and tricky, even under these best and most consistent of conditions, by the most talented individuals, with the biggest balls and quickest reactions.. Sometimes 10/10ths becomes 10.2/10ths.

Now throw in dirt, rocks, and the fact that 100 riders have run, and changed the course since the time you did your last run. Or maybe it rained, or stopped raining, or that rock moved, or that bump got bigger, or you made a mistake in the previous corner and now your line is slightly different.

Or say, your Steve Peat, coming in to the last corner, with a split time that has you winning the 2004 World DH Championship, but you come into the last corner too fast, misjudge your braking point, crash, and lose.

Let me know when you tell Peat he wasn't serious about winning..I wanna watch


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

CraigH said:


>


Yeah Craig, why didn't you just post that about 100 comments ago, can I have your permission to use that? LMFAO

but I need that to be a wall instead of a desk....masochism is fun


----------



## GGAllen (Jul 18, 2004)

shock said:


> How do you figure that 100% of the front brake will slow you quicker than 100% of the front and rear? like say 50-50, or *90-10, or 10-90*? Sorry, your logic is only surpassed by your riding skill...
> 
> Bottom line, two tires will always have more grip, and potential to slow a vehicle, than one tire. If you could achieve 50-50, that would be the optimum. So you maximize both wheels potential.


I find it utterly surprising someone in the "brake industry" could make such an elementary false claim.

Using your logic, _90% *rear* / 10% *front*_ will stop you in the same distance as a _90% *front* / 10% *rear*_ application will.

Wow. You've effectively hung yourself with that comment. I can only assume you miss typed this as your previous replies have had some merit...

Honestly, I'm shocked... It's like that time in "A Few Good Men" when Tom Cruise gets Jack Nicholson to admit to the code red....


----------



## GGAllen (Jul 18, 2004)

WheelieMan said:


> Sorry, but that's incorrect. Just because you use the front brake more than the rear does not decrease the power of the rear brake.


You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Physics if you believe that. It absolutely decreases the applied power to the ground.


> You are contradicting yourself. Using your logic, I wouldn't even need two brakes! I could stop my bike just as well with one brake as I could with two.


You're not grasping the concept. The "100%" I referred to was to help simplify the explanation. It's a relative number to available traction. i.e., 100% brake power in slick conditions is different from 100% brake power in ideal conditions. Get it? _*It's relative to traction.*_



> Locking a the rear wheel has no effect on stopping distance? The only way that could possibly be true, is if the rear tire is not in contact with the ground. As long as the rear tire has traction with the ground, applying the rear brake will help to slow the bike.


You're right. It does have an effect. A negative effect. Have you ever seen a brake test where someone intentionally locks the rear wheels to achieve a better time/shorter distance. Of course not.  If you are under the assumption that locking the rear brake and skidding while using the front brake is the quickest method to stopping you have a lot to learn.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

GGAllen said:


> You're right. It does have an effect. A negative effect. Have you ever seen a brake test where someone intentionally locks the rear wheels to achieve a better time/shorter distance. Of course not.  If you are under the assumption that locking the rear brake and skidding while using the front brake is the quickest method to stopping you have a lot to learn.


You're confusing a locked wheel with one that is not applying the brakes at all.

Locked wheel vs applying the brakes and not locking up= non locked wheel will stop faster
Locked wheel vs no brakes=locked will stop faster.


----------



## GGAllen (Jul 18, 2004)

TNC said:


> Brent Foes is known for being pretty sharp and trying to optimize suspension performance...like with his Curnutt connection among other issues. Something struck me today while thinking about floaters. It's hard for me to believe that Foes would put a floater on a bike of his without a real reason. He has never struck me as being driven by marketing fluff and fads. No, I can't read his mind...just making a speculative observation.


I agree. Brent is one of the brightest minds in MTB and he apparently believes in the floater (or at least offering one to stay in step with current trends)

Look. All I'm saying is it doesn't aid my riding style. Some people may feel more comfortable using a floating rear brake and I understand that. I could take it or leave it. For $300.00 I will leave it. Simple as that.

*$300.00 =

3-5 sets of nice tires.
A long way towards a new shock or fork.
Hopey steering damper and a set of tires.
New bar/stem/grips/seat/seastpost.
New shifters and derailleurs.
Nice set of cranks.

These are just a few examples where $300.00 will improve your entire riding experience. Not just the times when you are using the rear brake..*

Just one persons opinion. Equally as valuable as yours. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## GGAllen (Jul 18, 2004)

shock said:


> Funny, when we put the floater on a factory team of the world's best riders, one of the biggest effects they reported was the ability to get on the brakes hard in the braking bumps entering a corner.


You neatly avoided this question last time it was asked but I'll ask again. _*What team and what riders?*_


----------



## GGAllen (Jul 18, 2004)

jayem said:


> Locked wheel vs applying the brakes and not locking up= non locked wheel will stop faster
> Locked wheel vs no brakes=locked will stop faster.


You're right..If it is a *rear brake only* equipped bike.


----------



## CraigH (Dec 22, 2003)

shock said:


> Yeah Craig, why didn't you just post that about 100 comments ago, can I have your permission to use that? LMFAO
> 
> but I need that to be a wall instead of a desk....masochism is fun


Sure, I just found it on the net.

How about this one?


----------



## CraigH (Dec 22, 2003)

I got the prototype verison in Feb. 02

I got the production version in Aug.02.

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=8668
(The pic links are broken due to changes with the old MTBR photo gallery, but I still have them on my computer at home so can fix the links if people still want to see them.)


----------



## WheelieMan (Jan 19, 2004)

GGAllen said:


> You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Physics if you believe that. It absolutely decreases the applied power to the ground. You're not grasping the concept. The "100%" I referred to was to help simplify the explanation. It's a relative number to available traction. i.e., 100% brake power in slick conditions is different from 100% brake power in ideal conditions. Get it? _*It's relative to traction.*_
> 
> You're right. It does have an effect. A negative effect. Have you ever seen a brake test where someone intentionally locks the rear wheels to achieve a better time/shorter distance. Of course not.  If you are under the assumption that locking the rear brake and skidding while using the front brake is the quickest method to stopping you have a lot to learn.


The rear brake provides only about 30-40% of the total braking power to begin with. This is a result of the weight transfer.

I never said that skidding is the quickest way to stop, obviously this is not true. Skidding however will slow you faster than not braking at all, which you don't seem to understand.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

you guys are just a couple of bickering cock monkeys just arguing for the sake of it. the floater is here to stay, let it go.....


----------



## Steve from JH (Dec 30, 2003)

I'm afraid I have to agree with GGAllen on this one, although I disagree about the usefulness of rear braking in actual riding conditions.

The maximum deceleration you can achieve occurs when 100% of the load is on the front wheel. At that point whether you apply the rear brake or not is irrelevant, it's not doing anything.


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

GGAllen said:


> I find it utterly surprising someone in the "brake industry" could make such an elementary false claim.
> 
> Using your logic, _90% *rear* / 10% *front*_ will stop you in the same distance as a _90% *front* / 10% *rear*_ application will.
> 
> ...


Well, I've always been considered "effectively hung", but lets not get into THAT!

And (other than getting the girls), I'd much rather be Jack Nicholson than Tom Cruise, even at that, we'll see how tom does when he's as old as Jack (which is much older than me, BTW).

Let's see if I can break (or brake) this down to see if YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.

Sorry, I'm feeling a little punny tonight, but you started it.

I think a little clarification of semantics might help here.

The term "100%" of braking force is the first thing that needs to be defined. Obviously, if only one wheel is touching the ground, 100% of the AVAILABLE braking force is goin to come from that wheel (front or rear, doesn'r matter if that's the only wheel touching the ground).

That is NEVER to be confused with optimal braking as in maximum deceleration, which can be approximated by hitting a brick wall.

but, in racing, if we want to turn the fastest possible lap, we would want our braking to "instant", that is to say from mximum speed to desired minimum speed in the space of zero time and zero distance. Since this isn't really possible, we can ignore for the moment, the fact the the human body cannot survive such deceleration rates.

So, given real life limits, what keeps us from stopping as fast as we want to? Assuming a fixed weight or mass, two things are limiting us. One is the braking power. Are the brakes strong enough? This is why we work on such things as bigger pads and discs, and more leverage ratio for the rider effort. The second thing is available traction at the ground/tire interface.

Obviosly, massively powerful brakes are a waste if the tire does not have the traction to utilize all of the available braking power. Similarly, all the traction in th eworld isn't going to do you any good if the brakes aren't strong enough to approach wheel lockup.

More on this in a bit, nobody post in the meantime ok, I got dinner cookin.


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

MAN, that was good. Barbequed salmon with veggies in garlic and olive oil. Smells so good I'm still hungry, brrrappp. Ok, better now.

Ok, where was I. So, if we have optimum tracion, and inlimited braking force, i doesn't matter which wheel is touching the ground, you're going to die. But that isn't liely to happen, so let's look at gradients of those conditions.

First, let's agree (hopefully??, PLEASE!?!?), that no bike has either optimum traction or braking force. Sorry, just isn't happening. Or you'd be dead, and wouldn't be able to tell us about it. So, we try for more braking force and more traction. How do we achieve this? 

The simple math would indicate that either more braking force (larger pads, larger discs, larger leverage) or more traction (larger tires, better suspension) would give us higher deceleration rates. 

Ok, we have a practical limit of, say, whatever brakes are available, and a 3.0 tire on whatever ground conditions we happen to be riding over. If we are not stpping instantly, we probably need one or more of these. I'm sure you're all noting, and warming up the keyboard, to the fact I haven't mentioned weight transfer. But even given those effects, the real limit is braking force or tracion.

BTW, regarding weight transfer, There is instantanious, or transient weight transfer, and steady state (more or less consistent with the rate of deceleration). I.E., if you throw yourself over th ebars by skiking th efront brake, this is transient, and is not to be confused with achieving the maximum deceleration.

Crap, this is getting waaay too long and involved, ok, I changed my mind, you're all a bunch of retarded, bickering cock monkeys (don't think I overlooked the politically incorrect reference WCH). Ok, just kidding, sort of.

Bottom line, the only way to increase the rate of decelleration is to increase the braking force or traction or both. Easiest way to do that? Add another wheel, or brake, or two, or seven.

More brakes, more tires, more deceleration. Period, end of story, up to the point where you decellerate in an instant, and what may exist of your brain slams against the front of your skull AND KILLS YOU INSTANTLY!!!!

Since you guys are still posting, we'll assume you haven't been able to accomplish this.

So, now, just briefly, let's add weight transfer. Forget the easy prospect of throwing yourself over th ebars. This is relatively easy to do (and even easier for the novice). This in no way shape or form is representative of maximum braking. 

Maximum braking occurs (given the limits of traction and braking power), when weight transfer is minimized (i.e. you need to feel that tire wiping your ass), and your tires are at the limit of traction. This means, lets say you (the rider) can keep your weight at say 70% front-30%rear, an your brakes are powerful enough to lock the wheels, and your tires have enough traction to avoid locking at those braking levels.

Obviously, in the course of negotiating a downhill (or any thing for that matter), all of those aspects are variables. But NEVER, do we have optimium decelleration (or we'd be dead).

So, conclusion, use of as many wheels/tires as possible, and as much braking force as possible, will result in maximum possible braking force.

The worst thing about typing all this is that it doesn't matter. The bickering cock monkeys out there will continue to assert that they can achieve maximum braking from one wheel. Good luck, and stay out of my way.

Man I spent way too much time on that, and I promised I wouldn't


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

GGAllen said:


> I agree. Brent is one of the brightest minds in MTB and he apparently believes in the floater (or at least offering one to stay in step with current trends)
> 
> .[/COLOR][/B]
> 
> ...


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

GGAllen said:


> You neatly avoided this question last time it was asked but I'll ask again. _*What team and what riders?*_


Wasn't avoiding it, just didn't seem like (name dropping was) the most relevant information to the topic. But since you insist, here's a short list of the most known names you may recognize.

Chris Kovaric; Team Hayes

John Tomac, Sari Jorgenson, Cheri Elliot; Tomac

Jared Rando, Tara Llanas, Dustin Adams; Giant

Joe Lawill, Mio Suemesa, Wade Boots, Trek

Fabien Barel, Tracey Mosely, Kona

From that list, there's at least 3 world DH championships and/or UCI wotld #1 rankings, and probably 10 top 5's in the NORBA and/or world rankings.

Like I said, some of the best riders in the world, not a wanker in the bunch. And I never paid ANY of them, and they didn't put my parts on just because they looked good (although they are nice looking parts)


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

CraigH said:


> Sure, I just found it on the net.
> 
> How about this one?


Yeah, that's better, plus that effectively illustrates "maximum deceleration", so it's a learning tool, and tax deductable!

A common term on race teams is that we belong to an organization called "red forehead racing"


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

CraigH said:


> I got the prototype verison in Feb. 02
> 
> I got the production version in Aug.02.
> 
> ...


And here's where I throw Craig under the bus. you can pretty much blame him for hounding me into making a Bullit floater. and convincing me that "you can't swing a dead cat around with out hitting a Bullit", so I made one for him. And many happy customers owe him thanks.


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> you guys are just a couple of bickering cock monkeys just arguing for the sake of it. the floater is here to stay, let it go.....


I still think you should have left the word "retarded" in there. PC be damned. Or at least bickering retarded cock monkeys. And do you have a picture?


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

Steve from JH said:


> I'm afraid I have to agree with GGAllen on this one, although I disagree about the usefulness of rear braking in actual riding conditions.
> 
> The maximum deceleration you can achieve occurs when 100% of the load is on the front wheel. At that point whether you apply the rear brake or not is irrelevant, it's not doing anything.


Steve, Hopefully my diatribe helped a little bit. And do you have any comments on your earlier post about the effects of braking on bumps with/without floaters?

Ok, goodnite all, thanks for listening.

Now, I'll ask again, if you want to debate one wheel vs two wheel braking, pleae start a new thread, I'm sure you'll have plenty of participants.

Brian

[email protected]

www.therapycomponents.com


----------



## CraigH (Dec 22, 2003)

I knew I was one of the first to have one for the Bullit, but I didn't realize I was one of those annoying customers who kept bugging you to make one, so I could send you money.


----------



## GGAllen (Jul 18, 2004)

I've read your post three times trying to find some semblance of thought.. Instead I find the ramblings of a man in the throes of defeat.. Optimal braking = death?  What in the world are you talking about??

After such a lengthy, hard to read post, I feel compelled to respond with as few words as possible..

When hard on the brakes, most of your combined weight will be transferred FROM THE REAR to the front wheel, flattening and widening the profile of the tire (creating a larger contact patch) thereby achieving greater traction. Simple concept really.

If you would rather attempt to negate this natural phenomenon by, and I quote "wiping your ass with the rear tire" then be my guest.

As far as "staying out of your way" on the trail, I oblige. By implementing the style you described above you'll be easy to spot. Though I'd have to turn around to see it. 

In closing and being the gentleman that I am... Brian is offering a fair deal. Though it wields a hefty price tag, Brian claims a 100% money back guarantee if not satisfied. Try it out. If it improves your times, it was money well spent. 

You already know my position.  

...........Someone please kill this thread. Im not strong enough to stop reading.


----------



## jubilee (Apr 16, 2004)

CraigH said:


>


Holy carp.

This is only supposed to happen in the political forum....


----------



## TNC (Jan 21, 2004)

*Brian, about that teaser.*



shock said:


> GGAllen said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. Brent is one of the brightest minds in MTB and he apparently believes in the floater (or at least offering one to stay in step with current trends)
> ...


----------



## CraigH (Dec 22, 2003)

Maximium deceleration the human body can withstand is about 83 g (see link below), exceeding that is probably fatal.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4201/ch2-4.htm


----------



## CraigH (Dec 22, 2003)

You've obviously never worked with engineering types before, they like to debate topics to death!

Every floating brake thread turns into a huge one, check out the "similar threads" links at the bottom.


----------



## Steve from JH (Dec 30, 2003)

shock said:


> Steve, Hopefully my diatribe helped a little bit. And do you have any comments on your earlier post about the effects of braking on bumps with/without floaters?
> 
> Ok, goodnite all, thanks for listening.
> 
> ...


Your answer to my previous post was helpful. I hadn't been thinking about the initial effect when first grabbing the brake. Since the load transfer extending effect lags behind the compressive torque, there will be an initial compressing effect on the suspension that could lead to loss of traction.

As for my post above, you maybe misunderstood me. I'm saying I fully agree on the need to use plenty of rear brake for control and safety. And a floater will make the rear brake more effective. But physics says that maximum deceleration occurs either when the traction limit is reached but not crossed or when the load transfer is 100% but no more. Assuming the traction limit is not reached, you have to deliberately slow down at less than the theoretical maximum rate if you want to use your rear brake.


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

CraigH said:


> I knew I was one of the first to have one for the Bullit, but I didn't realize I was one of those annoying customers who kept bugging you to make one, so I could send you money.


yea, the problem with customers sending you money is they always want something in return, cuts into my riding time.


----------



## shock (Aug 9, 2004)

TNC said:


> You mentioned in an earlier post here about a possible solution to the floater/hub interface that might solve that proprietary issue. Can you tell us...or PM me...or is it something I need to call you about? C'mon man, give it up.


I'm getting the pics ready to post. the heading will be Trek Session integrated floating brake. This was the first bike we did it for, and since the Session has replacable dropouts, we could design it so that the floater is housed in the dropout, still concentric with the axle, but have no hub compatibility issues at all.

The floater stays in the dropout when removing the wheel, so it's not dangling by the rod when the wheel's out. And you can bolt on QR, 10mm, 12, or 15 mm thru axle dropouts.

It came out pretty slick, and Trek is offering in their dealer catalog. We're working on that for a few more OE applications, and then work on some aftermarket models.

Hopefully I'll have the pics up next week.

Brian

[email protected]

www.therapycomponents.com


----------



## shabadu (Jan 12, 2004)

I have a floating brake on my 05 Stinky Supreme and swear by it. I messed aournd with both the high and low main frame mounting points and ended up settling on the higer, fully active mount. GG Allen seems to spend alot of time on motos, and a fair amount of time on his mtb, but I don't know how good his racing results could be given his take on braking technique. Yes, late braking is good. Less rear brake is usually better in a lot of situations, but there are a lot of times when I brake late in a turn, or its a long carvy turn and I need to brake check a bit IN THE MIDDLE OF MY TURN. Yes, in an ideal world I wouldn't brake in my turn, but in the real world of non-WC racing, lots of us brake in turns. I don't come anywhere near my front brake in this situation. I grab alittle rear brake, just enough to get me out of the turn and thats it. Iin htese situations, there are usually brake bumps in the turn and my floater is buttery. I love it.
Also...when coming straight into a turn and there is a long string of stutters from everyone shutting it down I can chatter full speed over the earlier ones and brake later and deeper with great control and traction in the bigger deepers ones closer in to the turn.
Finally, one more real world example....this year at the Keystone Mountain States Cup Race everyone kept talking about how the braking bumps were getting worse and worse as the weekend moved on and thousands of practice runs were taken. They were the kind of bumps I described above, high speeds, somewhat gradual turns, these bumps agve me no problems...I could see them but I couldn't really feel them. 
Thats about it. In my own drunken words from this weekend, "Those who know, KNOW."


----------



## Steve from JH (Dec 30, 2003)

CraigH said:


> Maximium deceleration the human body can withstand is about 83 g (see link below), exceeding that is probably fatal.
> 
> http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4201/ch2-4.htm


But the maximum deceleration a bike can achieve using brakes is g*h/b, where h is the height of the center of gravity and b is its horizontal distance back from the front contact point. So if your CG was one meter high and 3/4 of a meter back, your maximum deceleration would be 4/3g.

Any additional braking force will cause an endo, not further deceleration. Of course after the endo as your body hits a tree, you might experience the fatal level.

Note: That calculation is based on level ground. On a slope you have to take into account the angle of the slope and throw some trigonometry into the formula.


----------

